Hi
donadams
Yes, I believe that the book that we have cobbled together today, that is still, as far as the new covenant writings, the full knowledge of God that He wanted to have preserved for us.
You see, the new covenant, is just an accounting of how the early believers began to spread the word and some of the teachings, predominantly Jesus' with Paul's that were going around in that day. Until, of course, the Revelation of Jesus. So, if they aren't complete, then one would have to show me why not. What writings do you have that teach us something different concerning what God asks of us.
I mean, I'm sure there may have been other writings that someone wrote about Jesus and the work of the first disciples...but does it teach us something different about what they believed of God, or are they just different places and recordings of other preaching that makes the same point, but just in a different place and time. I really don't need 47 books to tell me that Jesus wept. I believed it the first time in the accepted writings.
However, if some new writing has been found that the disciples walking with Jesus asked him, "Lord! How shall we cross a street?" And Jesus responded to them, "On Mondays, you must cross with your right thumb in your left ear as that pleases your Father who is in heaven." Then I'd seriously consider it, and if it could be proven, or at least accepted, as reasonably reliable, I might try to introduce that new writing into the canon.
Keep in mine that it's ok to read anything you like concerning God and His ways. Although I would certainly expect a believer not to put any credence into some obviously spurious writing. But we can read what we like. However, the only writing that I consider as being God's desired word that He wants us all to know about, are the current Scriptures.
First, the old covenant canon doesn't have anything to do with the new covenant canon. The two sections were canonized(?) by different groups at different times. There was, at the time that the new covenant canon was established, a fairly rigorous examination of all the writings of that day. Which should really be all that need be considered for entrance. Later writings are just going to be hearsay and full of the thoughts and ruminations of men's minds, rather than necessarily a word from God. My position is that if Jesus didn't cover it, and Paul didn't cover it, or any of the other 'known' writers, then it doesn't need to be covered. Might be interesting reading, but not on par with the importance of God's word.
Secondly, I believe in a God who loves me and wants me, and everyone who has ever lived since the life of His Son, to know the truth. So, I have a hard time considering that there's an all powerful, omniscient God who has allowed the majority of those living upon the earth to not have His word, through which they can come to love Him also. So yes, for me, as Paul attests, the Scriptures are complete.
Finally, in returning a moment to the old covenant, 2,000 years ago Jesus, the Son of the living God who loves us and wants us to know all about Him and what is truth, walked among us. He made reference to the Scriptures many, many times. In those days, what we hold today as the accepted Scriptures, as far as the old covenant, had already been established and Jesus would have known that. Now again, I just can't consider this loving God I spoke of before, not having His Son tell us that there were missing writings. That when he said the word 'Scriptures' he was talking about more writings than just what had been canonized as the Scriptures before his day. What everyone considered to be the Scriptures in Israel when Jesus walked among us.
66 books with a scarlet thread woven through them. From beginning to end. A thread that 'weaves' us, through the blood of the Lamb, to our Father who is in heaven and forever to be praised.
God bless,
Ted
