Talk:Lost books of the New Testament

WP:V This is an article on a disputed area of bible interpretation. There are differing positions and strong opinions in this area. Someone familar with the subject should take a look at this article and describe the various positions. Useful reference on the controversy:. I don't want to get into this one, but someone else might. --Nagle 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nagle: Wrong controversy. The "lost books" you reference from Straight Dope are apocryphal -- and unrelated to this article. -- TheEditrix, 29 March 2006

That's why it needs a religion expert to give it a neutral point of view. Thanks. --Nagle 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nagle: It doesn't need a religion expert -- of which I am one, btw -- simply because an editor asserts that a noncontroversial, NPOV article is controversial. Nothing in the article is controversial. Nothing in the article is POV. While further editing is always welcome, your concerns here are unrelated to this particular article.

Your concern would be appropriately directed to the existing articles on biblical apocrypha. But this doesn't fall under that heading. -- TheEditrix, 29 March 2006

Clarification
I do not understand this article at all, the quotes its using as proof do not mention the books at all nor do they mention there should be a book, perhaps this article can be better explained? -- zero faults  undefined  12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they do? For example, the epistle from the Laodiceans is mentioned in the text, yet we know of no such letter. Or a prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene is mentioned, yet we know of no prior book containing such a prophecy. pfahlstrom 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It says its a document, what I am saying is, it doesn't say it should be in the bible in any form. If I am missing something then its obvious this article needs some work in explaining its contents. --  zero faults   ' '' 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero, your antecedents ("it doesn't say it") are mysterious. The intro is quite clear. This article describes "books referenced by, but not found in, the Bible." No assertion is made that the books "should be in the Bible," which would be a matter of opinion, and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --The Editrix 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag
Added because title of article is incorrect and misleading. As I've stated in the merge discussion, "of" is defined as "Derived or coming from; originating at or from" or "from the total or group comprising", hence your usage of "of" in the title would denote that these books were at one time a sub-set of the New Testament" and therefore this is a logically incorrect title. If this is not merged it needs to be moved to another title that correctly illustrates these are non-canonical books referenced in the New Testament that were never actually part of it, hence cannot be "lost".--Isotope23 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See my remark at Talk:Lost_books_of_the_New_Testament Talk:Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament. Dr Zak 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "Old Testament talk"...--Isotope23 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. My mistake. Dr Zak 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer Missing Texts refered to in the Christian New TestamentHopquick 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)