Adding to the biblical canon

love to continue this, but I have to get to bed. peace

Originally posted by FMF
There may have been a thread on this topic 2-3 years ago, but anyway...

Originally posted by Pudgenik on another thread
[b]The bible is not complete. It can never be complete. It is a living book, and something that is living is always growing. If we think of the bible as the Word of God, as John states, then we know God never ends.

If I had a ...[text shortened]... ible, how would I go about getting the text that I wrote canonized? What would be the procedure?[/b]

The Bible is complete. I'm not sure I'd take Pudgenik's Christian lead on anything spiritual; recently in a thread he claimed that "even Jesus had demons".

Originally posted by FMF
If I had a vision in which Jesus told me that he wanted to add some information to the existing bible, how would I go about getting the text that I wrote canonized? What would be the procedure?

Why don't you have a look around at those who have done so in the past and take your cue from them?

Originally posted by divegeester
The Bible is complete. I'm not sure I'd take Pudgenik's Christian lead on anything spiritual; recently in a thread he claimed that "even Jesus had demons".

when do you think the bible was "complete" and what did Christians use prior to that date?

Originally posted by divegeester
The Bible is complete. I'm not sure I'd take Pudgenik's Christian lead on anything spiritual; recently in a thread he claimed that "even Jesus had demons".

The demons Jesus had were those who sought to harm Him, crucify Him. Jesus was not possessed.

Originally posted by divegeester
The Bible is complete. I'm not sure I'd take Pudgenik's Christian lead on anything spiritual; recently in a thread he claimed that "even Jesus had demons".

How is the bible complete? Is it not the living Word? Is not Jesus the living Word of God?

It is only complete for us. Remember, what the bible is now is not what it started as.
The Jewish Bible started with only a few books or scrolls. 5 I think. Then other scrolls were added, the Palms of David, the Laws of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, Kings 1 & 2, etc. etc. And the New Testament. Not all the writings were set in the bible at the same time.

And what of the future, after Revelations. New Heaven and New Earth, guess the human race will continue after all.

No, the bible is the Living Word. And something that is living isn't dead or finished. More will be added.

Originally posted by FMF
So Christians are able/permitted to reject books in the bible? How does that work with them being the subject of claims that they are divinely inspired?

Are there any that you reject?

I know that Martin Luther would have liked to reject the Epistle of James - he called it "Eine stroherne Epistel", i.e. an epistle of straw.

He clearly did not agree with James' sentiments on works (which have been the subject of the "works vs faith thread" ) since he based his doctrine of Justification by Faith on Paul's letter to the Romans.

But of course, he would never have considered making a formal request to decanonize the book; he knew that the storm which that would create could destroy him.

Originally posted by FMF
How does Christians rejecting certain books of the bible work when there are claims that they are all divinely inspired?

I suppose what I am driving at is, is the "divinely inspired" status something negotiable between Christians?

You will find that there are indeed variations amongst Christian groups as to the divinely-inspired-ness of the Bible, or certain sections of the Bible.

Those that maintain that certain sections of the bible (e.g. the story of the creation and Noah's Ark) are literary works but not historical accounts describing reality, are labelled as Liberal by the Fundamentalist who maintain that EVERY word is divinely inspired.

So, yes, you would most likely find quite a wide range of opinion amongst "Christians". Some liberal theologians would even deny the virgin birth, but that would most probably pull the rug out from under their entire belief!

Originally posted by FMF
There may have been a thread on this topic 2-3 years ago, but anyway...

Originally posted by Pudgenik on another thread
[b]The bible is not complete. It can never be complete. It is a living book, and something that is living is always growing. If we think of the bible as the Word of God, as John states, then we know God never ends.

If I had a ...[text shortened]... ible, how would I go about getting the text that I wrote canonized? What would be the procedure?[/b]

I doubt it would happen; however, that said the Bible is just a collection of
books that talk about God's interaction with man. Each time one of us has
an experience with God *if true* that story adds to it, we are witnesses to
God's action upon the universe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I doubt it would happen; however, that said the Bible is just a collection of
books that talk about God's interaction with man. Each time one of us has
an experience with God *if true* that story adds to it, we are witnesses to
God's action upon the universe.
Kelly

" that said the Bible is just a collection of
books that talk about God's interaction with man"

So it's not the holy scripture that you folks have been making it out to be? Gotcha. I didn't think so but its nice to have confirmation.

Originally posted by FMF
There may have been a thread on this topic 2-3 years ago, but anyway...

Originally posted by Pudgenik on another thread
[b]The bible is not complete. It can never be complete. It is a living book, and something that is living is always growing. If we think of the bible as the Word of God, as John states, then we know God never ends.

If I had a ...[text shortened]... ible, how would I go about getting the text that I wrote canonized? What would be the procedure?[/b]

The correct procedure for amending the canon would be to convene an Ecumenical Council.

I doubt any Ecumenical Council would agree to listen to anyone claiming to have had a vision from Jesus to the effect that anything in the Bible should be altered or an appendix added (neither Martin Luther nor Joe Smith had any success in this matter.) Have you had such a vision, or is your question hypothetical?

So far as I know, the canon is not revisable, in the sense that no Ecumenical Council would see fit to revise it. Ecumenical Councils do, of course, add to the existing body of doctrine and clarify what has been canonized.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians would say that the Bible is not the primary source (for revealing the will of God to man), but only a secondary one. The primary source is the Body of Christ in the world (meaning, primarily, Ecumenical Councils).

Originally posted by moonbus
The correct procedure for amending the canon would be to convene an Ecumenical Council.

I doubt any Ecumenical Council would agree to listen to anyone claiming to have had a vision from Jesus to the effect that anything in the Bible should be altered or an appendix added (neither Martin Luther nor Joe Smith had any success in this matter.) Have you had s ...[text shortened]... The primary source is the Body of Christ in the world (meaning, primarily, Ecumenical Councils).

Well I stand corrected. I had a talk with a friend of mine about the subject if the bible is complete or not. The bible is considered complete.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Well I stand corrected. I had a talk with a friend of mine about the subject if the bible is complete or not. The bible is considered complete.

It is complete, as far as it goes. That is not to say that there is nothing else to be said. The Holy Spirit continues to make God's will known to man through Ecumenical Councils. Anyone who thinks he can call himself a Christian and read only the Bible and nothing else has got a lot of catching up to do.

Originally posted by moonbus
It is complete, as far as it goes. That is not to say that there is nothing else to be said.

Another book clearing up, once and for all ~ I mean REALLY nailing the theology so that it does not divide Christians any more ~ is needed: it could deal with stuff like [1] the need for faith + works [or not], [2] The Trinity [sort it out good and proper] ,[3] "eternal torment", [4] whether Genesis was metaphorical, [5] a Product Recall on Book of Revelations, [6] transubstantiation, celebacy, women priests etc. etc., and [7] the divinity of Christ. There are others that could be mentioned, undoubtedly.

Originally posted by FMF
Another book clearing up, once and for all ~ I mean REALLY nailing the theology so that it does not divide Christians any more ~ is needed: it could deal with stuff like [1] the need for faith + works [or not], [2] The Trinity [sort it out good and proper] ,[3] "eternal torment", [4] whether Genesis was metaphorical, [5] a Product Recall on Book of Revelations, ...[text shortened]... tc. etc., and [7] the divinity of Christ. There are others that could be mentioned, undoubtedly.

"I mean REALLY nailing the theology so that it does not divide Christians any more is needed ... "

That is what Christian theologians have been trying to do for the last 1700 years. I submit that if theologians had ever succeeded in making a unity of it, Christianity would have died out (as did gnosticism and Manicheanism and hundreds of other sects). The plurality of its possible interpretations (literal-factual, allegorical, metaphorical, etc etc)--plus a healthy dose of Greek philosophical rigor--is exactly what made it appeal to enough different kinds of people to keep going. It wouldn't have survived if only RJH-types or only Suzi-typers were attracted to it. It absolutely needs both ends of the spectrum goading each other to stay vibrant.

There is a saying about the split between the Western (Roman) Church and the Eastern (Orthodox) Church: Orthodoxy lost its mind, and Catholicism lost its heart.