Search the Community

I have always been interested in how and who compiled the Holy Bible into the book we have today. After doing some research I wanted to hear from the biblical scholars here on Worthy to get more insight as to whether or not reading the Books and Writings that were studied in the past is today, worthy of much time. I do understand there are many different bible versions and many of "lost" books are included in all but the Protestant versions. I have been a non-denominational believer for over 40 years so I am always leaning on the Holy Spirit to teach me. 1) Are there some things the Father would like to reveal from these writings in modern times that were available to the believer in ancient times? 2) Why is it that what was considered inspired scripture for people in ancient times was no longer considered scripture by men at various times in the past and removed from the OT and the NT? 3) Why should or shouldn't Christians read/study these ancient scriptures and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal God's inspired word for us today? In the Jewish times of Jesus there was the Book of the Law (Torah - 5 books), the Book of the Prophets (Former Prophets 4 volumes, Latter Prophets 3 volumes, the Twelve Minor Prophets 1 book), and the third part was the "Writings" (7 poetic books and 2 other volumes). There were a total of 24 volumes in the Hebrew Old Testament in Jesus' time, then later, during Greek translation, some of the volumes were divided to make a total of 39 separate books. It seems like there were a lot of "writings" that were studied and sometimes quoted in ancient Jewish synagogues but were not considered God given inspired scripture according to the final councils. In the 4th century men decided which books would be included in the New Testament. In 367 Athanasius of Alexandria decided to remove the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement from the New Testament writings leaving a total of the 27 NT books we have today. I found this quote to explain the reasoning of the time: "Their eventual exclusion was not because they were regarded as heretical, but because they either lacked apostolic authorship or were thought to be too shallow in spiritual content." I know there is a lot of historical information about who, what, and why. I probably do not know all of the main facts and I do not always agree with many of the decisions of mankind and often wonder what is at the root of the issue. I guess my main reason for asking for comments and advice is that in the past there were numerous scriptures studied, inspired words of our Father, Creator, God heard by the hearts and souls of thousands of ancients believers which are no longer put into the minds and hearts of modern believers for the Holy Spirit to reveal. 4) Do we need to seek the Lord and His wisdom in these ancient and forgotten words? Thank you to all who respond!! Edited by Omegaman 3.0 Title altered and authors request!

They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them. They were never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermapocryphal events. Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them. Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them. None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority. Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God. Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic. They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors.... ...It appears they were ultimately accepted at Trent, because without doing so, the Catholic Church had no scripture upon which to base the doctrine of purgatory, invocation and intercession of the saints, the worship of angels, the redemption of souls after death, etc. In fact, if you'll look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find discussion of "problems" or "errors" with most of the apocryphal books. Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10). Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 state that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority. They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine. Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labeled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical. 1. Sirach 3:3-“He who honors his father atones for sins:” Galatians 2:16,21-“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 3:11-“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” 2. Tobit 12:8,9-“Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than store up gold for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates sin.” I John 1:7-“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Hebrews 9:22-“And almost all things are by the law purged by blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

The 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism. They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them. Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them. Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events. None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority. Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God. Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic. They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God.ons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included - Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 state that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha. - Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception. Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning? It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. Catholics mearly defined what THEY would use as Scripture, NOT what Scripture WAS.