Bible Discussion Thread

We're the Lost Books of the Bible, like the Infancy Gospel, God inspired? Should they have been included?

Hi Betsy. Almost all of the Old Testament Apocrypha & New Testament Apocrypha have been relegated to being the 'hidden books', because their content, at least in part, were suspect or their authors deemed unknown or without the apostolic authority or backing to pen those words.

In the Infancy Gospel (of Thomas), it was written far too late to be considered authoritative (in the 2nd Century, I understand). For instance, it presents the young Jesus as a temperamental, fickle, arrogant, and disobedient worker of magic; someone liberal with His curses. This aligns with some aspects of Gnostic thinking, and certainly with pagan views of the character of their gods. However, the character, words, and actions of Jesus as presented in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are totally incompatible with Scripture. These works also attribute various miracles done during Jesus' childhood. Claims of Jesus' juvenile miracles stand in opposition to the Canonical Gospels, which present Jesus' miracle at Cana as "the beginning of (His) miracles" ( John 2:11).

To note also, when a Muslim is reminded of the Gospels which speak of Jesus' Life, he thinks in terms of this wretched Gospel of Thomas, even as Mohammed believed in it. So when the true Gospels are presented to the Muslim, they either come to him as a real eye-opener or a rejection of all. We sold or gave away many "true" Gospels to Pakistani Muslims, so they might learn they Truth.

So please stay well away from this book in particular - there may be interesting stories that you feel should have been included in the Bible, but those stories are just that - figments of one's imagination coupled with the someone's lust to weaken God's Word & to destroy the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your reply...I actually viewed this gospel differently, and as giving credence to Jesus' divinity due to his unbelievable powers, and the many miracles he performed, ... and also, as a way to give credence to the authority of the Age of Accountability...I did not see him as a spoiled magician. I understand that portions of this gospel have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls...any knowledge of that? I do see how some people i.e. Catholics, could interpret it differently, and thus would feel that it should be omitted.

You know that there are many Bibles in foreign countries that contain additional gospels that our KJV 66 do not contain!

I don't have knowledge of portions of this 'gospel' being found in the DSS. And I can understand your view of these writings, that which engenders greater authenticity to Jesus' Life & Divinity, even filling that wide gap of missing years of His Life not recorded in the Bible, but I see this book differently.

There are two matters here: I believe that Jesus was sinless from birth to the day of His Death & Resurrection - He had no sin nature to which Satan could appeal to, unless like us sinners who can easily & justifiably give in to Satan's temptations & seductions. Whereas in this Infancy Gospel, I see Jesus' Character totally out of line with sinlessness & holiness. If Jesus can curse & kill a boy who emptied out the water Jesus had collected; or get so angry so as to kill another boy for accidentally bumping Him, then I'm sorry, this is not the Jesus of the Bible, Who was spotless & did nothing evil, not even with a whiff of sin.

Secondly, I accept only the Bible as we have now, as the full body of Truth that is given to us to know & understand. Everything else has to be measured up against it, and if that's not to be the case, what other yardstick do we use to ensure that we're reading the Truth? I understand that some folk accept all Scripture, whether canonized, apocryphal or other spurious writings as valid, because it is there for their learning. However, I place much greater stringent controls on what should be accepted, simply because my faith & manner of living before God depend on it. Therefore, the life of Jesus, whether lived as a child or a man, has to be consistent, without any sin or hypocrisy evident. Unfortunately, this Infancy Gospel actually causes me to question Jesus' purity rather than to be blessed by His Acts of Divinity.

So you do not believe in the scriptural "Age of Accountability"?

Hi again Betsy , I just remembered that when the adult Israelites were forbidden to enter the promised land , God permitted all their children of twenty years old and under to enter the land . Again , another indicator of God's thoughts on this matter .

Hi Betsy , hope you don't mind my input , if we look in the Old Testament we read that an Israelite was not allowed to go to war until they were twenty years old , a Levite was not allowed to help carry the Tabernacle until they were twenty five years old and a Levite could not do any priestly duties e.g. offer the sacrifices until they were thirty years old . Obviously these things do not apply to us , though they are an indication of God's thoughts on these matters .

The "Age of Accountability" matter has come up here before, where someone asked what that age might be - he/she suggested 8 yrs of age, if I remember. Various answers were given, from age 5 to teen years. My understanding of the 'age of accountability', which would differ between children, is the age when the child knows that he has committed sin, that sin is both wrong and is accountable before God, and the child needs to recognize that his sin has separated him from God. And then, to understand the message of the Gospel, to repent, & to receive Christ. If this doesn't happen at this 'early' age, then there will be many children going to Hell without receiving Christ & being born again. Sin is sin, no matter our age - when we do wrong & display our carnal nature, we are accountable for it - there isn't a time of grace where manifested sin is overlooked.

So, when you asked, "So you do not believe in the scriptural "Age of Accountability"?", I do believe in an 'age of accountability', but unsure what you mean by the "scriptural Age of Accountability". Is there one even given, or does that age not actually represent an age in years, but an age of understanding & giving an heart-felt response? Those living in Jesus' Day & under the Law, were taught from childhood about the Law, obedience to it, of God's Character, & days to be observed. They lived under the Law & by it God judged them. After the crucifixion, the Law was abrogated, the Law that only brought death ( Romans 7:10). "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" ( Galatians 3:21) & there wouldn't have been a need for Jesus' Death. So, I simply share this to highlight that, pre-Cross, the Hebrew child was taught the Law, of sin & urged to keep the Law (age was of no concern). Post-Cross, the child is alerted when wrong is committed (i.e. God's Law is broken), but now there is an immediate solution found in the Cross, & faith in Jesus.

Which Bible do you think is the one ordained by God?

God has permitted all His Words to be brought together in the Bible we have now that we may know everything He wants us to know. I don't think you're referring to the many versions of the Bible available now (e.g. KJV, NIV, etc.), but to the Bible with the accepted Books within. If so, then what we have now, as has been canonized by reputable, studied men of God, should be sufficient for our spiritual needs. And this canonization wasn't a haphazard putting together of various manuscripts collected from various sources, but a dedicated attempt to analyse texts, authors, references against each other, and so on, thereby eliminating other spurious writings (of which there have been many) that have contradicted or opposed accepted Scripture. This is not to say there is no Truth in these extra-biblical writings, but when error is detected, then great caution must be taken about incorporating them into the Bible, as readers can be led to believing error - and many are not alert or informed sufficiently to easily detect such errors.

So I believe what we have in our hands now is what God has allowed, or ordained, guiding not only the writers of the Books (of the Bible), but also those who were tasked of incorporating particular books into the Bible we have now. So, it then becomes a matter of whether those extra-biblical books should be read and/or incorporated in the Bible. This then is the personal choice of the reader to make. Since the Infancy Gospel has come up now, I regard this as a particularly vile account of Jesus' early life, a time of His Life that none of the four Gospel writers were inspired to include - and I feel sure they would have certainly done so, if prompted to do. Jesus would have grown up as a normal little boy, yet demonstrating holiness in life, separation from the wrong-doings of the other kids, & sharing wisdom beyond His years & spiritual maturity. This I don't consistently see in this gospel, hence rightly regarded as spurious.