ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

The Book Of Philip Discovered

I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that the missing book of Philip was discovered. Does anyone have any info on this?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The False Teachers Bible Quiz
 ---craig on 2/23/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (20)

Post a New Blog



Disappointed with Eloy's reply.
Please do not presume to know what informs other peoples' Christian faith. We grown-ups can assess for ourselves.

Google 'Gospel of Philip' for info. It reads like a collection of hard-thought aphorisms and authour insights. Of historical interest, but perhaps not more than a 'footnote' to the main Gospels, unless a personal chord is struck.
---William on 4/25/09


The destroyer is sly, so be wary of "other" books, especially when their content contradicts the already confirmed gospel of truth. There are many false gospels on the market today which are utterly blasphemic, publishing, Jesus was just another man, Jesus was a sinner, he slept with Mary Magdalene, God is evil and Satan is good, Judas Iscariot the Traitor was the only good disiple, there is no hell nor accountability and everyone is going to heaven, etc. All that you need is the Holy Bible, and all these other bogus writings are unnecessary to your Christian faith. Recall how Satan lied to the first woman to influence her to disobey? Then said the serpent to the woman: You all will not die by death.
---Eloy on 1/7/09


I saw a documentary a few days ago on the National Geographic Channel in referance to The Book of Phillip,The Book of Thomas and The Book of Mary. I think I have it recorded on my DVR.
---Maren_Mcreel on 1/6/09


I've read every reply to this question, one in which I "Google'd" myself tonight. All I found was bickering, insults, name-calling, salvation-questioning, and down right pompousness when I was really looking for an answer. Now I know that "no one" may "know" the answer, but did I really have to read through all of that to see that really John T was the only person even remotely trying to help Gregg?! I'm all for a debate, but for people who are supposed to be united under one God, I'm disappointed to see that one man's questing lead to the bickering and back-and-forth of others, forgetting what the original question was....it just isn't right.
---Carmen on 11/28/08


2. Now using many commentaries is very helpful to understand what was happening at the time someone spoke and what were the conditions at the time. They are good helpers for the believers. I understand many just read the bible, but there are many things in there that if we don't get the whole concept we can take a passage and be misled. There is many good authors out there that God has gifted to be there for us. Let your spirit discern which ones you feel will help you in your walk with the Lord.
---Lupe2618 on 12/17/07




Lupe2618??? Who's to say that other books and writings are NOT inspired by God? Your Pastor, Reverend or Priest???? Since when did God say that he would stop ministering to people through works other than that of the bible? Why does other writings and opinions have to be unholy or a conspiracy of some type? I think that one prays, read and beleive as you will. You cannot JUDGE another based on what YOU beleive to be true.
---DJ on 5/28/07


Was it not the words of our Lord that stated that we should avoid foolish arguments? Lift a brother up? I too fall when I engage in thoughts such as these.
---Ed on 1/29/07


Earlier (3/2/6), gregg8944 said, "Wasn't there a desciple who said something like 'there are other books and some I believe?' Something along those lines." No! I wanted to complete an Online paper about this first, but don't want to let this go any longer. I looked up every single passage in the whole Bible having to do with books, scrolls, writings, etc. etc. and can't find one verse like that comment! Gregg: Is there anything more you could add to figure out why you thought this?
---Daniel on 3/15/06


Again, I deal with the issues themselves, not personalities, if I were to resort to personal insults as others have done, instead of dealing with the issue, then that would say I have lost the debate, its called the fallasy of AD HOMINUM. As to gnosticism, someone needs a history lesson in what gnosticism is, its more complex than that. American protestantism is indeed a form of gnosticism.
---SLCguy on 3/9/06


SLCGuy, what does "SLC" in your "SLCGuy" mean?...perhaps "Some Loose Critical Guy"?
---Eloy on 3/6/06




Gnosticism has to do with wisdom, secrets and things like that-- similar to LDS Temple rituals, or freemasonry.
Only a select few can get this sort of wisdom throuugh ceremonies, etc. On the other hand, The Bible message is for all. All that is "needed" is the ability to learn.
Unlike other religions, in Christianity, people are free to interpret, as you have noticed. It is unlike the LDS vs RLDS. What we adhere to is a basic understanding of Scripture (original 66) none other.
---John_T on 3/6/06


SLCGuy ... your faith must be a bit unsatsfactory. So far all you have said is that the Christian church as it is now is wrong. What a negative belief! Do you not know what you DO believe?
---alan8869_of on 3/6/06


Alan you are a good fellow and I know that you mean well and you are correct in your assumptions. I either know or know of you, Eloy, Lupe, Ann and Erick but I don't know or believe this SLCGUY. Bob
---Bob on 3/6/06


I also believe todays AMERICAN protestantism is a 'form of' gnosticism, where 'everyone is their own church.' This reduces the Bible to a divining tool, a mere talisman. Its sometimes rabidly anti-clerical, as in evangelicals, or the other extreme; autocratic, as in fundamentalism. It replaces the objective standard of scripture with subjective feelings as the basis of truth, as in the charismatics, who are rabidly anti-intellectual.
---SLCGuy on 3/6/06


Alan; I believe the Church went into apostacy after the Apostles. it was a miasma of beliefs as well as confusion about exactly what scripture, and doctrine was. After Constantine the 'Church' was a political organization, unified by force of the state, as well as 'orthodoxy' inforced by the state. The scriptures speak of apostasy.' The bloody history of both the Roman protestant traditions speak to them as not being of Christ.
---SLCGuy on 3/6/06


Mr. or Mrs. slcguy your political no. of 66 is up and expired. I don't know what your talking about here and I don't think that anybody else does either. I'm calling the devil a lier right here and now! There are 66 books that comprise the Bible. That's it!
---Ann on 3/6/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


SLCGUY- You sound like your a died in the wool catholic. Wether you are or not you are among the living dead. You study things like a physics book. There is no life in your writting. Nobody's buying it, You are NOT credible!
---Jan on 3/6/06


SLCGuy, JP answered correctly. You are the one that does not know God. I can tell by most of your past replys. You are still looking and have not found rest for your soul. Maybe someday you will. If you are a true child of God, you wil abandon your useless feeble attempt at finding the truth. Only God can show you. If you try and analize it in any other way, it's not of God! Like JP said, "His sheep know His voice."
---Erick on 3/6/06


Note to moderator.

Moderator - I prefer to let them only discuss it and then I will cut their conversations off if they can't behave nicely. However, Eloy and Lupe and good Christians and I know they will hug and make up in Christ.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/6/06


1/2
Septuagint was translated c.250BC ordered by Ptolemy2, reigning in Egypt. Because Jews objected to its use as proofs of Jesus fulfillment of Scripture, Jews rejected it as unreliable.

Around 300, Origen cleared up some errors. The Septuagint was not copied with the same, exact precision as the OT in Hebrew, and it was based on later copies, not earlier, so reliability is an issue with that work and subsequent works based on it. Jerome used this as the basis for his work, Vulgate.
---John_T on 3/6/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


2/2
From Jeromes, work, two main translations developed. One was the Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes (NT 1514; OT 1517) and the other was the work of Erasmus (1516).

Since Erasmus could not find a complete version in Greek of the NT, he cut and copied parts from inferior mss he found in Basle. Both eventually became the basis for the Textus Receptus, the mss used for the KJV.

Modern translations rely on older, closer to the original, and presumably more accurate translations.
---John_T on 3/6/06


Those Holiday Expresses are a great way to learn important things!
---John_T on 3/6/06


SLCGuy .. What then is your belif ... give us a summary of your faith.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/6/06


craig, try checking through a search engine online.
---Eloy on 3/6/06


Send a Free Blessings Ecard


lupe, truly you have stated in a previous posting that your flesh is still alive and that you are not saved as of yet. In a court you would lose, because the evidence is documented history. Anyhow, if you believe that you're truly saved, then please share your conversion testimony, and tell us the date and time of your born-again experience. For currently what I'm personally accustomed to reading from you is your frequent dissing and maligning of my postings and your common misjudgments of me.
---Eloy on 3/6/06


Eloy the 'Aleppo Codex' is a very late translation. what I note is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls the term 'sons of light' predate its usage in the NT, giving it a more clear context. It is a vernacular term from the Zorastarian religion; specifically Mithras.
---sLCGuy on 3/5/06


J.P. You know the mind of God? I do not believe in sola scriptora, it was coined by Luther, yet he rejected it later, as he rejected James and the Epistles of Peter. Sola Scriptora reduces the Bible to a talisman. It is the hallmark of protestantism, and I am not a protestant. The 'harmony' in the Bible is theologies hammered out throughout the centuries, based on the available books. So many want the dead sea scrolls, the nag hammadi ,and other collections to go away, but they, like some fossils, won't.
---SLCGuy on 3/5/06


Hermano Lupe:
I see your frustration,and it is legitimate. However, what do you call a person who will not stand correction, nor listen to the counsel of others?

I urge you to answer the foolish no more. On another thread, I asked for sources for obvious errors, and got none.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly."
---John_T on 3/5/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Eloy, 'From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.'
---gregg8944 on 3/5/06


There is no gospel of Phillip as far as God is concerned. It's a big fat lie that God's people will not follow. His sheep hear His voice.
---J_P on 3/5/06


Eloy, I have never mentioned I was not saved. I answered your blog to tell you, when and who saved me so that you would stop. But your mind is corrupt and you continue. In a court of law you would be guilty. Here you can acuse others and not even the moderator can stop you. I will always defend the faith, It does not matter who the person is, but I cannot defend myself from people like you. Keep taking your shots
---Lupe2618 on 3/5/06


I am currently reading the Gos. of Phillip. "Bec of the contents, the eccentric arrangement, and the literary types exhibited, it is likely that the GofP is a collection of excepts mainly from a Christian Gnostic sacramental catechesis." page 141 The Nag Hammadi Lib.

So far, only boring reading!
---lee on 3/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


SLCGuy, the Septuagint is not an accepted text by the devout Jew nor Christian, for the translation is provenly corrupt. Instead, the Aleppo Codex is the oldest known complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, handwritten in Tiberias of Palestine in the early 10th century around 915 A.D. by the scribe Shlomo Ben-Buyaa, and scribed from the ancient Massoretic Torah. And this is the most accurate holy scriptures in existence of the Old Testament.
---Eloy on 3/4/06


That is DSM IV (4)

I am not being wise, but google it. Waht I am doing is saying something serious indirectly. OK?
---John_T on 3/4/06


"The original Bible containing 66 inspired books is Holy Writ, not Unholy, and not political." There was neve an 'origonal Bible' The oldest OT is the septuagint, with 70 books. The NT was organized by the Roman Bishops, who had several competing agendas. To this day the Bible makes to over a dozen other books. As to 'harmony' in the 66 books theologies were synthesised over the centuries based on the existing books.
---SLCGuy on 3/4/06


SLCGuy, I showed where the number 66 is used in scripture, and it's not a political number. The number 6 refers to work, 6 days of work; and the number 666 refers to the number of the beast, the number of the man who is the antiChrist, and the unholy trinity; but 66 doesn't have any judgmental or political conotation in scripture. The original Bible containing 66 inspired books is Holy Writ, not Unholy, and not political.
---Eloy on 3/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


JohnT ... what is the DSM 1V?
---a on 3/4/06


What was the subject here? My argument is that 66 is a political number, the 'harmony' some say exzist within those books is based on centuries of epistomological development and synthesis of theological concepts in the seperate books. As for me, (I would rather contend with the issues than personalities.)
---SLCGuy on 3/4/06


Elder, the all-inclusive "Why?" I am accustomed to lupe frequently dissing me and my posting of scripture. For "Out of the mouth the heart speaks."
---Eloy on 3/4/06


alan, I have zero desire and zero need to back up anything that lupe has said, and if you want evidence that he said he is not saved yet, then you yourself should seek it out.
---Eloy on 3/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


karen, "Out of the mouth the heart speaks."
---Eloy on 3/4/06


the GOspel of Phillip is not from the apostle...this the Quote from the book of Phillip 'Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying.' This may be a book of a man named Phillip but not the apostle Phillip.
---willow on 3/4/06


Elder, it is no battle really. Thank you Alan. Lets get the focus back on the answers. I like to hear the new brothers and sisters that have come on line lately. They are very good with God's word. I enjoy the answers very much from them. Thank you again Alan. Lets pray for Eloy, and ourselves because sometimes we do say things that hurt others and we don't mean to say them but we do many times. We can do better, myself included first.
---Lupe2618 on 3/3/06


What is all the fuzz? Please don't take anything Eloy says serious. Especailly his teachings. I sure don't. He has said many times that I was not saved and I answered his blog to see if it would stop him from saying it but he has another purpose in mind. He has said the prove is in the fruits, I guess we are seeing them. Let him continue to condemn others, his own words expose him to who he really is. Lets go back to the question because John gave a good answer.
---Lupe2618 on 3/3/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Eloy, why would you say something like that to me? You sound like you really think you are God. By the sound of your words why you cannot come out with nothing is because you have nothing. You lie and call yourself holy so no one will say anything to you. You hide behind God's Word. And use His name to protect yourself. When someone says a statement like you did, it is not because you can see through the eyes of God but because you want to hurt someone. I feel very sorry for you.
---karen on 3/3/06


Here, Here to British manners!

We both share similar sentiments. That is why I added Proverbs 26:4 to the end of the post. I also cross referenced that in other threads.

IMO whom we are both concerned with can be found in the DSM IV.
---John_T on 3/3/06


Mod ... thank you ... but this time I will reply to what Eloy has just said to me. Eloy ... you made an accusation about Lupe, and you expect us to accept it but you will not back it up with evidence. You say you do not wish to spend the time looking back over the blogs, and that makes you lazy or afraid you will find you are mistaken.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


Why has everything got to end up in a battle. Eloy if Lupe said a few week ago the he was not Saved and a few days ago said he was why would you hold onto the older statement?
---Elder on 3/3/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


John T .... You are right, however you probably know from other blogs that I like to be fair and to see fairness, and I tend to defend those who are being attacked unjustly, even if I disagree their view. On occasion I may be a little over protective of people. In this case, I think the attack on Lupe is reprehensible. It would be nice would it not if the person concerned gave an apology?

Moderator - Alan, I am letting your comment go through this time as Eloy has had the opportunity to clarify.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


karen, I have nothing to confess but this, it is sin to call the holy unholy, and your misjudgment is sin.
---Eloy on 3/3/06


alan, yes, I can go back, research lupe's posts, and extract his quote where he said that he was not saved yet, but I won't. Simply because I am a redeemer of time, and his postings were always too lengthy, so my re-reading each of his extrenuous posts would take too much time. I can tell you that lupe posted it within the last month or two, and you can look it up for yourself. For me, it is enough knowing that by his words he is not saved: For we know them by their fruits.
---Eloy on 3/3/06


Certain bloggers in this thread, and others on this site, have posts that defy common sense.

Persisting in absurdities, they exalt themselves above others, condemning those with whom they disagree, sometimes being nasty.

Our sin nature wants to respond in uncharitable ways due to annoyance. I admit that for myself. From now on, I choose to ignore the foolish. "Answer not a fool according to his own folly"
---John_T on 3/3/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Every one of the desciples probably wrote something, don't you think? Even Mary Magdalene, but like somebody said they say the same thing that is in the canon in a different sense and there are other statements within them that contradict the sayings in the canon and statements that would cause outright warfare. God wants everyone to be saved and He has shortened the time so there would be some that are alive, or so the translations say.
---gregg on 3/3/06


Karen ... I used the Google search on my PC and found that blog!! Well, Lupe was pretty emphatic then that he was born again, and all his blogs are what one would expect from a born-gain Christian. I though I remembered him saying something like that, and as you say it was in response to a question from Eloy.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


Eloy, I have been on line for a while and never hardly answer anyone. It hurts me to hear you continually say that you are not a sinner and you want so bad for everyone to believe you when you state something. As you answered me. What you do is so wrong. It shows that you cannot be trusted on anything you say. Why don't you confess that sin so God can use you. As you pray for cliff, for for yourself.
---karen on 3/3/06


Cliff ... I know the Jews could not have had churches! But where did they worship then collectively? There was presumably somewhere, wich was not pagan.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Alan, Eloy posted a blog,"Are you born again Christian?" and Lupe answered him for the third time he was saved on April 9-90, as he had answered him before. Eloy is posting remarks and he says he is without sin. It was Eloy's own blog.
---karen on 3/3/06


Eloy; Bethel was a city,formerly called LUZ not a temple! Alan; The Jews went into synagogues built without God's direction, because the pagans had temples! They were still not "churches"
---1st_cliff on 3/3/06


Eloy ... I for one do not recall that Lupe has said that he is not yet saved. So we can that what you say is true, can you tell us where/ and quote his words? Are you sure you did not misinterpret something he said? It is easily done, and I myself have misunderstood and been misunderstood.
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


Cliff ... What was it then the Jews went into? Were they pagan?
---alan8869_of_UK on 3/3/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


cliff, I am praying for you. God's people always made shrines and sanctuaries for God. "Bethel" was the first "House of God" in Genesis 28:19,22. Please read Exodus 25:8,9; Joshua 18:1.
---Eloy on 3/3/06


karen, It is public knowledge here that Lupe himself replied earlier that he was not saved yet. I state truth, but not everyone is able to here it, you are free to object but I will continue to state truth whether you object or no.
---Eloy on 3/3/06


Wasn't there a desciple who said something like 'there are other books and some I believe?' Something along those lines.
---gregg8944 on 3/2/06


Eloy; Church?church? there were no "churches" in 1500BC! The only religious buildings that people "went into" were pagan temples!
---1st_cliff on 3/2/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


You better be careful with who you say is unsaved. This is dangerous ground and the devil will have a field day with you.
---Saved_one on 3/2/06


Eloy, I have read a lot of your answers and many times you do a great job. but you have this thing about telling people they are not saved. If you want God to use you why do you do that? You are feeding the old nature when you do that. If you live to gratify your ambition, feel your greed, or please yourself, you will be disappointed for both you and your hope will die.
---karen on 3/2/06


lupe, unsaved one, I am not counting the first 2 given weeks for the mothers infirmity, only the 66 days which are prescribed by scripture as in the passage I cited. BTW, technically when a boy was born the mother's separation from church is 41 days, and not 40, because on the 8th day the boy is circumcised and then 33 days are prescribed to continue in her separation from church.
---Eloy on 3/1/06


Elder, ha ha, that was a good. You have a good gift of humor.
---Eloy on 3/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Somebody get the Book back to Philip so he can take it back to the Library. They have been charging him 5 cent a day for years now. I understand it is going up to 10 cent.
I don't want him selling the Pearly Gates just to pay the fine.
---Elder on 2/28/06


Eloy, I sure don't know how in the world you connected that context so long before spoken to Moses with the numbering of books for the Bible. Apparently mothers in that time were unclean twice as long (80 days) after the birth of a daughter as compared to a son (40 days), which reflected the stigma on women for Eve's part in the Fall. This stigma is removed in Christ (1 Timothy 2:14,15). I believe you have been reading "The Bible Code" book a little too much. They have no connection.
---Lupe2618 on 2/28/06


Eloy, I sure don't know how in the world you connected that context so long before spoken to Moses with the numbering of books for the Bible. Apparently mothers in that time were unclean twice as long (80 days) after the birth of a daughter as compared to a son (40 days), which reflected the stigma on women for Eve's part in the Fall. This stigma is removed in Christ (1 Timothy 2:14,15). I believe you have been reading "The Bible Code" book a little too much. They have no connection.
---Lupe2618 on 2/28/06


SLCGuy, 66 is not a political number. It is a number of completion: When a woman gave birth to a girl, the mother stayed away from the church for 66 days until her purification was fulfilled, afterward she brought sacrifices to the priest who made atonement for for her, then she was pure and could go into the church. Please read Leviticus 12:5-8.
---Eloy on 2/28/06


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


SLCGuy, you are misinformed, there were no politics used in gathering together the Temple manuscripts into the Holy Bible for Temple reading. The 66 books that are bound together are the complete inspired and authoritative Word of God. The reason within this body of scripture there are made references to other books is because those other books were redundant. Just as the books of I Kings and II Chronicles; and the books of Daniel and Revelation have a great deal of redundancy writing.
---Eloy on 2/28/06


4. the Jews had a strong tradition that the scribe Ezra (whose story is told in the Book of Ezra) arranged and collected the books of the Old Testament. There was many books vying for canonical status, but only three, 1 Clements, The Shephard of Hermas, and The Didache, came close. This books were not included because they were not written by apostles, and the writers themselves acknowledged that their authority was subordinate to the apostles.
---Lupe2618 on 2/27/06


3. Although the vast majority of books that are now included in the New Testament clearly functioned with canonical authority from the time they were written. There were a few books whos inclusion in the New Testament canon was disputed. These included, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelations. The New Testament was originally written down in Greek. Scholars have many thousands of Greek manuscripts to which they can refer. In the case of the Old Testament,
---Lupe2618 on 2/27/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.