Been reading the Apocraphyls (sp?) as well as a book that contains books and letters that were not included in the bible. The whole thing is very interesting. In reading these books I have come to the conclusion that early christians did not believe what the current WTS teaches. Enoch talks about visiting a place where the dead spirits of mankind are kept until the judgment and how there is no judgment on the flesh at death but the spirit is judged. Then I have been reading the letters such as Thomas and Philip, etc. on the birth of jesus, the father and the holy spirit. The whole thing sounds like a family arrangement. The father, son, holy spirit (which is referred to as a woman in the letters). Phillip denounces a virgin birth, etc. The whole thing flips the WTS teachings upside down. I have always wondered if we have a spirit that lives on, and I am tending to believe we do. I have always wondered why I could sin ahainst god, and the son and be forgiven but not the Holy Spirit. If the HS was just gods energy than how could I sin against it/her/him? Makes no sense. These letters and books, I feel add to the bible and round the whole thing out. Some terms in the accepted bible make much more sense when reading these non cannical letters and books. Gee why do the witnesses use a bible that was edited by the ones they consider to be Babylon the Great while the whole time agreeing with the early churches view on what books were to be accepted and which were not. Some accepted books were in fact later dumped by the church. Seems to me there is some information hiding going on.
Books and letters that are not part of the Bible
by sinis 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
daystar
They simply use what works for their intended goals... global domination.
I enjoyed the freedom of perusing the apocryphals after leaving. I found mine in the collection The Other Bible. I highly recommend it.
-
Narkissos
The Bible did not fall from heaven. It is a selection from a much wider corpus of literature. Whether you want to believe that the selection is somehow providential or not, you need to get the maximum of information from the whole corpus (actually, the part which was found, especially since the 19th century) to understand the Bible texts correctly. Trying to "let the Bible explain itself," ignoring the wider corpus it was selected from, only gives power to cultic interpretations, as the endless splitting of Protestantism on the basis of sola scriptura painfully shows.
-
Terry
It strikes me as passing strange that "original" writings were burned or destroyed when redacted by others. You'd think anything original would be precious and irreplaceable.
This is even true of the Koran whose defenders create very especial arguments for its authenticity and superiority over the Bible. The translations and redactions necessitated (!?) the destroying of the originals!
Very suspicious!
If I were trying to inherit my rich uncle's estate and I redacted and paraphrased his LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT and then destroyed his autograph copy of said will.........how far would I get in the legal system toward my goal?
And yet--the public at large just swallow the camel on this sort of bunkum.
T.
-
Shining One
Sinis,
There are no 'lost books of the Bible', none.
1) If the sacred canon was set by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit then the proper books are there for us to learn about God. All of them, not one is left out.
2) If the selection process was not divinely inspired this is still true, since the church itself determines what it believes. They left out manuscripts that were forgeries and heretical IN THEIR EYES. "That is not a valid book, throw it out!".
Rex -
Shazard
This is common mistake, thinking that church invented canon. But in reality church discovered the canon, not invented. Inventions came later, when church itself get poisoned by sin. And be carefull about apocrifa, it is allways interesting to find out why particular book is not included in canon. This is pretty amazing and interesting research!
-
Woodsman
If you believe God was instrumental in forming the canon then you believe he was working with the ones who compiled it, the Catholic Church.
-
greendawn
Not all inspired sayings were committed to writing and of the ones that did not all survived so the Bible that we have is a small part of the total inspired sayings.
In the early Christain Church many books and letters were circulating and accepted as genuine but some of theses were later rejected. The letter of Jude contains references from the apocrypha. -
Terry
This is common mistake, thinking that church invented canon. But in reality church discovered the canon, not invented. Inventions came later, when church itself get poisoned by sin. And be carefull about apocrifa, it is allways interesting to find out why particular book is not included in canon. This is pretty amazing and interesting research!
Well....ummm......?
In the ancient world people mixed with other people out of social necessity. They brought with them their interesting indigenous stories, fables, myths and beliefs. The ones you believed when you heard them formed a body of plausible canon. But, canon itself isn't "discovered" per se. It is an official act. It is declared on purpose to eliminate all else but the included and selected items "approved" by some authority to support its position.
It is only in the case of official conflicts that anybody even cares what is written.
Once you had a body that could ENFORCE beliefs and punish contrary views you had the NEED for canon.
T.
-
DannyBloem
Shining one,
There are no 'lost books of the Bible', none.
1) If the sacred canon was set by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit then the proper books are there for us to learn about God. All of them, not one is left out.
2) If the selection process was not divinely inspired this is still true, since the church itself determines what it believes. They left out manuscripts that were forgeries and heretical IN THEIR EYES. "That is not a valid book, throw it out!".
RexI think there must be. I say this because of the quoted that the NT contains that can not be found in any of the OT. The writer must have been quoted to another book.
Even in the bible other books are mentioned. For example the book of jashar is mentioned, where this was mentioned as containing something about Jonathan in the time of David. Funny thing is that it is also mentioned in Josua, hundeds of years before...