The Apocrypha

[JJM]

Very easily I stick with the 66 books because thats what I have and always have had. I have read them all though.

So would you say that there is a sort of accepted Tradition as to what books you consider the bible?

I will stick with the OT the way it is for simple fact is if I have to choose(personally) I will stick with the Jewish on OT they were dealing with it a lot longer than the Catholics were.

That's fine if that how you want to do it. However there are some things you ought to know. The Jewish sect that chose the books of the Jewish cannon was the Pharisees a sect that at Jesus’s time often accepted parts of the deuterocanon and even wrote the apocryphal (in the Catholic sense of the word) book of Enoch. They reason they rejected it or even made a Jewish cannon was because the Temple was destroyed. When the Jews lost their center of religion they needed to find their cultural Identity so they rejected all the books that weren’t written in their original tongue which was Hebrew. More over at the time of Christ up until about a century after his death Jews didn’t agree on what was cannon the Sadducees on used the Pentateuch and the Essenes accepted most of the deuterocanon and just about every other Jew that didn’t know Hebrew used the deuterocanon. Also the Catholic church was founded by Jews who where using the books they saw as the OT when the NT was written and they quoted the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanon

As for the Pseudepigrapha it has nothing to do with if I like it or the way it was written (there is stuff I dont like in the 66 but I have to take what I dont like with the stuff I do), It is all about what it says and if it has decidely different from the bible I read it with a grain of salt.

Ok

As for God inspiring people to write books while this is true is it not possible for people to be inspired by other things to write falsely about something. And also is it not possible for God to inspire people about what books to include, or did he suddenly develop limitations to what he can do??

Oh yes I agree with you that is actually the point I was trying to make by asking you the question. It is very possible that God inspired those who chose the books but the only reason I think this is because I believe that God continues to inspire The partakers in councils (ecumenical councils in a particular way) and the pope in their leading of the church but you reject this so my real question to you is why do you accept this Idea in one way but reject in all others?

 

[JJM]

The Catholic view, so far as I understand it, is that to understand scripture requires some form of authority, and only the Roman Catholic Church can take the place of that authority.

This is partly true. However not necessarily the perfect way of explaining it. It's more along the lines that the church has always taught certain things so as long as your interpretation doesn't go out side of these set perimeters it's ok. Then when ever their is a big dispute a council is called or the Pope makes an infallible statement as to who was right. At this point the incorrect side has the opportunity to recant or be excommunicated. It is important to note that excommunication isn't meant to be a punishment but rather a way of saying to someone in a way that it is impossible to misunderstand that he has some repenting to do and he shouldn't receive communion in this unworthy manner lest he "eat and drink judgment on himself" as Paul puts it in 1 Cor 11:29

 

[didymus]

pfft.. SS, you could find spiritual wisdom in a Betty Crocker cookbook

Dor has been reading the gnostic gospels and has been telling me things that I know Jesus would never have said.. supported or condoned.

For instance in the gospel of thomas

Simon Peter said to them "Make Mary leave us for females dont deserve life."

Jesus said "Look, I will guide her to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven..

O.........k...... yeah thats real Mary is in heaven and shes a guy. Whatever. Is he going to make you a male too? Biblical transexuality.

Jesus of the Gospels never spoke of making the female into the male — no doubt because Jesus did not perceive the female to be inferior to the male. Going against social customs, He gathered women followers, and revealed to an outcast Samaritan woman that He was the Messiah — which scandalized His own disciples (John 4:1-39). The Gospels also record women as the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection (Matt. 28:1-10) — and this in a society where women were not considered qualified to be legal witnesses.


I think its a bit silly to link sites that attempt to show parallels to the the books in the bible.. They arent going to list the complete heresy of them.. Keep your gnostic gospels and dont try to promote them to me because I reject them with every ounce of my being.

Oh yeah this is good too.. Some book called secret gospel of mark

It says "after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body and he remained with him that night for Jesus taught him the mysteries of the kingdom of god and thence arising he returned the other side of the jordan.

LOL now Jesus is a pedophile and a bisexual because he was also copulating with Mary... Please. It also said that some gnostic sects practiced this.

This is such trash..

I don't believe that everything that is written in the gospel of thomas is what Jesus said just as i don't believe everything in the other gospels is completely accurate. For sure the gospel of thomas has some sayings that are dierctly attributed to Jesus. For those that have researched the Q they say that about 30% of the content of thomas matches the other gospels. So I do believe that there are some real sayings by Jesus in there.

The saying " whoever does not hate his father and his mother can not become a disciple to me, and whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me".

This directly relates to Matthew 10:34 " Do not think I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword, For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against mother, and a daughter in law against mother in law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

Personally I don't think he is talking literally in either case, do you?

Now how about this one in Mark 14:51; A Young man flees naked, Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him and he left the linen cloth and fled them naked.

This bares a striking similarity to the comment in Thomas. Now if you take that to be sexual then that is on you. I don't. Teaching the secrets of the kingdom doesn't mean sex he was having sex with him.

Again, you can't take everything literally, take this passage for instance;John 6:53; "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you." Do you read this literally? Doesn't this make Jesus sound like a cannibal?

As for the female to male part, well, I cant comment on that because I don't know what that means. But I don't take that as a sexual refernce either. As far as I know his deisciples didn't want women involved with their mission. I'm sure there is some explanation as to the language he used. Did you really think they were doing sex changes?

 

[JJM]

Now how about this one in Mark 14:51; A Young man flees naked, Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him and he left the linen cloth and fled them naked.

This bares a striking similarity to the comment in Thomas. Now if you take that to be sexual then that is on you. I don't. Teaching the secrets of the kingdom doesn't mean sex he was having sex with him.

this is a good

Again, you can't take everything literally, take this passage for instance;John 6:53; "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you." Do you read this literally? Doesn't this make Jesus sound like a cannibal?

I do . Well, nearly literally one may not know they need to but that is a different story.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I believe that the 66 books are sufficent by themselves, but the Book of Enoch expands or expounds apon Genesis 6. The other books may be worth reading up to the point were they become ludicrous or contradictory to established Scripture.

Read the Book of Enoch, I'd reccomend it.
Read the rest of the Bible, I'd implore you!

As for Gnosticism, Tertullian wrote some excellent texts against it. Or so I hear. I still haven't read all 31 of the extant works we have of his. www.tertullian.org

 

[didymus]

Contempt prior to investigation leaves a man in everlasting ignorance

 

[iBrian]

Some things are best left to ignorance.

 

[didymus]

Like what may I ask>?

 

[Sacredstar]

Yes 'innocence is bliss' and within and inner meaning.

Dear Didymus

1. "I don't believe that everything that is written in the gospel of thomas is what Jesus said just as i don't believe everything in the other gospels is completely accurate. For sure the gospel of thomas has some sayings that are dierctly attributed to Jesus. For those that have researched the Q they say that about 30% of the content of thomas matches the other gospels. So I do believe that there are some real sayings by Jesus in there."

One cannot just base this on the bible and Q because the teachings are pre Q in the same way as the sermon on the mount beautitudes is also in the dead sea scrolls which is pre Jesus, so some of the teachings from Jesus were coming from earlier sources in my view. Also when one looks at other texts not included in the bible you do find more 30% in other texts.


"The saying " whoever does not hate his father and his mother can not become a disciple to me, and whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me"."

Well as the true translation of the root word hate means to love less this statement is clearly teaching 'detachment' from physical reality and not to love anyone above GOD. It was given to me by the Holy Spirit as 'love with all your heart, but your soul belongs to GOD'. So no human must come before one's own soul or before GOD.


"This directly relates to Matthew 10:34 " Do not think I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword, For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against mother, and a daughter in law against mother in law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.""

Ditto the sword of truth can divide as we witness on these forums which is why it imperative that we find the bridge to peace. This saying was also from quite early on the his own growth and development and over time Jesus softened his approach. It is also potent that this statement was kept int he bible which is one that as continued to divide people instead of bring unity. One that as been specifically chosen to keep us in separation from each other and from GOD in my view.

Personally I don't think he is talking literally in either case, do you?

We have talked about this sword of truth on another thread maybe someone could remind us which one.

"Now how about this one in Mark 14:51; A Young man flees naked, Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him and he left the linen cloth and fled them naked.This bares a striking similarity to the comment in Thomas. Now if you take that to be sexual then that is on you. I don't. Teaching the secrets of the kingdom doesn't mean sex he was having sex with him."

Nakedness is about living in transparency, going back to the bare bone of the foundations of who you are, some have to be stripped naked of all before reaching the core of who they are in their purest essence. When one is stripped bare all that is left is you and your maker and one is able to make the most amazing breakthroughs in one's personal development and relationship with GOD.

On another level how many people can truly be transparent to the world very few in my experience due to their own pride, which again both in the bible and the GT it tells us to take off our outer garments that we use for protecting what is really hidden inside.

One that can run bare is fearless.....and of course fear is the opposite to love but yet religious doctrine in the past both Christian and Muslim as taught man to fear GOD and in doing so as assisted the creation of disease.

Hence why GOD is bringing forth the science of being and cosmic laws so that humanity can truly understand the harm it does to itself. When people have a terminal illness some blame GOD when I had cancer I asked what is GOD trying to show me, what must I learn from this? There's the difference do we look to the inner meaning of what we have co-created or do we just look at life as literal birth -to- death without meaning?

The meaning of life is to work out the meaning of life!

Catch up again soon

Love beyond measure


Kim xxx

 

[Sacredstar]

GOD asks we replace the word ignorance with innocence for innocence is only a lack of awakening for all have access to GOD's knowledge inside, but it takes a willingness to discover it.

 

[iBrian]

Like what may I ask>?

I was thinking in terms of life experiences, rather than knowledge.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I should have <insert sarcasm> since it was completely lost in my post.. lol

 

[JJM]

One cannot just base this on the bible and Q because the teachings are pre Q in the same way as the sermon on the mount beautitudes is also in the dead sea scrolls which is pre Jesus, so some of the teachings from Jesus were coming from earlier sources in my view. Also when one looks at other texts not included in the bible you do find more 30% in other texts.

I'm just wandering whether or not you are assuming that the beatitudes found in the Dead Sea scrolls are before Christ or do you actually know because my understanding is that the latest of the Dead Sea scrolls were written around 70 AD and I've understood that Jesus actually influenced them a bit.



Secondly I haven't looked into Q but what makes you think that The Gospel of Thomas is pre Q?

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear JJM

1. I'm just wandering whether or not you are assuming that the beatitudes found in the Dead Sea scrolls are before Christ or do you actually know because my understanding is that the latest of the Dead Sea scrolls were written around 70 AD and I've understood that Jesus actually influenced them a bit.

2. Secondly I haven't looked into Q but what makes you think that The Gospel of Thomas is pre Q?

1. Well the last I heard from scholars is that the Essenes did not write the Dear Sea Scrolls and they have been dated prior to the birth of Jesus, so they either influenced Jesus or Jesus was born earlier then we have been told. I think the latter is likely. The other interesting fact is that archaeologists have found that there was never ever a city in Nazareth, all they have found in its place was a farm....so the plot thickens scuse the pun!

2. Because the teachings in the GT and some of the other gospels e.g. Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth have a greater purity and depth, some phrases are also similiar to the Dead Sea Scrolls but it is at least two years since I have compared them and have not done a complete written up comparison study. Basically the Q is just a collection of the same sayings that are repeated in the main gospels in the bible and when you see them like this together it reminds you of the GT.

Blessings

Kim xxx

 

[faithfull]

Hello to all. Hopefully this thread doesn't come across as another attept to debunk the christian faith. But I do have a question that begs an answer and or opinions.

The Holy Bible is considered by many to be the infallible word of God. Anything found outside of it is not of God if it doesn't concur with it. What about the Apocrypha that was and I believe still is a part of the Roman Catholic Bible? I brought this up on another thread but noone addressed it. So I'll put it here so that noone will miss it.

The books in this apocrypha were taken away sometime after 1611. I know this because King James translation translated these books. Now they must have been considered to be the word of God at one point to have gotten in there in the first place. I'm guessing that something was found in those books or that there was a dramatic shift in belief that occured for them to be removed. I don't know the answer so that is why I asked.

What if there are other books out there that claim it is the word of God as well as the bible? The Lord did say John 10: 16And aother• bsheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone• fold, and one shepherd. The Lord said this after he was resurrected. Then where did he go? Maybe he appeared to other people around the world. Ever heard of the White God appearing to the ancient indians that they have passed down? Ezek. 37: 16
16&nbsp16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one astick•, and bwrite upon it, For cJudah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and dwrite upon it, For eJoseph, the fstick• of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
I think the Lord is aware of his children all over the world and they are just as capable of keeping record as anyone is.

 

[didymus]

I think there are many books out there that are divine and just as valid as the books that were authorized to be "of God".

 

[Quahom1]

I think there are many books out there that are divine and just as valid as the books that were authorized to be "of God".

Would you care to include them in the "Bible"? And if so, which books? And why?

(just curious)

v/r

Q

 

[didymus]

I would include all of the books of the apocrypha. Those that were removed from the Prodestant books. Many books from the Nag Hammadi find are very Godly in nature. They are written with reverance to God and Christ. Qumranian books.