The Lost Books

[Bryancampbell]

Would the lost books be scriptural if they "were" still around, I know they aren't, but they once existed, they all are even cited in scripture, so would they be scriptural if we found them, kinda like a revival of teachings in more depth that we didn't know? They existed in the bible as scripture but then mysteriously got lost, or disappeared. I found the books and their references:

Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18)
Acts of Solomon (1 Kin. 11:41)
The Prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite (2 Chr. 9:29)
The Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29)
The book of Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29)
The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29)
The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15)
The Acts of Uzziah (2 Chr. 26:22)
The Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9) + Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)
The book of Enoch (Jude 14)
An Epistle of John (3 John 9)

 

[Bryancampbell]

*note* Please don't get these books mixed up with the "Non-canonical", "Claimed Lost", or the "Apocryphal" books. Those ones are not in the bible for a reason, but I'm sure that goes for also the ones I mentioned. Here are the Apocryphal books that Catholicism hold to:

[TABLE="class: tablestyle c1, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 49%"]

• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Ecclesiasticus
• Baruch

[/TD]
[TD="width: 47%"]

• Letter ofJeremiah
• Prayer of Azariah
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Bryancampbell]

Sorry to bump thread up, I'm curious if these are scriptural or not?

 

[Photoss]

Some (if not most) of these texts are available today for viewing; they are not "lost", per-se.
They may be good for historical purposes, but if they were to be equal to scripture than they would've been included in the canon.

 

[Bryancampbell]

Some (if not all) of these texts are available today for viewing; they are not "lost", per-se.

Really??? Can you give me a link to where, I haven't found any.

 

[Photoss]

I meant to say most, not all, haha, silly me. Here's a few...

Epistle to the Laodiceans:
The Wesley Center Online: Epistle To The Laodiceans

Book of Jasher:
The Book of Jasher

Book of Enoch:
The Book of Enoch Index

Other Apocryphal New Testament writings:
Apocrypha


Some works were just 'history books' of the time period, and were probably rolled into other works or were lost with the passage of time. (Such as happened to most of Homer's works.)

 

[Bryancampbell]

I meant to say most, not all, haha, silly me. Here's a few...

Epistle to the Laodiceans:
The Wesley Center Online: Epistle To The Laodiceans

Book of Jasher:
The Book of Jasher

Book of Enoch:
The Book of Enoch Index

Other Apocryphal New Testament writings:
Apocrypha


Some works were just 'history books' of the time period, and were probably rolled into other works or were lost with the passage of time. (Such as happened to most of Homer's works.)

This is weird, I already started reading some like Jasher, and it says Cain actually asked Abel what would happen if he killed him??? How would they know about murder if it never happened....this needs conviction...Well they are variations it says later after biblical texts...and its part of a apocryphal type.....hmmmmm

 

[Photoss]

It is interesting to note that the Epistle to the Laodiceans that currently exists may not be the original at all, but shows evidence of being a smattering of Paul's other writings. Also, there's no copy of the epistle in any Greek text, only Latin ones. It can thus be inferred that the original may be lost, as the purported text is dated much later. The same could be true for any of the, and I know there was a discussion recently on the doctrines of the first Book of Enoch vs. the second and third books.

 

[Bryancampbell]

It is interesting to note that the Epistle to the Laodiceans that currently exists may not be the original at all, but shows evidence of being a smattering of Paul's other writings. Also, there's no copy of the epistle in any Greek text, only Latin ones. It can thus be inferred that the original may be lost, as the purported text is dated much later. The same could be true for any of the, and I know there was a discussion recently on the doctrines of the first Book of Enoch vs. the second and third books.

I can believe it to be mashed together, it sounds too...similar to the other writings like it's repeating itself. But the original should in Greek not Latin, seems created.

 

[Bryancampbell]

Here it is quickfire, why don't we have these books that the scripture actually used as reference?

 

[Hizikyah]

my view is if it was quoted in Scripture they clearly read it, and if they read and quoted it, its ok for me.

I have read the book of Enoch and the book of Adam and Eve, I felt I learned alot from both.

Enoch was particularly given a wide spectrum of true prophecy, which showed he was legit.

 

[Quickfire]

Here it is quickfire, why don't we have these books that the scripture actually used as reference?

i blame the pagan roman would be Catholics my self how about you

 

[Quickfire]

ill think youll find you can still read some of them ,, carnt speak fo alll them ,

 

[Bryancampbell]

I say lost throughout the ages of the previous past, but what do I know lol

 

[maxwel]

Because a book is mentioned in scripture, for whatever reason, is not a very good reason to give it undue importance, and consider it as canonical.


Paul quotes from pagan literature during a speech in the book of Acts...
I don't think he expected us to mistake pagan poets for prophets.

Jesus discusses the "tradition of the elders" in Matthew and Mark.
Those "traditions of the elders" are also called the "oral torah",
and they were later written down, and became part of a book called the Talmud.
The Talmud is completely unbiblical, pharisaical nonsense.
We aren't to believe the Talmud.
Jesus spoke AGAINST these teachings...
but he still mentioned them.

Pagan gods are also talked about in scripture...
that doesn't mean we should take them seriously, and believe in them.

Lots of things are "mentioned" in scripture... and you know what that means?
It means nothing.
It just means things are mentioned.

 

[Bryancampbell]

Because a book is mentioned in scripture, for whatever reason, is not a very good reason to give it undue importance, and consider it as canonical.


Paul quotes from pagan literature during a speech in the book of Acts...
I don't think he expected us to mistake pagan poets for prophets.

Jesus discusses the "tradition of the elders" in Matthew and Mark.
Those "traditions of the elders" are also called the "oral torah",
and they were later written down, and became part of a book called the Talmud.
The Talmud is completely unbiblical, pharisaical nonsense.
We aren't to believe the Talmud.
Jesus spoke AGAINST these teachings...
but he still mentioned them.

Pagan gods are also talked about in scripture...
that doesn't mean we should take them seriously, and believe in them.

Lots of things are "mentioned" in scripture... and you know what that means?
It means nothing.
It just means things are mentioned.

So a Christian can just quote anybody out of context and use it for the gospel in your case? I think the formation of the canonical order was greatly helped by what books did apostles quote from. I could be wrong.

The poem Paul quoted no longer exists.