Thread: Banned from the Bible?

I watched a program by this name on the History Channel. It mentioned books such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and many many more. Why would ANY book be banned from the Bible,unless, as I beleive, it mentioned some sort of inconvenient truth that contradicted official Church dogma?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I watched a program by this name on the History Channel. It mentioned books such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and many many more. Why would ANY book be banned from the Bible,unless, as I beleive, it mentioned some sort of inconvenient truth that contradicted official Church dogma?

Because Homer's Odyssey was not written by a follower of Christ so it would not be in the Bible.

Once you understand why the Odyssey is not in the Bible you can understand that other books would also not be included because they just don't meet the criteria to be included.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Because Homer's Odyssey was not written by a follower of Christ so it would not be in the Bible.

Once you understand why the Odyssey is not in the Bible you can understand that other books would also not be included because they just don't meet the criteria to be included.

I'm not quite following you. What criteria would need to have been met to have been included in the Bible? The criteria of being a follower of Christ?

I saw much of the same program, it was pretty interesting. I like the books about Daniel that weren't included, also the books of Solomon. They claimed that Alexandria had librabries of books that were turned down. One of the most interesting things those other books seem to go along with what's in the Bible but fill in more details. i don't think they would changes any major beliefs but do think they would be a broader understanding to fill in some pieces that some argue about.

Originally Posted by Red Eft

I'm not quite following you. What criteria would need to have been met to have been included in the Bible? The criteria of being a follower of Christ?

No it must meet this criteria:
Corinthians 2:13--Paul said, "We speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth." Paul claimed it was the words, not just the thoughts that are inspired.
John 17:8--Jesus said , "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me." In the Old Testament phrases such as "thus saith the Lord," "the word of the Lord came," and "God said" are repeated over 3800 times. Clearly God communicates by words.
Galatians 1:11-12--Paul said, "I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul got the gospel from God, not men.
Exodus 4:12--God said to Moses, "I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say." Forty years later Moses said to Israel, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I commanded you, neither shall ye diminish anything from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2). Words spoken by God are not to be taken away from or added to.
1 Peter 1:10-11--Peter wrote that "the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you, searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify." This verse is a power argument against thought inspiration. The Holy Spirit gave the prophets a message about the Messiah, which they recorded. Then they sought to understand the meaning of their own proclamations. So there were times when the prophets received and recorded words that they did not fully understand. So it was words not thoughts that they pondered on, which again is evidence that inspiration is verbal.
Matthew 24:35--Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." It is the words in the Bible that God has given. Pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions are important.
1 Corinthians 14:37--Paul said, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." A spiritual man will recognize that Paul's writings are the very words of God.
So, inspiration is not extended to thoughts only. The very words of the Bible are given by inspiration of God.

Originally Posted by freecell

No it must meet this criteria:
Corinthians 2:13--Paul said, "We speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth." Paul claimed it was the words, not just the thoughts that are inspired.
John 17:8--Jesus said , "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me." In the Old Testament phrases such as "thus saith the Lord," "the word of the Lord came," and "God said" are repeated over 3800 times. Clearly God communicates by words.
Galatians 1:11-12--Paul said, "I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul got the gospel from God, not men.
Exodus 4:12--God said to Moses, "I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say." Forty years later Moses said to Israel, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I commanded you, neither shall ye diminish anything from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2). Words spoken by God are not to be taken away from or added to.
1 Peter 1:10-11--Peter wrote that "the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you, searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify." This verse is a power argument against thought inspiration. The Holy Spirit gave the prophets a message about the Messiah, which they recorded. Then they sought to understand the meaning of their own proclamations. So there were times when the prophets received and recorded words that they did not fully understand. So it was words not thoughts that they pondered on, which again is evidence that inspiration is verbal.
Matthew 24:35--Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." It is the words in the Bible that God has given. Pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions are important.
1 Corinthians 14:37--Paul said, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." A spiritual man will recognize that Paul's writings are the very words of God.
So, inspiration is not extended to thoughts only. The very words of the Bible are given by inspiration of God.

I agree with Freecell. The men who made decisions about which books are inspired had the job to decide which books were inspired and which were not. Remember the claim of christians is that the bible is the word of god and that in the original writings it is inerrent.

If they are going to make either the mistake of including too much or of including too little then clearly the latter is the better mistake. Of course, the job was made easier because the new testament letters are attested to by other new testament writers.

For example, Peter acknowleges that Paul's work was inspired.

"He [paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

Here are four of the criteria used to decide which books went in:

1. Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2. Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

I don't have a problem with the method used. I do have a problem with documentaries (I didn't see this one but others do this) that take a logical positive thing, like excluding uninspired writings, and try to spin it as a bad thing.

If God inspires a book then clealy it would have to be consistent with his other inpired books. But then people try to paint this as an attempt to hide contradictory material by attributing corrupt motives to the compilers. If someone wants to demonstrate that the motives are corrupt then they should bring forth some actual evidence and not just apply spin to a common sense procedure.

The spinners only reveal what is in their own hearts.

Seriously, for protestants, who decides what should or shouldn't be in the bible. I think they found something written by Mary Magdeline's brother in Greece, if I am not wrong (google it or something) but it was omitted. I think this might have propelled her to the status of a saint but it was relieved anyways. Was it because of sexism or are there geniune flaws in the areas of selection here?

Simple. It doesn't fit into the Bible. If you think the Bible is confusing now, just imagine adding the Testament of King Solomon, Enoch, the Book of Judas,and the Qaballah to the mix.

All these books ascribe events and dates, that doesn't fit into modern Christian beliefs.

For example Enoch writes about another group of fallen angels known as the watchers, and according to Enoch, God instructed Raphael to asign all sin to the leader of this group, Samjiaz, not Satan not Lucifer as the Bible tells us, but Samjiaz, for his role in the fall of mankind.

So because none of these books, fit into the scope the original Catholic priest had in mind when he compiled the Bible, these books were alternatively banned, because they weren't understood.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I watched a program by this name on the History Channel. It mentioned books such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and many many more. Why would ANY book be banned from the Bible,unless, as I beleive, it mentioned some sort of inconvenient truth that contradicted official Church dogma?

The choice of the four canonical gospels was attributed to bishop ireneaus of lugdunum writing in the latter part of the 2nd century ad. At that time, christianity did not have a coherent dogma and was suffering persecution from rome.

If one were willing to die for his faith, wouldn't it be imperative to define that faith?

The gnostic gospels you mentioned above were not included in the bible simply because they adhered to determinism as its underlying philosophy. So clearly, they are in direct contradiction with the canonical gospels.

But unlike the early christians, no one would persecute you for reading or believing in them.

books were not put in the bible because they were not the teachings of Jesus.
Many people could write books and then say 'look, its a Gospel, so put it in!'