Books (Gospels) not included in the New Testament?

Question

I was watching a program on the History channel recently about books not selected for inclusion in the New Testament. I was quite surprised to hear that one of these excluded Gospels described Jesus as a sometimes angry child who used his powers maliciously (blinded a man who made disparaging statements about Jesus' father's carpentry) Is there any truth to any of this?

Answer 1

Yes, there's truth in what you say. The Apochrypha is the "book" that collects some of the "lost" books of the bible. Actually, there was no bible per se for hundreds of years after the alleged start of the Xian religion. When the bible in its more-or-less current form was put together (the Catholic bible, that is), it was the result of an ideological committee meeting (at the request of an emperor) to decide what of the many books current in the religion should or should not be included. Those that is any way disparaged the view of Jesus they were trying to advance, or that contradicted their views, were banned as "heresies".

I remember reading the story to which you alluded. I can't remember the name of the book--there are many of them--but I also remember Jesus turning (or trying to turn) "enemies" into animals as a punishment for laughing at him (sort of like a little witch doctor). Go to the library and look up "Apochrypha". They should have books in any decent-sized library. Or just do a search on the word. My search results yielded over 8000 pages. You could start your research with those pages.

Answer 2

There are a lot of books which were not included when the Bible was cannonized. Its the whole basis for the Da Vinci Code plot. These were called gnostic gospels, and are generally dated between 100-200 AD. They were spin off sects from Christianity that Paul warned about in many of his letters to the Church. They were oral traditions that seized on one or two aspects of the gospel story (i.e. Judas's betrayal of Jesus was necessary) and then elaborate on that until they got something kind of out there (i.e Jesus told Judas to betray him because it was his favorite disciple, as said in the Gospel of Judas). These gospels weren't widely used even before the New Testament was brought together, and we know this because ancient Christian leaders quoted the books later included in the NT, but ignored the gnostic gospels.

As far as the powers thing goes, Jesus had no inherent powers. Everything he did, as man, came from God, and I doubt God would give him the power to blind a man because of an insult

Answer 3

Yeah Gospel of Mary Thomas Judas The lost warning signs Gospel The Pre-Markan pastime Narrative The lost Q source Gospel of Peter i imagine there are some extra.. in all likelihood too many discrepancies and beside the point ramblings, yet i ask your self why they did not adjust the 4 mainstream gospels to be a lot less of route fabricated and contradicting.

Answer 4

The Church spent about 350 years debating which books were valid parts of Tradition. Councils met at Laodicea, Hippo Regius, Rome and Carthage to determine the list of books to be read during the Mass (or Divine Liturgy as it is called in the Greek tradition or the Qorbono in Syriac and Quddas in Arabic).

Finally, Pope Damasus in 397 (though the list is lost) issued a list for the entire Church following a council at Rome. In 405, the list we use today and supposedly identical to the list of Damasus, Pope Innocent promulgated the canon of the New Testament and also anathmatized certain works as false.

The irony for most Protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans excluded) is that to accept the Bible and in particular the New Testament is to accept Papal and Catholic Episcopal authority for it is on the authority of the Pope alone that the current list of the New Testament exists. Luther of course rejected James, Jude and Revelations as part of the New Testament and the Anglicans have the authority of Queen Elizabeth to determine scripture. Lutherans returned them after Trent but went through a conscious process rather than simply acccept the Pope's word.

Answer 5

Never heard about blinding a man and i would think that would be the case.

The Signs Gospel is a source for most of the narrative in the Gospel of John, and may well be the earliest written account of the deeds of Jesus. Q is a source for much of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and it witnesses to a very early stage of theological reflection in the Jesus tradition.
The Gospel of Thomas has core elements as old as the synoptic gospels which have proven a valuable source for the teachings of the historical Jesus; while in its later layer, Thomas is the record of a Christian community creatively accommodating influences from Gnosticism.
The Secret Book of James and the Dialogue of the Savior show the modulation in the form of the sayings gospel from the simple collection of sayings we see in Thomas to their composition into extended discourses and dialogues, a development in the use and interpretation of Jesus' sayings that is paralleled in the Gospel of John.
The Gospel of Mary is an historical window into the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus from the perspectives of Gnosticism and into the heated debate among early Christians about the role of women in the churches.
The Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James testify to the popular, if theologically unsophisticated, interest among early Christians in elaborating and embellishing the edifying biographical circumstances of Jesus' birth, childhood, and family background.
The Gospel of Peter, in the partial form in which we have it, is an early passion gospel with important differences from the other passion narratives. It may contain, in an embedded source document, the primary material for the passion and resurrection stories in the canonical gospels.
The Egerton Gospel and the Oxyrhynchus Gospels 840 and 1224 are partial remnants of early, independent, and otherwise unknown gospels with some parallels to the canonical gospels.
The Secret Gospel of Mark consists of excerpts from a variant edition of the Gospel of Mark, and may represent an earlier version of Mark than the one in the New Testament.
The fragments of the Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazoreans, and Ebionites represent distinctive ways in which Jewish Christians interpreted the Jesus tradition.

Answer 6

Sir, the bible itself is a man made object written and edited by prejudiced religious leaders. Yes there are gospels not included in the Bible, some of these gospels did not preach exactly what was thought to be relevant to Jesus' life and left out. In a nutshell.

Answer 7

There were many "gospels" written other than the ones in the Bible. They were not selected because they were written long after the rest of the books in the Bible, the authors had no direct contact with Jesus or his disciples, and they were not consistent with the majority of scripture.

Answer 8

There were a number of gospels and other books left out of the cannon. I can't answer your specific question about Jesus having malicous tendancies however it could very well be possible that there is a gospel or two that paints this picture.

Answer 9

I have the "Lost books of the Bible" published in 1928, it has the books that the catholic church omitted in compressing the bible, so this was known for some time. In it it tells of Jesus upbringing and explains how he learned all he did and where and miracles as well as 2 deaths he committed. In explaining this its said that he was put on this earth to learn all the sins of a man so he could feel them just as a normal man so as well he could remove mankind's sin upon his death. Up to you to believe or not but it's interesting reading and fills in the gaps..The lost books was written and translated by well known theologians of that time and not one author as Brown.

Answer 10

There is a Gospel called the Infancy that describes that.