Books That Didn't Make It Into The Bible

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
Before I pose the question please understand that like you I adhere to the 66 canonical books of the Old and New testament as well as to a lesser degree the other 7 books known as the Apocrypha, which are not as authoritative as the 66, I often wonder about eh books that were rejected. In this I understand that it was the work of the Holy Spirit to cause Jerome and his team to compile those books which best conveyed the Lord's message, but what of the others? Is there ay wisdom which Orthodox (and by that i mean mainstream, not Eastern orthodox) Christianity can benefit from. I ahve found much enlightenning knowledge in the Gospels of Nicodemus and of Bartholomex, as well as the Apocolypse of Peter and the Life of Adam and Eve, but i don't really know what to think of it because I find it hard to just dismiss it especially where it fills in gaps.

So what I'd like to know is, is there anything that Chrsitians today, be they evangelical, charismatic or sacramental can learn from such works or are we to simply regard them as heretical?
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
I know this can be ataboo subject amongst Envangelicals, but surely someone hs something to offer.
 

Miss Hepburn

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2009
1,674
1,333
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just read your post ---I have all the "gospels" that were not included - Lost? No, Tossed! - so little time so much to read.
I could care less what anyone thinks that we should not read them or believe them. Then they don't have to.
1st c-3rd c and the 10thc - 14thc were nuts and unstable - power struggles galore.

Man can not be trusted - the political times then caused much to not be included.
I love and experience the Holy Spirit. But can anyone back then be trusted?
Emperor Justinian was a nut, changing the Bible all over the place.

I trust the Holy Spirit - I don't men, especially not back then.".what will the peasants understand...oh, let's
pull in the pagan masses so we'll have Easter, Christmas on their familar feast days"....you know.
Oh, and then let's not forget - these folks don't believe the same as we do - they're picking herbs, uh-oh-" So let's send in the
soldiers to slaughter their entire villages Yes, glory to the Pope! All for the Church!"

Now, I'm anxious to read Nicodemus as you mentioned.
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Hepburn

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
You'e made a fair point. At the time the Church needed to have unity and did its best to keep things together. That is why we get the creeds and of course the 66 book canon. I know that there were tiems when the Church had to make some really tough decisions as to what to allow in and I trust that the 66 books we havee arre the right ones, but that doesn't mean that in this modern day and age I cannot pick upone of theseother texts. remember this is an age where heresy doesn't really exist and if you are excommunicated from oen church you can always join another.

I look upon things like the Life of Adam and Eve or the Book of Enoch as retellings that flesh things out a bit more, not as scripture and find them interesting
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
I believ that but can you elaborate just a little because I don't know why you've said that or what you mean by it. I'm guessing that what your saying is that the 66 books were compiled because God selected them and because it was not God's will for the others to make it, they neede to be destroyed. Is that what you mean?
 

sniper762

New Member
Sep 5, 2007
330
8
0
66
TEMPLAR, I have studied the origins of the bibles ( some way before the kjv), the apocrypha and many of the "agnostic" writings.
my personal view of them is that they have just as much truth to them as do the ones authorized by king james. i never saw where king james was ever even mentioned as beng a "representative" of god, so i ask, "how does he take presidence over everyone else"?
 

jerryjohnson

New Member
Nov 6, 2009
497
39
0
77
I believ that but can you elaborate just a little because I don't know why you've said that or what you mean by it. I'm guessing that what your saying is that the 66 books were compiled because God selected them and because it was not God's will for the others to make it, they neede to be destroyed. Is that what you mean?


I meant: God can take care of His Word. He has always had a remnant in place to protect it and keep it true.
 

Templar81

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
854
17
0
UK
I was under the impression that most evangelicals saw the 66 canonical books of the Old and new Testament as sacresanct and stuck to them to the letter. The Apocrypha which makes up the other 7 books came in as part of the counter reformation at the council of Trent, though they had been used since the very early days and were never deemed heretical. Maccobiees in aprticular was popular when the Crusades were preached.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Either you believe God had a hand in ensuring that the Bible is his inspired word, or not.

Either everything you need to follow Jesus the way He desires is in there, or not.

If not, then what's the point?
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Yes they are. That's why God died for them, too.

All they have to do is follow Him and make Him their Lord.

If that point is lost on you then I'm glad you're here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteKnuckle

sniper762

New Member
Sep 5, 2007
330
8
0
66
just to let you all know, i have been a christian for many years, baptised, confessed my sincere belief in jesus as the son of god and my redeemer, saved (born again by some's account) and a believer in the kjv
(with my interpretations of the word). my overall religious view is far from that of orthodox christians. i mostly relate my beliefs to be similar to the theistic evolutionists.

my study of these books that didnt make it into the bible is extensive and my belief in their devinity is that they are complimentary to my bible.
 

jerryjohnson

New Member
Nov 6, 2009
497
39
0
77
just to let you all know, i have been a christian for many years, baptised, confessed my sincere belief in jesus as the son of god and my redeemer, saved (born again by some's account) and a believer in the kjv
(with my interpretations of the word). my overall religious view is far from that of orthodox christians. i mostly relate my beliefs to be similar to the theistic evolutionists.

my study of these books that didnt make it into the bible is extensive and my belief in their devinity is that they are complimentary to my bible.


So!