Texts banned from the Bible

Banned from the Bible


Here is an article from the Lost Teachings of Atlantis website about lost gospels, and the History channel documentary called "Banned from the Bible. It shows how many texts, including some from Disciples of Jesus, have been banned and hidden from the public by "the church"
www.atlantis.to...

Banned from the Bible-
video.google.ca...

Banned from the Bible Documentary broken into 10 minute segments-

Part 1 and 2, info on some historical issues
video.google.ca...
video.google.ca...

Texts that elaborate more about Adam and Eve-
video.google.ca...

Book of Jubilees, some people seem to be knocking it, but remember, the real spiritual monastic cultivators who actually gained direct contact with god used it, and you can't apply evey rule that applies to us today, to beings in the past written about in the book of Jubilees who lived to be 1000 years old. They were very different in that time from us today-
video.google.ca...

Book of Enoch, clearly a part of the original "flood" story. It is part of the scripture and bible of the Ethiopian Christian Chruch, a very old christian church
video.google.ca...

Astonomy/Astrology was originally part of the knowledge of the meaning of biblical texts
video.google.ca...

Infancy gospel of Thomas-
video.google.ca...

Gospel of James, talks about Mary's life before she became pregnant. This info is not known by modern Christians, but apparently is known by followers of Islam-
video.google.ca...
video.google.ca...

The Gnostics and the Gnostic path had a lot of teachings passed down from Jesus and the disciples that never made it into to the modern bible, including very interesting information about Mary Magdalene, Jesus' closest disciple, who is now slandered as a prostitute in modern times. Sexism is the main reason the Gospel of Mary Magdalene would never be included in the modern bible. They had the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of Truth, and more-
video.google.ca...

The Churches of the ordinary society and mundane world forced the gnostics to abandon and lose a lot of ancient original scriptures
video.google.ca...

Gospel of Nicodemus-
video.google.ca...

The Apocalypse of Peter was very close to being included in the modern bible, but the book of Revelation by John was already apacolyptic enough in the eyes of some mundane human religous authorities-
video.google.ca...

It should be considered a great loss if some books that were rejected from the modern bible then become completely lost
video.google.ca...

Originally posted by Hollywood11
The Gnostics and the Gnostic path had a lot of teachings passed down from Jesus and the disciples that never made it into to the modern bible, including very interesting information about Mary Magdalene, Jesus' closest disciple, who is now slandered as a prostitute in modern times. Sexism is the main reason the Gospel of Mary Magdalene would never be included in the modern bible.

Well, that and it only survives in little bits and pieces! As much as I would like to assert otherwise, all of these texts are highly pseudoepigraphical, with perhaps one or two exceptions.

I am rather grateful that the Apocalypse of Peter was not included in the Bible, as whoever wrote that one obviously took a great deal of sadistic joy in describing how sinners were to be tortured--although, interestingly, not eternally tortured. The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which is quite different, is a good for a laugh, though.

its funny how people assume that these ¨banned¨ texts belong in the bible.

alot of these books contain doctrine that is in direct contradiction with the bible. would god really allow his word to be tainted by those that simply claim to be writing under inspiration?

the socnd point is that some are doctrinally accurate but are still excluded, is it not possible that although being in harmony with the bible, they are not inspired?

I find it interesting that there was vetting and censoring evolved in the history of the bible. I was already aware of this but I will still look through what you have posted when I next have some time.

reply to post by miriam0566


Although I see where you are coming from and agree with you to a certain extent I will have to disagree at least in part, different branches of Christianity accept different books/texts as cannon, Catholicism for example excepts certain books in the Apocrypha where as others do not. Oh and that's not to mention that certain messages found in the Bible that is accepted by most Christians are possibly contradictory to the message found in other parts, but that's a large topic in its own right.

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
different branches of Christianity accept different books/texts as cannon, Catholicism for example excepts certain books in the Apocrypha where as others do not. Oh and that's not to mention that certain messages found in the Bible that is accepted by most Christians are possibly contradictory to the message found in other parts, but that's a large topic in its own right.

but that is also based on yet another assumption: that all branches of Christianity are backed by god

if the bible isnt inspired, and it really doesnt matter what form of worship you take, then yes, this would be a mystery.

you also must remember that the church itself tried very hard to destroy the bible, even killing those who read it. that fact that it survived is also evidence of divine intervention.

Some of the books are kept out because they are, in fact, heretical to the central tenant of Christianity (virgin birth, sinless life, death, and resurrection of Jesus). Some were kept out because of the knowledge of what the plans were by evil forces.

I believe the Book of Enoch as one of those things. Having read the Book of Enoch, I didn't find ANYTHING that goes against the central core of Christianity; however, I did find a good many things that goes against the traditions of men. One of the early church "saints" even said that he believed that Enoch was kept out because of the knowledge it contained. For example, it tells you explicitly and in detail why the great flood happened. It also tells about the root cause of demonic possession, and how that all started.

I've also read one other one, I can't really remember the name of it. It had tons of prophecy (at that time. it would be history to us today), and went a LONG way towards explaining why there was good and evil in the world (as in the giant metaphysical discussion of why good and evil are allowed by God).

So, like real life, there is more to it than just "they didn't want you to know this". Some were kept out because they really are anathema to Christian beliefs, and some were kept out to keep people in the dark.

Originally posted by miriam0566
the socnd point is that some are doctrinally accurate but are still excluded, is it not possible that although being in harmony with the bible, they are not inspired?

What's the criteria that determines whether something is inspired or not? Who decides? Why are "inspired" texts only something that occurred in the first few centuries after Christ? Is the Spirit of Truth dead?

Originally posted by miriam0566
but that is also based on yet another assumption: that all branches of Christianity are backed by god

But each does assume this, who is to say which is right and even if any of them are? The way God and Jesus intended for Christians may have been lost.

Originally posted by miriam0566
you also must remember that the church itself tried very hard to destroy the bible, even killing those who read it. that fact that it survived is also evidence of divine intervention.

You could also say that the survival of non-cannon possible parts of the bible is down to divine intervention also, as the Church also tried to destroy those.

Originally posted by Matrix1111
What's the criteria that determines whether something is inspired or not?

harmony. all books of the bible are harmonious in doctrine and in message. all carry a general theme of how god´s kingdom will right the world. this feat is pretty amazing considering the amount of authors and the span of time it was written.

Who decides?

God. that sounds like a cop-out answer i know, but consider this: if the god of the bible is powerful enough to deliver his people from the hands of pharaoh using miraculous powers, wouldnt he be able to control (whether by open or more subtle ways) what books are included in his bible?

besides, if the bible is not inspired, there isnt much point in reading it anyway is there?

if its not inspired, then does it really matter what books are included?

Why are "inspired" texts only something that occurred in the first few centuries after Christ?

not true. ancient jews had a canon also. the idea of canonical books being inspired by god goes back to moses.

Is the Spirit of Truth dead?

im not in any position of knowledge to answer that, sorry.

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
But each does assume this, who is to say which is right and even if any of them are? The way God and Jesus intended for Christians may have been lost.

very interesting point.

jesus himself said that true worship would be lost in the parable of the wheat and the weeds. (matt 13:24-30; 36-43)

he said that after he would die, satan would sow different seeds. the ability to define them from the wheat would not be evident until the ¨end of this world¨

jesus said his servants would worship him in spirit and in truth (john 4:23)

that they would know his servants by their love. (john 13:35)

that they would preach to the ends of the earth. (matt 24:14)

so the organization that follows jesus correctly must at least fit these three descriptions

You could also say that the survival of non-cannon possible parts of the bible is down to divine intervention also, as the Church also tried to destroy those.

i dont remember hearing about any of the apocryophical books as a whole being put down so ill have to take your word on it.



[edit on 30-9-2008 by miriam0566]

Originally posted by miriam0566

besides, if the bible is not inspired, there isnt much point in reading it anyway is there?

Good common sense answer. I guess God does manage to work his will even against the obstacle of fallen man.

So "inspired" would indicate the Bible isn't 100% accurate, but more like a good guess?

Originally posted by Matrix1111
So "inspired" would indicate the Bible isn't 100% accurate, but more like a good guess?

i would say relative.

there are parts that were dictated word for word, like moses quoting what god said on zion.

someone once told me an illustration once that made sense. lets say you have a lawyer and their secretary. the lawyer may tell his secretary to write a letter and tell them all the details that should be in the letter. when the letter is written, it may not be the lawyers exact words, but all the details are the way the lawyer wants.

the bible isnt a word for word dictation. however it is inspired (at least in my belief) which means that the points that god particularly wanted in it, are in it.

Originally posted by miriam0566

You could also say that the survival of non-cannon possible parts of the bible is down to divine intervention also, as the Church also tried to destroy those.

i dont remember hearing about any of the apocryophical books as a whole being put down so ill have to take your word on it.

When I say non-cannon I didn't mean "apocryophical" per se I meant some of the things mentioned by the OP, I've only looked through a little of it but their is non-apocrypha banned texts mentioned.

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
When I say non-cannon I didn't mean "apocryophical" per se I meant some of the things mentioned by the OP, I've only looked through a little of it but their is non-apocrypha banned texts mentioned.

ok, so you have some writings that were banned and they tried to destroy, that could be evidence of divine protection, however, after this suppression did they increase in circulation?

there are several things about the bible that lead me to believe it is god´s word.

- written by authors from all walks of life, from kings to fisherman to doctors to prophets spanning a large amount of time (about 1500 years i believe) and it is still harmonious. no other holy text can claim that. the koran was ¨written¨ by one prophet. hindu writtings span over a long period of time but tend to conflict with each other. even mythologies of egypt greek and roman have mutiple versions of people. the bible has conflicts too, but they are with non-canon books.

- the bible displays a firm understanding of things that humans alone did not discover until later. the genesis account is amazingly accurate from the point of view of a person stand on earth as it was brought together. the chances of moses guessing it correctly is astronomical. the jewish law its self displays an understanding of medicine that lacked in that time. how to deal with cleanliness and sickness were techniques that were not normally applied at the time. chances are the isrealites that obeyed didnt understand why this helped things. we discovered just over 150years ago that germs play a part in illness

- bible historical references. for many many years people thought assyria was simply made up by the bible because there was no archaeological evidence it had ever existed, except in the 1840´s when the ruins if ninavah (sp?) was discovered

- bible prophecy. from the prophecy of the fall of Babylon to jesus´description of our day, the bible is breathtakingly accurate. it isnt just a vague fortelling like oracles or foretune tellers, but it has details that no man would be able to guess

- bible´s survivability. despite active attempts to bury it by the church (which suspiciously should be the last people to do that), it thrives. today it is the number one selling book even despite many free copies being given out. even the bible´s survivability can be seen through the many copies and translations. no matter what copy you use, all the major points of the bible are there. there are excerpts added and such, however it is still relatively easy to tell when they are incorrect. no book by man would survive this far and with so much desire to change it.

i mean this isnt criteria for whether a book is canon or not. but i think we have the bible we have for a reason.

alot of people ask, why arent these other books not included? my simple answer is that they are not inspired by god.

but i cant help but think there is more to the question. if the person who asks doesnt believe that the bible is inspired in the first place, then the question takes a more aggressive tone. it not asking why arent these books in the bible, its asking who (human wise) determines christianity´s policy? its a way of furthering the argument that Christianity is not from god.

I'm wondering, if the Bible is just as God wanted it to be, then why is he allowing these Dead Sea Scroll and such to resurface? Could it be that now, in light of modern scholarship, more writings can be recognized to be of value and relevance?

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
there are several things about the bible that lead me to believe it is god´s word.

- written by authors from all walks of life, from kings to fisherman to doctors to prophets spanning a large amount of time (about 1500 years i believe) and it is still harmonious. no other holy text can claim that. the koran was ¨written¨ by one prophet. hindu writtings span over a long period of time but tend to conflict with each other. even mythologies of egypt greek and roman have mutiple versions of people. the bible has conflicts too, but they are with non-canon books.

Oh, you're sadly mistaken there. Read the four gospels and there are an insane amount of differences. Unless you don't consider them canon!

Look at Judas for instance, did he throw his blood money into the temple and go hang himself as it says in Matthew or did he use that money to buy a field where he fell headlong and had his intestines burst out?

And of course there's the long unanswered Easter challenge, to reconstitute the accounts of what happened on Easter into one coherant story, can't be done:

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)


Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)


After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)


Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where was Jesus' first sermon, a plain or a mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Originally posted by Terra Serranum

Oh, you're sadly mistaken there. Read the four gospels and there are an insane amount of differences. Unless you don't consider them canon!

Excellent point. Is the New Testament talking about facts or a legend? How are we to decide which is fact and which is legend? And whatever happened to the Gosspel of Q, the gospel that is supposedly the one Luke and Matthew used to inspire their gospels.

What of the theological differences between James (Jerusalem church) and Paul (Roman church)? What happened to the Jerusalem church? Why didn't it flourish while Paul's evangelizing worked? What were the differences in teachings? Was one more legitimate than the other? Does might make right?

Many issues behind the making of the Bible. It seems to me that just because something is tradition doesn't mean it's the best form of Christianity. I think it's very healthy that these discrepencies can be discussed without one side or the other getting defensive or bent out of shape.

Originally posted by Matrix1111
I'm wondering, if the Bible is just as God wanted it to be, then why is he allowing these Dead Sea Scroll and such to resurface? Could it be that now, in light of modern scholarship, more writings can be recognized to be of value and relevance?

i dont think he´s allowing or not allowing anything with regards to non-conical books.

lots of books that are not inspired may have alot of value to them. lack of divine inspiration doesnt equal lack of value. it simply means that it must be put into its context.

if one is looking for the moral value of daniel vs. the dragon, fine. but using dante´s inferno as insight into the afterlife isnt exactly advisable.

Originally posted by Terra Serranum
Oh, you're sadly mistaken there. Read the four gospels and there are an insane amount of differences. Unless you don't consider them canon!

yes, but all the differences you mention here are details that would get mixed up, depending on the point of view of the writer.

there is a difference between dictation and inspiration.

judas - the gospels dont necessarily disagree. a field was bought, judas falling from a failed hanging could very easily disembowel himself. but the important points are, judas betrayed for silver. he felt regret. he died.

the women - the lack of mention by some of the writers does not mean that the other women werent there. john 20:2 for example has mary saying ¨we do not know...¨ even though noone else is mentioned in verse one.

angels in tomb - again, lack of mention doesnt mean they werent there. matthew may have been only mentioning the one who spoke. as for whether it was a man or an angel is simply POV. important point what that they talked to an angel

again these are all details that depend on the POV of the writer. divinely inspired writing doesnt mean a word for word dictation from god. it simply means that the points that have to do with our faith are in order.

that being said... when one looks at the important things such as doctrine, one finds the harmony. everything jesus said about serving god is in harmony with the OT (for example).

What of the theological differences between James (Jerusalem church) and Paul (Roman church)? What happened to the Jerusalem church? Why didn't it flourish while Paul's evangelizing worked? What were the differences in teachings? Was one more legitimate than the other? Does might make right?

there werent as many differences as people make it out to be.

the main one was circumcision and whether it was required. this and other jewish traditions made a slight divide between jewish christians and gentile christians. even peter was rebuked for being partial to the jews.

but there is a point alot of people forget. god may be perfect. but his followers on earth right now are not. they make mistakes which alot of the apostles mistakes are mentioned in the bible. sometimes they just didnt put 2 and 2 together. even peter needed a vision to nudge him to preach to cornelius.

Originally posted by miriam0566
i dont think he´s allowing or not allowing anything with regards to non-conical books.

I disagree. I think there are many Christian beliefs and traditions that are unfounded and man-made. The Dead See Scrolls give a context for that to be investigated -- if it weren't for such strong opposition to such scholarship. Just who was Jesus and what did he really teach? As it stands it's very hard to say. We see Jesus through Paul's eyes but what happened to Jesus seen through James' eyes? Or through Mary Magdalene"s eyes? Or his mother's eyes. Does it really make sense that only Paul's version survived?