The apocryphal gospels

[JonathanBentley]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics recieve them because I do. I've been reading the gospel of Nicodemus which mentions the dead that were raised at the cross were met by the high priest and when asked if they would tell the truth did the sign of the cross. There's other instances in the book where they use the sign of the cross. There's also an account of Jesus releasing the captive in hades of Abraham's bosom. And when they arrive in heaven they meet Elijah and Enoch who say they will be the two witnesses. Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people. What do you think? I highly recommend you buy the apocryphal gospels and give it a try.

 

[Magenta]

Historically, they were never counted as Scripture. None of the Apocryphal writers claim to be inspired by God. They were all written during a time (400 years) between the two testaments when it was acknowledged there were no prophets, and no direct revelation from God. The New Testament Jews never included them in any Jewish collection of Scriptures, so contrary to people believing that books have been removed from the Bible, the opposite is actually true: books have been added. The Apocrypha contains a great variety of errors – historical, geographical, chronological, and moral, and promotes doctrines which contradict the Bible. Without these apocryphal books, the Roman Catholic Church would have absolutely NO support for their doctrines of purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifices for the dead (indulgences was a significant reason for the reformation). The Gnostics held a totally different view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, of salvation, and of virtually every other major Christian doctrine, which is why Paul preached against them and their false teachings.

 

[JonathanBentley]

Historically, they were never counted as Scripture. None of the Apocryphal writers claim to be inspired by God. They were all written during a time (400 years) between the two testaments when it was acknowledged there were no prophets, and no direct revelation from God. The New Testament Jews never included them in any Jewish collection of Scriptures, so contrary to people believing that books have been removed from the Bible, the opposite is actually true: books have been added. The Apocrypha contains a great variety of errors – historical, geographical, chronological, and moral, and promotes doctrines which contradict the Bible. Without these apocryphal books, the Roman Catholic Church would have absolutely NO support for their doctrines of purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifices for the dead (indulgences was a significant reason for the reformation). The Gnostics held a totally different view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, of salvation, and of virtually every other major Christian doctrine, which is why Paul preached against them and their false teachings.

I wasn't referring to the apocrypha but to the other gospel accounts of Christ. It's a good read.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics recieve them because I do. I've been reading the gospel of Nicodemus which mentions the dead that were raised at the cross were met by the high priest and when asked if they would tell the truth did the sign of the cross. There's other instances in the book where they use the sign of the cross. There's also an account of Jesus releasing the captive in hades of Abraham's bosom. And when they arrive in heaven they meet Elijah and Enoch who say they will be the two witnesses. Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people. What do you think? I highly recommend you buy the apocryphal gospels and give it a try.

The Bible doesn't include those other books for a number of reasons. I'm not saying to not read them. My friend, I just would not put faith in them as the inspired Word of God. When I pick up and read the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John, I could never compare them to the "gospel of Judas" or whatever others to touch my heart or instruct in doctrine. When the churches received a book or epistle from one of the apostles, doesn't it make sense that they would have scribes ready to make copies right away? As they passed them along to sister churches in other cities, they accumulated them and considered them precious. A Catholic council did have a conference that you mentioned. This is true. However, there were plenty of churches prior to that who were autonomous independent and collected the copies from other churches of like faith.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics receive them because I do.

No the Catholics do not receive them and neither should you. These are all heretical Gnostic writings and have been rejected by Christians. They contain a lot of nonsense.

The Catholics include non-canonical books in their bibles. They call them "deuterocanonical" or a second canon, but they were never accepted by the Hebrews. Those books are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Additions to Esther, and Additions to Daniel.

 

[williamjordan]

I wasn't referring to the apocrypha but to the other gospel accounts of Christ. It's a good read.

I was just about to say that, but you took the words right out of my mouth. You are referring to the "lost gospels." To answer your question (of which Nehemiah already answered): No, the Catholics do not receive them. They are gnostic in character. If you want a good idea of what early Christians believed about the contents of the "lost gospels," then you should try reading the Early Church Fathers, such as Ireneaus (who wrote heavily against gnosticsism). Also, Tertullian is another who wrote against gnosticism. Further, there is no evidence that the“lost gospels” were ever in the Bible to begin with. There is no textual data available that would support that. What evidence can one offer that suggests that the “lost gospels” were even widespread, and well attested (geophraphically) throughout the Christian world?

One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. And it is this concept I believe can be borrowed to illustrate which books were the more “commonly accepted” throughout the Christian world — and may I even suggest, the more “commonly accepted” in a given era.

Take for example, the letter of 1 Corinthians. This letter is attested in quite a number of manuscripts throughout the Christian world (in whole or in part) from the 2nd c. onward and was being translated into other languages as early as the 3rd c. Already by the 3rd c., this letter managed to make its way throughout the entire Christian world. p46 is an mss from the late 2nd or early 3rd c. period and is characteristic of the Alexandrian text-type. p15 is also an mss from the 3rd c. period and is characterisitic of the Alexandrian text-type. p129 is another mss, and has been dated to the mid to late 2nd century; it is a relatively new archeological discovery and information on it is limited. p123 is from the 4th c. and is likely representative of the Alexandrian text-type. The letter is found in a number of majuscules (from Alexdandrian, Byzantine, and Western traditions), including א, A, B, C, D, F, G, P, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). The “lost gospels” do not have this sort of attestation; thus, they were not as widely circulated among the Christian community.

p46, for example, is a 2nd c. collation of the Pauline letters, and it doesn't contain any book outside of what we have in the Canon today. On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas (one of the “lost gospels”) is attested only in a single Coptic mss out of Egypt. If it had the prominence that books such as 1 Corinthians had, it would have been recopied by scribes from other locales and would have been broadly distributed and redistributed by Christians.

Marcion, an early gnostic, rejected the OT, and advanced eleven of the books of the NT that he found suitable: portions of the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul’s letters, plus a supposed letter from Paul to the Alexandrians—the Marcion Canon.

It’s interesting to look back at history and see heretical figures such as Marcion confirming portions of the established NT. But what’s even more thought provoking is the fact that he doesn’t acknowledge any other books outside those I’ve mentioned — including the Book of Thomas.

 

[ResidentAlien]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics recieve them because I do. I've been reading the gospel of Nicodemus which mentions the dead that were raised at the cross were met by the high priest and when asked if they would tell the truth did the sign of the cross. There's other instances in the book where they use the sign of the cross. There's also an account of Jesus releasing the captive in hades of Abraham's bosom. And when they arrive in heaven they meet Elijah and Enoch who say they will be the two witnesses. Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people. What do you think? I highly recommend you buy the apocryphal gospels and give it a try.

The extra-Biblical "gospels" I've read are a joke compared to the real gospels.

 

[Inquisitor]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics recieve them because I do. I've been reading the gospel of Nicodemus which mentions the dead that were raised at the cross were met by the high priest and when asked if they would tell the truth did the sign of the cross. There's other instances in the book where they use the sign of the cross. There's also an account of Jesus releasing the captive in hades of Abraham's bosom. And when they arrive in heaven they meet Elijah and Enoch who say they will be the two witnesses. Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people. What do you think? I highly recommend you buy the apocryphal gospels and give it a try.

The New Testament Canon was put together much earlier than 1400 AD.

From the end of the Apostolic Age, there has been a general consensus among the churches that there were 27 books in the New Testament. This is demonstrated conclusively in several ways. When Church Councils of the fourth century gave their lists of New Testament canons; they affirm that these were the same 27 books that were accepted as canonical from the time of their church fathers at the inception of their church, namely the first century bishops. For example the Council of Carthage in 397 CE stated that the church received from its "fathers" the books which should be received as scripture. (wikipedia.New Testament canon)

 

[JohnDB]

The Early Church had a fairly complete New Testament by 100AD.
Codex Siainiticus is proof.

The last New Testament letter was the book of Jude. Because the holders of the letter were remote in location and were isolated.

The Gospel of Mary concerning Jesus's childhood is a hilarious piece of fiction.

The writing style is obvious and a complete work of fiction....same with Thomas and others. The writing styles and grammar matter. Because it is obvious that the cost of paper and ink had gone down drastically and had been cheaper for an extended time when these things were written.

Scripture is always very very concentrated as a form of writing. Then there's always the intent and period context and focus.

Then there's the matter of purpose. None of these extra biblical writings has a purpose. They are not even up to the level of talmud.

Blurry Creatures podcast has more insights than these fictional books.

And it's all about what you want to hear instead of what you need to hear.
Focus on scripture....real scriptures. There's plenty there to understand. More than enough for most people.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

More than enough for most people.

Excellent! After 44 years I have barely "scratched The Surface Of The Infinite!"

 

[maxwel]

Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people.

Historical Problems:
1. Your late date of 1400 for the canon isn't accepted by Protestants or Catholics.
2. The "Apocryphal Gospels" aren't accepted by Protestants or Catholics.
3. These ideas are principally found in WORKS OF FICTION, like the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown... which is a WORK OF FICTION, and which NO HISTORICAL SCHOLARS SUPPORT.

What historians actually find are:
A.) Early church fathers using specific books, and writing about them, and naming specific books as inspired, very early.
B.) Surviving lists, of books considered canon, going all the way back to the 2nd century, from such important figures as
Athanasius, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and the Muratorian Fragment, among others.



Historical Record:
1.) Historically we have records of the early church fathers, at very early dates, using specific books, and calling them scripture... showing us the books that were considered canonical, and which were being USED by the early church.
2.) Later, but still very early (from the 2nd to 4th century) we have surviving lists, where inspired books were actually written down into canonical lists.
3.) Around this same time we see church fathers, like Eusebius, mentioning known apocryphal books, and calling them out by name as being spurious. Many of the non-canonical books were known very early, and were specifically called out as such by name, by the church fathers.



Conclusion:
1.) Canon:
- The protestant view, is that the canon came not by arbitrary decree, but by consensus.
- The historical record shows consensus, of the holy spirit moving in early Christians, to accept as inspired, and to use in religious practice, certain books over others. These books were soon put into lists. Those lists became the canon of scripture.
- The Catholic View is similar, but with the canon being finally settled by Papal authorities by the 6th Century.
2.) Canonical Date of 1400:
- Even if we want to debate the canon, which is perfectly rational to do, we simply don't have it coming together arbitrarily in 1400.
- No scholars would agree to this, and even Protestants and Catholics are in agreement here.
3.) Late Canon & Fiction:
- The ideas of a LATE and ARBITRARY CANON, and of an "APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL" with SECRET TRUTHS... are ideas from gnostics and fiction writers like Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code), not from the work of genuine New Testament scholars and historians.
.
.

 

[JaumeJ]

Historical Problems:
1. Your late date of 1400 for the canon isn't accepted by Protestants or Catholics.
2. The "Apocryphal Gospels" aren't accepted by Protestants or Catholics.
3. These ideas are principally found in WORKS OF FICTION, like the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown... which is a WORK OF FICTION, and which NO HISTORICAL SCHOLARS SUPPORT.

What historians actually find are:
A.) Early church fathers using specific books, and writing about them, and naming specific books as inspired, very early.
B.) Surviving lists, of books considered canon, going all the way back to the 2nd century, from such important figures as
Athanasius, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and the Muratorian Fragment, among others.



Historical Record:
1.) Historically we have records of the early church fathers, at very early dates, using specific books, and calling them scripture... showing us the books that were considered canonical, and which were being USED by the early church.
2.) Later, but still very early (from the 2nd to 4th century) we have surviving lists, where inspired books were actually written down into canonical lists.
3.) Around this same time we see church fathers, like Eusebius, mentioning known apocryphal books, and calling them out by name as being spurious. Many of the non-canonical books were known very early, and were specifically called out as such by name, by the church fathers.



Conclusion:
1.) Canon:
- The protestant view, is that the canon came not by arbitrary decree, but by consensus.
- The historical record shows consensus, of the holy spirit moving in early Christians, to accept as inspired, and to use in religious practice, certain books over others. These books were soon put into lists. Those lists became the canon of scripture.
- The Catholic View is similar, but with the canon being finally settled by Papal authorities by the 6th Century.
2.) Canonical Date of 1400:
- Even if we want to debate the canon, which is perfectly rational to do, we simply don't have it coming together arbitrarily in 1400.
- No scholars would agree to this, and even Protestants and Catholics are in agreement here.
3.) Late Canon & Fiction:
- The ideas of a LATE and ARBITRARY CANON, and of an "APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL" with SECRET TRUTHS... are ideas from gnostics and fiction writers like Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code), not from the work of genuine New Testament scholars and historians.
.
.

Thanks......... God bless you.

 

[maxwel]

NOTE:

The post by WilliamJordan, post #6, is very good.

Everyone should read it.


.

 

[tourist]

NOTE:

The post by WilliamJordan, post #6, is very good.

Everyone should read it.


.

I will give it a glimpse for sure.

 

[Edify]

If it was found, I would read Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans' and the books of the kings spoken about in the OT.
CAREFULLY.
I seem to remember another book listed in the NT but I can't remember what it's called.

 

[Edify]

From Wikipedia:
A third epistle to Corinth, written in between 1 and 2 Corinthians, also called the Severe Letter, referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9. An earlier epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4. A possible Pauline Epistle to the Laodiceans, referenced at Colossians 4:16.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

They're nice to read to have a broader view of what else is happening.

None of us here today can say no, no one saw Elijah or Enoch nor were people making the sign of the cross with fingers or drawing a cross in the air in front of you.

But it's interesting information because even John said in his Gospel if he wrote down everything.. that none of the libraries would ever be able to house them.

So this different information could be true, at least most of it.

 

[Lifted_by_the_word]

I have Enoch,Jubilees,and Jasher.Only got to read a few chapters of Enoch.

 

[Karlon]

So I'm reading the apocryphal gospels from a book on Google. Do the Catholics recieve them because I do. I've been reading the gospel of Nicodemus which mentions the dead that were raised at the cross were met by the high priest and when asked if they would tell the truth did the sign of the cross. There's other instances in the book where they use the sign of the cross. There's also an account of Jesus releasing the captive in hades of Abraham's bosom. And when they arrive in heaven they meet Elijah and Enoch who say they will be the two witnesses. Now the Bible wasn't put together until like 1400 so a lot of these books used to be scriptures to people. What do you think? I highly recommend you buy the apocryphal gospels and give it a try.[/QUOTE The Apocryphal books are not in the Bible because men wrote them. They are not Holy Spirit inspired. God's Holy Spirit authored the Bible. The "canon" is the standard for determining what books belong in scripture because the books in scripture were considered inspired, showed evidence of the apostles work, were used by the H.S. & gave evidence of revelation. The canon didn't make the books become scripture, they were scripture the moment they were written!

 

[soberxp]

Obviously Catholicism or Christianity takes its own understanding as authority and sends the wrong message. Someone answer me a simple question:Whether Christ has the authority to release sinners from HelloKitty?