Banned Books of the Bible

Let’s put it different. What qualifies one person to say what is a true statement and what is not? What qualifies a person to judge what is the word of God and what is not. Who decides what Jesus said and what he didn’t say? The Catholic Church claims its first pope was Peter, then it has been in existence since Peter was pope. If this is the fact, then, yes, the Catholic Church picked and chose the early Christian texts that were to be included in the Bible. I am not saying that they chose wrongly, but I am saying that they were no more qualified to judge the merits of one text or another, than anyone else who reads the same texts. They approved text that verified their agenda. A church that is paying out 600 million to 1 billion dollars in compensation to sexually abused people is a church with problems. How long has this church had these problems? Since it came into existence? Who knows? It has been, in my limited experience, a great benefit to read every Christian text I can, and decide for myself the meaning and importance of each text. I believe that I have enough intelligence to decide for myself what is true and what is not. If other people can’t do this, and like to be told what to believe, and what not to believe, more power to them. I find that the more I read, the more I want to read. However I refuse to accept the Catholic Church’s version of the Bible. I’m not Catholic and I don’t care to use their “version” of the Bible. The only banned books of the Bible are not wrong, but considered incompatible with the teachings of the “church”. Lots of people earn their living from the word of God. Catholic Priest’s are among them. I have nothing but admiration for all the Catholics that are paying for the sins of the priests who abused their own followers. That’s faith! There are no banned books from the Bible, only books not accepted.

The "banned" books were never part of
the Bible to begin with. So, the term
"banned" is inappropriate.

I am not saying that they chose wrongly, but I am saying that they were no more qualified to judge the merits of one text or another, than anyone else who reads the same texts.

Click to expand...

But no one except Xians were reading the texts.

They approved text that verified their agenda.

Click to expand...

don't impose something on the church that's not there. They included the books that were widely read and that represented the apostles' teaching. Period.

in my limited experience,

Click to expand...

and there's the rub. Your limited experience.

decide for myself the meaning and importance of each text. I believe that I have enough intelligence to decide for myself what is true and what is not.

Click to expand...

If your myopic experience is limited, I don't see how you can have enough information to make that determination, not to mention that Xy is about the community -- not individuals. The church makes the determination because the church is the community.

However I refuse to accept the Catholic Church’s version of the Bible.

Click to expand...

...and you're complaining that they have an "agenda..."

I’m not Catholic and I don’t care to use their “version” of the Bible.

Click to expand...

How exclusive of you...

The only banned books of the Bible are not wrong, but considered incompatible with the teachings of the “church”.

Click to expand...

Since the texts are the written compendium of the apostles' teaching, don't you think it's rather important that the texts actually conform to that teaching?

Why such a chip on your shoulder?

Shermana said:

At what point did Iraneus's assertion that Shepherd of Hermas was scripture get overruled by the Church of Rome? As well as Enoch.

Click to expand...

It never was.

I guess God has better things to worry about than what Christians read, considering Christianity is the only religion that has no standardized set of Scripture. The Ethiopian Bible contains 81 books compared to the Protestant 66, and Catholic 73. Not to mention the different canons of the various Eastern churches. That's consistency.

earlwooters said:

Let’s put it different. What qualifies one person to say what is a true statement and what is not? What qualifies a person to judge what is the word of God and what is not. Who decides what Jesus said and what he didn’t say?

Click to expand...

The superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church claims its first pope was Peter, then it has been in existence since Peter was pope. If this is the fact, then, yes, the Catholic Church picked and chose the early Christian texts that were to be included in the Bible. I am not saying that they chose wrongly, but I am saying that they were no more qualified to judge the merits of one text or another, than anyone else who reads the same texts.

Click to expand...

Good, then you can add your own book to the Bible.

They approved text that verified their agenda.

Click to expand...

What was "the agenda" of the Apostles and how different was it in the 4rth century? Please prove your answer with verifiable facts.

A church that is paying out 600 million to 1 billion dollars in compensation to sexually abused people is a church with problems.

Click to expand...

Would you be happier if the Church paid nothing?

How long has this church had these problems? Since it came into existence? Who knows? It has been, in my limited experience, a great benefit to read every Christian text I can, and decide for myself the meaning and importance of each text. I believe that I have enough intelligence to decide for myself what is true and what is not. If other people can’t do this, and like to be told what to believe, and what not to believe, more power to them. I find that the more I read, the more I want to read. However I refuse to accept the Catholic Church’s version of the Bible. I’m not Catholic and I don’t care to use their “version” of the Bible. The only banned books of the Bible are not wrong, but considered incompatible with the teachings of the “church”. Lots of people earn their living from the word of God. Catholic Priest’s are among them. I have nothing but admiration for all the Catholics that are paying for the sins of the priests who abused their own followers. That’s faith! There are no banned books from the Bible, only books not accepted.

Click to expand...

You can harp on sex scandals all day, it doesn't change the holiness of the Church because the Church does not get her holiness from priests. And it has NOTHING to do with the discussion. Like most anti-Catholics, you cannot or will not tell the difference between impeccability (living without sinning) and infallibility (teaching withour error). Ciaphas prophesied infallibly (...better one man die than the whole nation perish...)yet he was evil and plotted Christ's death, and his words are in the word of God.

"The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament." http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

kepha31 said:

It's "canon", (rule) not collection. If the Church was wrong about their canon of the Old Testament, then logically she can be wrong about the New Testament. What's been banned or added in your collection?

Click to expand...

I don't have a collection since I'm not Christian. But you might want to ask Marcion what was in his collection. Or you could ask the Orthodox churches, since they have a separate canonical list from the Catholics. Or, even ask the Ethiopian churches, since they also include Enoch and the Shepherd of Hermas.

What I consider to the the correct list is what the north African councils agreed on in the early 4rth century. If the OT list is subject to error, then so is the NT. The grounds for deleting the deuterocanonical books in the 16th century was done by human opinion, and not by a divinely guided authority. The list of OT books was ratified at the same time the list of NT books. The authority for canonizing the NT is the same authority that canonized the OT. I am not making an opinion. These are historical facts. The list of New Testament books reflects the authority the Catholic Church that put it there. There is no evidence that individual scripture readers automatically knew what books were inspired.

Click to expand...

"The authority of the Catholic Church that put it there"... Right. The reason the Church had any authority is because of Constantine. If he hadn't called for a consolidation to concentrate power there wouldn't be any 'authority'.

You agreeing to what a council in the 4th century says is valid is simply ignoring the other 300 years that came before it. Like when there were other gospels and epistles floating around and there was no centralized canonical list or monolithic AUTHORITY that could pick and choose what was valid and what was not.

Because Earlwooters spews misrepresentations, exaggerations, and outright lies. It's a shot-gun tactic designed to derail the thread. Any one of his false charges can be a thread on it's own. His post has nothing to do with the discussion and nothing to do with the truth.

Click to expand...

The phrase "the Catholic Church does none of them" is out of bounds but the rest are valid, if off-topic.

RomCat said:

The "banned" books were never part of
the Bible to begin with. So, the term
"banned" is inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Neither were the books that the Church says should be in the Bible now but they worked them in anyway.

The reason the Church had any authority is because of Constantine. If he hadn't called for a consolidation to concentrate power there wouldn't be any 'authority'.

Click to expand...

the church has always had ecclesiastic authority. We have always had the apostles' teaching.

As stated before, this is the canonisation of one of the major churches. the church's councils chose to exclude much of the gospels and texts they deemed to be non compatible with their own body of texts.
you will find that the major churches hold a slightly different canon of the bible.
you will also find that the Catholic Biblical canon contains the account of the Judaic Maccabees in their triumph over the Seleucid Greeks, books which the Jews excluded from the Masoretic text.

sojourner said:

the church has always had ecclesiastic authority. We have always had the apostles' teaching.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they never had a monolithic canonical list of approved texts until much later and even those lists still aren't exactly the same. The earlier you go, the more varied the usage.

Also, ecclesiastic authority wasn't so defined in the early days. If I remember correctly, Iranaeus and Tertullian both were shocked and appalled that some sects picked which role each member would occupy that particular day. They were particularly appalled that women consecrated the Eucharist.

GabrielWithoutWings said:

Yes, but they never had a monolithic canonical list of approved texts until much later and even those lists still aren't exactly the same. The earlier you go, the more varied the usage.

Also, ecclesiastic authority wasn't so defined in the early days. If I remember correctly, Iranaeus and Tertullian both were shocked and appalled that some sects picked which role each member would occupy that particular day. They were particularly appalled that women consecrated the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

well, that would certainly explain, in part, why there was no standard canon. In fact, by all appearances, there stillisn't a standard canon. the various judicatories carry their own standards -- then and now.

Caladan said:

As stated before, this is the canonisation of one of the major churches. the church's councils chose to exclude much of the gospels and texts they deemed to be non compatible with their own body of texts.
you will find that the major churches hold a slightly different canon of the bible.
you will also find that the Catholic Biblical canon contains the account of the Judaic Maccabees in their triumph over the Seleucid Greeks, books which the Jews excluded from the Masoretic text.

Click to expand...

It should be noted that the "Masoretic Text" doesn't seem to appear until the end of the Dark ages/early medieval period, and before then, Theodotion's Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, and it was spoken of as Judaic canon in many Church Father writings. Just because it was written in Greek doesn't mean that the evidence for such is to be discounted, and the Dead Sea Scrolls included much of the Apocrypha, it was hardly just a Sectarian issue at first.

I think in the same way the Catholics took out some of the better "Apocryphal" writings like Acts (and Apocalypse) of Peter, I think the Masoretes did with the Apocrypha. Interesting that the Talmud itself refers to Sirach as "Scripture" (as in Canonical), it appears that the book of Sirach was not discarded until well after the establishment of the Talmud.

"Apocrypha" is an inaccurate term that commonly describes the deuterocanonical books found in the Catholic Bible. "Deuterocanon" is more accurate.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament. Scripture Catholic - DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Click to expand...

Just because there are bigger Bibles in the eastern churches does not take away from the authority that gave us the New Testament. The eastern churches did not canonize the New Testament books. The Pope ratified what the north African councils sent to him, a list of 73 books. The Deuterocanical books are expressed in various ways by Jesus and Paul. See the above link.

The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382. This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405. In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope. In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils. In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Albertus Magnus and all of the major fathers of the Middle Ages affirmed the Canon of Hippo.

Hi again... this post just caught my attention. X)
Thought I would help a fellow out.

sojourner said:

But no one except Xians were reading the texts.

Click to expand...

So the Christians should just stick to the agenda imposed by the church?
Thats just being a pushover.
Why shouldn't Christians be allowed to study the entire text?
Why only limit the publication of specific text and not the others whether they got their own book or not?

don't impose something on the church that's not there. They included the books that were widely read and that represented the apostles' teaching. Period.

Click to expand...

The church imposed their beliefs on the Christians.
Following a church doesn't make a Christian a Christian.
Following and being like Christ is what makes a Christian.

and there's the rub. Your limited experience.

Click to expand...

THIS IS RUBBISH
We all have limited experience.
You may havemore experience but it is still limited to what you see and comprehend.
NOTE: Hearing something or "heresay" is not experience. That is just a test of how gullible you are. You must also be careful what you read/see. Take everything with a grain of salt.

If your myopic experience is limited, I don't see how you can have enough information to make that determination, not to mention that Xy is about the community -- not individuals. The church makes the determination because the church is the community.

Click to expand...

Christians are not Christians because they go to or follow a congregation.
They are Christian because they are Christ like and "accept the Lord as their personal Saviour".

...and you're complaining that they have an "agenda..."

Click to expand...

It is reasonable to assume that every church has an agenda.

How exclusive of you...

Click to expand...

Which Bible do you use?

Since the texts are the written compendium of the apostles' teaching, don't you think it's rather important that the texts actually conform to that teaching?

Click to expand...

No one in their right mind would purposely "conform" to anything if they knew that was what they were doing.
Its ignorant propaganda and indocterination that leads people to stray from the truth.
The Church hasn't yet proven itself to be a reliable source of information.
Not long ago they were whining about contraception and decieving people that AIDS was contained within homosexual conduct.

Why such a chip on your shoulder?

Click to expand...

Probably the same as mine. The gross neglegence and miseducation the churches provide.

Warren Clark Fantasyland must not be a very happy place.

So the Christians should just stick to the agenda imposed by the church?
Thats just being a pushover.
Why shouldn't Christians be allowed to study the entire text?
Why only limit the publication of specific text and not the others whether they got their own book or not?

Click to expand...

You're assuming something about the canon that's just not true. the canon was never meant to be the final, exclusionary word. It was meant as a standard for stuff that could be read in church. No one was preventing anyone from reading or studying what they wanted to.

The church imposed their beliefs on the Christians.

Click to expand...

the church is the Christians! How can one impose a belief on oneself?

Following a church doesn't make a Christian a Christian.

Click to expand...

One doesn't "follow a church." One is part of the Church.

Following and being like Christ is what makes a Christian.

Click to expand...

Since Jesus was all about community, I'd say that the Church is, by definition, Xian.

Take everything with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Especially those pesky sayings of Jesus and those outdated teachings of the apostles...

They are Christian because they are Christ like and "accept the Lord as their personal Saviour".

Click to expand...

And when they do that, they become part of the family -- the Church. (Except that some choose to be petulant teenagers and lock themselves in their rooms so they can be alone in their principles.)

It is reasonable to assume that every church has an agenda.

Click to expand...

Every church? I was under the impression that the Church is one, as Christ is one.
What would that agenda be, then? Embodying Christ in the world. Ooh! Bad, evil Agenda! Doubt it! Guard the children from it! One mustn't embody Christ in the world, for that might mean that we have to conform to some ideal that limits our freedom to spout whatever nonsense we feel like spouting in the "name of the Lord."

Which Bible do you use?

Click to expand...

Depends on what I need it for.

No one in their right mind would purposely "conform" to anything if they knew that was what they were doing.

Click to expand...

Fine. Let's all not conform to the traffic laws. Let's all not conform to school dress codes. Let's all not conform to the constitution. Living together in a common purpose is just wrong, because anarchy is so much better.

Its ignorant propaganda and indocterination that leads people to stray from the truth.

Click to expand...

No one's talking about "ignorant propaganda" or "indoctrination" here. We're talking about the apostles' teaching, for crying out loud. If you don't wanna follow the apostles' teaching, then -- by all means -- don't be a Christian! No one's twisting your arm, you know!

The Church hasn't yet proven itself to be a reliable source of information.

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends upon the parameters of what constitutes "reliable."

Not long ago they were whining about contraception and decieving people that AIDS was contained within homosexual conduct.

Click to expand...

The scientific community did that too. Shall we discount all their findings?

Probably the same as mine. The gross neglegence and miseducation the churches provide.

Click to expand...

Public education is worse. Why don't you go beat up on the NEA?

angellous_evangellous said:

Warren Clark Fantasyland must not be a very happy place.

Click to expand...

Well, if your Ferris Wheel always got stuck with you at the top, the Dumbo ride was constantly broken, the Cokes were flat, the hot dogs cold and rubbery, the clowns scary, the fun house looked a lot like your home and the dancing girls all over 50 with cellulite, you'd be grumpy too! You paid way too much to get in and you're not gong to enjoy yourself, because being a curmudgeon is so much healthier for your cardiovascular system.

sojourner said:

Well, if your Ferris Wheel always got stuck with you at the top, the Dumbo ride was constantly broken, the Cokes were flat, the hot dogs cold and rubbery, the clowns scary, the fun house looked a lot like your home and the dancing girls all over 50 with cellulite, you'd be grumpy too! You paid way too much to get in and you're not gong to enjoy yourself, because being a curmudgeon is so much healthier for your cardiovascular system.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more like a post-apocalyptic wasteland with crucified strawmen lining both sides of the street.

angellous_evangellous said:

I was thinking more like a post-apocalyptic wasteland with crucified strawmen lining both sides of the street.

Click to expand...

EEEEEWWWWW!!!

Now I'm gonna have nightmares!

it's like...
Mad Max Meets Don Quixote...