Should all of the dead sea scrolls be considered scripture?

[AnticipateHisComing]

Should all of the dead sea scrolls be considered scripture?

Can commentary be inspired?

Your thread conflates two concepts, is any text inspired by the Holy Spirit and is it scripture. Note the difference and use of the two ideas that you treat the same, for they are not the same.

Scripture is God's word. It is always true. It is known by all to be true and God's word. Inspired words are also true, but we do not unquestionably know that they are true, just because of the writer and book the words are contained in. Therefore other words by the same writer and in the same book are not guaranteed to be true or inspired.

Now think about this, how can scripture say that we are to test all teachings against scripture? It is kind of a catch 22 for testing new scripture, unless what constitutes scripture has been established. Now many think the NT such a radical departure from the OT, but the NT gospel is taught in the OT and any NT teaching should have a basis in the OT. Certainly the NT does divulge additional details of God's grace though.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

And I thought I was the only one who studied those! I've had those same questions too. Especially after reading Enoch and seeing it quoted by Jude in the New Testament.

Just because one sentence quoted is true, does not mean everything in the quoted text is true. The NT also quotes secular texts, doesn't mean it endorses every word of the texts.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Because I have teachings that need to be taught NOW and can not teach them because the forum gods declared that anything not in the canon can not be taught. I can not tell you what it is because then they'll just delete this post too. But the teachings are in the dead sea scroll 11Q13 which the current church does not accept as canon so stifles it, as the Pharisees stifled the book of Enoch.

You seem so concerned that the Church is lacking, that something new needs to be taught NOW. I am just wondering is this new teaching needed for salvation? If so, the Holy Spirit has done an awful job of revealing God's word and all the people that claimed to be Christians for the last 2000 years will miss out in heaven.

My point is to emphasize why people consider the canon closed, because what God has revealed to be his word is sufficient to guide us to salvation and to learn how to serve him as he desires.

The only other possible addition I see to the canon being coming from a potential literal two prophets as referenced in Revelation 11:10.

 

[Mountainmike]

The logic is irrefutable. As is the history.
No Catholic Church, no New Testament,

And the authority of the apostolic succession is demonstrably the basis on which our Lord built his church.

The logic of your argument is so lacking. It amounts to I was once right so I am always right. Note that the Pharisees also tried that same tactic. They developed the OT but rejected Jesus. Explain away that catch 22. I wish the RCC would just stick with they are right because they say they are right, a much more honest argument, even if not true.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The logic is irrefutable. As is the history.
No Catholic Church, no New Testament,

The logic is irrefutable. As is the history.
No Pharisees, no Old Testament.

Actually, there is no logic in such a statement. It is as you wrote purely a historical account. The logic is in your inference that one organization that once led God's people will always do so in the future, and in truth.

What you fail to acknowledge is that just as the Jews lost their way so can Christian denominations/churches. There is no promise that a particular religious organization will be the religious authority. Jesus abolished both sacrifices and the position of high priest. The RCC with their pope wish to continue a position of high priest. This is not in scripture.

 

[A Truth Hunter]

Just because one sentence quoted is true, does not mean everything in the quoted text is true. The NT also quotes secular texts, doesn't mean it endorses every word of the texts.

I didn't know that it quotes secular texts. Can u expand on that?

 

[Radagast]

The NT also quotes secular texts, doesn't mean it endorses every word of the texts.

Indeed. In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes Epimenides and the Hymn to Zeus by Aratus, and in Titus 1:12, he quotes Epimenides again. But, as you say, that does not mean that he is endorsing their ideas.