-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The gospels not included in the bible.
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Runt
Well-Known Member
I am certainly no expert on the subject, not even being Christian, BUT one of my Christian friends says that the reasons they may have been left out are because they:
A) Are a retelling of material already included
B) Were determined to be false
C) Covered a part of Jesus's life (age 12 to 35) in which he really wasn't DOING anything worthy of note and thus didn't need to be included (I personally think this is a dumb idea... if it wasn't important, why would there have been THREE books written on it?)
D) Potentially contained information that the early Church, seeking to gain power, did not WANT revealed.
Any other ideas?
A) Are a retelling of material already included
B) Were determined to be false
C) Covered a part of Jesus's life (age 12 to 35) in which he really wasn't DOING anything worthy of note and thus didn't need to be included (I personally think this is a dumb idea... if it wasn't important, why would there have been THREE books written on it?)
D) Potentially contained information that the early Church, seeking to gain power, did not WANT revealed.
Any other ideas?
Runt
Well-Known Member
Supposedly the Pistas Sophia (Book of Sophia?) was one of the missing books. However, I'm getting this from a very biased source, so I'm not sure how legitimate it is, but I will quote.
"It was the theologians who created the Greek canons of the Fifth Council, further expounding the Doctrine of Rebirth as a teaching of Jesus Christ, but also as a universal law governing the lives of all humankind:
The savior answered and said unto his diciples: 'Preach ye unto the
whole world, saying unto men, 'Strive together that ye may recieve
the mysteries of light in this time of stress and enter into the kingdom
of light. Put not off from day to day, and from cycle to cycle, in the
belief that ye will succeed in obtaining the mysteries when ye return
to the world in another circle."
I have a theory regarding this "missing book".
(BEWARE: They might go against mainstream Christian thought, so if you are sensitive to other opinions, don't read on!)
HERE IT IS: Jesus really did preach about reincarnation, but the early Church knew that the only way to control their new followers was through fear. The easiest way to generate fear was to make people fear the afterlife so much that they were required to become godly people, supporting the Church and all it stood for, or go to Hell. However, allowing the notion of reincarnation to exist would undermine this fear. Why fear going to Hell for your sins when you believe you will have a second chance to be better in the next life, and will only go to Heaven when you have learned the spiritual truths God intends for you to learn and EARNED your right to be with Him? So, the Church decided that when Jesus said before his death that he would return to the earth one day, he REALLY meant that he would return in the body he was in before he died, which he could do because it would be a miracle of God made possible because Jesus was God's son (or God, depending on your view). And that he would NOT be reincarnated and return that way. Then, to further squash any belief in reincarnation, they neglected to add the Pistas Sophia into the Bible and banned the notion of reincarnation at the Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. with the words:
"Whosoever shall support the mythical doctrine of the pre-existence of the Soul, and the consequent wonderful opinion of its return, let him be anathema."
(This last really was said... it does not come from some book nobody has ever heard of but from the actual Council of Constantinople.)
"It was the theologians who created the Greek canons of the Fifth Council, further expounding the Doctrine of Rebirth as a teaching of Jesus Christ, but also as a universal law governing the lives of all humankind:
The savior answered and said unto his diciples: 'Preach ye unto the
whole world, saying unto men, 'Strive together that ye may recieve
the mysteries of light in this time of stress and enter into the kingdom
of light. Put not off from day to day, and from cycle to cycle, in the
belief that ye will succeed in obtaining the mysteries when ye return
to the world in another circle."
I have a theory regarding this "missing book".
(BEWARE: They might go against mainstream Christian thought, so if you are sensitive to other opinions, don't read on!)
HERE IT IS: Jesus really did preach about reincarnation, but the early Church knew that the only way to control their new followers was through fear. The easiest way to generate fear was to make people fear the afterlife so much that they were required to become godly people, supporting the Church and all it stood for, or go to Hell. However, allowing the notion of reincarnation to exist would undermine this fear. Why fear going to Hell for your sins when you believe you will have a second chance to be better in the next life, and will only go to Heaven when you have learned the spiritual truths God intends for you to learn and EARNED your right to be with Him? So, the Church decided that when Jesus said before his death that he would return to the earth one day, he REALLY meant that he would return in the body he was in before he died, which he could do because it would be a miracle of God made possible because Jesus was God's son (or God, depending on your view). And that he would NOT be reincarnated and return that way. Then, to further squash any belief in reincarnation, they neglected to add the Pistas Sophia into the Bible and banned the notion of reincarnation at the Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. with the words:
"Whosoever shall support the mythical doctrine of the pre-existence of the Soul, and the consequent wonderful opinion of its return, let him be anathema."
(This last really was said... it does not come from some book nobody has ever heard of but from the actual Council of Constantinople.)
Master Hoomer
Member
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm
the apocrypha....
then there's the gnostic Gospels......
naghammedi and dead sea scrolls
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060669357/gnosisarchive/ref=nosim/002-3206190-9327205
here my fave left out of the bible quotation from the 1 page only left in extant ..the gospel of eve...
"It is I who am you: and it is you are me,And wherever you are,I am there. And I am sown in all; and you collect me from wherever you wish. And when you collect me, it is your own self that you collect" (Jesus)
Personally I think most of it is politics....
Rome desicrated much and "re wrote history"...
fort example the destruction of adam and eve images....of originals still in extant...there are but a hanful......
Politics, its the killer in any religion
the apocrypha....
then there's the gnostic Gospels......
naghammedi and dead sea scrolls
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060669357/gnosisarchive/ref=nosim/002-3206190-9327205
here my fave left out of the bible quotation from the 1 page only left in extant ..the gospel of eve...
"It is I who am you: and it is you are me,And wherever you are,I am there. And I am sown in all; and you collect me from wherever you wish. And when you collect me, it is your own self that you collect" (Jesus)
Personally I think most of it is politics....
Rome desicrated much and "re wrote history"...
fort example the destruction of adam and eve images....of originals still in extant...there are but a hanful......
Politics, its the killer in any religion
Master Hoomer
Member
RavenRose said:
I am no bibe expert either....but werent they written after the events anyway the Gospels I mean....I know John which where "The Passion" leans heavily from was written well after the event.....supposedly...
just 2 cents.... :shock:
There is debate about who wrote the four Gospels. Some say it was actually Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; others say it wasn't.
There is evidence either way. There is no real solid proof on either side. Like I said though, I need to read a book on the Bible.
So, as one side would have it, the four Gospels were written during the first century. Now what I say when I mean the other books were written long after the events... it would mean like hundreds of years by people who had no real idea because they weren't there. I can't say.
There is evidence either way. There is no real solid proof on either side. Like I said though, I need to read a book on the Bible.
So, as one side would have it, the four Gospels were written during the first century. Now what I say when I mean the other books were written long after the events... it would mean like hundreds of years by people who had no real idea because they weren't there. I can't say.
Stained_Class
Member
Matthew: 37 C.E. (or AD, whichever you prefer)
Mark: 57 C.E.
Luke: 63 C.E.
John: 85 C.E.
The Gospel of John acted as a synthesis of the other three, and is often referred to as the "Gospel of Gospels", and was the last one written before the Jewish/Christian sometime in the 80's (history hath indeed become cloudy on these details)
Mark: 57 C.E.
Luke: 63 C.E.
John: 85 C.E.
The Gospel of John acted as a synthesis of the other three, and is often referred to as the "Gospel of Gospels", and was the last one written before the Jewish/Christian sometime in the 80's (history hath indeed become cloudy on these details)
Stained_Class
Member
The Temple fell in 70 CE/AD, and most of the New Testament was written before that. John, Revelation, and one other I can't remember were written afterwards.
Colin_Admin
Member
I think they should be included. 
You're referring to the Nag Hammadi texts/Coptic Gospels/Gnostic Gospels yes?
I think they should be included. I've read them, but it's been a few years and I'm a little cloudy, but I don't recall them being in blatant disagreement with the Church. Except where it relates to Mary Magdalene.
I believe that her and Jesus had a personal, perhaps intimate, relationship. I believe they may have been married, and even had children. I've believed this since I read the Gospels nearly 5 years ago, and it has recently become a more popular idea.
I think they were left out not because they tell stories that were already in the Bible - how many times in the Bible does that happen? There are more than a few stories you come across a handful of times - but because they paint a more Human picture of Jesus.
The Christian Church is practically founded on the fact that Jesus was a Demi-God and he was perfect - without flaw, without sin, without any 'dirt'.
In order for the people to feel like they could not attain Righteousness without first going through Jesus and ultimately going through the Church.
Either way I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man who tried to bring God to those unwanted by the Clergy at the time. He taught that all people could love and honor God and that God loved all people. That is a great message.
Any text that is relevant to his life and is written by a reliable source, should have been and should be now welcomed into the Bible. Politics aside.
EL
I think they should be included. I've read them, but it's been a few years and I'm a little cloudy, but I don't recall them being in blatant disagreement with the Church. Except where it relates to Mary Magdalene.
I believe that her and Jesus had a personal, perhaps intimate, relationship. I believe they may have been married, and even had children. I've believed this since I read the Gospels nearly 5 years ago, and it has recently become a more popular idea.
I think they were left out not because they tell stories that were already in the Bible - how many times in the Bible does that happen? There are more than a few stories you come across a handful of times - but because they paint a more Human picture of Jesus.
The Christian Church is practically founded on the fact that Jesus was a Demi-God and he was perfect - without flaw, without sin, without any 'dirt'.
In order for the people to feel like they could not attain Righteousness without first going through Jesus and ultimately going through the Church.
Either way I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man who tried to bring God to those unwanted by the Clergy at the time. He taught that all people could love and honor God and that God loved all people. That is a great message.
Any text that is relevant to his life and is written by a reliable source, should have been and should be now welcomed into the Bible. Politics aside.
EL
Which 4 Gospels? Matthew Mark Luke John?
Christ is referred to as Half Divine throughout the New Testament... there are more than just 4 Books in there, as I'm sure you know.
How do we know any of the books were authentic? We're just told they are. No one can remember who wrote them or where they came from in this recent History. It just is.
The Disciples of Christ and their Gnostic descendants were also declared to be Heretics and killed after Peter created the Catholic Church. THEY decided, and no one else.
EL
Christ is referred to as Half Divine throughout the New Testament... there are more than just 4 Books in there, as I'm sure you know.
How do we know any of the books were authentic? We're just told they are. No one can remember who wrote them or where they came from in this recent History. It just is.
The Disciples of Christ and their Gnostic descendants were also declared to be Heretics and killed after Peter created the Catholic Church. THEY decided, and no one else.
EL
Stained_Class
Member
Just for reference:
Acts: 66 CE
Romans: 60 CE
I Corinthians: 59 CE
II Corinthians: 60 CE
Galacians: 60 CE
Ephesians: 64 CE
Philippians: (date unknown)
Colossians: (date unknown)
I Thessalonians: 54 CE
II Thessalonians: 54 CE
I Timothy: 65 CE
II Timothy: 66 CE
Titus: 65 CE
Epistles
Hebrews: 70 CE
James: 60-62 CE
I Peter: 60 CE
II Peter: 66 CE
I John: 90 CE
II John: 90 CE
III John: 90 CE
Jude: 66 CE
Revelation: 96 CE
as ye were ...
Acts: 66 CE
Romans: 60 CE
I Corinthians: 59 CE
II Corinthians: 60 CE
Galacians: 60 CE
Ephesians: 64 CE
Philippians: (date unknown)
Colossians: (date unknown)
I Thessalonians: 54 CE
II Thessalonians: 54 CE
I Timothy: 65 CE
II Timothy: 66 CE
Titus: 65 CE
Epistles
Hebrews: 70 CE
James: 60-62 CE
I Peter: 60 CE
II Peter: 66 CE
I John: 90 CE
II John: 90 CE
III John: 90 CE
Jude: 66 CE
Revelation: 96 CE
as ye were ...
Yes, thankyou for that. I said no one REMEMBERS in this recent History. Do you remember? No, you were told. They have proven it, I'm sure... but can you know for certain who wrote them? Can anyone Remember? In other words, we weren't there.
It's the same principle that people use to discredit Archaeology and Anthropology today. You weren't there, so how do you know? The difference is, digging up something and dating it and using the environment to figure out what it is, or how it was used, or who used it is completely different than the Bible and Christianity which has had centuries and centuries to evolve and be altered to the beliefs of the time to serve their purpose.
There is no way to prove that what they claim God said, and then wrote in the Bible is something that God actually said.
The Bible is right because the Bible says so does not work. I am right because I say so.
Of course, this is where the issue of FAITH comes in. The Bible is right because you believe it is and nothing more. I'm not doubting that the Bible is an ancient tome of History. What I am doubting is that the things written in it that tell us how to live are either actually set down by "God" or that they are still valid.
There are a lot of decrees in the Bible, appropriate for the time, that are not appropriate now.
You don't have to be Christian to be a good person. And just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you are a good person by default. Basic goodness and caring for other people, and what is inherently right and wrong (murder, theft and a FEW others) is not specific only to the Bible and Christianity.
When we can all be good people, regardless of Religion is when we'll be cooking with Crisco.
EL
PS. I know I got off on a tangent, but oh well.
It's the same principle that people use to discredit Archaeology and Anthropology today. You weren't there, so how do you know? The difference is, digging up something and dating it and using the environment to figure out what it is, or how it was used, or who used it is completely different than the Bible and Christianity which has had centuries and centuries to evolve and be altered to the beliefs of the time to serve their purpose.
There is no way to prove that what they claim God said, and then wrote in the Bible is something that God actually said.
The Bible is right because the Bible says so does not work. I am right because I say so.
Of course, this is where the issue of FAITH comes in. The Bible is right because you believe it is and nothing more. I'm not doubting that the Bible is an ancient tome of History. What I am doubting is that the things written in it that tell us how to live are either actually set down by "God" or that they are still valid.
There are a lot of decrees in the Bible, appropriate for the time, that are not appropriate now.
You don't have to be Christian to be a good person. And just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you are a good person by default. Basic goodness and caring for other people, and what is inherently right and wrong (murder, theft and a FEW others) is not specific only to the Bible and Christianity.
When we can all be good people, regardless of Religion is when we'll be cooking with Crisco.
EL
PS. I know I got off on a tangent, but oh well.
I suppose we can't trust any books/documents we find from the past.
Jesus does not appear to be a past king deified, though. He is fully God and fully human in the NT, if that's what you mean by demi-god. He wasn't any lesshuman though. Satan could still tempt him, and he needed to be tended to. He cried for his friends, and felt pain.
Jesus does not appear to be a past king deified, though. He is fully God and fully human in the NT, if that's what you mean by demi-god. He wasn't any lesshuman though. Satan could still tempt him, and he needed to be tended to. He cried for his friends, and felt pain.
It's not necessarily a matter of not trusting any books or documents from the past if taken individually. You have to consider the context and the time they were written when deciding if what is written is true. Or if it is still true today.
The Bible was not found in it's entirety. It was separate documents and chapters formed by the Church, I think, into what we now call the Bible.
And Demi-God simply means Half Divine or Partly Divine. He was born of God and Mary, which would qualify him. It was his because of this that he was chosen to be the Messiah. It was his "God Side" that let him perform miracles and by his dying, could save the world. Otherwise it would be just another man dying by crucifixion.
EL
The Bible was not found in it's entirety. It was separate documents and chapters formed by the Church, I think, into what we now call the Bible.
And Demi-God simply means Half Divine or Partly Divine. He was born of God and Mary, which would qualify him. It was his because of this that he was chosen to be the Messiah. It was his "God Side" that let him perform miracles and by his dying, could save the world. Otherwise it would be just another man dying by crucifixion.
EL
dudley thoth
Member
Jesus half divine?ErikaLee said: