Why books were left out of the bible?

Okay, I'll try to stay on task. Signs and symbols in all fairness are throughout the Bible. They're not worshipped, but they are most certainly used.



How many works?



Here's where I'll differ, when Christ was at the cross:

"One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." - John 23:39-43

Did the criminal who was being punished justly for his wrong deeds do any good works that redeem him before dying?



Nicely done. Now I have to figure out in what instance there is love and hypocrisy at the same time. In my version, it says "Love must be sincere" which is essentially the same thing and implies there's an insincere love. Does this mean people are faking it? Or maybe there's a partial love? Or loving without taking responsibility? Interesting thoughts...

[edit on 19-9-2008 by saint4God]

You are really full of loaded questions are you not?

This is a whole part of the discussion that must happen for this to be answered. I will get to the gist, and we can melee over the words.

In short, the Epistles of Paul, James, Jude, Peter, and John are subordinate to the Gospels. Thus, the Gospels are the word of God in the actual sense. The Epistles are commentary on those words. The Shepherd also serves as an interpretation of the Gospel. So, the Shepherd contains commentary that both supplements and clarifies the Gospels as well.

This view of the scriptures is historical and in agreement with the practice of the Church back through history. Several groups (including Protestants) have elevated the words of Paul to be the words of God, which is not representative of Christianity.


Often you cannot. That is the point, because one who is deluded cannot tell delusion from reality. This is why "personal relationship with Jesus" is subordinated to the corporate relationship. In fact, Christ spends most of His time speaking of his Church, and virtually nothing about personal-anything.


While it is not, personal time with Jesus is always subordinate to the corporate relationship. This is what Church means, for Ekklesia means "those called out in a congregation." Heaven is corporate. Israel was corporate. And the Church is corporate (even the word corporate means "A body").



Go read John again. That entire part of John (from Chapter 13) is on the Passover. He is speaking and praying with the disciples. I will have to go and read the context to see if it was the 12 or the 70, but it was corporate.

So, this question is directed at you saint4God: where do you get the authority to apply Christ's sayings to the body only to an individual? The Early Christians did not do this, nor did the Church throughout the ages. It is by such teachings as this that Sola Scriptura becomes Sola and illustrates my point so emphatically.



The Apocalypse of John was extraordinarily controversial in the Early Church. To this day, the book is not read before the Church of the East. Don't quote Revelation to me for doctrine on this thread, because I can point to an entire history where it has been abused for doctrinal arguments, especially by Protestants.

To further this point: one cannot understand the Apocalypse of John without a liturgical understanding of the Church. John was a priest, and the book is entirely a mystical vision which draws heavily on the liturgical "high worship" practices which are found in the oldest Christian traditions (Latin liturgies, Byzantine liturgies, Coptic and Non-Chalcedonian liturgies). It is not appropriate to quote here.

But, so as to not appear to be evading the point, I will answer as literally as it is read. Show me where this door is so that I can go out to dinner with Jesus! We can order Chinese take-out. (Or is it figurative language that necessarily requires interpretation?)

In theory, all of them

What does Paul write about continuing in sin after being cleansed? What remains if we continue in sin? In Hebrews, Paul makes it clear that falling away once having partaken of the Holy Spirit, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance" (Heb 6:4).

How does this play out? As John writes, there are sins that lead to death and sins that don't. But we cannot lack the sobriety in our condition and take it for granted, as Paul's words are often translated "God Forbid!"


Well, for one... he adjusted his attitude. And he repents in truth. This is where God can't be put in a box, because the guy was nailed to a pole.

You cannot take the works of righteousness thing to the Roman Catholic extreme (which is why I lambaste them in earlier posts) because works don't make you righteous. Nether does faith make you righteous. It is Christ that makes you righteous, period. Even Christ says this in Matthew 7 that he who does the will of the Father will enter into the kingdom. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans also elaborates on the works of the law. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, also clarifies that faith without works is dead, and he makes the argument, "show me your faith without works!" effectively saying that faith without works is hypocrisy.

So, does paying money to get out of Purgatory or making pilgrimages going to buy you "salvation"? No. But neither is saying a Jesus prayer then going out and sinning.

I will use loaded questions to illustrate a point, but they'd be rhetorical. This one I meant candidly.



I'm not looking for a fight, my friend.



Ah yes, the infamous Paulianity claim. I'm familiar with it, but will keep hush until called for.



Regarding delusion, the Bible does have many things to say about what is and is not truth. By 1.) Listening to what these truths are, you can better discern whether or not a claim is true 2.) Knowing God intimately, you can tell His voice from others' voice. Plenty of Biblical quotes to support both criteria.

Jesus spoke to many, many people on a one on one basis. He held a very close and personal relationship in singularity with many of his disciples, family, friends, and even strangers. I could quote them all, but would run out of character limit space.



So you believe the Jesus the body of the church knows is a different Jesus than an individual would know? Why is this?



I have no authority in any circumstance of the spirit (speaking of loaded questions). I read, I comprehend, I apply. This is my only job as a follower. I'd invite anyone else to do just that...not to interpret, imply, nor read between the lines.



Fair enough, don't quote me anything outside of The Bible. Deal? Need a new bucket for cherry-picking? Yours looks full.



Uh oh, I hit a hot button ^_^



"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" - John 3:10

[edit on 19-9-2008 by saint4God]

Some of you may be interested in reading a book called, "Jesus The Man", by Barbara Thiering. A religious scholar with decades of research behind her, Barbara presents an excellent case for the following ideas, mostly using material readily available in the Bible as we know it to day and backed up with supporting information from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other historical texts:

- Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph, who were at the time not officially married. There was no miraculous birth, but a virgin birth yes ; unmarried women were known as "virgins".
- Jesus was raised by the Essene priesthood in his formative years and trained as a Priest. Interestingly, the head of the Essene priesthood was referred to by the name of "God" and the priests within the priesthood were "Angels"
- Jesus did not die on the cross and there was no resurrection from the dead.
- Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children
- Jesus did not perform any miracles, these were simply metaphors

There is much more besides this. Again, I point out that her conclusions are mainly reached via study of the Bible itself , not simply through Apocrypha.

It is an excellently-researched, thoroughly cross-referenced work with a scholarly approach.

Barbara Thiering's Website



[edit on 19/9/08 by cosmicpixie]

Yes, but this does not address a pivotal issue, which is authority. The Prophets and the Apostles were given authority. So how then does one determine who has authority and who does not?

Even the Apostles acknowledge that Caiphas spoke by the Holy Spirit. And Paul submits to Anias the High Priest in the kangaroo court. This issue is not cut-and-dry.


But virtually all of his teachings were to people in a group. I am not saying that there are never personal encounters (such as the woman at the well) or directed toward an individual.


It is not a different Jesus. But there are few (if any) promises that Jesus made to us as individuals. Most Protestants take the writings to apply to them personally; yet this is not what Christians have always done. The Epistles are almost completely addressed to the Church as a whole (exceptions though, like Philemon, which are addressed to specific individuals).

The assertion that what is addressed to the Church as a whole applies to an individual is an opinion which leads to schism. So, by definition, it is a heresy.


And while this is generally a good thing, the Apostle Peter makes it clear that personal interpretations of the scripture are unacceptable (2 Peter 2:20). Yet, personal and small group Bible study is a staple of Protestant life.

Don't get me wrong, it is very good to read the scriptures and find out what they "mean to you." But this needs to be checked with how Christians have always interpreted them, especially in the Early Church. Otherwise, it leads to heinous interpretations which the Apostles warned against (I Cor 11:19, Gal 5:20, II Pet 2:1).


No deal, since this whole thread ia about why certain books are in "The Bible" and others aren't. But every time the Apocalypse of John is quoted, my response will be, "that book was controversial in the Early Church, and many Christians have found that it cannot be a basis for doctrine. If it were, then many strange doctrines can be justified, since the book is based on figurative language, is grounded in liturgical worship practices, and was recognized throughout the ages as being on the level of the Old Testament 'Apocrypha' in that the meaning was not straightforward. So, appeals to the
Apocalypse will inevitably be shot down with dozens of counter-points. Quotes from this book are usually conjecture."

I just took a shortcut and said, "don't quote it to me" because that is a lot to type every time.


Without the liturgy, one cannot understand the heavenly things, because the book is based on the liturgy. Heaven is liturgical (even the same song is sung at all times).

Comeon! Unless you're a big stupid fool you'd know that most people that claim to be "christians" don't even read the bible. In fact, most people don't ever read the bible because it's such a fat book.

Now what would happen if all the books and documents ever truthfully written about God and/or interactions with God would be included in the "Bible"?

Do you have any idea of how big that book would be?

Maybe a better question might be:

Why were so many books put into the bible?

As the books that were put into the bible are used to suport a false religious theory rather then the truthful understandings of your created creature in relationship of our father.

yeah i read a really good book called the"complete gospels" but from what ive read and seen on TV"history channel"alot of the books where left out because the simple reason they didnt know where to fit them in and still be in event order??? It doesnt change my beliefs anyway

reply to post by bugs_n_recovery

---

Well perhaps.. the dead sea scrolls should be canonized. I have always questioned by many devout Christians cannot entertain the thought of the other gospels mentioned on the History channel. Why can't the Vatican accept the fact that there is more to the story? And why can't the Jews consider the same? These books should be included to complete the gospel, and while there at it... Anything other documentation that points to God. The church is lukewarm for sure. History is being written to reflect that many have died for their Religion, and those stories should be told as a testament. Call it whatever you want. The Holy Bible, the Book of God.. whatever.. but most believe in truths which lie outside of the those books, and that is what should be documented. To take a narrow view of religion, is the equivalent of putting a condom over your head. (and I wont say which head I am referring to). But I do believe more and more people are waking up to the bottom line... Is the Holy Bible, the "Word of God", edited and written by men according to their purpose?? If so, that would make the people who constructed/canonized the text, God. which they were not. I am not trying to offend anybody here, but truth is truth when held to the light. The same can be said of the Qua ran.. If that text makes a reference to God, it should considered part of the religious records of God.. Why should any mans views or opinion of God be subjected to standards of any text whatsoever?

Why books were left out of the bible?

They ran out of paper.

reply to post by Benarius

---

Ran out of paper huh?? Well.. now they have the internet, so there is no excuse... We are an evolving species and the church must keep up with technology and science or perish.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by mapsurfer_]

Athanasius of Alexandria said, "God became man that man might become god." Indeed, the Church is the body of Christ and in it dwells the Holy Spirit of God. The Church did have the authority to canonize, and it only did so with genuine Apostolic works for the New Covenant scriputres. The Canon of the Old Covenant scriptures is still not closed.

This that I have written is Orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps a better question to ask, is why things were added to the Bible.

The oldest known intact copy of the Bible, dating from 400AD will soon be put online for the entire world to study. It is a complete Bible although currently parts of it are spread around in various universities and museums. All of the Bible is being scanned so that it can be made available for everyone.

The most interesting thing about the Bible, is that although it is complete with all the sections intact, nowhere is there any mention of the resurrection. The Resurrection was invented by church leaders at a much later date, as without the miracle of the return of Jesus, there was little to entice devout Christian worship at the time.
The Codex Sinaiticus


Soon, when this is made available online for all to study, the world will finally see the true depths of manipulation by the catholic church. The true story of Jesus is one of teaching mankind to love one another and not to judge others. The "Church" is all about control. Jesus would not be happy with the "Church."

I know I will get flamed for this, but that's Ok. I expect it from those who love to judge others and seek to promote ignorance. Jesus loves you anyway.

[edit on 21/9/08 by Terapin]

What you are saying is nonsense. Just because parts of the Gospel of Mark are not there does not mean the manuscript omits the resurrection. I think you have gotten your wires crossed. What is true is that the Trinitarian passages are not there, i.e. these types.

Provide source(s) for your claims.

reply to post by ScienceDada

---

The source is in my link above. There are other places on the web where they talk about this as well, such as this site: Oldest Bible may cause problems for some Christians as it makes no mention of resurrection


In addition...


I am certain that many will continue to follow the myth of Resurrection anyway, and that's fine. A zombie Jesus is as good as any, and it doesn't change his message. The "Church" is corrupt but the teachings of Jesus are what people should pay attention to.

Your source is bad. How can one put any weight in some guy writing for vnunet.com as a source to make such a claim? The claim has to do with the end of the Gospel of Mark, which is not there in the early manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus). However, the rest of the New Testament still contains many references and narratives of the resurrection. So, it was simply careless on the part of the journalist.

And the inclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas are indicative of controversy and disagreement over the canon. Thank you for bringing that up. It is an issue that has been raised on this thread by myself many times. Indeed, Origen even wrote about The Shepherd as inspired scripture.

I would caution you not to blanket indict all Christians as mindless. To do so would be foolish, as many great thinkers of our time and throughout history have been of this faith. It is not thoughtless devotion to a book or an organization, but rather the recognition of something true and divine. Virtually everyone who has read the Gospels has at least some respect for Jesus of Nazareth, for his words and actions were striking.

i like the bible it is a good guideline to life, for me it teaches,wisdom,peace,love,equality and life, despite all the other rubbish in it such as stoneing your kids and hateing your family and friends and so on, i look at the bible as a direction in life,and i think alot of them storys in there are quite exciting,just like watching movies, i dont take it so seriously because i believe it can lead people in the wrong direction if taken so seriously, think about it christians these days thnk that they are going to heaven and every1 that dont follow in their ways is going to hell, i think that is iniquity?, when it comes to the missing scriptures well i dont know too much, but hey i wouldnt mind having a read of them, there could be something in there that we need to know but only certain people can see it, i was told by a very spiritual friend that the bible was read to you by the holy spirit, you dont actually do the reading?,i have an open mind and for some reason i actually believe that, but maybe it just aint for me, i mean not everyone is going to read it like that i believe a majority of christians take unto their own understanding and try their hardest to get some truth out of it and not let he spirit lead them, how it is done?? well i dont know because like i said "maybe it aint for me", the way i see it is that we shouldnt let any man tell us how to live life, let god tell you, and i believe the bible has alot to offer but i believe the world has alot to offer aswell, i cant explain how to take in the offers that the world has to offer or the bible but i can say, keep and open mind and in the midst of death there is life, in the midst of evil there is good,in the midst of darkness there is light(gandhi), i believe that one day all of our religions are going to put our heads together and maybe find out sum sort of truth, but hey
WHO KNOWS????

Peter was appointed by Christ himself. According to Pentacost, many spoke by the Holy Spirit. Arguably, many still do.



Uh...what?



I think it's a little cutter and drier than we humans like to make it out to be. As Christ spoke of, we get into legalistic squabbles and completely miss the heart of the law.



I'm glad we agree here. We'd have a tough time continuing if one believes that Jesus was two-faced.



So on judgement day, you're under the impression that entire churches will be let in while entire churches will be kept out?



Careful swinging that judgement hammer, it's liable to miss and strike oneself.



Again, this is why I'm saying (and Protestant churches I have attended) say not to interpret, but to simply read and accept. I'm also surprised to hear your opposition towards a personal or small group Bible study because it was you who quoted where Jesus says two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there too. A bit of a double-standard, is it not? How many does the Bible say must be gathered before "God shows up"?



I expected as much and will continue to exercise an equal right then.

Simple. The books which were not left in the bible contradicted the "authority" of the church. The church through its influence has and continues to keep humanity in spiritual darkness. Times are a changing though. Halleleuah

70 were appointed by Christ, not just Peter.

You evaded the question: How then does one determine who has authority and who does not?


Acts 23


He also allows many to leave him when he says, "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" without trying to clarify anything. Read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. The Church has always interpreted this in a very literal way, and I challenge you to find any Christian writers who do not support the literal view of the Lord's Supper.

So, these words are spirit and literal. What then? Who has the authority?



The Church holds that this is a mystery and that we are not to judge others. It is "above my pay grade" to say who is going to Hell; it is equally judgmental for me to say who is going to heaven. But the Church does teach that we will be surprised at the diversity we will find there. That is good enough for me.



I am not generating opinions, nor am I inciting divisions. Therefore the word heresy does not apply to me. Check what I say. It is scriptural (albeit, not a typical Protestant interpretation).



You and I both know that Protestant Bible study is always accompanied with interpretation. In fact, typical practice is to read, then immediately to have either the leader expound on the meaning (regardless of the substance or correctness) or to ask "what does this mean to you?" and have those present expound on their own interpretations.



I thought you might kick back on this. If you think that the Apocalypse of John is going to win any debates, then that Hammer will come back to hit you. I, in turn, reserve the right to quote the Church Fathers (consistent wit the historical interpretations by Church Councils) to make a point (which I have avoided doing) and I will quote Church councils as authoritative in the same way that the Epistles in the New Testament Canon. It was though a series of Church councils that established the Canon, and the councils were equally authoritative.