why didn't the church put all the books in the bible?missing 5?

Question

five of the books were never put in.why?it seems to me someone or group had an opinion.shouldn't all the books of the bible be included?was it our decision on what books?should we have had that right?

Answer 1

There were several books that were excluded from the canon because they did not reflect the theological stances at the time of the canon decisions, and/or their authorship was in such dispute that they were determined not to merit inclusion.

Early Christianity had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint. The New Testament refers to the "Law and Prophets", for example the Gospel of Luke 24:44-45 records Jesus stating: "written. . .in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. . .the Scriptures" and Acts of the Apostles 24:14 records Paul of Tarsus stating: "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets". The earliest Christian canon is found in the Bryennios manuscript, published by J.-P. Audet in JTS [4] 1950, v1, pp 135-154, dated to around 100, written in Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew; it is this 27-book Old Testament list: "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel" (2 of Esdras might include 1 Esdras; Esther, Jeremiah and Daniel might include their Septuagint additions; Jesus Nave[5] is an early translation of Joshua son of Nun). Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125).

Eusebius, around the year 300, recorded a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."

"3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books"

"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style."

Answer 2

At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.

Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, but it was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

Answer 3

Why does understanding/not understanding the author replace the credibility? both way you're affirming "believe this because someone wrot it a lengthy time period in the past." The Bible replaced into assembled interior the 4th century CE. The Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) were established to be the artwork of Moses on the time and for hundreds of years later on. I also comprehend that a minimum of with techniques from the Rennaissance (sixteenth century) Christians nonetheless believed that those books were written with techniques from Moses. i ought to wager that some Jews, extremely Orthodox ones, proceed to believe those books were written with techniques from Moses right now, on the grounds that they nonetheless also carry that the international is 6000 years previous.

Answer 4

There are many books of the Bible that are considered by some to not be divinely inspired. 15 of these are included in what are known as the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal works. These are most commonly seen in the Catholic Bible, such as the New American Version. The following website can give you more information.

Answer 5

Ask the catholics! They have been hiding these books of the bible for many years. Actually, I think they probably forgot where they hid them because of having a bit too much wine one night.

Answer 6

There were far more than five. The books that went into the Bible were chosen by the Council of Nicea. Read some history. And try earlychristianwriting.com. Have fun!

Answer 7

They could not possibly include all the books that were written. Many of them were excluded because they indicated that women were equal to men and should be just as prominent in the church. The main one that comes to mind (for me) is The Gospel Of Mary. Men. over the centuries have had a deep rooted desire to control everything, especially women. I would like to know just who decides what is divinely inspired and what is not! I am not qualified. are you?

Answer 8

Those were never part of the Bible. They were just books or actually letters.

Answer 9

There are a lot more than five, there are -HUNDREDS- of books not in the BIble. They're not there, because they're not Cana. Many of them were stories of healings and geneology. The Early Church wanted to put in only what pertained to -HOW- to live your life, not a collection of stories. They kept it more simply this way. There are many books not put in, the Apocrypha, Psuedominuous, Psuedopigrapha, and you could consider the Gnostic Gospels. For the other person, the time between Jesus's childhood till he started ministering wasn't as important. Much of it wasn't recorded as heavily as when He started His ministry. Once He began teaching, that's what the Early Church wanted to get out to people, not stories of his childhood. Seek knowledge.

Answer 10

Check out the link for the time line.

From what I've heard there were some pretty outlandish stories, knights slaying dragons and what-not. The Catholic church took out anything that was too unbeliveable or allowed for women to be in a position of respect.