Is there any validity to the legitimacy of the 'missing Bible books'? Why or why not?

Question

Serious answers only, please.

reference: earlychristianwritings.com for a list of the books, as well as the actual texts.

Answer 1

No. They were declared not to have canonicity, due to many facts. The writers, the time period, the messages evoked. I have read many of them, the history of them, and the history of the biblical canon, as to why some were included and some where not.

Putting the books into the Bible was a long drawn out process, they had to meet many requirments, and took many men of all diffrent faith to put them together, making sure of their authenticity. They are left out for a reason.

Answer 2

It depends on your point of view. If the "lost books" are proven archaeologically to be from the time frame written about in the bible, they have some significance.

Religiously though, no. When the bible was being editted, the committee decided what would be appropriate for the direction they wanted to take the religion in. There is no way that a gospel written by a woman would be given any validity, as they were seen as property at the time. Ironic if you consider that she was a reformed prostitute, and would have a view concerning the spiritual healing power of Jesus.

Answer 3

Depends on what you mean by "legitimacy", and "missing Bible Books".
If by "missing Bible Books", you are talking about hypothesized sources like the Q Gospel, or a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative; no, there is no proof these existed (which explains why they're called "hypothesized"). The "experts" say they are hinted at by folks who study how the bible was written rather than what it says.
If by "missing Bible Books", you mean extra-cannonical literature that exists, then we must turn to what you mean by "legitimacy".
I will not argue for or against any of the apocryphal texts: more erudite scholars than I are content to disagree; but a word of caution. Canonnization was as much concerned with a text's agreement with church doctrine at the time of the Council of Nicene as it was with authorship or divine inspiration.

Answer 4

I am an atheist, and that site helps cement my leaving Christianity, actually.

I think it is interesting how Christians view these books, or at least use them without knowing.

For example, ask any Christian and they will tell you that Paul and Peter both died in Rome. Or that many early Christians were martyrs.

Reading the normal bible, those claimed are utterly empty. However, since they LIKE those parts of the "missing books" they pluck them out, all while acknowledging that they are man-made fabrications.

In short, when it comest to these books most Christians want to have their cake and eat it to from an inspiration standpoint.

Personally, I think they show a diverse and fractured early Christianity. You have Marcions, Paulines, Essense, Jewish Christians, Gnostics, etc. They make it clear Christianity was not uniform early on, but rather a mismash of various thoughts (mostly of hellenic influence). I find them interesting from that standpoint.

Answer 5

There absolutely should be - after all, they were written around the same times as the remainder of the Bible was forged....uh, I mean "written with God's inspiration."

I encourage you to read up on Elaine Pagels, a Professor at Harvard (I beleive). Ive read some of her books on the subject, and it is very interesting to understnad the history behind why the Church had these works burnt, declared heretical and attempted to lose them forever - But if God really intended for that info to disappear, he did a rather crappy job, eh??

Diamond_Doll - they were not of different faiths - they were all beleivers of the same craptastic story, and they got together to make certain that nothing contradicting the stories made it into the Bible....and they still failed to get it right.

Answer 6

examine Deut 29:29. i think we've what we've of the Bible because is exactly what God meant us to have. We the two have not got the understanding to very own greater advantageous than we already have, or use something greater with the understanding we do have. God motives all issues, and that i'm constructive there's a reason we do not have those books. Be nicely.

Answer 7

There has always been storytellers, The collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine and inspired Scripture is often referred to as the Bible canon. Originally, the reed (Hebrew, qa•neh´) served as a measuring rod if a piece of wood was not at hand. The apostle Paul applied the Greek word ka•non´ to a “rule of conduct” as well as to the “territory” measured out as his assignment. (Gal. 6:16, footnote; 2 Cor. 10:13) So canonical books are those that are true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith, doctrine, and conduct. If we use books that are not “straight” as a plumb line, our “building” will not be true, and it will fail the test of the Master Surveyor.

Determining Canonicity. What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details. In addition to these basic essentials, there are other specific indications of inspiration, and therefore of canonicity, according to the nature of each book’s contents, and these have been discussed herein in the introductory material to each of the Bible books. Also, there are special circumstances that apply to the Hebrew Scriptures and others to the Christian Greek Scriptures that help in establishing the Bible canon.

Answer 8

The King James Version of the Bible as prophecied in Revelations 11 as produced according to prophecy in 1611 contained the Appocraphal books that were later removed. I believe these are benificial for teaching and should have been left in but there must be a reason for them having been allowed to be removed. The Jerusalem Bible and some other versions still contain these. The agnostic writings I do not, according to my research, believe were inspired writings. Love in Christ, ~J~ <><

Answer 9

Very insightful Kaka! =)

The Apocropha which contained letters written by people much later after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus are not devine. Everything written in the new testiment were by people who had a first hand account with Jesus and were supported by the rest of scripture. These letters written many years later would bebasically the same as you writing your thoughts about who Jesus is and wanting it included in the bible. They also make a lot of proclaimations that can be false. One of the books of the Apocrypha claims that Jesus, as a teenager, killed a bird in order to bring it back to life because he wanted to show off to his friends. But we see everywhere in scripture of Jesus' humility, his desire not to be the center of attention, him fading out from the crowd, telling people to keep his healings a secret as to not attract attention.

It also states in the Gospel of Judas that Jesus had told Judas to decieve him and that he wanted him to do this, basically encouraging him to be damned forever, That's ridiculous to think that Jesus would do that when he says that he would wish none to perish but all have eternal life.

There is always going to be someone saying that there is more but God is clear that what is in the Bible is there for a reason and what isn't there also has a reason. Most of the time, it tries to paint a different picture of Jesus in order to confuse those searching, such as the morman bible preaching a different gospel of a works based faith and the Jehovah Witness believing that Jesus was an angel and satan's brother, rather then God in flesh.

The devil is doing everything in his pwoer to confuse and dissuade people from trusting the validity of the scriptures we read. The bible is historically accurate and translated perfectly from it's original writings. I trust it with my soul and nothing else. I'll read the Quran, the Apocrypha, the Book of Morman, not for means of finding salvation, but just knowing what they are about but I feed on the bible and my soul takes refuge in the promises that have been kept for thousands upon thousands of years

I hope this helps, Good question and I applaud your inquestive heart rather then just accepting everything on face value.

Answer 10

Well, they were written a really long time ago. That's about all the legitimacy there is. Whether you want to believe in them is up to you. I think that believing in the intent is more important than believing in the word.