Are there any texts that you feel should have been included in the Bible, but weren't?

Question

The works of Aristotle or Plato, maybe?

Or anything else?

Why?

Answer 1

The book of Adam & Eve, it was considered but because Genesis means the beginning you can't have two of them. It tells of what Adam and Eve went through after being kicked out of the garden.

Answer 2

Yeah, the many gospels that the catholic church decided were too ridiculous to put into the bible. Like the one where Jesus was playing horrible tricks on ducks (seriously) and the dead sea scrolls. I find it funny that people say the bible is the word of God when everything in the bible was written, arranged and edited by man. I mean compare the Old Testament to the New. God was a pretty mean, spiteful deity in the Old and then he completely turned it all around and became this force of pure love in the New! The bible we read today is unbalanced and full of holes and contradictions. However I would not think that putting Aristotle and Plato's in the bible would be a good idea. That stuff is not really relevant to Christianity, it has it's roots in Physics and Philosophy. In fact Aristotle IS the root of physics!

Really though, the Bible is the Bible. That's the way it should stay and that's the way it's gonna stay.

Answer 3

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Apocryphon of James (also known as the Secret Book of James)
The Gospel of Truth
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Tripartite Tractate
The Apocryphon of John
The Gospel of Thomas a sayings gospel
The Gospel of Philip a sayings gospel
The Hypostasis of the Archons
On the Origin of the World
The Exegesis on the Soul
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Gospel of the Egyptians
Eugnostos the Blessed
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Dialogue of the Saviour
The Apocalypse of Paul
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Thunder, Perfect Mind
Authoritative Teaching
The Concept of Our Great Power
Republic by Plato - The original is not gnostic, but the Nag Hammadi library version is heavily modified with current gnostic concepts.
The Paraphrase of Shem
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
The Teachings of Silvanus
The Three Steles of Seth
Zostrianos
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Melchizedek
The Thought of Norea
The Testimony of truth
Marsanes
The Interpretation of Knowledge
A Valentinian Exposition, On the Anointing, On Baptism (A and B) and On the Eucharist (A and B)
Allogenes
Hypsiphrone
The Sentences of Sextus

These would be a good start.
And lots of surprises beyond these!

Many of these works have received renewed validation in recent years for example some older scriptures that were illegible that date to the first century have been matched to the Gospel of Thomas which may be the Q document.

The primary reason to discredit these documents is to preserve the fallacy of an incorruptible Catholic Church and to preserve the notion of an infallible document called the Bible that we've been encouraged to worship by principalities that benefit from such distraction from God.

♥Blessed Be♥
♥=∞

Answer 4

I think that maybe a few of Plato's "Dialogues" should have been included. Those writings offer diagrams for analytical, inquisitive thought, and are therefore the bases for the Socratic Method.

Okay, now that I have written that answer, I know why they weren't included.

Answer 5

Anybody that says that there should have been other books added to the Bible doesn't know the history of those books and the authors. Aristotle and Plato were not believers in God Jehovah nor did they know anything about Jehovah so their writtings in no way could be included. Other books such the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Acts of Paul were all proven to be forgeries of the 2nd century by the Gnostics and not actually written by the atually people that bear their name. I believe the books we have are the correct ones.

Answer 6

No, we got all the we need.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Yahshua Messiah.

And he was speaking about the "old testament" in that verse, part two of the holy Scriptures would not have been written and completed for another 200 or so years.

I just would that the Roman catholic church would have let part two continue on the same theme that part one (old testament) did, keep the laws of Yahweh unto salvation.

It was changed in order for them to get more coverts that would accept a no work salvation, this is deception.

In the law of the sacrifice, the lamb was only used for your past sins, and that was Yahshua's purpose, dying for our past sins.

There is no new way to salvation, Yahweh said to Cain that if you do righteousness, you will be accepted, and that still applies today regardless of the lies and twisted Scriptures in the King James version that tries to hid the fact that we are to keep the laws.

Answer 7

a lot of folks have claimed that certain texts should have been included but research has shown them, like those found in the Nag Hammadi, to be written so far after Jesus that they aren't true Gospels, just opinions or fantasies. Plato and Aristotle...what did they have to do with Jesus?

Answer 8

That makes no sense whatsoever. The Bible is complete. Plato wasn't a prophet of the true God, neither was Aristotle, they were "prophets" of themselves, their own wisdom -not God's.

The Bible is the Bible.

Answer 9

No, you and I are not qualified and I truly doubt that many in the Yahoo question family have the necessary credentials to determine if a work should be included in the holy scriptures. It was a long and difficult process that the gathers of the Bible went through, and I don't think it could be done any better today. You and I are just not qualified.

Answer 10

LOL...yeah, it would be an easy segue from Leviticus to Aristotle.

All of the books of the Bible have been more or less arbitrarily selected, by panels of theologians with their own axes to grind, from among hundreds of others that we now refer to as "apocrypha" - literally "hidden." The only reason for valuing the Canon over non-canonical texts is that you happen to subscribe to the orthodox form of the religion. From the point of view of scholarship, they're all equally "legitimate."