Posted on 11/23/2005 7:17:03 AM PST by truthfinder9
God is always in control and knows EXACTLY what He is doing. Had He wanted these "lost books" to be a part of the Bible - they would have been part of the Bible as we know it today.
I totally agree.
They weren't lost to God. He knew where they were and made sure they stayed put.
**Any Lost Books of the Bible?**
Yes, do you know what they are?
A coincidental Vernon Meyer - Gospel of Thomas - ping. .....hmmm.
Any Lost Books of the Bible?
It depends on if you are a Catholic or a Protestant. Did God hide books from the Protestants or did the Protestants lose them? If the argument is that God doesn't make mistakes, then the Catholic Bible must be God's preferred version as its the older of the two.
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm
"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."
LOL!
For once, I agree with you.
Regards
In reality the Catholics and Orthodox churches don't pay much attention to these extra books. Some Protestant churches include them in their Bible for "good reading."
Inplicit in the validity of the lost Q Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas is the notion that God is not perfection and He doesn't think things through, loses things and isn't very good at proofing or bookbinding.
The thread that binds every DavInci Kook or Gnostic groupie is UNbelief.
"The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint.
Yet, the Septuagent found in the 1840's, used today as the basis of the RSV and other translations, had THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS in them. I don't see a shepherd of Hermas in today's Catholic versions.
It is good that you try to follow the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies this closely. Your statement however is not true, at least as far as the Catholics are concerned. I follow the daily mass readings and Old Testament readings from Wisdom, Sirach and the Maccabees are very common. We did a good part of the martyrdom of the Maccabees just a week ago.
November 14, 2005
November 15, 2005
November 16, 2005
November 17, 2005
November 18, 2005
November 19, 2005
The books usually regarded as Lost by some are those writings contemporary to the accepted Gospels and Epistles, such as the Gospel of Mary.
Sorry I posted too soon. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that there are no lost books of the New Testament.
I have never thought of the Apocrypha as the so-called lost books, being as they are not lost, just not included in the various canons of the Bible.
I understood the lost books were those referenced in other scriptures in such a way that the writer evidently accepts them as scripture but those books are no longer in the Bible (or maybe just renamed). Such references are in Numbers 21:14 (Wars of the Lord), Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18 (Book of Jasher), 1 Kings 11:41 (Book of the Acts of Solomon), 1 Chronicles 29:29 (Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Gad the Seer, and Book of Nathan the Prophet), 2 Chronicles 9:29 (another reference to Book of Nathan, Book of Prophecies of Ahijah, Book of Visions of Iddo the Seer). There are more references to the Book of Shemaiah, Book of Jehu, Sayings of the Seers, all in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 5:9 alludes to an earlier epistle of Paul, same as Ephesians 3:3, which indicates an earlier epistle to that church, and Colossians 4:16, another earlier epistle to the Laodicea Church. Jude referred to prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14). Then there are references in Matthew, for example, where he notes the prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23) but there is no such prophecy in the Bible. (However, some have speculated that the term Nazarene is mistranslated here from a term for the Root of Jesse [Netzer], the same source of the word Nazareth and Nazarene.)
This doesn't mean that the Lord intended these books to be part of the present-day canon. It just means that the writers of our Bible had other records which they accepted as scripture and/or history and we no longer have these books available to us. To that end, they are lost books but it can't be proved that they are "lost books of the Bible".
Check your FRmail.
Most of the so called "lost books" are new age type writings that in my opinion have nothing to do with the Bible. I have read some of them, and it is not the same spirit.
huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.