Other books not in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter shee3380
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shee3380

Guest
Hi everyone, I’m a new comer (sp) and an awfull speller. Any way, at one of our GIFT ( Growning In Faith Together) classes this past season, the topic of other books that were not admited to the Bible came up and I was able to find Joseph (Father of Jesus) Letter or book if you like. I Can’t find it again. It was wonderfull reading. Does any one know of a link? Also St. Peter? I was warned to make sure it was an accepted Catholic site. (Father Jim our Priest). Thanks for any help

Shelley
 
Hi Shelley,

Yes, wonderful reading, like Sleeping Beauty and Puss 'n boots. They have no authority, no historical value and certainly no approval from the Church.

Verbum
 
shee3380 said:
Hi everyone, I’m a new comer (sp) and an awfull speller. Any way, at one of our GIFT ( Growning In Faith Together) classes this past season, the topic of other books that were not admited to the Bible came up and I was able to find Joseph (Father of Jesus) Letter or book if you like. I Can’t find it again. It was wonderfull reading. Does any one know of a link? Also St. Peter? I was warned to make sure it was an accepted Catholic site. (Father Jim our Priest). Thanks for any help

Shelley
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF Shelley. I think your best source on extracanonical writings would be the early church fathers, often referred to here as ECF;s

here is a reliable link:

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea1sb.asp

I am familiar with a spurious gospel attributed to St. Peter, but not with any supposedly from Joseph.

Happy searching!
 
Thanks Everyone.
I did more searching and found out that I was reading the “Infancy Gospel of James” I found it at Gospels.net. I am not sure if the site is aproved by the church. I will ask our Priest.
Our Priest did tell us that there were many book not accepted is in bible by the early Church Fathers for one reason or another. It’s only Natural that Many wrote about Our Lord.

According to the Gospel of Luke, “many” ancient writers endeavored "to draw up an account " of the activities of Jesus (1:1-4).

The reason the Books came into view was the fact that Mary’s Father and mother are NOT mentioned in the Bible so how do we know thier names??? Other resources the the Church uses, ie. “Q” ( not Star Trek :rolleyes: ) The Infancy Gospel of James etc. So I have done a little questioning and found out more wonderful things about the Catholic faith then I knew yesterday. Wow

God Bless

Shelley
PS I hope to learn more about the way forums works.
 
You have to wonder about people who automatically reach for other books which were rejected for inclusion in the Bible.

It raises the question of isn’t there enough in the Bible to keep them busy learning about God for at least one lifetime?
 
no, if it is not listed in the front of your Catholic bible, the book is has not been “approved” by the Church, that means, it is not in the “canon” which simply means, it is not on the list, it did not make the cut. fascinating past threads here on the topic of individual apocryphal books, on the alleged “Q” source (for which not a scintilla of evidence has ever emerged) and the process by which books were accepted into the canon (try the stickies at the top of the forum too, and relevant articles on the CA homepage). you are lucky to have found the grace of meeting Jesus in the scritpure and drinking deeply, and this will be a good place to discuss what you are encountering in your class

it is not “natural that Mary would write a book” since women in the first century by and large simply did not go around writing books, about their children or about anything else. what is very natural that, being a central part of the early Christian Church, she would have related her story to the witnesses chosen by God and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Gospels, Luke in particular.
 
hilarycotter said:
You have to wonder about people who automatically reach for other books which were rejected for inclusion in the Bible.

**What exactly do you wonder about them? **

It raises the question of isn’t there enough in the Bible to keep them busy learning about God for at least one lifetime?
Click to expand...
That’s a rather narrow way of looking at things
shee3380 said:
Thanks Everyone.
I did more searching and found out that I was reading the “Infancy Gospel of James” I found it at Gospels.net. I am not sure if the site is aproved by the church. I will ask our Priest.
Our Priest did tell us that there were many book not accepted is in bible by the early Church Fathers for one reason or another. It’s only Natural that Many wrote about Our Lord.

**I think the priest is right. Many writings are not cononical because they were thought to not be “inspired”. Mostly they were of a different tenor or spoke differently theologically than the canon we have today. There is no issue with their being approved for reading or not. All scholars of course study them as it helps in defining the bible better. They are of course not to be used as giving us “spiritual truths”. **

According to the Gospel of Luke, “many” ancient writers endeavored "to draw up an account " of the activities of Jesus (1:1-4).

**Many of these accounts are quite interesting. It shows us something of how people in those times competed for belief. The Gnostics were a well known example of a “type” of Christianity that was too different to be acceptable. Still, every fragment of information contributes to our understanding of those times which are the basis of our faith. **

The reason the Books came into view was the fact that Mary’s Father and mother are NOT mentioned in the Bible so how do we know thier names??? Other resources the the Church uses, ie. “Q” ( not Star Trek :rolleyes: ) The Infancy Gospel of James etc. So I have done a little questioning and found out more wonderful things about the Catholic faith then I knew yesterday. Wow
**I think you’'re a bit confused. Q is a possible “source” for parts of Matthew and Luke, but it has never been found, and some believe it never existed. Most scholars still believe in it. There are gospels of Mary Magdalen, Thomas, Judas, James that I have read. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were not more. They have value to scholars. They certainly aren’t prohibited reading, but I think it better to have a firm understanding of the bible itself before delving too deeply into other sources. I don’t mean to sound a warning, but they have to be read in a context that requires a certain basic understanding to be appreciated properly. **
God Bless

Shelley
PS I hope to learn more about the way forums works.
Click to expand...
 
I could equally argue that you have a narrow way of looking at things, but you threw that charge out first:)

Let me throw this charge out at you - My that is mighty judgmental of you! See it is judgmental of me to make a judgment of you. Likewise it is narrow of you to claim it is narrow of me to look on things like that.

How about stopping the name calling and come up with real arguments:) Of course if you want to indulge in name calling bring it on:)

The people who decided which books should form the Bible were closer to the events than we were. This closeness in proximity allowed them to interpret the Bible in the context it was written in. It is very difficult for us to do that 2000 years after the fact.

Secondly the people who decided which books should form the Bible did so infallibly - they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Just because a book is not considered canonical doesn’t mean it is not approved by the Church. It simply means it wasn’t inspired by God.

In the first century, one could look at the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians, as well as the Didache (probably 1st century, maybe 2nd) to see that there are wonderful books written back then which teach us much of the early church, that are accepted by the Church, even though they were rejected by the Canon councils.

I believe the Shepherd of Hermes is another profitable reading, and am sure there are numerous others.
 
hilarycotter said:
I could equally argue that you have a narrow way of looking at things, but you threw that charge out first:)

Let me throw this charge out at you - My that is mighty judgmental of you! See it is judgmental of me to make a judgment of you. Likewise it is narrow of you to claim it is narrow of me to look on things like that.

How about stopping the name calling and come up with real arguments:) Of course if you want to indulge in name calling bring it on:)

The people who decided which books should form the Bible were closer to the events than we were. This closeness in proximity allowed them to interpret the Bible in the context it was written in. It is very difficult for us to do that 2000 years after the fact.

Secondly the people who decided which books should form the Bible did so infallibly - they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
As a scripture teacher I can tell you that there is no “verboten” list. Look at the bibliography in the front of most commentaries and you’ll find listed many books not included in our bible. Why are they there?There is much info of a Sociological and Historical value-insights into the different ways people thought , felt and related to the emerging Christian community… When teaching about the Nativity Narratives-I used as an adjunct the Protoevangelium of James. A lot of the things we think are in the Bible come from these texts. They became part of our tradition even if the books were not considered sacred.Joachim and Anne are not in the Bible-Mary’s childhood- not in the Bible. Most of these tales act as a Midrash for the early church. A filling in of those annoying blanks-so to speak. The way you talk about these books is the same way Protestants Talk about the Deuterocanonicals. That they have no import- that the rest of the bible is enough etc. why they don’t seem to realize is that the concepts of the Resurrection of the Dead, the view of an afterlife- Judaism of the Time of Jesus grew out of theses books Both Deuter or not.That you should be soundly grounded in the Roman Catholic Canonical Bible first- I believe is a must…Once you’ve got a hold on these then the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha can be studied and seen for what they are (
 
What about the Gospel of Thomas? And the Gospel of Judas?

I assumed that the OP was referring to these books as some of the study groups I used to belong to seemed to consider these books as more authoritative than the actual gospels we find in the Bible today.
 
hilarycotter said:
What about the Gospel of Thomas? And the Gospel of Judas?

I assumed that the OP was referring to these books as some of the study groups I used to belong to seemed to consider these books as more authoritative than the actual gospels we find in the Bible today.
Click to expand...
read both of them- to me they are prime examples of why some books are NOT put into the Bible. They are interesting but only convincing to those not soundly grounded in the Lord or His Church.:eek:
 
Thanks for the reply JuliaMajor. I now understand your post. Next time I’ll try reading your post a few times before replying:(

Perhaps this is why SpiritMeadow was calling me “narrow”. If so I apologize SpiritMeadow.
 
hilarycotter said:
Thanks for the reply JuliaMajor. I now understand your post. Next time I’ll try reading your post a few times before replying:(

Perhaps this is why SpiritMeadow was calling me “narrow”. If so I apologize SpiritMeadow.
Click to expand...
Be at Peace!! GOD BLESS YOU!!😃
 
hilarycotter said:
I could equally argue that you have a narrow way of looking at things, but you threw that charge out first:)

Let me throw this charge out at you - My that is mighty judgmental of you! See it is judgmental of me to make a judgment of you. Likewise it is narrow of you to claim it is narrow of me to look on things like that.

How about stopping the name calling and come up with real arguments:) Of course if you want to indulge in name calling bring it on:)

The people who decided which books should form the Bible were closer to the events than we were. This closeness in proximity allowed them to interpret the Bible in the context it was written in. It is very difficult for us to do that 2000 years after the fact.

**The point is no one is arguing that these extra-canonical sources should be included in the bible. They are simply ancient texts like others found throughout the world. We read them because they are profitable for learning. **

Secondly the people who decided which books should form the Bible did so infallibly - they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I fail to see why that should limit my reading list? Are you suggesting that nothing is worth reading except the bible? Perhaps I’m missing something.
 
I am not trying to limit your reading list, what I was afraid you were advocating where books which are not consistent with the rest of the Church’s teachings.

Too often some of the circles I ran with would advocate all sorts of reading material which were contrary to Church teachings - like the Gospel of Thomas. They would neglect the Bible for these other sources, and considered these other sources to be the authoritative ones.

You are perfectly free to read whatever reading material suits your fancy:) While these documents misrepresent themselves and the true teachings of the church, I am sure they have considerable historical, literary, and scholastic value. My understanding is though, that they are works of fiction.
 
hilarycotter said:
I am not trying to limit your reading list, what I was afraid you were advocating where books which are not consistent with the rest of the Church’s teachings.

**okay. I understand you concern. Some of these texts are inconsistent, others are fairly consistent. **

Too often some of the circles I ran with would advocate all sorts of reading material which were contrary to Church teachings - like the Gospel of Thomas. They would neglect the Bible for these other sources, and considered these other sources to be the authoritative ones.

You are perfectly free to read whatever reading material suits your fancy:) While these documents misrepresent themselves and the true teachings of the church, I am sure they have considerable historical, literary, and scholastic value. My understanding is though, that they are works of fiction.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure the documents in question “misrepresent” themselves. They simply speak from their own perspective. In some cases this material seems different than scripture, especially when you get to some of the gnostic texts. They view God and Jesus differently, and as such are not suitable to be included in the canon. They are definitely not works of fiction. We have no evidence they were deliberately created to mislead or confuse anyone. They respresent the thinking of some people at that time, thinking that did not carry the day among believers.
 
(puzzleannie) I’m sorry, but Here’s what I wrote: " I am not sure if the site is approved by the church. I will ask our Priest".
I know the Letter was not admitted to the Bible.
Code: 
Our Priest told us to watch out for "misleading" sites .
(hilarycotter)
The question that was asked of my Priest was: " How do we know what Mary’s Mothers and Fathers Name were?" Answer: The Church (not Laypeople) uses other sources not found in the Bible.
I don’t have to wonder about the Church reading (using as sources) other books not found in the Bible do I? They not us are the athority.

(puzzleannie)
I never said, that Mary wrote a book.:eek:

Regarding “Q” Does anyone read the Gospel introduction pages in the New Testament? In the New American Bible; St. Joseph Edition:

Luke’s Gospel Intro; Second Paragraph from the end, It begins “Among the likely sources for the composition of this gosple (1,3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of saying of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers.”
In the Intro to Matthew; Again second paragraph from the end. It begins; " In addition to what Matthew drew from MK and Q, his Gospel…"
Code: 
 "Q" as explained to me, is from the German word Quelle, which means "source".
Thanks for challanging me I learned more about my faith and the people in this forum.

I hope you all learned something.

Don’t forget; The Greatest Commandment: Luke 10: 25-27

Bless

Shelley
 
Hi; I just want to remind to everyone that we need to guard our heart’s intentions when we begin disputing over these things. Scripture, about which we are apparently so passionate (I ponder whether there is passion being expressed out of zeal for His Truth or our own pride??), says specifically in a few places (including Titus 3:9) not to engage in verbal banter. True, if one *sincerely discerns *that one of the brethren is being misled in one way or another, it is his/her duty to speak up out of love, defending His Truth for the sake of His Name and the soul(s) of the brethren. Some of the things posted on this forum are very evidently posted out of personal pride and limited human reasoning…let us accept that God is and always will be beyond our understanding and have PRUDENT open minds to each others’ thoughts and words. Most of all, may everything said be out of LOVE for each other, pity instead of anger IF one perceives the enemy at work spreading lies, etc. etc. Look at things from a heavenly perspective (Philippians 4: 8-9), knowing that God loves the people with whom you’re discussing! Altogether, “speak the truth in LOVE.” (Ephesians 4:15).
Thank you, and indeed~ Peace be with you, brothers and sisters in our Awesome and Beautiful God!

PS Colossians 3:12-14 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top