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!

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
When it comes to the Old Testament, the question of which books are included becomes more complex. In the world today there are at least 5 different line-ups of books which are accepted into the Bible in use in our world by Christians whose faith is orthodox in character.

Only "One " Church was given the power and authority to" get it right" and that was and still is His Apostolic /Catholic Church [ Luke 10: 16 ]
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Only "One " Church was given the power and authority to" get it right" and that was and still is His Apostolic /Catholic Church [ Luke 10: 16 ]

-- Thousands of abused children, scores of defrocked and arrested priests, bishops and cardinals charged with cover up, and millions of dollars in lawsuits directly contradict your "get it right" opinion.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
-- Thousands of abused children, scores of defrocked and arrested priests, bishops and cardinals charged with cover up, and millions of dollars in lawsuits directly contradict your "get it right" opinion.
Jesus said He would leave us His Church but He never promised that all of the members would all be good, in fact He told us that His Church would contain both "good and bad " members . The Doctrinal Teachings are correct. They have never changed .
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
He also said they would be known by their fruits.

Are you saying that your Protestant churches are without blemish ? We are all sinners , which is to be understood that all members of any church are sinners also

The Catholic Church fulfills [ Matt. 25: 31-46 ] more than any other church.
 

biggandyy

I am here to help...
Oct 11, 2011
1,753
147
0
SWPA
The Catholic Church fulfills [ Matt. 25: 31-46 ] more than any other church.

Really???

look-at-the-tracking-number-on-this.jpg


CraP@! Now I have to report myself for helping derail this thread :(
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Are you saying that your Protestant churches are without blemish ? We are all sinners , which is to be understood that all members of any church are sinners also

-- There is no other Jesus-based church or denomination with the track record of systematic molestation, abuse and cover up that comes even close to the Catholic church.
Not
Even
Close


The Catholic Church fulfills [ Matt. 25: 31-46 ] more than any other church.

-- With a worldwide membership of almost 1.2 billion, one would HOPE that would be true.
That means that even with large numbers giving less, they will match other denominations where churches give more per member.

When you take into account church membership and donations per member to their church and Christian and secular charities, you will likely find yourself somewhat surprised.

And that doesn't include Christian organizations that are evangelizing around the world, digging wells, starting schools, starting churches, and holding rallies the world over to bring people to Christ. You know, doing what Matt 25 says to do.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
-- There is no other Jesus-based church or denomination with the track record of systematic molestation, abuse and cover up that comes even close to the Catholic church.
Not
Even
Close




-- With a worldwide membership of almost 1.2 billion, one would HOPE that would be true.
That means that even with large numbers giving less, they will match other denominations where churches give more per member.

When you take into account church membership and donations per member to their church and Christian and secular charities, you will likely find yourself somewhat surprised.

And that doesn't include Christian organizations that are evangelizing around the world, digging wells, starting schools, starting churches, and holding rallies the world over to bring people to Christ. You know, doing what Matt 25 says to do.

Has your church been here for two-thousand years , of course it hasn't, some bloke invented it only about four/five hundred years back, or maybe just yesterday, who knows with the way they get invented all of the time, it's crazy, Jesus only formed One Church not a collection of different churches along with their cults.
So of course the Catholic Church admits mistakes were made, but so would have your man-made church if it had a two-thousand year history.All churches including Christ's Catholic Church are made up of sinners and anybody in any church that says that their not a sinner,is an even bigger sinner.
It was the Catholic Church 'alone" that tried to halt the Muslims back in the day, it was the Catholic Church whose members also shed their blood to preserve Christianity and compiled the NT and fought to preserve the Holy Bible from heretics and other religions.Learn to read the Bible as it was intented to be interpreted. Majority of you Prots can't even get the Book of Daniel or Revelation correct. Learn to interpret the Bible as it was intented , which was only' one' way, the same way as the early Christians and those that were able to correctly compile the NT. Those Church bishops knew which Books were canonical and which were not, if you think not , then why do you accept your Bible as the Word of God .
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
So of course the Catholic Church admits mistakes were made, but so would have your man-made church if it had a two-thousand year history.All churches including Christ's Catholic Church are made up of sinners and anybody in any church that says that their not a sinner,is an even bigger sinner.

-- How interesting.

You actually think that the THOUSANDS of priest molestations of innocent children began only in the last 50 years or so.

And if you swap "mistakes were made" with either "children were betrayed" or "lives were destroyed" you would be more accurate.

And if you wish to discuss the 2000 year history, I would be glad to discuss the other multiple betrayals of God your church has perpetrated.
 

SummaScriptura

New Member
Dec 12, 2008
32
3
0
68
How boring. Another Catholic v. Protestant thread. Its a slow dance for the elderly. Move along, nothing to see here. Moderator, you may close this thread now, no more constructive conversation can be expected.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Topic- Books That Didn't Make It Into The Bible-



Full Question
Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?


Answer

No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.
The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.
If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff
 

WhiteKnuckle

New Member
Mar 29, 2009
866
42
0
47
So,,,,

Some books were taken out BY the RCC? Some books were added by the RCC? The rest of us who aren't members of the RCC, just accept the books that are in the Bible now and reject the others, including the books "added" by the RCC later?


Am I to believe and accept that the entire descisions on the books are from the RCC? If so, under what authority? Also, why do the rest of us who don't agree with the RCC accept this and not other things from the RCC?


PS, if I didn't type RCC enough, here's a couple more, RCC, RCC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aspen

SummaScriptura

New Member
Dec 12, 2008
32
3
0
68
The entire emotional dialectic on this issue between Protestants and Catholics, produces a lot more heat than light.

I suggest we bypass the question of what the RCC did or did not do entirely. I also suggest we bypass the question of what the Protestant movement did or did not do entirely as well. Instead we need to go back before there was a Protestant movement and also before there was a Catholic church as well. (No, Roman Catholicism does not go back 2,000 years, perhaps 1,500 at most). What do the oldest traditions of the Church preserve for us in their use today and what does the historical record reveal about what was used as books of the Bible long before the controversy in the West was underway.

Truisms:
1. There never was, nor is there now a single universally-agreed-upon canon of the Old Testament.
2. There is no doctrine of the canon of the Bible in the teachings of the Bible.
3. There is nothing doctrinally unorthodox about accepting a broader canon of the canonical list of books of the Bible.

Also:
When people say "this-or-that is in the Bible", they really mean "this-or-that is in the Bible of my faith tradition"
 

Faithful

New Member
Jul 13, 2007
368
6
0
Hello Templar,

Did you take your name from the knights of the Templar?
I can see where you are coming from but I think confusion sets in sometimes because of the way the bible came into being.

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?


Firstly, the only books ever referred to as scripture by God, Jesus Christ, The Prophets and the Disciples were the Torah and writing of the Prophets.

As the New Covenant shows God himself teaches his people now. There would be a moot point in what books and why were put in the bible. Because now Gods people are taught by the Spirit and lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Christ is the truth the way and the life. The books make no difference to this nor take anything away.
It is God who works everything to our good. It really isn't an issue what books made it into the bible for most believers.
 

Strat

Active Member
Mar 25, 2012
784
29
28
Christianity has got to the point where it seems to be the only "religion" where you can believe and express anything you want to and still claim memebrship...the Muslims,Hindus ect ect all have core beleifs that one must adhere to to be considered a follower....not Christianity it seems....i'm waiting for the atheist christians to show up.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Hello Templar,

Did you take your name from the knights of the Templar?
I can see where you are coming from but I think confusion sets in sometimes because of the way the bible came into being.




Firstly, the only books ever referred to as scripture by God, Jesus Christ, The Prophets and the Disciples were the Torah and writing of the Prophets.

As the New Covenant shows God himself teaches his people now. There would be a moot point in what books and why were put in the bible. Because now Gods people are taught by the Spirit and lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Christ is the truth the way and the life. The books make no difference to this nor take anything away.
It is God who works everything to our good. It really isn't an issue what books made it into the bible for most believers.

Faithful, did you not read these verses ?[ 2 Tim. 3:16-17 ] ;[ 2 Peter1:21 ] ;[ Gal.1:11-12 ]
2 Thess.2:15 reads " So, then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours"
Both word and letter are ''very important" for Christians for the complete understanding and fullness of our Christian Faith.

Christianity has got to the point where it seems to be the only "religion" where you can believe and express anything you want to and still claim memebrship...the Muslims,Hindus ect ect all have core beleifs that one must adhere to to be considered a follower....not Christianity it seems....i'm waiting for the atheist christians to show up.

Jesus taught without the completed Bible, and those people that who heard His Word were called Christians back then . True Christianity is the only world religion that is not exclusively of a" religious book alone"i.e. Islam, Judaism.

Christianity has got to the point where it seems to be the only "religion" where you can believe and express anything you want to and still claim memebrship...the Muslims,Hindus ect ect all have core beleifs that one must adhere to to be considered a follower....not Christianity it seems....i'm waiting for the atheist christians to show up.

Jesus taught without the completed Bible, and those people that who heard His Word were called Christians back then . True Christianity is the only world religion that is not exclusively of a" religious book alone"i.e. Islam, Judaism.
 

Strat

Active Member
Mar 25, 2012
784
29
28
Faithful, did you not read these verses ?[ 2 Tim. 3:16-17 ] ;[ 2 Peter1:21 ] ;[ Gal.1:11-12 ]
2 Thess.2:15 reads " So, then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours"
Both word and letter are ''very important" for Christians for the complete understanding and fullness of our Christian Faith.



Jesus taught without the completed Bible, and those people that who heard His Word were called Christians back then . True Christianity is the only world religion that is not exclusively of a" religious book alone"i.e. Islam, Judaism.



Jesus taught without the completed Bible, and those people that who heard His Word were called Christians back then . True Christianity is the only world religion that is not exclusively of a" religious book alone"i.e. Islam, Judaism.

Jesus was the bible in the flesh and nobody needed a Bible in his presence...how....exciting it must be to know and understand the full depths of knowledge and wisdom the Bible,so much so that now you need....more.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no excuse for the sex abuse in the Catholic Church or the whole of Protestantism. One incident of sex abuse over 10,000 years is too many.
 

WhiteKnuckle

New Member
Mar 29, 2009
866
42
0
47
Christianity has got to the point where it seems to be the only "religion" where you can believe and express anything you want to and still claim memebrship...the Muslims,Hindus ect ect all have core beleifs that one must adhere to to be considered a follower....not Christianity it seems....i'm waiting for the atheist christians to show up.

That's not exactly true. Some religions are more strict, such as Islam, others such as Budhism aren't. Even Orthodox Jews are very strict.

What makes Christianity so unique is that we do have a "set of rules", however, we do have liberty. We are allowed to think and to question and wonder and reason and are free to make mistakes. We are on a journey, and the Lord is teaching each of us. That's the beauty of a RELATIONSHIP, It's not controlling, it's free.

A good example of why some of Islam is soooo strict in their beliefs, In Islam, it's actually an unpardonable sin to even consider the existance of another god.

The problem with the human race is we don't understand the difference between a relationship and control. We see the Chinese as disciplined. We see the US as undisciplined. Well, the Chinese are controlled, and those of us in the US aren't so much. Just like the man with the "good" wife that waits on him hand and foot, most of the time she does it because she has to, where the other "good" wife, will do some thing out of love and kindness, yet isn't controlled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirley