It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Evil Genius
The last type were books that were just too dangerous to include. These were books that delivered a message that the priests did not want out in the public. One book (can't remember which one), basically said that everyone would be saved in the end regardless of what they had done. This type of message could not be out in the public since they would have no control over people's actions. If there truly was no punishment for doing something wrong, then what's to stop people from doing whatever they wanted. Way to dangerous so it was out of there.
I then asked him, “Lord, what of the souls of the people who do not know whose people they are? Where do they go?”
He responded, “In those people the artificial spirit has grown strong and they have gone astray. Their souls are burdened, drawn to wickedness, and cast into forgetfulness.”
“When they come forth from the body, such a soul is given over to the powers created by the rulers, bound in chains, and cast into prison again. Around and around it goes until it manages to become free from forgetfulness through knowledge. And so, eventually, it becomes perfect and is saved.”
Originally posted by lostinspace
Thanks for listing those missing books from the bible. I haven't read the bible straight through in order to find all those books. I knew about the "book of Jasher" and the "book of the wars of the lord." I'm guessing they were not included in the canon because the bible today would have been five miles thick. Too bad the original scrolls were lost. I think they just lost out because they weren't important enough.
1 Esdras
An account of Jewish history from Josiah's reforms, through the return from exile and the public reading of the Law by Ezra.
The book begins with an account of the restoration of true worship by King Josiah at the end of the seventh century B.C. Josiah's successors were unfaithful to God, however, so that the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and sent many into exile. Cyrus allowed the exiles to return and to rebuild the Temple, which they did despite opposition from neighboring peoples. Ezra the scribe is a leading figure in the story.
Originally posted by saint4God
1 Esdras
An account of Jewish history from Josiah's reforms, through the return from exile and the public reading of the Law by Ezra. ...
Originally posted by jhill76
sacred-texts.com has all of the books online...
My biggest question is why do people not mention these books or not preach upon them?
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Some of the "books" left out, the Gospel of Thomas being the most notorious, were left out because they are, in fact, heretical to the Christian Faith. Others....... not so much.
Originally posted by xianh
The new testament was standardized by in 382AD by Pope Damasus I.
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure what it heretical about it. I've heard the analysis of someone who have read it that sounded like a gross misinterpretation, but the book basically sounds like a sermon any pastor would give. I think the gospel was removed because it did not provide an eyewitness account like the book of 1 Peter nor provided any additional information that wasn't previously presented.
Originally posted by Iasion
Originally posted by xianh
The new testament was standardized by in 382AD by Pope Damasus I.
This is not very accurate... The canon formed over the 4th century at various councils - Hippo, Carthage, Rome... The FIRST canon to be like ours was from Athanasius in 367CE.[edit on 6-9-2008 by Iasion]
Originally posted by Eleleth
I'm not sure what it heretical about it... Thomas is a book that cannot be easily pegged.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Many/most of these were from heretical sects, especially the Gnostics, who were identified as non-Christian by very early writers (in the first 100-200 years of Church history).
That is why.
Originally posted by saint4God
This could explain why the Gnostics I've spoken to here adamantly defend these extra books. I'm curious as to how they were identified. Was it something in the writting? Or something they said or did in their life?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote quite harshly against the Gnostics. Others included: Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. The basis of their arguments is that the Gnostics were not within the Apostolic tradition, and their scriptures were fraudulent.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
One of the key Gnostic teachings were that there was knowledge outside of the scriptures that was an oral tradition of their own that was hidden from most of the Church as a whole. It was mixing Christian teachings with Greek philosophy to create something that was foreign to the Churches that could trace their Bishops directly to the Apostles.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
In many ways, Protestantism has many similarities with Gnosticism in terms of rejecting Church tradition.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Does that answer the question?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote quite harshly against the Gnostics. Others included: Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. The basis of their arguments is that the Gnostics were not within the Apostolic tradition, and their scriptures were fraudulent.
Usually when someone calls 'fraud' they have specific reasons for doing so. I suppose what I'm looking for are a list of reasons as to why it would be considered such. In reading the books themselves (and perhaps I'd missed something while doing so), I hadn't seen anything that out-and-out said "no way! This goes against the Bible that says this..."
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
In many ways, Protestantism has many similarities with Gnosticism in terms of rejecting Church tradition.
Whoa, hey, one second please. Wouldn't Catholicism be closer to Gnosticism than Protestantism since Catholicism included extra-canonical books whereas Protestantism did not include them? I am totally not saying Catholism is anywhere close to Gnosticism, merely that if this is the comparison being drawn then Protestantism seems to be the furthest point, not the nearest. To the credit of the Catholic church, when something is declared a "heresy" it is dropped like a hot brick. Protestants seem to deliberate it like a frog disection.
Originally posted by saint4GodWhoa, hey, one second please. Wouldn't Catholicism be closer to Gnosticism than Protestantism since Catholicism included extra-canonical books whereas Protestantism did not include them? I am totally not saying Catholism is anywhere close to Gnosticism, merely that if this is the comparison being drawn then Protestantism seems to be the furthest point, not the nearest. To the credit of the Catholic church, when something is declared a "heresy" it is dropped like a hot brick. Protestants seem to deliberate it like a frog disection.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
What constituted New Testament "scriptures" in the Early Church was based on what texts were read during worship. This was not uniform throughout the Churches. However, the most consistent view of Scripture is not found in either the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Church, but rather among the Eastern Orthodox.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The reasoning for rejecting these Gospels is not given because they are not "scriptural" but rather because the Church Tradition did not include these works, so absence from the Tradition was evidence of fraud.