Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that this was in a discussion specifically about Mormonism, it got me thinking. This topic is much more expansive than just one book or one religion IMHO. I think it's a discussion worth having, so I'm creating this thread to discuss it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Do you think any books besides the OT and NT reflect the words of your god? If so, then it is reasonable for people to think you are not a true Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
As an avid student of Christian history, I really do get why many Christians -- especially Protestants -- see things that way. The ball really got rolling with Jon Wycliffe: The Bible was the tool used to point out where the Church had strayed and even entirely departed from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. After Wycliffe, you had John Hus. With Martin Luther, the Reformation went from tiny trickle to massive landslide. The word of God quite literally flooded the earth and the Bible was the set standard for separating truth from error for Protestants. The thought process is quite elegant really: "You can keep your Ecumenical Councils, Confessions of Faith, Catechisms and traditions. Just the Bible for me, thanks."
But any true student of the Bible knows perfectly well that the standard of the Bible being the only scripture is completely non-Biblical. The Bible never said that the Bible is the only word of God. There are many passages that some well meaning Christians like to point to that "seem to imply" as much, but all such misuses of Biblcal text entirely ignores Chronology of events. The Bible was not compiled and canonized in its entirety until about 400 AD (spanning multiple Ecumenical Councils -- arguments really). So for any passage of scripture to reference "The Bible" it would have needed to have been written after 400 AD. None of the New Testament canon was written any later than 100 AD. So using the Bible to prove that the Bible is "the only word of God" is impossible. Catch 22.
I'm reminded of an ancient tomb of an 8th or 9th century monk that was found in Egypt in 1886 AD. The monk had a copy of the pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter clutched to his chest. No doubt he asked to be buried with this book he treasured so much in exactly that manner. Yet early church fathers and modern researchers agree that the Gospel of Peter is not a valid book of scripture and was certainly not written by the apostle Peter (as it purports to be.) Apparently, the unnamed monk drew great faith, comfort and inspiration from the Gospel of Peter. Will God refuse to save him for believing in a book he considered scripture that was ultimately rejected from the canon of the New Testament?
The Book of Mormon is either scripture or it is like the Gospel of Peter -- a spurious but pious work by a well-meaning believer. The book reads a lot like the New Testament and seems pretty intent on convincing its readers to believe in Christ. So if it all turns out to be a work of fiction, do you honestly believe that God will refuse to save everyone who increased their faith in Christ via the Book of Mormon?
I don't think God is nearly as merciless as many Christians want him to be.
There are 66 books in the Bible and that is all the World of God that exists, right? Maybe not, it depends on who you ask.
The trouble with the notion of a closed and inflexible canon is not immediately apparent, especially to Protestants. In the West, because the Roman Catholic Church was the only business in town for about 1000 years, scriptural canon had long since been a closed discussion when the Protestant Reformation occurred. Despite that 1000 years, 14 books were rejected by Martin Luther. The bulk of the other Protestant Reformers followed his lead. 10 of those 14 books (commonly known as the Apocrypha) were removed from the Protestant canon. 10 of the are still found in the Catholic Bible.
Eastern Christian denominations, while agreeing on the core canon in general, still to this day recognize many books that the West does not. Most notably, the 45 million strong Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon recognizes 81 books in it's narrow canon and a great many more that they categorize in their broad canon. Examples include: Enoch, Josippon, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Meqabyan, Ethiopic Clement, the books of Baruch and several others. There is no real consensus in Christianity on scriptural canon of the Old Testament or even the New Testament.
If you read through the bible and you will find references to writings that we do not have today in any form. I'm not talking about books that exist but are of questionable validity. I'm talking about books we do not have at all: The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14), Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), The Book of Samuel (1 Chr. 29:29), The Book of Gad (1 Chr. 29:29), The Book of Nathan (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29), The Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); Visions of Iddo (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); The Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); The Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19). In the New Testament we find reference to a letter to the Corinthians before 1st Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); a legit (so not the Apocryphal work by the same name) letter from Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16), etc. Fragments of the Book of Lamech were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with a good list of other writings I can't think of right now. What if a verifiably legitimate Gospel or Epistle by one of the other Apostles were to turn up tomorrow? If a verifiably legitimate copy of any of the above were discovered tomorrow, should they be excluded from canon? If so, do we "excommunicate from Christianity" anyone who accepts them as scripture?
To rigidly hold to the 66 books recognized by Protestants, one would have to "excommunicate" (in effect) at least 1.6 billion of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. But I suppose the bigger question is this: What happened precisely? When did God stopping telling human beings anything that was worth writing down? Why did he stop? How permanent is God's apparent silence and what useful purpose does it server? Why do we have a closed canon at all? I don't know if I have the answers to these questions, but like I said I think it's a discussion worth having.
I know that this was in a discussion specifically about Mormonism, it got me thinking. This topic is much more expansive than just one book or one religion IMHO. I think it's a discussion worth having, so I'm creating this thread to discuss it.
There are 66 books in the Bible and that is all the World of God that exists, right? Maybe not, it depends on who you ask.
The trouble with the notion of a closed and inflexible canon is not immediately apparent, especially to Protestants. In the West, because the Roman Catholic Church was the only business in town for about 1000 years, scriptural canon had long since been a closed discussion when the Protestant Reformation occurred. Despite that 1000 years, 14 books were rejected by Martin Luther. The bulk of the other Protestant Reformers followed his lead. 10 of those 14 books (commonly known as the Apocrypha) were removed from the Protestant canon. 10 of the are still found in the Catholic Bible.
Eastern Christian denominations, while agreeing on the core canon in general, still to this day recognize many books that the West does not. Most notably, the 45 million strong Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon recognizes 81 books in it's narrow canon and a great many more that they categorize in their broad canon. Examples include: Enoch, Josippon, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Meqabyan, Ethiopic Clement, the books of Baruch and several others. There is no real consensus in Christianity on scriptural canon of the Old Testament or even the New Testament.
If you read through the bible and you will find references to writings that we do not have today in any form. I'm not talking about books that exist but are of questionable validity. I'm talking about books we do not have at all: The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14), Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), The Book of Samuel (1 Chr. 29:29), The Book of Gad (1 Chr. 29:29), The Book of Nathan (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29), The Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); Visions of Iddo (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); The Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); The Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19). In the New Testament we find reference to a letter to the Corinthians before 1st Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); a legit (so not the Apocryphal work by the same name) letter from Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16), etc. Fragments of the Book of Lamech were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with a good list of other writings I can't think of right now. What if a verifiably legitimate Gospel or Epistle by one of the other Apostles were to turn up tomorrow? If a verifiably legitimate copy of any of the above were discovered tomorrow, should they be excluded from canon? If so, do we "excommunicate from Christianity" anyone who accepts them as scripture?
To rigidly hold to the 66 books recognized by Protestants, one would have to "excommunicate" (in effect) at least 1.6 billion of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. But I suppose the bigger question is this: What happened precisely? When did God stopping telling human beings anything that was worth writing down? Why did he stop? How permanent is God's apparent silence and what useful purpose does it server? Why do we have a closed canon at all? I don't know if I have the answers to these questions, but like I said I think it's a discussion worth having.
The Epistle of Barnabas is one that I consider inspired.
Now to answer your question: if the Christian Fundamentalists in power today--and this organization has been building and consolidating its power since Luther--says the canon is closed, then it is closed. Whenever they say it was closed, that's when it was closed. Whoever they say closed it, that's who closed it. No further questions asked. No further answers given. Carlton Pearson will verify all that I've said is true.
That writing alone answered many questions for me.
Heretic!! Burn em!!
Joking of course. I've not read the Epistle of Barnabas (though I've read extensively from the Pseudepigrapha). Just an oversight, I'm going to read it now. Thanks for mentioning it!
Joking of course. I've not read the Epistle of Barnabas (though I've read extensively from the Pseudepigrapha). Just an oversight, I'm going to read it now. Thanks for mentioning it!
It was included with the original manuscripts that were used to transcribe our modern Bibles.
It was included with the original manuscripts that were used to transcribe our modern Bibles.
I've gotten through chapter 5 and I'm really enjoying it. I wonder why the excluded it from the canon? I've wondered that about a long list of writings.
I've gotten through chapter 5 and I'm really enjoying it. I wonder why they excluded it from the canon? I've wondered that about a long list of writings.
Look to religious politics more than anything else for an answer.
In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!"
I've gotten through chapter 5 and I'm really enjoying it. I wonder why the excluded it from the canon? I've wondered that about a long list of writings.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read. The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that, about the year A.D. 200, even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by everyone as an inspired writing.
Most of the books on the Word of God from the Old Testament are the same books which Jesus had In the first century ...... Where as Apostle Paul quoted from couple of books which do not exist today , ..........Most of the history books which are uncanonized , are banned by Holy Spirit for the children of God , as it is banned because it will bring confusion to Holy Spirit who does not prefer to quicken the children of God from these books ...So children of God are called to but the books in the trash were they belong ....
Most of the books on the Word of God from the Old Testament are the same books which Jesus had In the first century ...... Where as Apostle Paul quoted from couple of books which do not exist today , ..........Most of the history books which are uncanonized , are banned by Holy Spirit for the children of God , as it is banned because it will bring confusion to Holy Spirit who does not prefer to quicken the children of God from these books ...So children of God are called to but the books in the trash were they belong ....
I appreciate the response certainly. Still, where are you finding this teaching? I've certainly never come across it in the Bible. It is an interesting notion, and it would be nice to just blindly accept that "what we have is all there ever was, everything else is garbage," I just can't get my head nor my heart around thinking like that. And it doesn't help that no such teaching can actually be found in the Bible. Still, it would be a lot easier, wouldn't it?
Hebrews and the Revelation of John were controversial when the ancient Church was hammering out exactly what was canon and what was not. Many earlier unofficial lists did not include either of them. Some lists did include Clement though. What if things had played out a little differently and Clement stays in while Hebrews and Revelation get tossed out? Or was the work of canonization so flawlessly guided that such a thing couldn't have happened? If the Holy Spirit was so thoroughly guiding canonization, why does the canon vary from one branch of Christianity to the next?
I'm not at all satisfied that the canon as presently constituted is even close to complete. It's more like, "This is what we have left." Due to the nature of the Roman persecution and the general chaos within the Church from 100 AD to 300 AD very likely lost a great many sacred writings. Writings which, if they had survived, would most certainly be in our current Bible. What are the odds that the senior-most apostle Simon-Peter didn't bother to write down his own account of the life of Christ? It seems astounding that he would not! What about the man listed just second to Peter, the apostle James? Do we truly believe that James had nothing to say on the matter? And while spurious writings did appear under their names later, it is the actual writings of actual apostles that I'm most interested in. If the real Gospel of Peter (if it exists) turns up and advances in science allow us certainty that it truly is the genuine article, does that then get added to the Bible?? I think Christendom would have to be gibbering mad not to add it!
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 06-17-2013 at 04:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
