Whats up with religion and the lost books of the bible...???

Question

So out of the books of the bible, there were tons left out...why is this? Was it so that the priests could make the "Christian" faith more tuned to worshiping Jesus or was it because the Gnostic sect not adhere to there way of thinking??? Why were the books left out by Mary, Judas and others??? There are tons of questions i have but lately this one has bothered me... Who's to say that Jesus wasn't just a good public speaker, prying on the weak minded and spreading what would be considered now a day as good manners...I mean sure the 10 commandments are a good start but come on its all just common sense!!!

Thanks for your answers...this may help me a lot...

Answer 1

The current 66 books of the Bible are not the same of the scriptures of the early church. The scriptures used by Jesus and the early church was the Septuagint or the LXX (the greek translation of the Old Testament). This contained the current OT plus the books now known as the OT Apocrypha (which means "hidden"). They were included in ALL translations of the Bible including Jerome's Vulgate (about A.D. 400) and the 1611 version of the King James Bible until around 1629. It wasn't until 1827 that the British and American Bible Societies banned the OT Apocrypha from new translations.
I have read these books and some are fictious and are just stories that teach virtues, then there are books of wisdom which have some very good precepts. They should be included in the Bible, even the fictious ones (Job in the current OT is considered a work of fiction by some rabbinical scholars see Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII, Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a).

As for the NT, there was much debate over the canon. Contrary to popular belief, the NT was never "officially" canonized at either the first (325) or second (787) Council of Nicaea. In fact, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council (1545).

There was much debate among the early church as to what works since Jesus was to be considered scriptual. Eusebius, around the year 325, recorded this New Testament canon:[27]

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 [Antilegomena], 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.

As far as the Gnostic books, they were never accepted by the early church and were considered pure fiction. They contradict Jesus' teachings and seem heretic at times. Of course, that is for you to decide. Nevertheless, they are excluded from the modern canon.
There was much debate over the NT canon and some of the books now accepted were not included and were disputed for many years. Essentially it came down to whether or not these books reflected the teachings of Jesus and early christendom. Some wer considered heretic and some fiction and others scriptual. It was reall done by an imperfect system, but nonetheless, we have what we have. So I encourage you to read some of these other omitted books for some have great truths in them.

Answer 2

Some of the excluded "gospels" were very childish, more like pious adventure stories. Others were obvious fabrications designed to fill gaps in the historical record. A few were apocalyptic and mysterious and it was felt one of those was enough.

The Gnostic gospels took Christianity in a different direction than the orthodox strain, stressing personal "development" (rather than loving service in the community), the intolerable "corruptness" of the material world, and a complex theology of demi-gods and hidden "truths". It had some positive elements, but ultimately it was a spiritual dead end, stressing that the ultimate answers were ever deeper within, without being able to show what they were. It might have had a chance but an organized community of believers has more endurance than a cluster of isolated individuals.

The status of only a few books were ever debated by Christian theologians and leaders. Apparent authorship was a consideration, but more important was the sense that a book contributed to the practice and understanding of the faith, and wasn't just a book of trivia.

Answer 3

There are no lost books of the Bible.

There were many documents in the early Church that the Church leaders determined were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore were not included in the Bible.

One example is the gospel of Judas which was written about 180 C.E. However it was written by a group of heretics called Gnostics who believed that Jesus was only a man and not God.

Catholics of both of that time and now do not believe it is true or inspired by God.

This is clearly shown when Catholics selected which gospels and other writings should be included in the New Testament, the gospel of Judas was not included.

With love in Christ.

Answer 4

The Holy Spirit over a period of Centuries lead the Catholic Church to determine, through long venerable usage of the scriptures in the Liturgy, which books were real works of the Holy Spirit and which were not.
Can there be lost books that were inspired? Possibly, but the "venerable usage" really makes not likely. If they were lost, then they were not used, and if they were not used, how can the be the work of the Holy Spirit?

Answer 5

The problem with Gnostic Gospels is #1 - the dating and #2 - they completely contradict the eyewitness accounts of Christ.

The early church was actually using the books we find in the modern Bible up to the time of the Council of Nicea.

Answer 6

They were left out because they aren't harmonious with the corrupted version of the scriptures that were edited to fit the needs of the government at that time which needed a vice to control the people. The scriptures that were left out were too radical putting the power in the hands of the people telling them that they have are more then what they are in this world and they are greater then this world.

It's all to keep man complacent and not active towards internal self progression, keep them out of the loop of true education, but keep them dumb.

There are no such thing as an eyewitness account the scriptures aren't literal, none of them are and to read them as literal history completely negates the purpose of them.

Answer 7

I think if you look up the Council of Nicaea you might find something there. I want to believe they did it to try to narrow down the many different ideas that had developed after the crucifixion.

Answer 8

The 66 books of the Bible we use today are the same 66 books used in the early church. The books you may be speaking of were never ever part of scripture.