/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

A lot of (pseudo) Gnosticism, steer clear

By "apocrypha," do you mean the books called deuterocanonical by some traditions? If so, of course you should, if only to satisfy your curiosity. There's a reason these books were retained in the canons of several churches. Enoch in particular has had strong influence on the New Testament.

If you mean "texts that were acknowledged by Christians but aren't part of any current Christian canon"… The Shepherd of Hermas is good and was seen as canonical by some early Church writers. Same for the Didache. The Protoevangelium of James had influence on Marian doctrine of Orthodox and Catholic churches, so always a good read as well. You might want to read the Quran and the Book of Mormon if only to see what happens when heretics take their shit way too far. And the many spurious gospels and acts are generally Gnostic nonsense, check them out if you find gnosticism interesting, which I'm sure you don't.

>>572811

>Are the Apocrypha worth reading?

Yes. They're interesting writings of God's people and they set the context of the New Testament

>>572811

Yes, they contain many unexplained parts of the Bible.

What are some insights these books give on God and the rest of the Bible? Also how do you explain stuff like Bel and the Dragon? It seems pretty far-fetched if taken literally.

Sirach was called "Church's book" for reason.

Wisdom is synthesis of old testament thought.

Tobit is great story and even greater typology of Christ.

Judith is but wonderful type of cosmic battle of Genesis 3:15

Baruch is prophet of incarnation.

Letter of Jeremiach is great summa contra gentiles.

1 Maccabees was so God that Luther regreted removing it.

2 Maccabees is work for our time.

Ester in not greek version is but abomination

Additions to Daniel are good.

>>572838

>What are some insights these books give on God and the rest of the Bible?

History of Salvation, prophecy of incarnation, battle between good and evil, what chastisement or even final tribulation looks like, mercy of God and how we ought to act, piety, justice etc.

>Also how do you explain stuff like Bel and the Dragon? It seems pretty far-fetched if taken literally.

How so? It was known even among pagans that pagan priest were bunch of frauds. And it is easy as that to kill serpent or other lizard.

>>572854

I was thinking it was supposed to be an actual dragon, but if it's just a lizard or serpent that makes more sense.

>what chastisement

So why not just see all the examples in the old testament?

>or even final tribulation looks like

You mean the book of revelation?

>It seems pretty far-fetched if taken literally.

Is there a reason why scripture, if it is scripture, shouldn't be taken literally? I mean all of the new and old testament is consistenet in its teachings if taken literally and the KJV is used. I've never read the apochratha as it's not included with the books of the KJV. Care to show me the passage that bothers you?

>>572882

See above, I was just thinking of the dragon thing. But it makes sense if it's not an actual dragon. Much like some Bibles refer to unicorns but it just means some one-horned animal, not a mythological unicorn.

>>572811

Not really,

>>572885

Unicorns refer either to a type of extinct ox or rhinocerous, not sure. Dragons actually refer to serpents. Satyrs actually refer to goats (Leviticus 4:24) which same word is also translated to "devils" when used as idols (Leviticus 17:7, 2 Chronicles 11:15).

>>572829

Hello, Luther!