Does the Bible contain all the word of God? Most Christians believe so.
This is because they are taught there is no other word of God outside the Bible. If there were, it would be in the Bible. That’s what they believe.
There is no proof of that assertion, yet, that is what they believe. They do not investigate the matter any further.
On the other hand, there are those who believe the Bible itself infers or directly mentions other books of importance that are not included in the Bible. They have, for the most part, never been found, if they still exist. A few are familiar to many but most are not.
Here’s the thing: I would never put a limit on God regarding how much of his word he has given and whether or not we possess it all.
One cannot assume that God has never spoken another word outside of what the Catholic Church decided to include in the Bible. Those who do impose such a limit on God, I believe, are walking on thin ice.
We don’t want to put limits on God! Otherwise, we have created a god after our own image, instead of the reverse.
Think about it. Does man have the right to impose upon God limitations of any kind? I don’t believe he does. Do you?
Possible New Scripture?
Since 1945, new and exciting ancient books of purported scripture have been found and translated. Some are duplicates of what are contained in the Bible; most are not.
The first library of scriptural “books” were found in Egypt some 67 years ago. According to Wikipedia (take that for what it’s worth),
The Nag Hammadi library is a collection of early Christian Gnostic texts discovered near the Upper Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945. That year, twelve leather-bound papyrus codices buried in a sealed jar were found by a local peasant named Mohammed Ali Samman. The writings in these codices comprised fifty-two mostly Gnostic treatises, but they also include three works belonging to the Corpus Hermeticum and a partial translation/alteration of Plato’s Republic. In his ‘Introduction’ to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby Pachomian monastery, and were buried after Bishop Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD.
I believe most of these books are spurious and are not to be considered authentic scripture. Yet, I also believe they are worth reading for historical purposes. In addition, I believe many truths are contained in these books, yet one must read them with discernment and discretion to ferret them out.
Next, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. Again, according to Wikipedia:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, from which they derive their name. They were specifically located at Khirbet Qumran in the British Mandate for Palestine, in what is now known as the West Bank.
I believe these books to be authentic and scriptural. The Book of Isaiah contained therein is almost a duplicate of what we have today.
Last, we have the seventy lead books recently found in Jordan, which I tend to believe are authentic. Interestingly, most of them are sealed. They are actual ring-bound books that include engraved pictures of the days of Christ or shortly thereafter.
According to David Elkington, who has been involved with the lead books from the beginning, I believe, said in a December 17, 2011 interview on the Coast to Coast AM radio show: “There have been accusations that these things are fake. But I can confirm that, in fact, numerous rounds of tests at eight different institutions have now confirmed that they are, indeed, authentic.”
Yet, others continue to maintain they are frauds. However, they are not those who have actually worked with the books, according to what I have heard with my own ears, again, through interviews on the Coast to Coast AM radio show.
Some believe these lead books were hidden by the group that James, the brother of Jesus, led out of Jerusalem before its fall. The books were then hidden away when it looked as if their days were numbered. The books are written in an obscure language that only a handful of people today know how to translate.
Some believe many of the books from Nag Hammadi are authentic and it may be so. I do not discount it. However, I believe most are not, having been written by the gnostics, a breakaway Christian sect that delved into mysticism.
Even so, taking what few books may be authentic from Nag Hammadi, along with the scrolls found at Qumran, and the lead books found in Jordan, there are likely many more pages contained in these books than there are in the entire Bible!
And that’s not even counting the Apocrypha, which most of the modern-day Bibles do not include. To me, the Apocryphal books generally have a ring of truth to them.
Yet, many, if not most Christians, will not even look at other books outside of the Bible. That’s to their detriment, in my opinion.
Which Nag Hammadi books do you consider authentic? I haven’t looked into them much.
At this point, and I haven’t read the Nag Hammadi books in a long time, but I do believe the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas are authentic. I have looked at a number of Gospel of Philip translations and have determined that almost all of them have certain subjects “translated” according to their traditions, rather than what’s actually in them. I discussed this and which one I believe is the most authentic translation and why later on in this series. As far as the Gospel of Thomas is concerned, it is a bit cryptic in places, but Jesus taught the apostles many things that he didn’t teach regular believers. This book is a bunch of sayings, rather than a “gospel”, that is, a chronology, or even a letter, such as Paul wrote, for that matter. I believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic, although many of the translations suffer from, again, tradition, rather than what’s actually in them. Traditional Christian leaders don’t like to deal with things that fly in the face of their traditional beliefs, many of which have no basis in reality, at least according to what’s actually written in the Bible. Thank you for stopping by and leaving your comment. The best way to determine whether a Nag Hammadi book is authentic is to read them with the Spirit of the Holy Ghost present and compare them with what’s written in the Bible. There are many books that have truth in them, but are often mixed with Gnosticism, which is a sect of Christianity that went its own way, and I can’t recall at present all the differences in Gnosticism and regular Christianity, but they were more into the mysticism than, say, going out and preaching the gospel of salvation. If you plan on reading the Nag Hammadi books, I would recommend doing a little research into what the Gnostics believe so that you can take that into consideration when you read them, as there are a lot of books in the Nag Hammadi collection that are considered gnostic. Thanks again for all your comments.
Where can I find these writings
Thank you for your interest.
The Nag Hammadi Library can be found at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=nag+Hammadi++library
The Dead Sea Scrolls can be found at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dead+Sea+Scrolls&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ADead+Sea+Scrolls
The 70 lead books, so far as I’ve been able to determine, have not been translated into English yet.
I hope this helps. Thank you for popping on over and taking the time to comment.
Cris,
Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. . . Hope I am not playing the fool here, but I would like to comment on this thread and tie it into some of my other comments and maybe, even a few of yours.
In a post against another topic of yours, I made the statement that I believe that Christ was a member of the Essene group. You faithfully responded (and hopefully I am paraphasing you correctly here) that Christ was a cut above any sect or group and that His teachings stand above any affilation. I really like that response! Technically, Christ is the fountain head of all truth. While He quoted some of the ancient prophets (for the benefit of those listening), He did not need to appeal to their authority or position. Technically, it was His position, as He was the one to reveal the truths in the first place.
In spite of that, I tend to feel that the Savior leanded toward the Essenes. I believe that John the Baptist was an Essene. The Qumran scrolls would have come from this venue. In so far as it assists me in ferreting out what is legitimate and that which might be dubious, I try to understand the various factions, their leanings, and to me that carries some weight. I would argue that many passages in the New Testiment are not understandable unless one grasps the audience to whom Christ was addressing and their fundamental positions. Saducees asking questions about issues bearing upon a resurtrection (a principle they did not believe in), is a case in point. The motivation for many of their questions was entrapment and not out of a desire to understand the truth.
With that stated, in another series of issues that you have rasied and that I, as well as others, have commented on (is there a Mother in Heaven?); I commented in support of the belief that there is a Mother in Heaven, and in support of our positions mentioned a recollection of a statement from the Nag Hammadi . . . that refers to Mother in Heaven being distraught at the fall of Her son Lucifer.
Gnosticism, as it has been labeled in the modern context, deals with a number of Christian mysteries. Certaininly, the question as to whether there is a Mother in Heaven falls under the category of a mystery. A mystery, in so far as most folk have not taken the time to resolve the issue. The “gnostics” (or more accurately the author(s) / transcribers of the Nag Hammadi scrolls) were more than likely dealing with many of the same issues that are up for question today.
Arguably, I suspect that most of the mysteries are not critical to our being saved, but the mysteries, and their resolution, do add to the validity of the existence of Christ.
I just checked on the status of the Jordan Codices. It does not appear that there is any progress toward their translation. Thus, I add to my lament. . . “Even when new discoveries of ancient writings are made, it seems there is a protracted process in getting them translated.”
In closing (with regard to this particular topic), I just wanted to comment that I really like CR’s and Jeff’s comments to this string. Jeff, while I trust that for most the intercedence of the spirit is the definitive consumation of a truth, most of us are left to our own designs to ferret out the truth. It is nice to be able to interact with others and have them respond in kind.
Thank you for your comments. I wouldn’t say that Christ was “a cut above any sect or group”, not if we are to seriously consider him as the Son of God. Therefore, being “a cut above” suggests that while he was better in some way than “any sect or group”, yet he was somehow similar to them on some level.
Yet, he was similar in the fact that he was the son of a mortal mother. On the other hand, he had power over the great enemy, death, and that came from, not his mother, but his Father in heaven. In my estimation, that is way more than “a cut above any sect or group”. Do you see what I mean?
Regarding the Essenes, we really know very little about them, if they actually existed. Most of what I have heard about them has not been based in facts but on suppositions. It is a great deal like the myth of Atlantis.
All we know for sure about Atlantis is a couple of brief mentions by Plato, none of which is consistent with the millions of words written about it since.
I don’t believe any of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions the name Essenes. It is only supposed that the Essenes were the same as those who dwelt at Qumran.
It may be that John the Baptist, and even Jesus, were aware of the Qumran community, whether or not they were designated as Essenes. They may have even visited them, but I doubt they lived with them.
Jesus, we know, was a carpenter in Nazareth. We also know Jesus lived in the desert and existed on locust and honey. I would think that if he was an Essene, he would have had a better fare to choose from. I can’t imagine an entire community subsisting on locust and honey.
Here’s something for you: We know that Saul of Tarsis was on his way to Damascus when he had his mystical experience. Nearly everyone assumes this was in reference to Damascus, Syria. What they don’t consider is that Damascus is 135 miles from Jerusalem, presumably as the crow flies, according to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=487.
In one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I forget which one, a reference was made to Damascus as if it were the name of the Qumran community itself, which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense. Qumran is only 13 miles east of Jerusalem, according to http://virtualqumran.huji.ac.il/, a much easier walk than the 135 miles to Damascus, Syria.
I have an easier time believing that Saul was walking 13 miles east of Jerusalem than he was walking 135 miles to an entire different country. At that stage in the development of Christianity, it is doubtful that its influence had extended all the way to Damascus, Syria, let alone becoming enough of a problem that Saul would have enough concern to walk such a distance to a nation where he was undoubtedly not a presence.
This is assuming Saul was walking, which was likely the most common mode of travel in those days. On the other hand, Saul was important enough of a figure in the persecution of the Christians that he might have traveled by horse. Even so, 135 miles of traveling in the desert to persecute Christians seems a bit far out.
I have no doubt that both our Father in heaven and Mother in heaven were distraught at the fall of Lucifer, as were the rest of the host of heaven. And remember, according to the Book of Revelation, he took a total of one-third of the hosts of heaven with him!
Gnosticism most certainly dealt with the mysteries of Christianity, although I have done enough reading in the Nag Hammadi library to feel that much, if not most, of the material was based on mythology rather than on facts. And most were written long after Jesus Christ walked the earth, as far as I can recall.
I do not believe anything written in the Nag Hammadi “scriptures” have anything at all to do with our salvation, but they make for interesting reads. However, that being said, I believe that the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas, which was not really a gospel but a supposed collection of mysterious sayings of Jesus, were likely based on fact. I cannot say they are perfect as rendered, however. I know there was at least one deliberate mistranslation in the Gospel of Philip, which I will eventually get into in my latest series, if I can ever get my derriere in gear to finish out the project.
The Coast to Coast AM radio show has interviewed a man a number of times who has been involved in the Jordan Codices from the very beginning. He’s actually handled the plates, unlike his debunkers. He says they have been proven authentic by the most scientific means. He also says that they were found in an area thought to be the place where James, the brother of Jesus, led the early Christians out of Jerusalem previous to its destruction.
Not so strangely, the codices have been severely debunked by all sorts of academics coming out of the woodwork, even though they have not been involved in any way with them—ever! Typical of debunkers.
The codices have illustrations to supplement the text, all in support of early Christianity. It seems modern Biblical “scholars”, so called, don’t like evidence that supports early Christianity because, in supporting early Christianity, it puts modern Christianity on the hot coals. But that’s a whole ‘nuther subject for another series of articles. 🙂
Cris,
Always a pleasure to hear back from you . . . even if we don’t agree on all points or perspectives. I have commenced rummaging through the boxes of books and notes that I have taken over the years.
I disagree that there are not components of the Nag Hammadi that support the mission of Christ. Give me some time and I will pull up some examples.
I believe you intrepretation that the Damascus being referred to relative to the travels of Paul as a few miles away is correct. If you have access to the book, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception,” by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh; please read the section titled the ‘Damascus Document.’ On page 145, the last complete sentence, the authors contend that Damascus refers to the Qumran community.
The authors present some interesting supposition as to why their community was called Damascus. It would appear that the resulting confusion over the location of the community was intended.
These authors present information relative to the existence of the Essenes and their beliefs that are worth contemplating. I find it interesting that the “Damascus Documents were actually discovered in the 1800s, and that no less than 4 sets of the documents are reiterated within the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls).
P.S. I take some of what the authors of this book present with a grain of salt. If you have read it or will be reading it, I trust you will see what I mean.
I don’t believe I said there are no components of the Nag Hammadi library that support the mission of Christ. If I did, it certainly wasn’t what I meant.
I believe all, or most all, of the library point back to Christ and/or his mission. I also believe that most of them are based on fact. But like many things seen from a time and place far away, things have a way of changing. Just look at the practices of many of the modern Christian churches, at how far removed they are from what was practiced in the early Christian church.
Even the Bible itself is full of contradictions. A man named Ehrman, I believe, wrote a book about them, which only furthers my point, whatever that may have been. : )
Thanks for the input on the Damascus situation. I found that very interesting, although I have not heard of that book. It sounds like an interesting read, grains of salt nothwithstanding. But that’s kind of how I view the Nag Hammadi library.
Cheers!
Cris,
Reread your 14th paragraph.
Thanks,
Gordon
i find it interesting that so many people regardless of the direction of religious conversation at the time,want o bring up the topic of the historical ‘violence’ involved.it seems that there are people out there who are just dying to jump on that area of religion anytime it ‘s brought up in conversation anywhere/i find it strange that so many seem to find it necessary to remind everyone about it whenever the topic of religion arises//
You mean, like you just did? 🙂
I don’t recall bring up “historical ‘violence’ ” in the post you just commented from.
You just sort of brought it in from left field. (Yes, I am a fan of professional baseball, hence the baseball reference—specifically the KC Royals.)
If my memory is correct, Robinson was the first scholar on hand when the NHC were discovered and the lead translator. He is something of a legend.
You are right to mention the Catholic Church’s bloody legacy. Though, I’d like to add that every Christian group who attained some power ultimately chose violence to further their theology. The 95 Theses plunged Europe into a century of war. Even an Anabaptist sect in Münster took this route.
Yes, it’s sad that so much of the world’s death and destruction was ultimately done in the name of Jesus Christ. (Now, it’s done in the name of oil and drugs.) Jesus would turn over in his grave . . . if he were IN his grave. 🙂 Fortunately for us, he is not . . . in his grave, that is.
A few things:
(1) The Nag Hammadi Codices were not written by the Gnostics (so-called). In fact, most popular ideas about gnosticism are based upon speculative ideas before the NHC was discovered. See Michael Allen Williams’ book ‘Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category.’
(2) Historically, the community determines the canon. It gets authority from its widespread acceptance and use. If Christians today decided to accept The Gospel of Mary as canonical, then it would be. This is why the major Christian groups–Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant–each have slightly different canons.
(3) Also historically, Constantine and his new Christian lackeys imposed the Bible on the church. There was no agreed upon canon until after he personally strong-armed the Christians into resolving the Aryan controversy at Nicaea (he needed pacified Christians to keep his empire under control). Athanasius (despite his theological reputation, one of the most brutal, violent bishops in Christian history) using his power in relation to Constantine issued what is the most complete canon in 365, a first for the Christian church universal. The people accepted it because they had no choice, and the dissenting voices were repressed (often violently).
Thank you for your comments, GR.
As far as your comment (1) goes, I can only go by the experts in the field. The title of the book I have is “The Nag Hammadi Library: The Definitive Translation of the Gnostic Scriptures Complete in One Volume”, General Editor, James M. Robinson. His brief bio on the back cover reads as follows:
“General editor JAMES M. ROBINSON is Arthur J. Letts Professor Emeritus of Religion at the Claremont Graduate University. Professor Robinson is one of the world’s great scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity and the leader of research on the Nag Hammadi codices and the Q Gospel. He was the founder and director of the Institute for Antiquity and Early Christianity in Claremont, California.”
I haven’t read “Rethinking Gnosticism”. In fact, I hadn’t even heard of it. In looking it up on the Internet (isn’t that a wonderful thing?), I discovered that gnosticism is a modern construct.
Even so, it doesn’t matter to me that gnosticism is a modern construct. It stands for a certain group of Christians who delved into mysteries in some pretty fantastic and unscriptural ways. It may be they called themselves simply Christians. From this group of Christians came the so-called gnostic works in the Nag Hammadi codices. I’m good with that.
I couldn’t agree more with your comment (2).
As to your comment (3), it’s a matter of history that the Catholic Church is drenched in blood of those who disagreed with their way of looking at things. It’s precisely because of this that science, as we know it today, has divorced itself from anything spiritual. After all, wasn’t Gallileo, a Christian, the inventor of the telescope, threatened with death if he didn’t recant the idea that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe?
Add to that the many “inquisitions” undertaken in the name of Jesus Christ that went about surpressing “heresy” (anything that disagreed with the Church’s tenets) through very bloody means.
Now, I’m not a Catholic Church basher, nor do I bash any other religion or sect of religion. But history is what history is. The seeker of truth cannot easily dismiss it, although it is pretty much dismissed today as if it were some kind of childish phase.
Again, I thank your for your comments. They’re very insightful.
I just wanted to add to your comment that God says “I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds” There is a reason we have the Spirit to help us decipher truths. Scripture is all God breathed and usefull for instruction and teaching but because its too easy for man to change things to match his own doctrine, or to cherry pick the pieces of scripture they want, we should all be relying on the Spirit to reveal truth to us.
AMEN!