Why books were left out of the bible?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Protestantism is largely a knee-jerk reaction against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church;

This implies without thought or valid argument. Neither implication is true. I'm a bit disappointed on this 'take' on actual history, candidly.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
as such, it has only a derivative existence and as such, only takes away from the Christian faith in a sort of minimalist approach. In trying to reform the Church and purge the corruption, they threw the baby out with the bath water and attempted to make the Christian Scriptures into a sort of Qu'ran.

Okay, I think we've deviated from reality enough, I don't have any more questions. Thank you for your time.

I understand that painting a family tree is important to you, as perhaps tradition is, however, there are many actual facts that can be demonstrated today as to why this statment is not correct. I'd post them, but you already know them, I'm quite certain so I won't waste either of our's time.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Protestantism is largely a knee-jerk reaction against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church;

This implies without thought or valid argument. Neither implication is true. I'm a bit disappointed on this 'take' on actual history, candidly.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
as such, it has only a derivative existence and as such, only takes away from the Christian faith in a sort of minimalist approach. In trying to reform the Church and purge the corruption, they threw the baby out with the bath water and attempted to make the Christian Scriptures into a sort of Qu'ran.

Okay, I think we've deviated from reality enough, I don't have any more questions. Thank you for your time.

I understand that painting a family tree is important to you, as perhaps tradition is, however, there are many actual facts that can be demonstrated today as to why this statment is not correct. I'd post them, but you already know them, I'm quite certain so I won't waste either of our's time.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

That is fine. I am not here to recruit or proselytize, nor am I touting any party line. It is clearly seen from the ATS archives that I am an ex-Protestant... I am very aware of the Theology and the reasons for the Reformation. I give credit to many of the Reformers for being well intentioned, but their actions cannot withstand scrutiny. The existence of the Orthodox Churches is a huge gaping hole that the Reformation could not account for. It targeted the Roman Catholic Church, who was its mother.

Anyone else who wishes to understand these things can pick up and read the early Christian writings. Free translations are available through Calvin College. It is clear from those writings that the early Church prior to 325 C.E. does not look like either the Roman Catholic, the Oriental Orthodox, Protestant , or the Eastern Orthodox for that matter. But it certainly didn't look like the Gnostics or the neo-Gnostics (many Protestant sects, and the Jehovah's Witnesses) or the Mormons either.

One illustration: the Early Church were pacifists. It was not until after the Council of Nicea and Augustine's City of God that "Holy War" became an ideal and theologically justified, and that the Papacy began to push its self-proclaimed supremacy. Additionally, the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West after Augustine of Hippo was virtually unknown. This measurably began with him, was developed by Anselm of Canterbury, and found a welcome home with John Calvin. Many such traditions or theologies that originated in the West are included in Protestant circles.

That is just the truth. Does this offend you? I suppose tipping over some sacred cows will do that. Anyone who wishes to discuss that is welcome to do so, and I will do my best to give straightforward answers. But I will not apologize for the fact that the Christian Scriptures as "The Bible" are part of---and a direct result of---Church Tradition (not the other way around). That is just reality.

You've made it clear both subtley and explicitly that you're ex-Protesant. Towards that bitterness, the most I can say is that I'm sorry it has angered to the point that history itself had become changed in your eyes. I've read a few times as well, "Does this offend you?" (Perhaps in the hopes that it does?) No, it doesn't. I've done enough experiencing as well as reading to be well grounded in what the truth is. Disappointed is the word I used and believe it best describes how I felt about response I'd received from my inquiry.

It should be known by all interested in the topic of Biblical validation, that the original scriptures both still exist and can be read in their original form of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translation we can hold in our hands can be validated here:

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.

The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.

The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978."

www.biblegateway.com...

Notice also how close this translation matches all other translations.

Towards the canon and omitted books, I say "sure, read them" but accept no conflicts with original verified testaments. Beyond that, ask God. There is no greater validation than that.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Havalon
Nice post Jhill76, s&f given.
Should we not also consider "why" they were left out?

Pope Constantine (I believe) was the 'editor' and tailored a Bible or scriptures to meet his needs, much like Ron L Hubbard or J Jones or any other individual hoping to raise notoriety (and cash - or power - or all three!).

Wow. That would make an interesting theory, but is not supported by history. It also doesn't explain such phenomena as the Thomas Christians in India. And at least for the Old Testament, it doesn't explain the Dead Sea Scrolls or the existence of Judaism either.

Another big hole in your story is Constantine's favoritism of Arianism. The idea that Constantine was a Bishop, much less the Bishop of Rome, is ludicrous.

Sometimes people on ATS believe really far-fetched things.

Originally posted by saint4God
When the Bible was being reviewed, there were a number of factors to be considered whether or not it belonged in the collection of books we now know as the Bible. Among those are consistency, cross-referencing and validity. If these books qualified, then they were bound together. If the source in any way did not meet the criteria, then they were not included.

This misrepresents the criteria for choosing scripture. One example is "The Shepherd" (Hermas), which was very popular in the Churches. Yet it was omitted from the Canon. It is also a good snapshot of early Christian theology and practice, which balanced faith and works, practiced fasting, and hated hypocrisy.

The selection of the Canon was not that cut-and-dried, and was not chosen through cross referencing. The word canon itself means "measure" or even "ruler" and simply identifies those works by which others are to be measured... in the case of the New Testament scriptures, these were the works which were attested to as being genuinely Apostolic.

Originally posted by saint4God
It should be known by all interested in the topic of Biblical validation, that the original scriptures both still exist and can be read in their original form of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translation we can hold in our hands can be validated here:

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts...

When I did Old Testament translation, I found that the most reliable English to be the NASB. I don't trust nor read the NIV at all, and I would recommend that nobody else does either. While the KJV-only crowd is largely NUTS, many of their problems with the NIV are justified. However, even the NASB has quite a bit of bias in the New Testament translation. Your point is true though, and why worry about it when you have the Greek text available.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
When I did Old Testament translation, I found that the most reliable English to be the NASB. I don't trust nor read the NIV at all, and I would recommend that nobody else does either. While the KJV-only crowd is largely NUTS, many of their problems with the NIV are justified. However, even the NASB has quite a bit of bias in the New Testament translation. Your point is true though, and why worry about it when you have the Greek text available.

d00d, it's all the same book.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
While the KJV-only crowd is largely NUTS

d00d, this was totally uncalled for. This quoted statement essentially says just because someone prefers "tomayto" over "tomahto", this makes them crazy. Usually when someone makes a disappointing statement, more follow.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
You've made it clear both subtley and explicitly that you're ex-Protesant. Towards that bitterness, the most I can say is that I'm sorry it has angered to the point that history itself had become changed in your eyes.

Oh, I am not bitter. Being a Protestant wasn't even a waste of time. But to say that I now have warped history is an appeal to some illogical faculty. Most Protestants have not even heard of the Early Christian writings, much less read them. Yet, they compare the faith of all Christians with a Protestant reading of the scriptures. It is anachronistic. It makes much more sense to interpret the scriptures according to they who learned from the Apostles themselves.

I've read a few times as well, "Does this offend you?" (Perhaps in the hopes that it does?) No, it doesn't.

I am glad to hear it

Towards the canon and omitted books, I say "sure, read them" but accept no conflicts with original verified testaments. Beyond that, ask God. There is no greater validation than that.

The problem is that once you read them and give them a fair hearing, you realize that Protestant theology is largely a tradition of men. Most Protestants cannot withstand reading the Fathers and remain Protestants faithful to Protestant theology and practice, because it exposes the truth: most Protestant belief is not scriptural, but rather is a system of scriptural interpretation that is foreign to most Christians throughout history.

Even David Bercot wrote a treatise on modern Christianity in light of the Early Church writings, concluding that Evangelicals do not interpret the scriptures consistently, nor practice Christianity that is compatible with the Fathers. His conclusion was that of the Christians in existence today, the closest to the writers pre-300 C.E. are the Anabaptists (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites). But even he recognizes that they have "hid their lamps" under a bushel. I am not endorsing everything he wrote, but it really does blow a hole in many aspects of Evangelical Protestantism.

But it is unnecessary to read Bercot's book. Anyone can read the Fathers for themselves and make up their own minds. This is extraordinarily offensive to Protestant Fundamentalists who wish to put God in a box called "The Bible" so they can carry him around and wield him like a weapon. Tertullian does a wonderful job lambasting this as idolatry.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Most Protestants have not even heard of the Early Christian writings, much less read them.

This you should know is untrue. I suspect you do.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The problem is that once you read them and give them a fair hearing, you realize that Protestant theology is largely a tradition of men.

This you should know is untrue. I suspect you do. Whoever made you upset, sure did quite an abusive job. They have you nipping at everyone in the same affiliation.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
most Protestant belief is not scriptural, but rather is a system of scriptural interpretation that is foreign to most Christians throughout history.

This you should know is untrue. I suspect you do.

Originally posted by ScienceDada

This is extraordinarily offensive to Protestant Fundamentalists

Which is apparently how you get your kicks. By not be offended, I get the impression that I've disappointed you. Or have I been released from the "Protestant Fundamentalist" catagory because I'm not offended? The world may never know.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
This is extraordinarily offensive to Protestant Fundamentalists who wish to put God in a box called "The Bible" so they can carry him around and wield him like a weapon.

You seem to do quite a good job putting Protestants in a box given your previous reply. Careful as you wag that finger. Judge not...

Originally posted by ScienceDada
does a wonderful job lambasting this as idolatry.

Which surely tickles your insides from the sounds of it. No need to belt-feed you any reason to sling more slander. I will just say this: Your judgement of Protestants is incorrect. I hope you will not be judged as harshly when the day comes.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

The Apostles did not walk around with the Bible we have. They were there, they told what they saw. It was that simple.

Yes! Excellent point~! This is something that has been constantly in the back of my mind for years and if I should continue will not be consistant with the thread...but, yes...it is THAT simple.

What I find amazing is an excitement over the excluded books by those who haven't even read all the included books. Why is that?

Another excellent point~! Something I've never heard before. Interesting. I've haven't delved into this subject alot, but, about 5 years ago something interesting happened to me whilst in Barnes and Noble bookstore and was about to post this very thread on ATS as of tonight...hmmm.

Here's my short story which really nails this thread square on target. I was scanning the isles of B&N when my eye caught a book with a simple title, caught s/b JUMPED out at me. It was a book complied of many different writings of ancient 'scripture' of which weren't in the cannon of scripture we have to today.

After reading the context of the book one book in particular 'jumped' out at me as the title did on the shelf, much like when you're reading scripture, certain passages seem to 'jump' out of the page, for lack of a better word.

the called "Acts of Pilate". You can read its entirety in about 90 mins. After reading the last chapter, I began to cry right there in the chair, so much so, I had to quickly find a corner to hide in sorta speak. Why was I crying? The way the last chapter was written, at least to me, had the classic watermark of inspired scripture and deep heavenly love for even those at their very end could still be redeemed...even within seconds of never to returning to earth.

Trying to wipe the rivers of tears and really trying to gain somewhat of composure left, a question was poise to me while still standing in my secluded corner

"What did you read that made you cry like you do when you read the Bible at times"?

It's a question I sincerely still trying to answer and have somewhat, but, based on just that one simple question, started me thinking about 'other' things which was been presented to us. Based up that question, I'm 'kinda' going along with what Havlaon said...

I subscribe to the thinking that the Knights Templar found something during their stay at the 'Temple Mount' that was so 'devastating' to the Vatican, that the Church afforded them such wealth (and tax breaks) to keep it hidden and being 'Knights' they kept their word - hence their need to form a 'secret society'. All deals were off when the King of France, (Philip the Fair - in collusion with the then Pope) decided to round them up on October the 13th.

and what you said earlier

What I find amazing is an excitement over the excluded books by those who haven't even read all the included books. Why is that?

Something's up.

It is said..."knowledge is power" and I deeply agree with this, it can be referenced to Proverbs many many times. Someone knows more than we, that much I do know.

Is this something I do all the time every time I pick up a book? NO. I don't. I know when the my Father touches my heart when it wants to make a point when reading his word. it's his way to letting us know it is him.

So, my question remains. I know for myself what I felt that day.

reply to post by jhill76


I don't think that list of sacred texts is complete either. I think we've been waiting for Al Frankens book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right to complete the whole set.

reply to post by jhill76



There are many things that people and or preachers forget to mention. Especially white people. For example, like the fact that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman.....Numbers 12 "Then Miriam and Aaron spole against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman." Funny how when I used to attend a Southern Baptist Church when I was younger, that they never mentioned Moses was married to a black woman, and it is in the bible! Of course there are many things that were left out or simply not mentioned because the people in power try to use religion to stay in power and mold the bible or any religion into whatever 'they' what it to be.

Is it that they forgot to mention or is it that it doesn't matter in what God's message means to us, mateandbucky06? Would it make a difference to you if Jesus were Mongolian? How powerful it must be to not mention that Canaan was the father of the Hittites! I guess you'd have to be a Hittite to relate.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

To me, that's a message the Bible brings to us.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by screamo
reply to post by jhill76

 

a monumental book such as Enoch's was left out cause it was laced with the corruptions of man. The original text was altered so if you aren't reading with the Spirit than you could easily and unknowingly be swayed into believing something that isn't full and pure of truth

So are you saying that there are no corruptions in the rest of the bible?
If so how can you know this?

reply to post by saint4God

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28


So who was this message from jesus for ?


NRSV) Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies ... the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property Never miss a thing. Make

reply to post by saint4God


Well first off I am not a Christian and and to me it does matter where Moses and his wife came from or where anyone in the bible came from. Not because their race matters, but because it is about of the whole story. Jesus had/has good intentions when preaching about loving one another, peace, and faith, but there is so much left out and things misinterpreted that knowing the history and heritage of people in the bible IS important. So yes, understanding where people like Moses, John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus, Noah, Queen Sheba is highly important to understanding not the spiritual messages of the bible, but the real history and who these people really were, because I do believe they existed and many of these people did amazing things and the only way to prove it is to really understand who they are and there culture.

I also find it funny that has soon as someone mentions that many of the people in the bible are from Africa (because Egypt is in Africa) that people begin to almost take offensive and say things like "well does it really matter", but am I the only person who is not okay with portraying these people wrongly in movies, books, and paintings? Isn't that part of the truth to not only understand what they looked like but where they came from?
Or maybe I'm just weird like that?

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by saint4God

 

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28


So who was this message from jesus for ?

All of us. Especially those who were following the old law as you have quoted below:

Originally posted by moocowman
NRSV) Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies ... the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property Never miss a thing.

Originally posted by mateandbucky06
but am I the only person who is not okay with portraying these people wrongly in movies, books, and paintings? Isn't that part of the truth to not only understand what they looked like but where they came from?
Or maybe I'm just weird like that?

Again, I think it's missing the point. Have a Mongolian portray Jesus. If the words that come out of his mouth the same, I'm down with it. As a theatre minor in college, I was disgusted with the idea of, "You're a brilliant actor/ress, but you don't look the part, go away". That's why it's called theatre, the heart of using your imagination, hearing the words, not relying on visuals. I never heard anyone watching the play Julius Caesar stand up shout, "Wait a minute! We're not in Rome! This show is a fraud!". Could be me who is the one that's weird though

Save the Hittites!

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Again, I think it's missing the point. Have a Mongolian portray Jesus. If the words that come out of his mouth the same, I'm down with it. As a theatre minor in college, I was disgusted with the idea of, "You're a brilliant actor/ress, but you don't look the part, go away". That's why it's called theatre, the heart of using your imagination, hearing the words, not relying on visuals. I never heard anyone watching the play Julius Caesar stand up shout, "Wait a minute! We're not in Rome! This show is a fraud!". Could be me who is the one that's weird though

Save the Hittites!

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

Well, again, the spiritual messages is great and all, but what I really what to know is who these people really were, Where did they really come from? What was there culture really like before Christianity showed up? How did they live and where did they live? People talk about the Israeli Jerusalem all the time, but what Lalibela, Ethiopia? Some people believe that Jewish people may have strong ties here than in Israel? Why is that? That is why it is important to know all the physical, geographical, cultural facts about what about in those days, not just the spiritual message. I get it ,Jesus is groovy, but what about the culture and people around him going through on a day to day basis? What were their non-spiritual lives like and how did it effect their spiritual lives?

These are things the church never talks about or asks. Why? Why shouldn't people know what Jesus's life was like when he wasn't teaching? Is it because the church wants people to see him as more of a God and less like a man? He was a man and that is what many of the 'missing or left out books' of the bible talk about. Jesus the man, not Jesus the god. So why shouldn't we know what he looked like or where he really came from.

I mean where a person grows up and even how they look affects the way they live and possibly think and act. White people in America, England, and Australia look similar, but because we grew up in different cultures it has affected how we act and possibly what we deem important. People on the West Coast of Africa differ from the people on the East Coast of Africa and so on....The point I'm trying to get across is that to fully understand something or someone, you need to know what is going on around him, his ancestry...his heritage. I mean doesn't your heritage have anything to do with who you are?

So, I figured I would start back here to address some points:

Originally posted by saint4God

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.

I did gather from your last post that you were "going there". Good to see my perceptions haven't dulled yet

. "Here is the gem, all others are fakes". Mhmmm. I appreciate how delicately it was said though, and as always, welcoming the proofs.

Very simple point on this one. For lack of a label, I will refer to "Protestant" anytime to mean one who considers himself a Christian and their faith is more-or-less based on Reformation principle, the most notable of which is that Christianity is defined by "The Bible" (i.e., Sola Scriptura) and that salvation is by "faith alone" not through works (i.e., Sola Fide).

Protestant Christian faith claims to rest on the scriptures alone, defined by the 66 book Protestant Canon, as the definition of the Christian Faith. The problem with this is 2-fold:

1. What comprises the scriptures was not clearly defined for a minimum of 300 years and what were eventually considered non-canonical writings were often quoted in similar ways as the canonical writings

2. The identification of which writings were considered Holy scriptures was based on the Tradition of the Church, according to councils in the 300's C.E., more than 250 years after they were written

Thus, to claim to be "scriptural" and reject Tradition is circular logic, since it was the Tradition that identified the scriptures.

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.

Surely you realized as I do that this would not hold up in any court, then or now. The church of course, being considered a more supreme court on this issue than mere legalistic matters.

The choice of canonicity was not a court matter, and the Church is not a court. The Church is the keeper of the Tradition, even as evidenced in the canonical scriptures themselves (as well as the non-canonical). Why is it so hard for many to admit that Sola Scriptura is a tradition that is not historical? When you read the writings of the early Christians, it becomes quite apparent that they argued as much, if not more, from the Tradition of the Church than they did from canonical scriptures.