The books that never made it into the Bible.

[Celestine]

As I am taking it upon myself to study religion, I am currently reading the quran which will be followed by a book or two on hadiths. Of Course I mean to reread the new testament and the torah but I am also fairly interested in the books that NEVER made it into the bible. I am also reading a book on Buddhism to.

I know full well though as a lover of history, that people tend to change history to better suit their agenda. It was a technique used thousands of years ago and its a technique still used today. So that's why I have an interest in these 'hadiths' of Christianity. If you know of some I would dearly like to know of them as well.

If not simple speculation or opinions on these books would suffice.

[Lemonvariable72]

Well I havent do this myself, but I would recommend that you look into the Catholic bible.

[psychoslice]

If you just read what the religious organisations say, you will not get the truth, you have to do your own research in all area's, after all the organized religions will try to protect themselves as much as they can, even at the expense of telling lies.

[Celestine]

Well I havent do this myself, but I would recommend that you look into the Catholic bible.

I grew up as a Roman Catholic and that is the Bible I read, there are books that did not make it into the Catholic version, and I seek to find them and to see for myself what I consider to be historically accurate. I might also be changing my opinion on the existence of Jesus Christ as well, for years I have thought he never existed. Now I'm back to being agnostic about his existence. I should also look into Zoroastrianism while I'm at it, which I believe may have heavily influenced Christianity.

Alas as for the books there is two right now that really interest me, The Gospel of Thomas, and the Didache.

If you just read what the religious organisations say, you will not get the truth, you have to do your own research in all area's, after all the organized religions will try to protect themselves as much as they can, even at the expense of telling lies.

There is truth in every lie, and there is lie in every truth. This is history and I am extremely skeptical of history especially when concerning written history. If I had an interest in only what religious organizations had to say I would not be seeking then these books would I? Nor would I be seeking to learn about Zoroastrianism which has all but been forgotten.

[Michael B]

Celestine. Certainly Christians continued to write throughout the life of the Church. Some of those early writings, such as quite a few of the views of Origen, would later be considered heretical. A good introductory text is `Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers' edited by Andrew Louth. A decent book on the history of the church is also useful to put the debates (some of them quite ferocious) into context. Diarmaid McCulloch's brilliant 'A History of Christianity, the first three thousand years' is highly recommended. It's probably the most objective description of the development of the Church and explains in detail what the big debates were, what was the political context (both secular and ecclesial), who were the winners and losers, and what were the consequences. But be warned : it is years, if not a lifetime, of study to develop a decent understanding of the complex history of what we call Christianity.

The Nag Hammadi scriptures get a lot of attention, and should certainly be part of any survey of Christian (or pseudo-Christian, depending on perspective) writings. Remember though, that they probably mostly represent quite a niche view, rather than the widespread disputes (or 'heresies' some would say) of the writings of people like Nestorius or Pelagius (both of whom looked like they might represent the widespread future of Christianity for a while).

Beware those trying to peddle simple accounts, be they Christian or otherwise. There's an awful lot of rubbish on the internet, from Christians and non-Christians alike, so I'd recommend going to decent academic sources and books from reputable publishers much more than polemic and generally tendentious internet sites.

P.S. The Catholic bible has been mentioned, but remember that the Orthodox and Coptic canons are larger again. Checking out those additional books, originally mostly from from the Septuigint, might be a good place to start.

[psychoslice]

I think the so called bible and even the books that didn't make it, have been so meddled with of many years that there is little chance of ever knowing the truth, that is, if there is truth among them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Celestine, there are quite a few books that never made it into the Bible. You might start with a web search for 'Apocrypha', but that'll be a very incomplete list. Here are a few more that didn't pass muster:

-Touch Me In The Dark: A Memoir of Mary Magdalene.

-St. Willy's Epistle To His Squishy Bits.

-Judas II: This Time, It's Personal.

-Saul of Tarsus Gets Ahold Of Some Bad Grapes And The Hilarity That Ensues.

-The Gadarene Swine: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore.

-The Letters Of St. Episiotimus To The Professional Mimes Of Jerusalem.

I sincerely hope that this helps you on your historical/spiritual quest. Don't bother to thank me.

Boru

[Celestine]

Celestine. Certainly Christians continued to write throughout the life of the Church. Some of those early writings, such as quite a few of the views of Origen, would later be considered heretical. A good introductory text is `Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers' edited by Andrew Louth. A decent book on the history of the church is also useful to put the debates (some of them quite ferocious) into context. Diarmaid McCulloch's brilliant 'A History of Christianity, the first three thousand years' is highly recommended. It's probably the most objective description of the development of the Church and explains in detail what the big debates were, what was the political context (both secular and ecclesial), who were the winners and losers, and what were the consequences. But be warned : it is years, if not a lifetime, of study to develop a decent understanding of the complex history of what we call Christianity.

The Nag Hammadi scriptures get a lot of attention, and should certainly be part of any survey of Christian (or pseudo-Christian, depending on perspective) writings. Remember though, that they probably mostly represent quite a niche view, rather than the widespread disputes (or 'heresies' some would say) of the writings of people like Nestorius or Pelagius (both of whom looked like they might represent the widespread future of Christianity for a while).

Beware those trying to peddle simple accounts, be they Christian or otherwise. There's an awful lot of rubbish on the internet, from Christians and non-Christians alike, so I'd recommend going to decent academic sources and books from reputable publishers much more than polemic and generally tendentious internet sites.

P.S. The Catholic bible has been mentioned, but remember that the Orthodox and Coptic canons are larger again. Checking out those additional books, originally mostly from from the Septuigint, might be a good place to start.

Understand I don't wish to learn about the history of Christianity, I wish to learn about the teachings. Of which I am very skeptical of Paul. The teachings should be consistent.

In my humble opinion, the more heretical something is the more it deserves to be learned of.

[Minimalist]

Get hold of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It will help.

[Celestine]

Get hold of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It will help.

I might have to give that one a read.