missing parts of the bible
missing parts of the bible
Do you believe that there is missing parts of the bible. Well I just order books so I can see what they are talking about. I have always believed weather it be catholics or Baptise and there branches that some one was not showing us the in portant parts. I never felt it was complete. what are some othere views. I guess for example there is a book called susanna. Well we will have to see.
kmhowe
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
missing parts of the bible
The book of Susanah is in the Apocrypha, which some denominations believe are canonized Scripture. For example, the Vulgate version of the Bible, which is the accepted Bible of the Catholic Church, has it in there and it is accepted as Scripture.
I am a Protestant, and my denomination is Nazarene, and we don't believe it is Scripture.
I am a Protestant, and my denomination is Nazarene, and we don't believe it is Scripture.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
missing parts of the bible
66 books Right?
missing parts of the bible
I have quoted this elsewhere but it might be helpful here as well.
"ONe can say, therefore, that the formation of the canon was coterminous with the life of the Christian community during its first three centuries of existence. It is not the cas that some synod or council of bishops decided which books should be normative and thereater required for Christians to accept. Rather, the books that finally were included in the canon were included because over the centruies Christians had come to use them in their worship and instruction and to revere them for the power they displayed in engendering, enriching, and correcting Christian faith. The canon thus represents the collective experience and understanding of the Christian community during the formtive centuries of its existence. " p608 "Introduction to the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology" by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson.
I must admit, though, that reading some of the other books in interesting, expecially the Gospel of Thomas.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"ONe can say, therefore, that the formation of the canon was coterminous with the life of the Christian community during its first three centuries of existence. It is not the cas that some synod or council of bishops decided which books should be normative and thereater required for Christians to accept. Rather, the books that finally were included in the canon were included because over the centruies Christians had come to use them in their worship and instruction and to revere them for the power they displayed in engendering, enriching, and correcting Christian faith. The canon thus represents the collective experience and understanding of the Christian community during the formtive centuries of its existence. " p608 "Introduction to the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology" by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson.
I must admit, though, that reading some of the other books in interesting, expecially the Gospel of Thomas.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
missing parts of the bible
I think we have all of the Bible we need in the standard 66 books. Paul (colossians 4:16) said he wrote an epistle to the Laodicean church, but it's gone. We probably don't need it. In Revelation, John related something Jesus told him to say to the Laodicean church that is significant to us today, because the letter to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14 sounds like it was written to us Christians today, and I believe it was.
I have read some parts of the Apocrypha, and I can clearly see why they were left out of the Bible. There was one supposed gospel that told the story of the woman who had dismenorrhea and was cured by touching Jesus' cloak. In the gospels, that's a nice, realistic, human story. But in this apocryphal book (can't remember which one- a gospel fake), the woman, when she is healed, leaps up and sprints several miles. And the other things I read likewise had lurid miracles concocted to impress superstitious people. They depict God in a way that is really out of character for Him. That's why the apocrypha are left out of the Bible. They're not lost. They were rejected because their content did not match the rest of the Bible.
I have read some parts of the Apocrypha, and I can clearly see why they were left out of the Bible. There was one supposed gospel that told the story of the woman who had dismenorrhea and was cured by touching Jesus' cloak. In the gospels, that's a nice, realistic, human story. But in this apocryphal book (can't remember which one- a gospel fake), the woman, when she is healed, leaps up and sprints several miles. And the other things I read likewise had lurid miracles concocted to impress superstitious people. They depict God in a way that is really out of character for Him. That's why the apocrypha are left out of the Bible. They're not lost. They were rejected because their content did not match the rest of the Bible.
Look what the cat dragged in.
missing parts of the bible
Even Jesus quotes from the book of enoch, which wasnt included in our current canon. But the apocrypha is interesting to read because it relates to a time between the Testaments in the books of Macabees.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
missing parts of the bible
telaquapacky wrote: I have read some parts of the Apocrypha, and I can clearly see why they were left out of the Bible. Tel, this is always an interesting subject, but before it goes any further we need to distinguish between the two groups of 'apocryphal' books:
There were 7 complete books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees) and additions to Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah that were included in the Greek LXX, which was compiled while the Jewish canon was still open-ended. When the canon was finally closed about AD90, these books were excluded from the JEWISH canon as not being ancient enough. By that time, however, Christianity had become more and more Gentile and less and less Jewish, and these books remained part of the Christian OT until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.
When St. Jerome translated the OT from Hebrew into Latin, these books were no longer available in Hebrew, so he called them "apochyphal", which means "hidden". Of course, they were still available in Greek. He used this source and grouped these books separately.
It is important to note that the decision to exclude these books from the Jewish canon was made solely on the basis of date and had nothing whatever to do with the books' content.
During the Reformation, some Protestants decided, for whatever reason, to limit their OT only to those books in the closed Jewish canon. Other Protestants, along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, retained the books, placing them in a separate section as Jerome had done. Catholics refer to these books as "deuterocanonical", meaning "of the second canon", and consider them an integral part of Scripture, while Protestants use Jerome's term, "apochryphal", and consider them interesting and worthwhile reading, with opinions on their status varying form one denomination to the next.
The books you are referring to, however, are spurious NT writings, of which there are many and which, to my knowledge, no Christian denomination has ever considered canonical. Some of them are certainly interesting, though. These are sometimes also referred to as "apochrypha", but they should not be confused with the deuterocanonical books.
The canonical NT, by the way, contains many references to the deuterocanonical books; in fact, Jesus' reference to the unfrogivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a paraphrase of a verse from Wisdom of Solomon.
Raven wrote: Even Jesus quotes from the book of enoch, which wasnt included in our current canon. But the apocrypha is interesting to read because it relates to a time between the Testaments in the books of Macabees.
Raven, if I remember correctly it is Jude, not Jesus, who cites Enoch.
There were 7 complete books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees) and additions to Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah that were included in the Greek LXX, which was compiled while the Jewish canon was still open-ended. When the canon was finally closed about AD90, these books were excluded from the JEWISH canon as not being ancient enough. By that time, however, Christianity had become more and more Gentile and less and less Jewish, and these books remained part of the Christian OT until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.
When St. Jerome translated the OT from Hebrew into Latin, these books were no longer available in Hebrew, so he called them "apochyphal", which means "hidden". Of course, they were still available in Greek. He used this source and grouped these books separately.
It is important to note that the decision to exclude these books from the Jewish canon was made solely on the basis of date and had nothing whatever to do with the books' content.
During the Reformation, some Protestants decided, for whatever reason, to limit their OT only to those books in the closed Jewish canon. Other Protestants, along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, retained the books, placing them in a separate section as Jerome had done. Catholics refer to these books as "deuterocanonical", meaning "of the second canon", and consider them an integral part of Scripture, while Protestants use Jerome's term, "apochryphal", and consider them interesting and worthwhile reading, with opinions on their status varying form one denomination to the next.
The books you are referring to, however, are spurious NT writings, of which there are many and which, to my knowledge, no Christian denomination has ever considered canonical. Some of them are certainly interesting, though. These are sometimes also referred to as "apochrypha", but they should not be confused with the deuterocanonical books.
The canonical NT, by the way, contains many references to the deuterocanonical books; in fact, Jesus' reference to the unfrogivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a paraphrase of a verse from Wisdom of Solomon.
Raven wrote: Even Jesus quotes from the book of enoch, which wasnt included in our current canon. But the apocrypha is interesting to read because it relates to a time between the Testaments in the books of Macabees.
Raven, if I remember correctly it is Jude, not Jesus, who cites Enoch.
missing parts of the bible
I thought that some might find this link interesting. It deals with the Bible and archaeology.
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
The particular site is basically uninteresting but the article reflects well the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both are highly qualified scholars in their field.
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
The particular site is basically uninteresting but the article reflects well the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both are highly qualified scholars in their field.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
missing parts of the bible
I admit I did read the entire thread. I always have a difficult time with what has been written by several people about the same situation. Without the Book of Jesus that is supposedly harbored in the Vatican catacombs - I can never make a ruling on his life. Jesus obviously made a big difference in his time - a time I might add that was dominated by Rome. I just read an article in Discover magazine that equates a Christian church to about 200 AD. The symbol was not of Jesus on the Cross but of 2 fishes in the sea. Whoa - go figure!!!!!!!
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
missing parts of the bible
nvalleyvee:-6
The fish was a symbol of Jesus at one time or of Christianity. It probably came from Jesus telling his disciples that they would become fishers of men.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The fish was a symbol of Jesus at one time or of Christianity. It probably came from Jesus telling his disciples that they would become fishers of men.
Shalom
Ted:-6
missing parts of the bible
nvalleyvee wrote: 1. Without the Book of Jesus that is supposedly harbored in the Vatican catacombs - I can never make a ruling on his life.
2. The symbol was not of Jesus on the Cross but of 2 fishes in the sea.
1. n, I am a lifelong Catholic and have never heard of any such book. Can you tell me where you heard this and what the book is supposed to contain?
2. There are many associations between Jesus and fish. As Ted noted, he chose several fishermen as apostles, promising to make them 'fishers of men'. He fed thousands of people with two fishes, all of them eating their fill. But the most probable meaning of the symbol you saw involves the Greek word for fish, IXΘYΣ, which can be interpreted as an acronym for 'Jesus Christ, son of God, Saviour'.
2. The symbol was not of Jesus on the Cross but of 2 fishes in the sea.
1. n, I am a lifelong Catholic and have never heard of any such book. Can you tell me where you heard this and what the book is supposed to contain?
2. There are many associations between Jesus and fish. As Ted noted, he chose several fishermen as apostles, promising to make them 'fishers of men'. He fed thousands of people with two fishes, all of them eating their fill. But the most probable meaning of the symbol you saw involves the Greek word for fish, IXΘYΣ, which can be interpreted as an acronym for 'Jesus Christ, son of God, Saviour'.