The Book that Almost Made it into the Bible

The title should read "A Book Ripped From the Bible".

Now I'm curious about the author of Peter's epistles!

I see why it didn't make it as in the Bible. It doesn't say anything about Jesus Christ, or even mentions him although it is a historical piece of history. I think it was right for this manuscript to be separated from the gospels because it doesn't contribute to the life and purpose of the Messiah. I feel like it was a complete contradiction that had paganistic practices contrary to the Bible. It's more so about a mere man having visions of whatever, seeing an evil angel and a good angel and the only evil angels I'm aware of are demons whether u believe that or not. However popularity doesn't mean that it's the truth. So many people have gotten revelations from these so-called angels to write down whatever historical manuscripts that we have now. Mohammed encountered an angel, Joseph Smith, And Hermes. But the Bible totally rejects an angel preaching a different gospel unto men, even to be accursed if it were so... The Hermes book isn't no different from Mormonism and Islam. It all started with an angel.

Hermas- Hermes- Thoth - Mercury

Not a thing how would a chapter written almost 2 centuries later be considered scripture?
The bible as is is watered down plenty enoughs.
Almost bothing of the original text survived and got replaced by batshit buklshit by selfhating monks that lioe to hurt themselves and others.
Whipping them selves yoh know
?

Not Chriatian.

I don't understand. I thought the bible canon was settled at that point in time?

The trouble with Shepherds is that we aren't sheep. Shepherds want to lead us to where THEY want us to be. Essentially, they are narcissists.

SLOW DOWN !

Bible’s B-sides

Wow, the fact that this book is so long makes it even more impressive that we found a complete copy of it!

Definitely written by multiple authors

can't stop watching his cool active one eyebrow while the other one stays still!

Looks like the video got raided by Anti-Christians a year ago? What a bunch of weirdos

“Whoever complied” is a pretty big source error. Cross referencing the same sayings without knowing if the authors knew each other or were credible seems like you’d need a lot of faith in these men who never thought to write down their name down, despite being “inspired my god”. I guess my question would be, do we still have to believe in the contradictions or abolishment of laws if they aren’t directly from Jesus ?

It was very good, but I don't think it gets everything right. You can tell whoever wrote it was hitting on some good ideas, but their christology was off.

Did Tertullian disagree with the generous timeline for repentance before or after his conversion to montanism? I guess after...
This reduces the seriousness of his critique.

Its interesting that Christians are compared to stones for a tower. It kind of reminds me of the Tower of Babel story though, if not reversed.

Praise Zeus, Hera & Athina ❤

I think it’s so interesting to learn about these early Christian texts. But like anything, some Christian works are heretical as they are man made. God preserved the canonized Bible through the ages because he is supernatural and able to do great things. Maybe in hundreds of years people will read things like CS Lewis and consider his writings “ancient Christian texts” fun to think about! I’m excited to read this and have an idea of what an early Christian’s life and viewpoints were!

We still read this story in the Orthodox Church. It's not canon, but it's not forbidden. It is considered "good for reading" and is categorized as an ethical work rather than a theological one. ☦

One big thing is when Hermes said lord he was talking about Jesus . As this was during the time when separating the trinity but keeping them the same was
Father-God
Son-Lord or Lagos
Spirit-Holy ghost

Most church fathers would only give each one of the names to show they were all one even if they were separate.

The Shepherd of Hermas DID MAKE IT INTO THE BIBLE -- until about 350 AD when it was removed. Research the Codex Sinaiticus.

“I am the stone that the builder refused”

One thing I noticed about Hermas thoughts about the woman in the beginning being sinful.... If you keep reading it mentions he's married with children! So even if his thoughts of this woman were shallow and fleeting in his eyes... It's still adultery of the eyes 🤨 at least that's what I picked up on.

The book? I thought there were a whole mess of books that got picked through and deemed not worthy enough to be included in the bible.

Very interesting. It might also be interesting to know of any comparison or inluence on the Quran

People enslaved to god sounds very Islamic

I grew up going to a Presbyterian family and for good friday we did a play told from the perspective of a sheperd, probably not directly hermas, but it sounds similar to the play

Fascinating that Christians were then called "slaves of God". Becsuse the common Arabic name Abdullah or Abd Allah also means "God's slave" in Arabic.

What's the most reliable version of the Shepherd of Hermas available on the Internet as a free download, as a PFD or something?

Revelation 14:12

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

You have the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. I take it you took physics in college?

Couldn't this text have been old Testament text? The topics of angels and repentance are part of the OT?

I learned something new.

ah, check out the Ethiopian Ortho Bible

Sometimes i imagine alternate versions of the bible being discovered.
Like hypothetically what if they dug up in the tarim basin and found a kushan language bible from 456 that had all of the new testament and the 3 enochs but was missing
Ruth
Esther
Hosea
Lamentations
Ezra
Nehemiah
Joel
Obadiah
Amos
Nahum
Micah
Zephaniah
Haggai
malachai
And the catholic and orthodox deuterocanon

What a load. It’s about the letter/number Gimel.

Resembles Islam

... Jolly Good Listening As An Educational and Historical Audiobook... No 'Bumpf' to Speak Of... Cheers Alot From 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🖖🤓

I love this channel

The enslaved to God part reminds me of islam

Some of the criteria for being included in the canon of the New Testament should be:
o Does the work call Jesus "the Son of God"?
o Does the work talk about Jesus' crucifixion?
o Does the work talk about Jesus' resurrection?
o Does the work mention the Holy Spirit in a meaningful way?

Since the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't talk about any of this stuff or include any discussion of the doctrine of grace, it really doesn't have any part in the New Testament canon. But, by the same token and for those exact same reasons, the Epistles of James and Jude would also fall into that category. Neither of those books call Jesus, "the Son of God", talk about His crucifixion, resurrection, or discuss the Holy Spirit in any meaningful way.

The reason that "most scholars" don't acknowledge First and Second Peter as being authored by the Apostle Peter is because of the content. It's all based on denominational bias and most "scholars" are essentially Atheists and so they don't go to the same church as you and I.

"Most Scholars" do not have any authoritative reason to reject books of the bible, they just do. It's because the content so offends the unbelief of those "scholars" that they need to trash them out of hand.

I have never heard any convincing evidence to reject the plethora of books from the bible that "most scholars" are in business to reject. And it is indeed a good business. Ask Bart Ehrman and James Tabor. Their entire financial backbone is based on rejecting the word of God. Simon the Sorcerer would be proud.

Once again: There is NO REASON to reject these books of the bible other than denominational bias. Ask Marcion.

Thank you for your insight. I recently read the Shepherd... My impression was that it is an allegory, similar to John Bunyon's Pilgrim's Progress. I got the impression that his visions didn't really happen. he used them as a literary technique, as Bunyon used his dream. That might be a reason why the book was not included. It is an interesting book, and, compared to other ancient manuscripts, easy to read. I don't 100% agree with his doctrine, or lack thereof. Thanks again for your insight.