Time for some background informationAre these lost books of the Bible?And why all those lost and obscure fragments do not pass the test because of the scriptural copy rules.Scriptural Copy RulesThere is no way no fragment can be contrary to what is clearly written in the Bible.And, the Bible says that there are Jewish fables. So scriptures that are being used by the early church and kept up, copied, and distributed to the churches abroad would not be decaying away or collecting dust on a shelf.Titus 1: 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
There Are No Lost Books Of The Bible
- Thread starter Pariah
- Start date
-
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!
I make it a point to stick to what the bible has to say, as jesus said in the bible beware of the leaven of the pharisees and the saducees. Meaning that anytime you have a certain number of people or in this case books gathered together theres always going to be some person out there deceiving gods children. So its best for me to not read the apocripha.
Same, but I can't judge a person who read the Aprocraphy, but they can be of good help if one is good at Bible History.
And Pariah, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. True Christianity came from Jewish roots, because we have Jewish scriptures clearly on our bible... both Old Testament and New Testament. So, in my humble opinion, it seems like you are there to condemn ALL Jews as synagogue of Satan, which is clearly not true.
We are to take nothing as scripture but the Bible ... However when an outside source serves as a second wittness to what is written we can use it to futher our understanding were this not true there would be no commentaries no anceint writtings no history to prove Gods Word true ... Using a second wittness to confirm our Fathers Words is perfectly accetable practice ...What isnt acceptable is to ignore a second wittness to scripture when it confirms Gods Word. God himself tells us in mouth of two or three wittness's.Or to accept somthing like Rapture(a mans tradition) that is not in Gods Word and only a lie of men then swear it is written by God when there is no wittness in the scripture to a theroy started by a teen age girl who had a dream and then try to force it into Gods Word as fact.
You have all you need to grow in the knowledge of Him through the scriptures found in the King James Bible.
Feel free to refer in this thread where you got that impression, Jordan.
Point #1. If the second witness changes the whole meaning of God's words found in the Bible, then they are circumspect simply because of the religiousity of the Essenes in their scriptural copying rules.Point #2. I did not mention the rapture in this thread, but what do you consider the act of using contrary fragments and try to force it into God's Words as fact completely changing what was written plainly?
Who said anything about a second wittness changing the Word then its not a second wittness is it ? a second and thrid wittness must prove the Word of God it can give more or differnt details of a thing ...but it must confirm scripture. To be a second wittness
My intention was not to judge anyone, i just stated that i wouldnt read the book. And i do stress to people out there that are interested in reading the apocripha or any jewish texts please read it with discernment and compare it to the bible that way its not in contrast as to what the bible teaches.
I cannot remember the name given to her off the top of my head but the story of Adam's other wife is absurd.
Jimmy Engle
New Member
I'm not judging you or anyone when I say this but it seems to me that you are try to find reassurance in the authenticity of the gospel. If this is true in a sense then I think you should just think about this for a moment. The gospel doesn't need to be proven to be true because the new testament already backs up everything in the ot. Also you shouldn't need some so called lost books of the bible to further your understanding of the gospel because you could spend your entire life trying to get the full meaning out of a handful of scriptures and you will still not be able to understand everything that there is to understand. This is just how I look at it. I already have the gospel and I will be spending the rest of my life learning from it because even if I lived for a thousand life times I probably would still be learning from it.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
These articles about apocryphal literature is just more fundamentalistic inability to deal with other books which the bible itself says there are. This is just freakin' bullcrap.
Shalom,"There Are No Lost Books Of The Bible"Well duh! If we have them them in total or in part then they are not lost!
"We are to take nothing as scripture but the Bible ... However when an outside source serves as a second wittness to what is written we can use it to futher our understanding" -- As long as other things written in that second source aren't automatically assumed to be accurate simply because one portion supports what is written in the Bible.
Similar threads
