Which books belong in the New Testament?

[doubtingmerle]

What John may or may not have been referring to is only of secondary importance, at best. Moses and Isaiah certainly had little idea of the meaning of much of what they wrote.

And does the same assertion apply to your posts? Is it OK if we search your posts for hidden meanings that have nothing to do with what you intended? I cannot see how that would be helpful. If I am going to read your posts (or the Bible) then I would think my primary concern should be to understand what the author intended the words to mean.

For there are serious doubts that any of the books in the New Testament are the works of the apostles other than 10 of the epistles of Paul. All other books of the New Testament are either anonymous or highly doubtful in authorship.

You a funny guy! Have you ever looked into this? I mean, seriously? If you want to remove a virus from your PC, don't call a plumber.

Yes, I have seriously looked into the authorship of the NT. The gospels, Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John are all anonymous. 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, and 2 Peter are widely regarded to be 2nd century forgeries. Revelation is by a John--a common name--but there is no indication it is John the apostle. Jude and James don't even claim to be apostles, and it is doubtful that Jude was a brother of Jesus as claimed. I Peter is also far from being confirmed by Peter.

So that leaves only 10 books of Paul, who may have been an apostle, but he was certainly not one of the 12 disciples.

Why must I select your list, if accuracy of the list is not imporant?

I think this is actually a better question than you give it credit for. You can find the Truth of G-d in a rainstorm, (just as one random example) lists are not such a primary concern.

If you are claiming that that Bible is just another set of books to find God, even as the Epistle of Barnabas or a rainstorm are places to find God, then it is not a big deal which books are selected.

But some claim every book in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God--or at least the original copies were. If that is the claim, then it would be very wrong to include books in that list that did not meet that criteria. In that case, accuracy would be very important.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

But some claim every book in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God--or at least the original copies were. If that is the claim, then it would be very wrong to include books in that list that did not meet that criteria. In that case, accuracy would be very important.

Why do you care? If its just another book then treat it as such. Look at it critically and analytically and evaluate the truth claims made. Look at it as a great piece of historical literature. Perhaps look at it as a book that can lead to greater understanding of some greater purpose, a book that can bring about change and personal evolution. That's all you can do because if you just had faith that it was inspired then you would easily say that God put it together in some fashion and God directed its creation.

Your whole argument and all your questions are founded on the presupposition that it was written by fallible men.

So no answer you get here from a Christian will be satisfying because they believe it wasn't written purely by fallible men. There is faith present that says that, even if it was penned by men and compiled by men, God was still present in the whole evolutionary and historical process, guiding the birth of the ongoing kingdom of God.

Personally, I believe the Bible is great because it provokes thought and spiritual understanding and personal growth through dialogue like this very thread. You can't deny that it has shaped humanity on a large scale as well as shaped and guided billions of people on a small scale for hundreds of years (Christian and non-Christian). I would say the Bible has had an impact as much on the Pope as Richard Dawkins, just in slightly different ways.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do you care? If its just another book then treat it as such. Look at it critically and analytically and evaluate the truth claims made. Look at it as a great piece of historical literature. Perhaps look at it as a book that can lead to greater understanding of some greater purpose, a book that can bring about change and personal evolution. That's all you can do because if you just had faith that it was inspired then you would easily say that God put it together in some fashion and God directed its creation.

Why do I care? I care because there are people who say that the words contained in the Bible are the very Word of God. I care because there are people who frighten children into following those 27 selected books out of fear of hell. I care because there are people who ask children to ignore the claims of other sources that differ with the Bible. I care because children are being taught to look down on people who do not agree with the set of 27 books that were selected.

If the 27 books of the New Testament are going to be put on that kind of pedestal, than those who do so should verify that every single book on that pedestal belongs there.

Your whole argument and all your questions are founded on the presupposition that it was written by fallible men.

My argument is that, if somebody wants to treat certian books as something other than the work of fallible men, then they need solid evidence.

Personally, I believe the Bible is great because it provokes thought and spiritual understanding and personal growth through dialogue like this very thread. You can't deny that it has shaped humanity on a large scale as well as shaped and guided billions of people on a small scale for hundreds of years (Christian and non-Christian). I would say the Bible has had an impact as much on the Pope as Richard Dawkins, just in slightly different ways.

If you are saying that the compilers of the NT picked interesting books that provoke thoughts, I agreee. If you are saying they picked books that represent the Word of God, then I would want more evidence.

 

[razeontherock]

And does the same assertion apply to your posts? Is it OK if we search your posts for hidden meanings that have nothing to do with what you intended? I cannot see how that would be helpful. If I am going to read your posts (or the Bible) then I would think my primary concern should be to understand what the author intended the words to mean.

And here what you are plagued with is brought into the light of day:

the author is not John, nor Moses. The Author is G-d Himself. W/o approaching the Bible that way, it's more likely to land you in an insane asylum than anything else. Lotsa people there can quote the Bible at length! Understanding of it? Not so much.

Yes, I have seriously looked into the authorship of the NT. The gospels, Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John are all anonymous.

You arrive at this conclusion by following my earlier example of calling a plumber to remove a virus from your PC. Sure, he might actually be able to get the job done, but he certainly won't have the best logic or most direct approach for doing so. So it is when you turn to academia for Spiritual matters; they're out of their depth.

If you are claiming that that Bible is just another set of books to find God, even as the Epistle of Barnabas or a rainstorm are places to find God, then it is not a big deal which books are selected.

But some claim every book in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God--or at least the original copies were. If that is the claim, then it would be very wrong to include books in that list that did not meet that criteria. In that case, accuracy would be very important.

False dichotomy. Your concern here is really a red herring, distracting you from the Truth. Can you not glean Truth from Barnabas?

 

[razeontherock]

If you are saying they picked books that represent the Word of God, then I would want more evidence.

This brings us full circle to a Scripture I think you'd be very familiar with by now:

Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

You've neatly ignored every point I've made, which tells me you really don't want to know the truth about the Bible's development and it's relevance today. You can side with G-d's enemies, presuming to judge Him faulty.

I'd still urge you to reconsider.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And does the same assertion apply to your posts? Is it OK if we search your posts for hidden meanings that have nothing to do with what you intended? I cannot see how that would be helpful. If I am going to read your posts (or the Bible) then I would think my primary concern should be to understand what the author intended the words to mean.

And here what you are plagued with is brought into the light of day:

the author is not John, nor Moses. The Author is G-d Himself. W/o approaching the Bible that way, it's more likely to land you in an insane asylum than anything else. Lotsa people there can quote the Bible at length! Understanding of it? Not so much.

Which books are written by God, and which books aren't? Is Hebrews? The Epistle of Barnabas? Pilgrim's Progress? The Prayer of Jabez?

Can we look at all writings to find meanings that God intended but the author knew nothing about? If so, can we look at your posts to find meanings that God intended but you know nothing about?

Yes, I have seriously looked into the authorship of the NT. The gospels, Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John are all anonymous

You arrive at this conclusion by following my earlier example of calling a plumber to remove a virus from your PC. Sure, he might actually be able to get the job done, but he certainly won't have the best logic or most direct approach for doing so. So it is when you turn to academia for Spiritual matters; they're out of their depth.

Excuse me, but you have come into the middle of the conversation. Can I remind you how we got to this point?

I was responding to the assertion, "Preservation of the works of the apostles was another", in which it was claimed that the New Testament books were written by apostles. Do you think the New Testament books were written by apostles? If so, which apostle wrote Hebrews, and how do you know that? If not, would you kindly tell drich0150 that the New Testament is not necessarily "the works of the apostles"?

If you are claiming that that Bible is just another set of books to find God, even as the Epistle of Barnabas or a rainstorm are places to find God, then it is not a big deal which books are selected.

But some claim every book in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God--or at least the original copies were. If that is the claim, then it would be very wrong to include books in that list that did not meet that criteria. In that case, accuracy would be very important.

False dichotomy. Your concern here is really a red herring, distracting you from the Truth. Can you not glean Truth from Barnabas?

Yes, of course, we can gain truth from most any book. That is not the question.

The question is what you are claiming about the books in the canon. Are you claiming that every book in the canon is the word of God? If so, then you surely must agree with me that it would then be very wrong to include books in that list that did not meet that criteria. In that case, accuracy of the list of books would be very important.

Do you agree with the assertion made by others that it is not important that we have an accurate list of the books to be included in the Bible?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you are saying they picked books that represent the Word of God, then I would want more evidence.

This brings us full circle to a Scripture I think you'd be very familiar with by now:

Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

I wasn't asking for a sign. I was asking for evidence.

What evidence do you have that every one of the 27 books that the 4th century church picked to be included in the New Testament are the Word of God?

Are you asking me to take it on faith without evidence that your list is correct? If so, how is that different from the Morman who asks me to accept his book on faith with no evidence?

You've neatly ignored every point I've made, which tells me you really don't want to know the truth about the Bible's development and it's relevance today.

Excuse me, but which point have I avoided? I have responded to many points on this thread. If there is an important point I missed, what is it that you would like me to address?

You can side with G-d's enemies, presuming to judge Him faulty.

I'd still urge you to reconsider.

I am not here to judge God, or to side with God's enemies.

I'm here to ask which books belong in your New Testament, and how you know those are the correct books.

 

[ephraimanesti]

"If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"--Robert G. Ingersoll

MY BROTHER,

The answer to your question lies in the fact that ALL who do indeed use their "thinker" for the purpose for which is was designed will eventually arrive in His presence.

We are designed to seek Him out; our "thinker" is a God-given compass to lead us to that destination.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[doubtingmerle]

our "thinker" is a God-given compass to lead us to that destination.

And what if our thinker leads us elsewhere?

I think it would be a mistake to first decide where thinking will lead us before we turn our thinker loose. Shouldn't we first turn our thinker loose, and let it lead, even if it leads away from preconceived ideas of God?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I see very little support in this thread for the canon.

Some would want me to just assume the 4th century church got it right. But why should I assume that? Weren't they fallible men, and don't fallible men sometimes make mistakes?

Some tell me to just follow what the 4th century church says, regardless of whether they got it right. But blindly following people who were mistaken doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

So could it be there is no reason to assume that any of the books of the New Testament is the inspired Word of God?

 

[razeontherock]

And what if our thinker leads us elsewhere?

It's not a question of all roads leading to Rome; rather, there is no "where" to go apart from His Presence ...

I think it would be a mistake to first decide where thinking will lead us before we turn our thinker loose. Shouldn't we first turn our thinker loose, and let it lead, even if it leads away from preconceived ideas of God?

Leading AWAY from pre-conceived ideas about G-d is exactly what we're all telling you to do! There is a "perfect law of liberty." What does that mean? Certainly it is NOT being chained to the letter of the law

The entire Universe will speak the same things, it's just that Christians find the Bible to be a bit easier and quicker to understand than the rest of it ...

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's not a question of all roads leading to Rome; rather, there is no "where" to go apart from His Presence ...

Yes, many roads available; and many different directions.

Is "His Presence" at the end of every road in every possible direction? Then it doesn't seem to matter which road I take.

Is "His Presence" only in a certain direction? Then I might want to pick that direction.

How could one determine beforehand that one's GPS (the Bible, for instance) was leading on a road to "His Presence", instead of leading to an ersatz imitation of "His Presence"?

Leading AWAY from pre-conceived ideas about G-d is exactly what we're all telling you to do! There is a "perfect law of liberty." What does that mean? Certainly it is NOT being chained to the letter of the law

And it also means not being chained to the letter of a certain set of ancient books, perhaps?

The entire Universe will speak the same things, it's just that Christians find the Bible to be a bit easier and quicker to understand than the rest of it ...

If the Bible is so easy and quick to understand, why so much disagreement within Christianity on which direction the Bible is leading?

 

[razeontherock]

How could one determine beforehand that one's GPS (the Bible, for instance) was leading on a road to "His Presence"

You're engaging a paradox that is truly a miracle. I assert that the Bible will not truly "speak to you" until you settle this in your heart first, but that is not to discourage us from coming to it anyway. these things are not an on-off condition like a light switch, but often a question of degrees ...

If the Bible is so easy and quick to understand, why so much disagreement within Christianity on which direction the Bible is leading?

Several misconceptions all rolled into one small statement!

1) My point is that it's easier to make sense out of applicable wisdom from the Bible, than from the whole Universe

2) The disagreements within Christianity are, for the most part, NOT about which direction the Bible is leading. Rather, they are over much finer points of conscience.

3) It is possible to have solid understanding of some basics of Scripture, while having many apparent contradictions still unresolved. This is a statement to our own conscience not to be too sure about what we think we know, and to spur us on to resolve those apparent contradictions. Only then can we start gaining some clarity - and it is a prize worth fighting for!

 

[doubtingmerle]

How could one determine beforehand that one's GPS (the Bible, for instance) was leading on a road to "His Presence"

You're engaging a paradox that is truly a miracle. I assert that the Bible will not truly "speak to you" until you settle this in your heart first, but that is not to discourage us from coming to it anyway. these things are not an on-off condition like a light switch, but often a question of degrees ...

I don't see how this answers my question. With many roads available, how can one know that the Bible will lead one to "His Presence", and not to some ersatz imitation of "His Presence"? You respond with a suggestion on how to make the Bible "speak to you". Even if I could make the Bible "speak to me", how does that prove the Bible is leading me in the right direction?

It is easy to make my GPS "speak to me". Jill might say "Make a legal U-turn," but that does not prove that this is the right road to take. I need to first make sure Jill is directing to the right destination. So the question still applies: How do you know the Bible is directing you on the right road when it speaks?

Several misconceptions all rolled into one small statement!

1) My point is that it's easier to make sense out of applicable wisdom from the Bible, than from the whole Universe

I don't know. We have gleaned a lot of applicable wisdom from the universe as a whole, such as how to make cars, computers, and cellphones.

Can you give me a specific example of applicable wisdom you have gleaned from the Bible that was not easily gleaned by others without using the Bible?

2) The disagreements within Christianity are, for the most part, NOT about which direction the Bible is leading. Rather, they are over much finer points of conscience.

Well which direction is the Bible leading? Is it leading to an instantaneous born-again experience, or to salvation based on a lifetime of sacraments and following the Ten Commandments? Is it leading to pacifism and peace-activism, or to God-and-Country militarism? Is it leading to tongues and personal revelation, or to formal interpretation by the clergy?

If those are all finer points that do not involve the direction the Bible is leading, then what exactly is the direction that the Bible is so clearly leading you in?

 

[razeontherock]

I don't see how this answers my question.

You skipped over me saying you need to settle this in your own heart?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

You know who James was?

Well which direction is the Bible leading? Is it leading to an instantaneous born-again experience, or to salvation based on a lifetime

False dichotomy. No Christian would disagree that the direction the Bible leads, is following Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You skipped over me saying you need to settle this in your own heart?

Uh, excuse me, but I did quote back your comment that "the Bible will not truly 'speak to you' until you settle this in your heart first" and I responded. Did you miss it?

Once more, getting the Bible to speak to me is not the issue. The question is how you know it is leading us in the right direction when it speaks.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

You know who James was?

I know there was a James who claims to have written the book of James, but we don't know which James. He doesn't claim to be an apostle.

Do you know for sure that the book of James belongs in the canon? If not, you cannot simply assume that everything the book of James says is true, can you?

Well which direction is the Bible leading? Is it leading to an instantaneous born-again experience, or to salvation based on a lifetime

False dichotomy. No Christian would disagree that the direction the Bible leads, is following Jesus.

Excuse me, but I never said it was a dichotemy, or that it had to be one or the other. There are, however, Christians who insist that one answer or the other is true, and that the opposite answer is false.

If the Bible is so clear and easy to understand, why is it that Christians take such completely opposite viewpoints on a critical issue like salvation and insist that the Bible supports their view only?

Yes, all Christians agree to follow Jesus--by definition--but there are great differences on what "following Jesus" means.

 

[razeontherock]

I know there was a James who claims to have written the book of James, but we don't know which James. He doesn't claim to be an apostle.

Do you know for sure that the book of James belongs in the canon? If not, you cannot simply assume that everything the book of James says is true, can you?

Assumption is like shifting sand; not the place to build your house! As for me? Every word in James is airtight. And he was the Lord's 1/2 Brother. People actually lived alongside him you know. They passed along their knowledge, too.

Excuse me, but I never said it was a dichotemy, or that it had to be one or the other. There are, however, Christians who insist that one answer or the other is true, and that the opposite answer is false.

Beware the, the ... them guys. Over and over we seen in Scripture that is not the Lord's way.

If the Bible is so clear and easy to understand

Again, I didn't say that. My knowledge of it did NOT come cheap!

Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."

, why is it that Christians take such completely opposite viewpoints on a critical issue like salvation and insist that the Bible supports their view only?

Yes, all Christians agree to follow Jesus--by definition--but there are great differences on what "following Jesus" means.

Here's something you'll have to come to terms with:

look at a cross, or just picture one. Assign compass points to the 4 ends. The goal is the intersection: the heart of Jesus. Some of us come from opposite directions, and therefore need to move in opposite directions. (E/W)
Further, others come from N / S. While this is neither situational ethics nor moral relativism, it is true that some will have a perspective that simply makes no sense to you, or me.

The answer to that is humility.

Now try this: if you were ready to pray to G-d, verbalizing your heart the way He sees it, it might sound something like this:

"Lord Jesus, I don't trust you to lead me, and I sure don't trust you to lead the whole Church. This stuff is mind-boggling, and I can't fathom how you could do it. Nontheless I ask you for whatever is meant by "Faith" in the Bible, because I see it has made a night and day difference to many, and I couldn't conjure it up on my own. Perhaps you've given that to me already and I missed it or worse, I saw it and openly rejected it. Even so, you obviously haven't abandoned me otherwise I wouldn't care about this at all, so i ask you to have Mercy and reveal yourself to me in a way no one else could do."


Maybe that shoe doesn't quite fit, but grab a shoe horn and see if you can get it on?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Assumption is like shifting sand; not the place to build your house! As for me? Every word in James is airtight. And he was the Lord's 1/2 Brother.

I don't understand: First you condemn unwarrented assumptions; then you proceed with an assumption!

What evidence do you have to support the assumption that this James was the Lord's 1/2 Brother? James nowhere says that.

If the Bible is so clear and easy to understand

Again, I didn't say that. My knowledge of it did NOT come cheap!

Back in post #91 you said, "The entire Universe will speak the same things, it's just that Christians find the Bible to be a bit easier and quicker to understand than the rest of it."

As you now seem to be backpeddling on the claim that the Bible is so easy and quick to understand, perhaps there is no further need to challenge that point.

Now try this: if you were ready to pray to G-d, verbalizing your heart the way He sees it, it might sound something like this:

"Lord Jesus, I don't trust you to lead me, and I sure don't trust you to lead the whole Church. This stuff is mind-boggling, and I can't fathom how you could do it. Nontheless I ask you for whatever is meant by "Faith" in the Bible, because I see it has made a night and day difference to many, and I couldn't conjure it up on my own. Perhaps you've given that to me already and I missed it or worse, I saw it and openly rejected it. Even so, you obviously haven't abandoned me otherwise I wouldn't care about this at all, so i ask you to have Mercy and reveal yourself to me in a way no one else could do."

Making a commitment to most any cause will make one feel better, and make a huge difference. How do you know that committing myself to your cause will be better than committing to something else?

Maybe that shoe doesn't quite fit, but grab a shoe horn and see if you can get it on?

What if the Buddhist shoe fits better? Should I wear it? What if the Atheist or Mormon or Islam shoe makes a good fit? Why should I use a shoehorn to force my foot into the shoe your shoestore is selling, if the shoestore down the road has a pair that fits great?

 

[razeontherock]

M:
What evidence do you have to support the assumption that this James was the Lord's 1/2 Brother? James nowhere says that. [/quote]

James lived in a vacuum?

M:
Back in post #91 you said, "The entire Universe will speak the same things, it's just that Christians find the Bible to be a bit easier and quicker to understand than the rest of it."

As you now seem to be backpeddling on the claim that the Bible is so easy and quick to understand, perhaps there is no further need to challenge that point. [/quote]

No back-peddling. Just read it the way it's written

 

[doubtingmerle]

James lived in a vacuum?

I said nothing about James living in a vacuum.

What I said is that the writer of James makes no claim to be an apostle or that he was a half-brother of Jesus.

We don't know who this James was, or whether he had any authority in the early church.