Other Books?

[francisdesales]

I don't believe there are any lost books. Although we know Paul wrote some letters that we don't have. And you're absolutely correct, the apocrypha CAN be helpful...they don't have to be TOTALLY disgarded, but they are NOT divine. : )

How do you know that?

Regards

 

[shodan]

Are there other books to the Bible that are gone and lost now? Or are all the books currently in the Bible the only Words of God?

MA keeps saying that there is a Book of Jesus or something and that it is lost because we Christians are evil, or something... Is this true?

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

Right, you got it.

 

[dadof10]

Are there other books to the Bible that are gone and lost now? Or are all the books currently in the Bible the only Words of God?

MA keeps saying that there is a Book of Jesus or something and that it is lost because we Christians are evil, or something... Is this true?

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

Right, you got it.

Which books do you consider inspired and why? On who's authority do you either accept or reject certain books?

 

[shodan]

Which books do you consider inspired and why? On who's authority do you either accept or reject certain books?

It is not up to me to "accept or reject certain books"...in fact, that is heretical for me to do so.

The Church confirmed the Canon of Scripture long ago.

 

[Oats]

No, If there was it would be in the Bible...I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there... :tongue2


But seriously I don't believe there are any other books to the Bible

 

[francisdesales]

No, If there was it would be in the Bible...I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there... :tongue2


But seriously I don't believe there are any other books to the Bible

The "Bible" doesn't tell us the canon of Scriptures. The individual writings were not originally compiled into a codice called "The Bible". That was done much later by a living witness to the Gospel, the Church.

Why do so many people fail to see this is common sense? Not a single book of the NT tells us to "place this letter into a Bible in the future"... Jesus left a community of believers with authority, not a single writing.

Regards

 

[Oats]

No, If there was it would be in the Bible...I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there... :tongue2


But seriously I don't believe there are any other books to the Bible

The "Bible" doesn't tell us the canon of Scriptures. The individual writings were not originally compiled into a codice called "The Bible". That was done much later by a living witness to the Gospel, the Church.

Why do so many people fail to see this is common sense? Not a single book of the NT tells us to "place this letter into a Bible in the future"... Jesus left a community of believers with authority, not a single writing.

Regards

I'm pretty sure I knew that

What are you trying to get at?

 

[francisdesales]

No, If there was it would be in the Bible...I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there... :tongue2


But seriously I don't believe there are any other books to the Bible

The "Bible" doesn't tell us the canon of Scriptures. The individual writings were not originally compiled into a codice called "The Bible". That was done much later by a living witness to the Gospel, the Church.

Why do so many people fail to see this is common sense? Not a single book of the NT tells us to "place this letter into a Bible in the future"... Jesus left a community of believers with authority, not a single writing.

Regards

I'm pretty sure I knew that

What are you trying to get at?

That your response:

"I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there"

..Is really a circular argument and is ineffective for telling us what books belong in the Canon and whether others were left out. You are taking for granted what the Church has already told us is the Bible - the bible doesn't argue for its own completion.

My Bible has 73 books, so your bible is incomplete...

And as an earlier person attempted to do with his silly and unsupported arguments, it just cannot be supported without belief in the witness of the Church. Without the Church, you have no Bible.

Regards

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

""Without the Church, you have no Bible.""

Without God, you have no Bible. All depends on one's point of view, doesn't it?

JamesG

 

[Oats]

That your response:

"I know none are lost because when I look in my Bible I see all 66.

If they were lost they wouldn't be there"

..Is really a circular argument and is ineffective for telling us what books belong in the Canon and whether others were left out. You are taking for granted what the Church has already told us is the Bible - the bible doesn't argue for its own completion.

My Bible has 73 books, so your bible is incomplete...

And as an earlier person attempted to do with his silly and unsupported arguments, it just cannot be supported without belief in the witness of the Church. Without the Church, you have no Bible.

Regards[/quote]
This emoticon: :tongue2 ..... usually indicates joking.

And no the Bible is what it is....How can a Bible be any more "Bible" than it is. If God thought it should be different then it would be. Nothing happens outside of God's will.

Am I unsaved because my Bible has 66 books. Are mormons more saved than you

THEY HAVE TWO WHOLE BOOKS! 3



I'm not saying your Bible is wrong. We must be of two different religions.

 

[jasoncran]

oats the catholic church has more books in their bible then the protestant bible

 

[Oats]

oats the catholic church has more books in their bible then the protestant bible

I know...but I don't believe in Catholic beliefs...I believe in God. Jesus Christ. Yahushua Messiah

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

""Without the Church, you have no Bible.""

Without God, you have no Bible. All depends on one's point of view, doesn't it?

JamesG

The thread is about "other books" and knowing whether they belong in a canon of letters called "The Bible". Thus, it is entirely circular to say "my Bible has 66 books, so I know it is missing nothing". Based upon what evidence? Where is that found in the bible? Is there a finishing chapter that says "Ok, Christians, that's a wrap"???

It goes without saying that "without God, there is no Bible". The Bible is the Word of God, so if God doesn't exist, there is no Word...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

And no the Bible is what it is....How can a Bible be any more "Bible" than it is. If God thought it should be different then it would be. Nothing happens outside of God's will.

Because your Bible lacks what was thought as inspired writings. A study of history will clearly show that Mr. Luther decided for you that the Bible was much too long, and to shorten it, he removed 7 books. What is interesting, for the numbers-guy in the other thread, is that leaves you with 66 books. Isn't it quite ironic what the number "6" means??? It means "incomplete", "imperfect". And doubly so, with 66...

Just a bit of irony.. ;)

Am I unsaved because my Bible has 66 books. Are mormons more saved than you

I cannot say whether you are saved or not. One can have never read the Bible and still be saved, since NOWHERE does the Bible make the claim that one must read the Bible to be saved. Nowhere...

I know that you are not in possession of the entire Bible, though. And that is the topic of this thread. God desires us to be saved AND come to the knowledge of the Truth. We believe that these seven other books help us to know more about God's truth.

As to the Mormons, Mr. Smith had quite an imagination, he is not a worthy witness to the inspiration of Scriptures. We don't believe that God waited 1900 years after His Son came to reveal all that we need to know about God...

I'm not saying your Bible is wrong. We must be of two different religions.

Well, we once were one religion, Oats... Something to think about.

Regards

 

[PouringRain]

PR, I'm not calling you a relativist, please understand that. But this sounds like relativism. While this isn't in the same category as Truth being relative, it still begs the question: Are we to decide on our own what the Inspired Word of God is and what isn't? We can focus on worthy readings to compliment the Bible, but I do believe that we need to be careful in determining this by how we feel personally. I believe there is a stark difference between words that are Inspired and words that aren't.

I guess I'll put this out there if anyone cares to comment. Would you agree that some works are definitely Inspired and some aren't? Do you see a danger in treating books as Inspired when they are not? I do, inasmuch as I rely on the Bible for inerrant Truth and will not place my complete faith in books that aren't.

Mike, sorry I did not reply earlier. I don't usually like to just leave people hanging. I have been busy and forgot I ever posted in this thread in the first place.... so here I am 12 pages later replying to you.

I agree with you that we should not allow our personal feelings to come into play on the matter. Deciding what to include or not include is not something that should be taken lightly. I also agree with what you wrote in a later post about how individuals should be cautious in making these decisions on their own. (My paraphrase.) Absolutely! To be honest, no, I don't believe that the average individual is equipped to be able to understand and make decisions in that area. I do not mean that as an insult to the average individual's intellect. It is just that the average individual is hardly a scholar of religion. I commonly hear Christians say that they have never even read the Bible (let alone studied it with any depth), so how could they be expected to make any sort of logical decision about whether or not to include books that are left out. If an individual is going to make decisions on what they personally believe is inspired by god or not, then I would expect that individual to be a scholar in the area, and continuously studying/ seeking to learn, and even revising ones views. What I (or you, or anyone) believes about something today may not be the same thing we believe in 10 years after careful study and contemplation. An individual must be willing to admit that there are things they are not an "expert" on and could be wrong about.

I do agree that some things are definitely inspired and some things are not, but I also believe that some things fall in a gray area..... and may be inspired, but may not be quite understood. What I mean by that is that even if God spoke the words into man's ear to write them down, it does not mean that man understand and interprets things as God intends...... and then we have 3 individuals with 5 different opinions amongst them, and all claiming to be hearing from the spirit on the issue. (I am not mocking those who feel led by the spirit or that they are hearing from him.) But by this same token, I believe that some things may fall within these gray areas-- and may or may not be included in the current canon. Essentially, I believe that all scripture is inspired....... but that does not necessarily mean limited to the current canon. It can not. If 2 Timothy read "All scripture in the current canon and by the words of Paul and a few others is inspired by God.........." then we might have a more specific list. But it is not specific. It simply says "all scripture...." and at that time, the book that verse was in itself was not "scripture." Should we throw it out and everything else that was not "scripture" at that time? We can say that a) all scripture is inspired/ god breathed, b) "scripture" may include works outside of a particular canon. As far as what else constitutes "scripture" then we must look at other criteria, such as if it lines up with previous scripture or does it contradict it.

I do agree that there can be a danger in believing a book is inspired that isn't, and also in putting ones faith in things that may or may not be inspired. Ones faith should only be placed in God. It is like when Rabbi Hillel said, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." I would say that when Jesus said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, is the greatest commandment, and the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself..... THAT is the entire word of God...... and the rest is just commentary, "Go and study it."

I hope I answered your question. Overall, yes, I do agree with you. It's the "commentary" we probably disagree on.

 

[Oats]

And no the Bible is what it is....How can a Bible be any more "Bible" than it is. If God thought it should be different then it would be. Nothing happens outside of God's will.

Because your Bible lacks what was thought as inspired writings. A study of history will clearly show that Mr. Luther decided for you that the Bible was much too long, and to shorten it, he removed 7 books. What is interesting, for the numbers-guy in the other thread, is that leaves you with 66 books. Isn't it quite ironic what the number "6" means??? It means "incomplete", "imperfect". And doubly so, with 66...

Just a bit of irony.. ;)

Am I unsaved because my Bible has 66 books. Are mormons more saved than you

I cannot say whether you are saved or not. One can have never read the Bible and still be saved, since NOWHERE does the Bible make the claim that one must read the Bible to be saved. Nowhere...

I know that you are not in possession of the entire Bible, though. And that is the topic of this thread. God desires us to be saved AND come to the knowledge of the Truth. We believe that these seven other books help us to know more about God's truth.

As to the Mormons, Mr. Smith had quite an imagination, he is not a worthy witness to the inspiration of Scriptures. We don't believe that God waited 1900 years after His Son came to reveal all that we need to know about God...

I'm not saying your Bible is wrong. We must be of two different religions.

Well, we once were one religion, Oats... Something to think about.

Regards

our
The bottom line is I agree with protestant. I have read some about Catholicism...It's not for me...however if my salvation is involved I should be aware....Check out my "The difference" thread...your comments are needed

 

[francisdesales]

The bottom line is I agree with protestant. I have read some about Catholicism...It's not for me...however if my salvation is involved I should be aware....Check out my "The difference" thread...your comments are needed

Ok..

Where is "The difference" thread?

Regards

 

[Pard]

Where is "The difference" thread?

It's in the Christians Only section.

Oats brought up an interesting point. If the Catholics are right in-so-much-as the Bible having the other 7 books does it matter to our salvation?

No, it does not. As I have said many times in other threads, there are men and woman out there with no Bibles at all! They are as much a Christian as you or I, but they lack a Bible because in their country ownership of a Bible is punished by death. The Bible is in no way NEEDED for salvation. Only a sincere faith in our Lord Christ Jesus.

 

[dadof10]

Which books do you consider inspired and why? On who's authority do you either accept or reject certain books?

It is not up to me to "accept or reject certain books"...in fact, that is heretical for me to do so.

The Church confirmed the Canon of Scripture long ago.

I think I misunderstood your response to Pard. You responded positively to his question:

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

When he says "Apocrypha", he means the Deuterocanonicals. I though that's what you were responding to.

 

[francisdesales]

Oats brought up an interesting point. If the Catholics are right in-so-much-as the Bible having the other 7 books does it matter to our salvation?

No, it does not. As I have said many times in other threads, there are men and woman out there with no Bibles at all! They are as much a Christian as you or I, but they lack a Bible because in their country ownership of a Bible is punished by death. The Bible is in no way NEEDED for salvation. Only a sincere faith in our Lord Christ Jesus.

If you notice a few posts back, I said the very same thing. The issue is how do we know what is Divine teaching from God. The Church alone provides that, whether through the Bible or apostolic teachings given by bishops guided by the Spirit of God.

Regards