Apocrypha, Pseudogrypha, and other extrabiblical books

[YosefHayim]

I've been curious about extrabiblical books. Specifically Enoch.

Is the Catholic apocrypha where they get their doctrine from, or is their doctrine tradition? I ask this because false tradition such as Jesus being born on the 25th, The 3 wise men, Names of the 3 wise men, the wise men meeting baby Jesus in the manger, etc. are traditions that aren't biblical that were started because of the Catholics.

Do you feel any extrabiblical books have any value, or even possibly "inspired"?

The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha, but it was put in for historical value.

Lists of extrabiblical books:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpg07tmJpH1qgmd19.gif
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/

 

[Free Christian]

No I don't believe they have any value at all full stop Yosef, inspired, nope. Do 100% agree with your comments on so called Christmas. Wise men visited the "child Jesus" in His "home". Not the bay Jesus in the manger. Cant believe it when I see churches having nativity scenes with the wise men gathered around the manger in the stable. They were not there. Plain and clear in the Bible. I could go on about Christmas and Easter, they're two things that make me shake my head.

 

[YosefHayim]

No I don't believe they have any value at all full stop Yosef, inspired, nope. Do 100% agree with your comments on so called Christmas. Wise men visited the "child Jesus" in His "home". Not the bay Jesus in the manger. Cant believe it when I see churches having nativity scenes with the wise men gathered around the manger in the stable. They were not there. Plain and clear in the Bible. I could go on about Christmas and Easter, they're two things that make me shake my head.

I read somewhere of a family getting mad that a teacher told students that since it doesn't say the amount of wise men that were in the story, there could have been 40 and the parents of the children got mad.

I'm really curious about Enoch though. I've read a few things about it and want to read it once I'm solid on the scriptures.


What about books that are quoted such as (jubilees) I believe it is in the bible?

 

[Slider]

I have read about half of the Apocrypha and found it interesting. I was apart of the original Bible and was in the 1611 KJV so at one point it was considered part of the inspired text. Some say that parts of it are only repeated information and aren't needed. I don't know for sure because like I said, I haven't read it all. Even so, I reject that notion because If that is the reason, why do we have 1 and 2 Chronicles when much of the info there is also in Kings and Samuel?

The book of Enoch is another matter. I have read that and it is fascinating! It was also quoted in the NT by Jude I believe. Some people claim it is a forgery and not what Enoch wrote, but I don't know... I haven't followed the arguements for that either way. I do know that the copy I have does contain the part that Jude quoted ("Behold, the Lord cometh with 10,000 of his saints")

There are other books that that the Bible mentions that aren't in the Bible (The Book of Jasher comes to mind, and oddly, Paul notes a letter he wrote to the imfamous Leodiceans). My opinion is that if God wanted these books to be in the Bible, they would be. We understand that the books that are in the Bible were not written by man alone, but under inspiration and direction of God. If that is so, then the assembling and translation of the Bible is also inspired and directed by God.

 

[George Muller]

Mt 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9 ¶ When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
This was not "His home" but a" house" WHICH IN SIMPLE TERMS COULD BE TRANSLATED AS DWELLING PLACE.

I disagree with much of what I see in mans tradition, but one should not change the Word of God to defeat a tradition.

 

[YosefHayim]

The book of Enoch is another matter. I have read that and it is fascinating! It was also quoted in the NT by Jude I believe. Some people claim it is a forgery and not what Enoch wrote, but I don't know... I haven't followed the arguements for that either way. I do know that the copy I have does contain the part that Jude quoted ("Behold, the Lord cometh with 10,000 of his saints")

Enoch looks pretty long. And Jasher is the book that I meant to say in my previous post. It's quoted by name in Joshua, right?

What about books that are quoted such as (jubilees) I believe it is in the bible

 

[Slider]

And Jasher is the book that I meant to say in my previous post. It's quoted by name in Joshua, right?

Yes, Jos 10:13. It is also mentioned in 2 Sam 1:18

 

[Free Christian]

Hi George, Im not changing the Word or attempting to do so for any reason. Its just that the Wise men were not recorded being at the immediate birth like the shepherds were.
I agree that I may have used the wrong word, home instead of house, but I don't see myself directly changing the Word in doing so. If I said to you come over to my house or come over to my home would you not simply think the same thing either way? Come over to where I live? My home, my house, my place? No attempt was made to anything wrong there. Sorry you read it that way.
Yosef, have not read any of the others, when I started reading one it came across to me that it was not the same author as the books of the Bible are so I stopped reading.

 

[George Muller]

Its just that the Wise men were not recorded being at the immediate birth like the shepherds were.

11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
I think it is very resonable to assume they where recorded being at His birth, or at least in a certain time frame near His birth, before they left to Egypt to escape the coming danger.

 

[Deborah13]

I think it is very resonable to assume they where recorded being at His birth, or at least in a certain time frame near His birth, before they left to Egypt to escape the coming danger.

Correct me if I am wrong but may it have been anytime up to two yrs? The wisemen told Herod about the child to be King. Herod sent them to find Him. Then Herod put out the order to kill all boys under the age of 2. ?

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

I've often heard it stated this way, yes.

Blessings.

 

[Slider]

Correct me if I am wrong but may it have been anytime up to two yrs? The wisemen told Herod about the child to be King. Herod sent them to find Him. Then Herod put out the order to kill all boys under the age of 2. ?

Yes, that's correct. For that reason among others, I'm a firm believer that the wise men didn't see Jesus on the day he was born. He could've been up to two years old.

 

[George Muller]

I think it is very resonable to assume they where recorded being at His birth, or at least in a certain time frame near His birth, before they left to Egypt to escape the coming danger.

Correct me if I am wrong but may it have been anytime up to two yrs? The wisemen told Herod about the child to be King. Herod sent them to find Him. Then Herod put out the order to kill all boys under the age of 2. ?

If they was looking to the star, then did they follow it for two years? I just dont read the time frame of two years, but that Herod wanted to take no chances but killed any that might even be considered a baby. I kinda stick to the reasonable reading of the scriptures, unless I see other scripture that might change that in some way.

 

[Deborah13]

I think it is very resonable to assume they where recorded being at His birth, or at least in a certain time frame near His birth, before they left to Egypt to escape the coming danger.

Correct me if I am wrong but may it have been anytime up to two yrs? The wisemen told Herod about the child to be King. Herod sent them to find Him. Then Herod put out the order to kill all boys under the age of 2. ?

If they was looking to the star, then did they follow it for two years? I just dont read the time frame of two years, but that Herod wanted to take no chances but killed any that might even be considered a baby. I kinda stick to the reasonable reading of the scriptures, unless I see other scripture that might change that in some way.

You may just be correct, George. I remembered that they didn't leave Egypt until they heard Herod was dead. It is thought that Herod died in 4BC.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I've been curious about extrabiblical books. Specifically Enoch.

Is the Catholic apocrypha where they get their doctrine from, or is their doctrine tradition? I ask this because false tradition such as Jesus being born on the 25th, The 3 wise men, Names of the 3 wise men, the wise men meeting baby Jesus in the manger, etc. are traditions that aren't biblical that were started because of the Catholics.

Do you feel any extrabiblical books have any value, or even possibly "inspired"?

The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha, but it was put in for historical value.

Lists of extrabiblical books:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpg07tmJpH1qgmd19.gif
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/

Yes, back to your question, I have read all of the apocrypha, some of the pseudopigrapha (namely Enoch, Jubilees and Jashar), and other NT time frame writings aka apostolic fathers.

No, the December 25th tradition and the 3 wisemen tradition did not come from these books. I find these books valuable in explaining or elaborating further on scripture and gives insight into the esoteric thought of those days.

But the xmas tradition started in Paganism. In Rome it was Saturnalia which was a winter solstice festival having it's origins in earlier cultures. The Catholic church took the stance, "If you can't beat them join them" since the ingrained revelry was hard to change, so the birthday of the sun god became the birth of the Son of God.

When I "celebrate" it with family, it's as a secular festival to me as I won't attach Christ to it at all, nor go to special services then (I don't go to services now but only have a private bible study in the back room but I specifically stay away from church altogether during the holidays). It's like a 4th-of-July party to me, and nothing more. It's a time when everyone takes a mid-winter break and gathers, just as people gather in the summer breaks.

I wish people would gather at the feasts of Yahweh instead, to worship and be together, but ironically some of the biggest resistance to that comes ironically from Christians themselves who say "we are no longer under the Law" and misquote verses like Galatians 4:10 which has nothing to do with that. On the contrary it has everything to do with the likes of Christmas. I can't understand the rationalization for ditching God's feasts, but then turning around and perpetuating a solstice holiday and rationalize it by saying "it doesn't matter what the date is...." and yada yada yada. It completely escapes me. unno

 

[Free Christian]

Yes I believe it was very close to the birth of Jesus, could have been within days. But I don't believe it was the same time, that night as the shepherds.
Yes I believe that the 2 years mentioned and Herod's order was to cover the time frame of the stars appearing and not because Jesus was exactly 2 years old.
From all accounts I have read and studied on the matter it is agreed that it was not the shepherds and wise men standing there together as we see depicted in many nativity scenes. And that it was not them seeing Jesus just born laying in the manger. That's how I see it also when I read the Bible. I read one idea put forward that it may have been 8 days after Jesus had been circumcised. But that is in itself just an idea as we have no real proof that that is how it happened, just that they are not recorded being at the immediate birth.

 

[George Muller]

Yes I believe it was very close to the birth of Jesus, could have been within days. But I don't believe it was the same time, that night as the shepherds.
Yes I believe that the 2 years mentioned and Herod's order was to cover the time frame of the stars appearing and not because Jesus was exactly 2 years old.
From all accounts I have read and studied on the matter it is agreed that it was not the shepherds and wise men standing there together as we see depicted in many nativity scenes. And that it was not them seeing Jesus just born laying in the manger. That's how I see it also when I read the Bible. I read one idea put forward that it may have been 8 days after Jesus had been circumcised. But that is in itself just an idea as we have no real proof that that is how it happened, just that they are not recorded being at the immediate birth.

Forgive me Free Christian, I did not fully understand your point before. I have studied the issue out and it is clear the wise men, could not have been at the Lords birth but some time must have past in the fulfillment of these scriptures. I was also reminded by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is Spiritual, it reveals certain truth in what is true to the fulfillment of Christ and His work on this earth. I think a greater understanding of Greek and better understanding of the traditions of the Jews etc.. would clear up many of the conflicts some see in the scriptures? I have seen some have real doubts when there appears to be a conflict between the gospels. I have wrestled with some of these issues, but have always found the truth of each gospel has its spiritual meaning and truth.