The lost books of the bible and The forgotten books of Eden

a reply to: Klassified
Thanks, you too.

a reply to: Klassified

If you haven't noticed this is Gnosisifatih at it again.

I hope I am not coming across as disrespectful that was not my intention. I just don't want to debate theology too much. I know how people feel about the bible and that most people don't care to read anything Judeo-Christian outside of canon, but a lot of people do like to read Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha whatever you want to call it. This is for either position though, so I'll adjust if you want to debate. Feel free to speak your mind.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: areyousirius360
The vast majority of these books are rejected by both Jews and Christians. They don't align with accepted scripture, and they are pseudepigrapha. However, some of them do make for interesting reading. Kinda like Aesops fables without the "moral to the story" at the end.

Damn, I is dumb!

Had no idea what pseudepigrapha meant.... had to google it.

a reply to: DeathSlayerIt isn't a very common word so don't worry.

I would like to point out that a great deal of Christians accept the Lucifer fable based of the Isaiah 14:12 misinterpretation. Even though it has been clearly bet doubt proven that that passage was not in the slightest bit talking about satan. That probably comes from Alighieiri. So a few books that got rejected at a council shouldn't be a big deal.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: areyousirius360
The vast majority of these books are rejected by both Jews and Christians. They don't align with accepted scripture, and they are pseudepigrapha. However, some of them do make for interesting reading. Kinda like Aesops fables without the "moral to the story" at the end.

Damn, I is dumb!

Had no idea what pseudepigrapha meant.... had to google it.

Dumb is not a word I would ever use to describe you, because you are not.

On topic: Also, my statement that they are mostly rejected by the Jews and the church wasn't meant to be a "big deal". It was simply stated for reference. That others find value in those writings is great. I have read the majority of them myself.

a reply to: Klassified
Gotcha alls good. I found quite a bit of them fascinating. It's not a couple books its more material I THINK than the dead sea scrolls or nag hammadi and the nt ones are mentioned frequently in early church fathers writings so it's not like they are absolutely fraudulent they have purpose. I hope to make a few people aware who were not. Do you like Secrets of Enoch or 1 Enoch better?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: areyousirius360 I thought I made that clear. If the books are missing from the OT, shouldn't the Jews know something about why that is the case?

Point well taken. Missing material is a decision of importance to the Hebrews and Jews. Lots of things riding on their decisions such as date penned, authors. and most important is if the material is considered to be original Hebrew or Aramaic. From most sources the Jews would never consider anything added to a closed cannon or not originally penned by traceable fathers of their faith. They look at literature much differently than do most.

Not saying that they are always correct but only saying that they will not accept but few chosen avenues of literature. Chances are that all literature of Torah or Tanakh is not in their bible and yes there are many stories in the Hebrews and Greek accounts that might be untrue or embellished.

a reply to: Seede

That's only strict Tanakh orthodox Judaism. Jews have the Talmud which is a small library considered SUPERIOR to the Tanakh AND jews have always had extra books like Jubilees and Jasher.

a reply to: Seede
ANYTHING could have been embellished if you think Judaism has the same beliefs about the OT as christianity they don't. Christian has a completely different interpretation of the OT than ANY jew.

a reply to: areyousirius360

I suppose one way you could look at it is like this: We have the Bible already. The books therein have been settled. Simply, if it didn't make the cut, then those books aren't really "lost" at all, right?

These other books, if you'll pardon the pun, aren't Gospel.

a reply to: IsidoreOfSevilleNo some people decided for us. I don't trust them. The bible is really a product of censorship. We don't have anything to lose by looking at anything and people are practically canonizing the gospels found in nag hammadi. It's never going to change the official canon but you would seewhat your saying at church. I don't have a canon.

a reply to: IsidoreOfSevilleThat's the title of the book. They aren't lost, they were preserved in Ethiopia I believe, same as the book of Enoch. The Ethiopian church has its own canon and doesn't follow the RCC or any other church.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do the Jews think of this idea?

Notice he said Christian bible. Why derail the thread?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLightthanks

a reply to: areyousirius360

a reply to: Seede ANYTHING could have been embellished if you think Judaism has the same beliefs about the OT as christianity they don't. Christian has a completely different interpretation of the OT than ANY jew.

In today's Christianity it is true that most will view the Torah only as connected with their NT. But not so before the NT letters were shown as part of Christianity. Why so? Simply because the letters of the NT did not exist as a bible in that first century church.

Even so the dead sea scrolls did reveal other books were used prior to and during the first century by Orthodox Judaism but we do not have a full account of which books along with Torah were actually used. We do know that 1 Enoch had 25 texts and Jubilees had 21 texts. But we have no idea whether other people were in those dead sea caves before they became openly investigated. So much to speculate and yet nothing is certain. Rome destroyed almost everything before stealing Christianity from the Jews.
My opinions of course --

a reply to: areyousirius360

If I ask you are these writings true and you admit to me that it's unknown to you then, you do know where you would have to get revelation from right? unless you don't have a relationship with him. Ask yourself this: what is the objective in me believing these text?....if it's just simply to have "factual" knowledge which is an ever-learning state, then the gaining of knowledge is in vain.