Viewing last 25 versions of comment by UserAccount on image #2034459

"[@BumpyBeatz":](/2034459#comment_8118706
)  
Saying that the books were _*taken out_* of the Bible is bit of a mismomer. There was no set canon at the time these books were popular, meaning that there was nothing really equivalent to the Bible yet, just different people’s writings that different churches accepted. The ones that ended up making it were for the most part the most widely accepted ones.


 
The Old Testament books are a bit of a different story, though. It’s very likely that Jesus and his disciples had read or were familiar with the Book of Enoch, plus all the books that are only in Catholic Bibles were popular at his time too and we can see how they influenced the Bible.


 
But even then, there wasn’t really a set canon and when it came time to make an Old Testament canon, the Christians just accepted the books that Jewish people considered worthy enough. The ones that made it in were by far the most popular, but without books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, much interesting Jewish history went unmentioned in their canon, like the origin of Hanukkah. I think the Jews at the time it was decided cared more about their more ancient tradition and things like the Maccabean Revolt were toko recent and irrelevant to them.


 
I agree that it’s worth reading as much of the stuff that didn’t make it in as possible, but doing it chronologically would be super hard to figure out. Which is why it’s a good idea to get a good Study Bible with the Apocrypha, then try and read as many of the Pseudepigrapha books as possible, but there are _*a lot_* of them.


 
If you tried to read just the canon books chronologically, you’d still be confused, because most scholars agree that the Torah was _*written_* sometime after the exile, which places its writing sometime after the majority of the books of the prophets but most of them also agree that it’s based on an oral tradition that dates back before Hebrew even existed. A good Study Bible will tell you what seems likely to be from the oral tradition and what seems to be a much later addition by the scribes.


 
As for this verse, I don’t think too many people deny that it’s an authentic letter from Paul and they’d also be in agreement about the main point he’s making. There would be some disagreements, though. Some would probably say that a line like this shows evidence he thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes and others would disagree and they could argue for hours about it without one side convincing the other. But the point is something that almost all scholars will agree that the text is saying and that Paul indeed wrote it, though.


 
For me personally, I think that all religious text is worth reading and thinking about. I don’t believe it’s all true, but I keep an open mind about these things.

"@BumpyBeatz":/2034459#comment_8118706
Saying that the books were _taken out_ of the Bible is bit of a mismomer. There was no set canon at the time these books were popular, meaning that there was nothing really equivalent to the Bible yet, just different people’s writings that different churches accepted. The ones that ended up making it were for the most part the most widely accepted ones.

The Old Testament books are a bit of a different story, though. It’s very likely that Jesus and his disciples had read or were familiar with the Book of Enoch, plus all the books that are only in Catholic Bibles were popular at his time too and we can see how they influenced the Bible.

But even then, there wasn’t really a set canon and when it came time to make an Old Testament canon, the Christians just accepted the books that Jewish people considered worthy enough. The ones that made it in were by far the most popular, but without books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, much interesting Jewish history went unmentioned in their canon, like the origin of Hanukkah. I think the Jews at the time it was decided cared more about their more ancient tradition and things like the Maccabean Revolt were tok recent and irrelevant to them.

I agree that it’s worth reading as much of the stuff that didn’t make it in as possible, but doing it chronologically would be super hard to figure out. Which is why it’s a good idea to get a good Study Bible with the Apocrypha, then try and read as many of the Pseudepigrapha books as possible, but there are _a lot_ of them.

If you tried to read just the canon books chronologically, you’d still be confused, because most scholars agree that the Torah was _written_ sometime after the exile, which places its writing sometime after the majority of the books of the prophets but most of them also agree that it’s based on an oral tradition that dates back before Hebrew even existed. A good Study Bible will tell you what seems likely to be from the oral tradition and what seems to be a much later addition by the scribes.

As for this verse, I don’t think too many people deny that it’s an authentic letter from Paul and they’d also be in agreement about the main point he’s making. There would be some disagreements, though. Some would probably say that a line like this shows evidence he thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes and others would disagree and they could argue for hours about it without one side convincing the other. But the point is something that almost all scholars will agree that the text is saying and that Paul indeed wrote it, though.

For me personally, I think that all religious text is worth reading and thinking about. I don’t believe it’s all true, but I keep an open mind about these things.

"@BumpyBeatz":/2034459#comment_8118706
Saying that the books were _taken out_ of the Bible is bit of a mismomer. There was no set canon at the time these books were popular, meaning that there was nothing really equivalent to the Bible yet, just different people’s writings that different churches accepted. The ones that ended up making it were for the most part the most widely accepted ones.

The Old Testament books are a bit of a different story, though. It’s very likely that Jesus and his disciples had read or were familiar with the Book of Enoch, plus all the books that are only in Catholic Bibles were popular at his time too and we can see how they influenced the Bible.

But even then, there wasn’t really a set canon and when it came time to make an Old Testament canon, the Christians just accepted the books that Jewish people considered worthy enough. The ones that made it in were by far the most popular, but without books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, much interesting Jewish history went unmentioned in their canon, like the origin of Hanukkah. I think the Jews at the time it was decided cared more about their more ancient tradition and things like the Maccabean Revolt were tok recent and irrelevant to them.

I agree that it’s worth reading as much of the stuff that didn’t make it in as possible, but doing it chronologically would be super hard to figure out. Which is why it’s a good idea to get a good Study Bible with the Apocrypha, then try and read as many of the Pseudepigrapha books as possible, but there are _a lot_ of them.

If you tried to read just the canon books chronologically, you’d still be confused, because most scholars agree that the Torah was _written_ sometime after the exile, which places its writing sometime after the majority of the books of the prophets but most of them also agree that it’s based on an oral tradition that dates back before Hebrew even existed. A good Study Bible will tell you what seems likely to be from the oral tradition and what seems to be a much later addition by the scribes.

As for this verse, I don’t think too many people deny that it’s an authentic letter from Paul and they’d also be in agreement about the main point he’s making. There would be some disagreements, though. Some would probably say that a line like this shows evidence he thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes and others would disagree and they could argue for hours about it without one side convincing the other. But the point is something that almost all scholars will agree that the text is saying and that Paul indeed wrote it, though.

"@BumpyBeatz":/2034459#comment_8118706
Saying that the books were _taken out_ of the Bible is bit of a mismomer. There was no set canon at the time these books were popular, meaning that there was nothing really equivalent to the Bible yet, just different people’s writings that different churches accepted. The ones that ended up making it were for the most part the most widely accepted ones.

The Old Testament books are a bit of a different story, though. It’s very likely that Jesus and his disciples had read or were familiar with the Book of Enoch, plus all the books that are only in Catholic Bibles were popular at his time too and we can see how they influenced the Bible.

But even then, there wasn’t really a set canon and when it came time to make an Old Testament canon, the Christians just accepted the books that Jewish people considered worthy enough. The ones that made it in were by far the most popular, but without books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, much interesting Jewish history went unmentioned in their canon, like the origin of Hanukkah. I think the Jews at the time it was decided cared more about their more ancient tradition and things like the Maccabean Revolt were tok recent and irrelevant to them.

I agree that it’s worth reading as much of the stuff that didn’t make it in as possible, but doing it chronologically would be super hard to figure out. Which is why it’s a good idea to get a good Study Bible with the Apocrypha, then try and read as many of the Pseudepigrapha books as possible, but there are _a lot_ of them.

If you tried to read just the canon books chronologically, you’d still be confused, because most scholars agree that the Torah was _written_ sometime after the exile, but most of them also agree that it’s based on an oral tradition that dates back before Hebrew even existed. A good Study Bible will tell you what seems likely to be from the oral tradition and what seems to be a much later addition by the scribes.

As for this verse, I don’t think too many people deny that it’s an authentic letter from Paul and they’d also be in agreement about the main point he’s making. There would be some disagreements, though. Some would probably say that a line like this shows evidence he thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes and others would disagree and they could argue for hours about it without one side convincing the other. But the point is something that almost all scholars will agree that the text is saying and that Paul indeed wrote it, though.