What writings were left out of the Bible

[Scott1]

In that case, I can only conclude that the Holy Spirit has not make up her mind even after nearly two thousand years for the NT, and over four thousand years for the OT

Amen, the Church is salvation history... past, present, and future.

 

[lilithu]

In that case, I can only conclude that the Holy Spirit has not make up her mind even after nearly two thousand years for the NT, and over four thousand years for the OT

Is this a bad thing? What I love about the Holy Spirit is that Spirit is God living and breathing and responding to the world, not God locked up in a book frozen in time.

btw GC, in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is a "he." (Tho in the Hebrew bible, God's Spirit or Shekhinah is a she.)

 

[James the Persian]

A couple of points. Firstly the Esdras (there are two) are in the canon. They are in the Septuagint which was the original Old Testament of the Church and are still in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox canons. One of them is also in the RC canon (which has a slightly reduced version of the Septuagint). Secondly, the Gnostic texts were not rejected when the canon was settled. They, along with the Gnostic Christians that wrote them, had been denounced as heretical long before the attempt at collecting the New Testament canon. The sorts of books that were rejected at the time are actually texts like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. These books were not banned as someone here suggested but, on the contrary, were and (certainly in Orthodoxy) still are highly regarded. They just were deemed to be useful writings of the early Church, much like the later writings of the Fathers, rather than Scripture. There was never one definitive canon of Scripture and almost certainly never will be, but it is only the sola scripturalist that needs a black and white distinction between what is and is not inspired in this way. We tend to see inspiration on a continuum.

James

 

[BruceDLimber]

For the record, as I understand it the Jewish canon pretty much agrees with the Protestant canon (i.e., both typically omit or subordinate the Apocrypha).

And as I recall, Martin Luther wasn't all that thrilled about the Book of Revelation, and kept it only grudgingly. . . .

Regards,

Bruce

 

[lilithu]

For the record, as I understand it the Jewish canon pretty much agrees with the Protestant canon (i.e., both typically omit or subordinate the Apocrypha).

The books are the same but the order is different, which affects how one interprets what is there.

And as I recall, Martin Luther wasn't all that thrilled about the Book of Revelation, and kept it only grudgingly. . . .

Good for him!

 

[nutshell]

What if there was another inspired book that was another testament of Jesus Christ and allowed people to understand and confirm the plain and precious truths found in the Bible? Wouldn't that clarify the discrepancies?

 

[Aqualung]

Hmmm nutshell . . . good point! Do you think there is such a book? (haha, informercial!)

 

[Scott1]

What if there was another inspired book that was another testament of Jesus Christ and allowed people to understand and confirm the plain and precious truths found in the Bible? Wouldn't that clarify the discrepancies?

Not for the people who lived before this "inspired" book was created.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Is this a bad thing? What I love about the Holy Spirit is that Spirit is God living and breathing and responding to the world, not God locked up in a book frozen in time.

btw GC, in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is a "he." (Tho in the Hebrew bible, God's Spirit or Shekhinah is a she.)

Thanks for the info. I was always of the impression that the Holy Spirt has to be a female, since there are too many males already.

 

[Aqualung]

Not for the people who lived before this "inspired" book was created.

What if they could be taught the principles that are in the book even after death?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Nutshell!

What if there was another inspired book that was another testament of Jesus Christ and allowed people to understand and confirm the plain and precious truths found in the Bible? Wouldn't that clarify the discrepancies?

There is--not just one, but fully 200 volumes! They're the Baha'i scriptures, and among other things, they explain and make lucid many things in the Bible and Qur'an that have caused confusion over the centuries.

You can see them at:

- www.bahai-library.org (click "Baha'i Writings"),

- www.reference.bahai.org (this site is multilingual), and

- www.bahaistudy.org (this site also has videos and talking books).

And there's also a concordance-and-search program called "Ocean" that includes many of the great religions' scriptures. You can download it free (or request that a CD-ROM be sent) at:

www.bahai-education.org/ocean

Good hunting!

Bruce

 

[James the Persian]

And as I recall, Martin Luther wasn't all that thrilled about the Book of Revelation, and kept it only grudgingly. . . .

No, I don't believe this is true. I certainly have never heard this and I used to be Lutheran. He did have a problem with the Epistle of James because it clearly opposes sola fide, but this is a clear example of the nonsense of sola scriptura - he allowed his own doctrines to influence what he believed was the canon, rather than basing them on the Bible alone, as he would have claimed.

James

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What writings were left out of the Bible?

Anything that was written in the world before or after the canonization of Scripture that is not included in the canon.

EDIT:

 

[lilithu]

No, I don't believe this is true. I certainly have never heard this and I used to be Lutheran. He did have a problem with the Epistle of James because it clearly opposes sola fide, but this is a clear example of the nonsense of sola scriptura - he allowed his own doctrines to influence what he believed was the canon, rather than basing them on the Bible alone, as he would have claimed.

Namaste James,

no one actually believes in sola scriptura despite what they may claim. Every one who cites the bible comes in with their own biases, either because that's what they were taught or some other deep seated belief, and then we interpret what we see in the bible from those biases. One of the many things that I respect about the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that they recognize upfront that we actually operate from more than one source of spiritual authority - scripture AND tradition, with quite a bit of reason thrown into the mix.

That said, I think that even Luther would have said that his sola scriptura didn't really mean scripture alone. He obviously kept a lot of things that weren't purely scriptural, like the trinity and the hierarchy of the church sturcture. I think he just meant that people could read and interpret scripture for themselves, without an intermediary, and that they could be saved through a relationship with God themselves, without an intermediary. In fact, Luther did not originally want to break from the Catholic church. He considered himself a good Catholic who was trying to reform a church gone awry. And we have to admit that some things at that time had gone awry what with indulgences and corruption. It was people after him, like Calvin, who took up the banner of sola scriptura and waved it with maniacal pride.

Not to say that Luther wasn't a little whacked. I once heard a historian suggest that the entire Prostestant reformation (and everything that has followed since) was the result of the neurotic salvation anxieties of one man (Luther).

Oops! I'm off-topic again! :banghead3 Well, I guess that's why they call them threads.

 

[James the Persian]

Namaste James,

no one actually believes in sola scriptura despite what they may claim. Every one who cites the bible comes in with their own biases, either because that's what they were taught or some other deep seated belief, and then we interpret what we see in the bible from those biases. One of the many things that I respect about the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that they recognize upfront that we actually operate from more than one source of spiritual authority - scripture AND tradition, with quite a bit of reason thrown into the mix.

I quite agree with. Sola scriptura is an impossibility, as I've often argued here. It's also a major reason why I abandoned Protestantism.

That said, I think that even Luther would have said that his sola scriptura didn't really mean scripture alone. He obviously kept a lot of things that weren't purely scriptural, like the trinity and the hierarchy of the church sturcture. I think he just meant that people could read and interpret scripture for themselves, without an intermediary, and that they could be saved through a relationship with God themselves, without an intermediary. In fact, Luther did not originally want to break from the Catholic church. He considered himself a good Catholic who was trying to reform a church gone awry. And we have to admit that some things at that time had gone awry what with indulgences and corruption. It was people after him, like Calvin, who took up the banner of sola scriptura and waved it with maniacal pride.

Quite right. I have to admit to being more than a little suspicious, however, about someone who claims to be merely trying to reform the Church and yet has the pride to be able to disregard Scripture in the way that Luther did with the Epistle of James. I think it was finding this out that turned me against Luther more than anything else. Even Luther went well beyond merely getting rid of excesses such as indulgences, which we would have agreed with wholeheartedly. Had he not, Germany might well have ended up Orthodox, but the Lutheran overtures to Constantinople were rejected because of doctrines they helsd to that were, and are, considered heretical.

Not to say that Luther wasn't a little whacked. I once heard a historian suggest that the entire Prostestant reformation (and everything that has followed since) was the result of the neurotic salvation anxieties of one man (Luther).

Agreed. Except I'd say it was more than a little. Some of the stories about his life are distinctly worrying for someone who's supposed to be a great spiritual leader.

James

 

[BruceDLimber]

No, I don't believe this is true. I certainly have never heard this and I used to be Lutheran. He did have a problem with the Epistle of James because it clearly opposes sola fide, but this is a clear example of the nonsense of sola scriptura - he allowed his own doctrines to influence what he believed was the canon, rather than basing them on the Bible alone, as he would have claimed.
James

Not to worry: I used to be Lutheran, too, and remember distinctly learning this!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Buttons*]

Are you talking about the "gnostic" texts which have been hidden? Such as the Nag Hammadi Library? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls? What have you read on specifically. I'd like someone to talk to about such texts. (at least so i know that im not the only crazy one in the world who has done research on this stuff...)
*~Lo

 

[fromthe heart]

Wasn't there a book called 'Josephus' probably Not the correct spelling. I remember hearing about a book that was also written around the time of all teh other books called that but I don't recall the details as to why it was left out of the Bible...perhaps someone knows what I'm talking about??? I don't claim to know anything on any of this but I remember hearing about this book that was in the same line as the scriptures. Perhaps this has nothing at all to do with anything?


I do feel the scriptures were decided through the guidence of the Holy Spirit as for some being left out I imagine there were all sorts of writings based on Jesus time that have no marit...there are certianly NO writings past the days Jesus walked the earth that I would even consider as truth...If someone came up with a new set of gospels today that is supposed to have been delivered divinely I would hold the suspect mainly due to what the scriptures say about such things.

 

[James the Persian]

Josephus was a Jewish historian that wrote at around about the time of Christ. His writings certainly weren't considered Scripture by anyone, however. I can't think of any early Christian text called by a similar name, so I think you're probably confusing the historian with something else. Sorry I can't be of more help.

James

 

[fromthe heart]

I think that IS what I had heard about...I wonder since he was an historian then if that is why most of his writings match Biblical accounts? I've heard a lot of his writings have been used to authenticate some of the accounts of the Bible. Do you know in what part he played besides historian back then? I always wondered why more attention wasn't given to his work when he was in correlation to the times.