Latest News: The Great Trubulation


Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
What books should be part of the bible canon?[
Author Message
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #16
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Interpretum Wrote:
Hey Folks

I wouldn't label it all as "missing".

Maybe Paul really wrote 100 letters. Does it really matter that the Church decided to preserve a limited number of them?

If we had all 100, I bet it would simply serve to divide Christians even more, since Christians can't even agree on the meanings of the letters we have!

I sometimes suspect our desire for "knowledge" misses the point... that what's important is a relationship with God, not endless knowledge.



Interpretum,

Our relationship with God does indeed hang on our ability to agree.

So I disagree with your suspicion above.

My disagreement is not based on a suspicion.

It is based on this knowledge:

2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, continue to rejoice, to be readjusted, to be comforted, to think in agreement, to live peaceably; and the God of love and of peace will be with YOU.

I do agree that a relationship with God is important.


In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
11-06-2010 11:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Artcritic
Member


Posts: 749
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #17
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Yannis Wrote:
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?

The Septuagint contained the Aprocrypha so that is why it is included in Orthodox and Catholic bibles.

As far as the New Testament goes, the Holy Spirit guided the Church on what books to include in the canon. That is good enough for me. :thumbup:

Some books not included are certainly benefical, dont get me wrong.

The Council of Nicaea was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. The question is do we really trust them? Don’t you think this Council could have been set up by Satan? It may have been set up to try and destroy what our father intended us to read. There were many books of the prophets
floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicaea decided
which books were scripture and which ones were burned, yes burned.

Thanks to the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the
Council of Nicaea. Some books that were burned may not have been inspired but what about those that were. I don’t mind if you trust the Council of Nicaea nevertheless I question what they did.

11-07-2010 05:24 AM
Find all posts by this user
Interpretum
This Space For Rent


Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #18
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Hi Abe

ablebodiedman Wrote:
Our relationship with God does indeed hang on our ability to agree.

So I disagree with your suspicion above.

My disagreement is not based on a suspicion.


I'm not saying knowledge of God isn't important, although "knowing" a person isn't really about book knowledge. I could "know" every fact and figure about Jesus Christ, but if I don't have a relationship with him, I'm just a walking Wikipedia :D

Neither am I anti-knowledge. Personally, I HAVE read lots of non-canonical books like the Book Of Jasher, and I think they're very enlightening.

However, if EVERY enlightening book were part of the Bible canon, we wouldn't be able to carry the Bible around with us! It would be more like a massive encylopedia.
So what we have in the Bible is undoubtedly a SAMPLE... the information we NEED to know, in order to know God.

Remember also, Gnostics elevate knowledge, perhaps even above relationships and love. Secret societies entice people by promising them hidden knowledge known only to an elect few. Even Satan used that tactic on Eve... on the day you eat, you're going to be LIKE GOD.... KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL.

She would know something only the gods knew! Ooh, how intriguing! <munch>

I love knowledge, but this question, "What books should be part of the bible canon" is a red herring.

Read whatever you like, and form your own opinions about the material. Just remember that it was a wise apostle who said that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

Paul knew a lot... but he chose to constantly draw people back to Christ.

Gnostics also knew a lot, but they preferred to get caught up in speculative discussions of the aeons and stuff like that.

I suspect they were the perfect example of what Paul meant.


My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
11-07-2010 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user
Yannis
Pilgrim


Posts: 1,054
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #19
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Artcritic Wrote:
The Council of Nicaea was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.


You are wrong, it wasnt decided at the Council of Nicea. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.

Artcritic Wrote:
The question is do we really trust them?


Yes, we can trust them because we trust the Lord and HE said that He will be with the Church always.

"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:20

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall, not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you." John 14:16-18

Individual persons can and did apostatize, but not the whole Church which Jesus Christ founded, for according to Scripture, that would be an impossibility.


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
11-07-2010 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user
COMankind
Member


Posts: 337
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #20
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

'digging for insight as for silver' Pro 2:4 did not necessarily mean you were limited to Genesis to Revelation.

The Works of Josephus are not inspired, but have excellent value.

If only we had more time to read.

I myself have read the Book of Enoch a couple of times. I can see why it hit the cutting room floor of the early church councils. Revelation and Hebrews almost were cut as well. All because they were thought to be too 'over the top' for mainstream followers.

What's in the book of Enoch goes against church doctrine. That goes for a lot of books and letters that were cut. Granted, many of them were fakes. But those that are actually quoted in the Bible have some degree of credibility.

The WT says, regarding the Book of Enoch, that when the book of Jude referred to the book...it actually was quoting another book that is completely lost. Not the one we have today. Odd logic, one that puts the inspiration of church councils above the inspiration of Jude.


philia, COMankind

"The tent of God is with mankind" - Rev 21:3

12-27-2010 11:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
BeginAgain
Not So New


Posts: 178
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #21
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

:nicethread: Hello All!

Thanks Artcritic, good job brother. I'm enjoying the comments and new information, like e-magine, I couldn't agree with you guys more.

I am curious to know where the two statements by Yannis and COMankind can be verified or is more information available. (No, I haven't Googled it yet) :whistle:

Quote Yannis: “ . . . it wasnt decided at the Council of Nicea. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.”

Quote COMankind: “The WT says, regarding the Book of Enoch, that when the book of Jude referred to the book...it actually was quoting another book that is completely lost. Not the one we have today. Odd logic, one that puts the inspiration of church councils above the inspiration of Jude.”

Did the WT specify where they obtained this information, how do they know this? Yannis, where can I go to confirm your research? Why isn't this more commonly known?

:heartbeat::grouphug:


"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that's why they call it the present." Eleanor Roosevelt
12-28-2010 03:35 AM
Find all posts by this user
Beau Wetini
Me and my boy at the beach!


Posts: 2,194
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #22
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Church councils.....Governing Body......people seem to need to follow the whims of a bunch of geezers....oh well....whatcha gonna do about it!

:D:D:D


LIVE THE KINGDOM NOW!!


12-28-2010 03:47 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
COMankind
Member


Posts: 337
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #23
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

I should have expanded on that...the WT theorized that Jude could have been quoting another book, a book that the current book of Enoch would have been based on as well. This is a book that would be lost today.

So, complete theory.

Their resulting argument was that the canon MUST be approved by God, therefore Jude could not be supporting a book out of canon.


philia, COMankind

"The tent of God is with mankind" - Rev 21:3

12-28-2010 11:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #24
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

Sure do find this verse from the Epistle of Barnabus to be very profound:

Barnabas 11:1
But let us enquire whether the Lord took care to signify before hand concerning the water and the cross. Now concerning the water it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which bringeth remission of sins, but would build for themselves.


Thing is, Barnabus is referencing another writing.


Wish I knew where else that was written!



In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
12-28-2010 01:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Resolute
politicus incorrectissimus in extremis


Posts: 1,883
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #25
RE: What books should be part of the bible canon?[

What did Paul mean by this:

"What, then, is the superiority of the Jew, or what is the benefit of the circumcision? A great deal in every way. First of all, because they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God." -- Romans 3:1-2

rez:huh:


When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one… – Edmund Burke
02-19-2011 05:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: