Why no more books in the Bible?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
why hasn't god given us the new new testament or at least the second volume of the new testament?

I think its safe to say that witness to any biblical event could be described by hundreds if not thousands of people. Therefore searching for the Truth may entail many many more books then the one or two that you say were not included.

As far as a continuance or an addition to the new Testament, who would believe if another document were to spring forth?

Surely the church would hold onto their historical documents, yet would be blind to an emergence of the Word in the form of text.

Therefore, as it has been said before: " The sheep will know the shepard by his voice "

You wont know his voice, or his way, if you dont know him. Simple math.
And as for a doctrine, dont expect a miracle in that unless you make some effort on your own to understand his way.

Does a thief tell you when hes going enter your home? So it is with that day..

You wouldnt recognize it even if it was hand delivered to you by Christ himself. You would dismiss it as rhetoric.

A Dog returns to its own vomit.

Peace


[edit on 25-3-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Because they aren't anymore stories to tell. Jesus died and that was pretty much the end. it's like a movie, you have a beginning and an end.


but if you wish, i'll get started in writing the next book to include in a new version.:w:

Originally posted by jedimiller
but if you wish, i'll get started in writing the next book to include in a new version.:w:

Okay! So long as you don't mention Natalie Portman in it I think that would be reasonable.

bumpy

i want to reopen this discussion: why is the biblical canon complete?
surely god could tell us a thing or two about how we should deal with new problems that they couldn't have conceived of in the bronze and iron ages.

I think Gods word is here and everywhere. Perhaps there is no need for additional books because all that God has decided to tell us has been told. It is up to our faith and our own wisdom to differentiate the actual word of God from that of humans and the human agenda. Does it matter that the master conspirator Satan puts out disinformation to mix truth with fiction? It is this knowledge and our own human nature that allows us to be deceived. Perhaps God is but a simple being that actually requires very little of us, It is ourselves that allows such a simple Love to be diluted and made into something complicated. For those with the belief in God our basic faith is unfaltering so why should we place so much emphasis on missing books or the addition of new books. The basic message is simple; the complicated comes from the tree of knowledge which Satan uses effectively to deceive us and to cloud our minds with details that were not meant for us to understand.

Originally posted by TheDuckster


Thennnnn...we can't forget to disclude the works of the 'Book of Enoch' or 'St. Thomas', 'Mary Magdalene' etc etc etc.

I always wondered why there was a gap of missing information when it came down to this.

Why is it the Vatican chooses to allow only certain books to be in the bible, and doesn't acknowledge others. Selective publishing. hmmm...

For whatever reason(s) that the Vatican chooses, it does not dismiss the fact that there are other 'accounts of History(?) that have been neglected.

"I'll take a dash of this and that...hmmm that looks good...ok.. I'll incorporate this too....who cares if the majority doesn't like this one, I'll make them eat crow when they read this and that. There...now it's complete....I think I'll hide the other stuff from people for awhile, tell them it's BS, and let them fight over it."

The above italics were my own crazy interpretation of what 'I think' is happening right now.

~Ducky~

for me, the bible is more than an "account of history"

i believe the bible to be the word of god. as such i think he has the right to determine which books are included and which are not.

if the bible is inspired from god, then enoch, st thomas and the gospel of mary are just accounts of history, not inspire writings.

as conspiracies involving the church, people were burned for translating the bible because the church didnt want normal people to read it. if they read it, they would see how much thier doctrine conflicted with the bible. ( i can pull up refences if you want)

so if the bible wasn't protected by god, why didnt the church just change it to more accomidate thier doctrine?

lastly, in the first post, someone mentioned thatthe bible doesnt guide us with problems we have today. how so?

reply to post by miriam0566


well, there wasn't anything protecting the bible from thomas jefferson's edits. he removed all the theology and kept the agreeable moral teachings.

miriam, how do you know god established the canon instead of just people?

and, on top of that, how do you know god doesn't want more books added to it?

reply to post by TheDuckster


Amen Duckster!!

Well, I was about to add this thread based on a book/letter called the Gospel of Nicodemius I read in Barnes & Nobel a few years ago. BEFORE you flame me, I didn't say I it was completely valid. However I won't say it's not either. Why?

After reading the ending, I broke into almost uncontrollable weeping sitting right there in the chair! It was the old touch in my heart that I recognize many times before when laying on my face before the Lord or when reading a passage of scripture that the Holy Spirit as illuminated to show me something I never saw before.

Moving myself to a corner of the bookshelves because I just couldn't make it to the mens room, to hide my weeping which lasted about 15 minutes; a thought crossed my mind in the form of a question ...

"What is it that you just read that made you weep so hard..?"

Before I answer that, I'd like to hear from other brothers and sisters what some of you would say if you were me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by miriam0566

 

well, there wasn't anything protecting the bible from thomas jefferson's edits. he removed all the theology and kept the agreeable moral teachings.

miriam, how do you know god established the canon instead of just people?

and, on top of that, how do you know god doesn't want more books added to it?

good question. simply put, if god inspired the bible, i have full confidence that it contains the books it's suppose to contain. if he wants to add more then he will add more. he is the all powerful god of the universe right?

if god didn't inspire the bible, then its all moot point then anyway isnt it? if it' not the word of god then why would it be a holy book?

as for edits, im not sure im convinced, i did alot of research on the changes of the bible and alot of evidence points to the modern bible as being very similar to some of the oldest transcripts.

do you have specific examples?

Originally posted by miriam0566
good question. simply put, if god inspired the bible, i have full confidence that it contains the books it's suppose to contain. if he wants to add more then he will add more. he is the all powerful god of the universe right?

...but we wouldn't really know that "he" would want to add more, would we?
and i think said being doesn't violate free will...so that would run into things.

if god didn't inspire the bible, then its all moot point then anyway isnt it? if it' not the word of god then why would it be a holy book?

...you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy here. it's not either:
1: god inspired the bible, thus all books in there are good
2: god didn't inspire the bible

there is the option that god inspired more books that aren't there

an example being john milton's paradise lost. he claimed that the holy spirit inspired that book.

as for edits, im not sure im convinced, i did alot of research on the changes of the bible and alot of evidence points to the modern bible as being very similar to some of the oldest transcripts.

do you have specific examples?

um...not no me at the moment, try the book "Misquoting Jesus" for some.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is the option that god inspired more books that aren't there

The key word in your statement is inspire.

MIMS in your logical mind, please define for me your definition of the word " inspired " in terms of those books.

If you were asked to write a book about the inspiration of Jesus Christ, what might you put in it, putting aside for a moment if you please, your argument as to his existence?

Peace

don't worry i'm writing the new one. my deadline for finishing it is coming up, so i'll try to have it published by august of 2009. ;-)

re read the old ones till then i suppose

reply to post by HIFIGUY


inspired as in "god gave insight to the people writing it via the holy spirit"

that's what i meant.

(yes, i know this runs contrary to my personal opinions, but i'm dropping those for the sake of having a theological discussion)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...but we wouldn't really know that "he" would want to add more, would we?
and i think said being doesn't violate free will...so that would run into things.

what does god wanting a book a certain way have to do with free will?

...you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy here. it's not either:
1: god inspired the bible, thus all books in there are good
2: god didn't inspire the bible

there is the option that god inspired more books that aren't there

an example being john milton's paradise lost. he claimed that the holy spirit inspired that book.

if the god of the bible is omnipotent, and he inspired the bible, are you implying that he would not be able to determine which books are in the canon?

also, just because a book claims to be inspired by holy spirit doesnt mean it is....

Disclaimer: I'm not a christian but I am a theist.

To address the topic using scripture that is all agreed upon by all christians as it is at the very back of their bibles in the book of Revelations (KJV chpt 22 vrs 18 and 19) and I quote "22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.". And here I believe John is refering to the entire bible and not just his book of Revelations. So if this scripture is accurate and refers to the entire bible then christians are by its own definitions unable to add any new books (I'm not sure how the mormons get around this with their book of mormon?).

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
(KJV chpt 22 vrs 18 and 19)

i forgot about that scripture, thank you for posting that

Originally posted by miriam0566
what does god wanting a book a certain way have to do with free will?

think about it. books are written, printed, and published by people. any revised and/or expanded bible with new stuff in it would involve a person doing something. that means god has to get everyone who follows the bible to 100% agree with the changes

how would such a being do this without violating free will?

if the god of the bible is omnipotent, and he inspired the bible, are you implying that he would not be able to determine which books are in the canon?

actually, it's "omnipotent*"
that little * is a note on not violating free will.

i've already explained above.

also, just because a book claims to be inspired by holy spirit doesnt mean it is....

exactly

how do we know that bible is truly books that god truly inspired?

reply to post by OmegaLogos

And here I believe John is refering to the entire bible and not just his book of Revelations. So if this scripture is accurate and refers to the entire bible then christians are by its own definitions unable to add any new books (I'm not sure how the mormons get around this with their book of mormon?).

...how?

the book of revelations was written well before the biblical canon was established. it's referencing itself, nothing else. there was no bible to reference when it was written.

reply to post by miriam0566


Thanks for the Thanks I'm very glad that I could contribute something of use even though bible scriptures are not my forte.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You say and i quote "...how?........the book of revelations was written well before the biblical canon was established. it's referencing itself, nothing else. there was no bible to reference when it was written."

1stly let me say that I have no problem with you point of view but here are some points you might like to consider 1) YES the book of revelations was written well before the biblical canon was established but it was supposedly the last book written of the entire canon and so COULD reference the entire bible as its written in GODs hand after all! 2) That it's referencing itself, nothing else. there was no bible to reference when it was written.... well you haven't provided any proof that there was no bible to reference and hang on whats the TORAH or the Old Testament? Imaginary scribble on imaginary scrolls maybe?