Why are no bible books written today?

Originally posted by sonship
The early disciples were Jews and had only the Old Testament books.

Peter heard the young apostle Paul and read his letters. Peter may have consulted with John.

Peter: " John, do you remember the Master saying anything about the Body of Christ and we being His members ? This is something I don't remember Jesus telling us about."

John: " I know ...[text shortened]... th the Old Testament and New, is not an authoritative list. It is a list of authoritative books.

Even though times now are far more complex than back 2,000 years ago, like getting limb transplants, who gets them, or the threat of climate change, none of these things were even thought of back then much less talked about.

So we are stuck with bibles that don't touch today's life and moral dilemma's of today.

I'm sure you will come up with more bible verses but what about subjects such as who gets medical treatment when there is one bed and ten sick people.

Originally posted by moonbus

The Christian tradition has never accepted that other religions are spiritual paths at all; the Christian tradition views other religions as either failed Christianity (e.g, Judaism, Islam) or as satanic (paganism in all its forms, incl. Hinduism and Buddhism). "Judge not..." is the one thing Christians cannot do. Pity, really, that they fail to comprehend Jesus's message so comprehensively. I suspect that this may be more Paul's doing than Jesus's though.

Is this going to be a "Jesus is OK, Paul messed it all up" concept ?

The passage you allude to does not really say "Judge not PERIOD" What it says from the mouth of Jesus is "Judge not lest you be judged." There is a difference. In other words, the message really is that IF the Christian is going to judge, he should be prepared to be examined by Christ one day in the same way. "

Seriously, look -

" Do not judge, that you be not judged."

You clipped it too soon, I think.

"Do not judge, that you be not judged.

For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you. "

Can you see the difference? Then go on -

"And why do you look at the splinter which is in your brother's eye, but the beam in your eye you do not consider.

Hypocrites, first remove the beam from your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." (See Matt. 7:1-5)

This is really not "Do not judge." Rather it is "Judge with clear sight and without hypocrisy." Or "Be prepared to be examined with the same strictness that you examine others."

The removal of the splinter is a delicate operation. The hands need to be clean. The motive needs to be pure. And the eyes of the one doing the operation must be clear and not hampered by his own more problematic failures.

Moonbus,

Do you see the difference?

Now, for your consideration, the Apostle Paul said virtually the SAME thing.
See his instructions in Romans 14:1 through 15:13. Here's a sampled section -

"But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we [ including himself ] must all stand before the judgment seat of God ..." (v.10)

And again, a sample -

"Who are you who judge another's household servant? To his own master he stands or falls, and he will be made to stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (v.4)

You may not feel these examples are appropriate because Paul is speaking of Christian brothers receiving one another without judging. You may say this is not about judging other beliefs. If that is the case, some point is taken.

However, the Matthew passage is likewise about the disciples judging one another as brothers. That is removing the splinter from a "brother's eye".

I am not finished with your comment though.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]
The Christian tradition has never accepted that other religions are spiritual paths at all; the Christian tradition views other religions as either failed Christianity (e.g, Judaism, Islam) or as satanic (paganism in all its forms, incl. Hinduism and Buddhism). "Judge not..." is the one thing Christians cannot do. Pity, really, that they fail to com ...[text shortened]... the one doing the operation must be clear and not hampered by his own more problematic failures.

You and I have very different interpretations of the limits of judgement here. I interpret it to mean that only Omniscience is fit to judge, given that only Omniscience is pure and objective enough to see into the hearts of men. Nor does it say that anyone has in fact removed the log from his own eye. I take these passages to mean that anyone who judges another is like unto him who casts the first stone at an adulteress but is himself a sinner.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Even though times now are far more complex than back 2,000 years ago, like getting limb transplants, who gets them, or the threat of climate change, none of these things were even thought of back then much less talked about.

So we are stuck with bibles that don't touch today's life and moral dilemma's of today.

I'm sure you will come up with more bibl ...[text shortened]... hat about subjects such as who gets medical treatment when there is one bed and ten sick people.

The Bible does not answer such questions because such questions were not posed 2,000 years ago. The Bible is a snapshot, frozen in time. That is why there are Ecumenical Councils to answer such questions. Ecumenical Councils are the means whereby the Holy Spirit continues to reveal God's will for man on Earth. That is the sense in which revelation is on-going, though not in the form of further 'books' added to the Bible.

Originally posted by moonbus
The Bible does not answer such questions because such questions were not posed 2,000 years ago. The Bible is a snapshot, frozen in time. That is why there are Ecumenical Councils to answer such questions. Ecumenical Councils are the means whereby the Holy Spirit continues to reveal God's will for man on Earth. That is the sense in which revelation is on-going, though not in the form of further 'books' added to the Bible.

.Ecumenical councils. Another bunch of man made words.

Further note to sonship:

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” does not say that anyone in the crowd which had assembled to stone an adulteress was without sin and therefore entitled to pass judgment upon her. It says just the opposite (rhetorically), namely that no one in that assembly was without sin and therefore that no one was fit to judge her. The same applies to the passage about a sliver in someone else’s eye and a log in one’s own. It does not say that anyone ever does remove the log from his own eye; it says that one should refrain from criticizing minor offenses in others because one has surely committed worse oneself. That’s how I read Jesus’s message.

Originally posted by sonhouse
.Ecumenical councils. Another bunch of man made words.

God works His perfection through imperfect media. I know, it isn't logical, but it's the official doctrine. Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by moonbus
God works His perfection through imperfect media. I know, it isn't logical, but it's the official doctrine. Take it or leave it.

Wouldn't it have been more omnisciently logical to work His perfection 'directly' and cut out the imperfect middleman altogether? I suspect a modern day (and unequivocal) miracle would reach more hearts than an ancient manuscript open to human misinterpretation.

Originally posted by moonbus

You and I have very different interpretations of the limits of judgement here. I interpret it to mean that only Omniscience is fit to judge, given that only Omniscience is pure and objective enough to see into the hearts of men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not at all disagree that the omniscience of God qualifies Him to be the pure examiner of human hearts. Of course I agree.

The question here is, is this warning and that of Paul have any "teeth" so to speak. Are the warnings because real and practical consequences are involved ? Perhaps you think not. But I absolutely understand Christ and His apostle to mean the judgment of God is not merely abstract but practical, actual, and unavoidably concrete.

It may not be an eternal judgment. But it will be a judgment.

Paul, immediately in his warnings about judging -

" For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God, For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall openly confess to God." (Rom. 14:11)

This is a warning of literal consequences. And once again:

"For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body according to what he has practiced, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10)

He who is alone qualified to judge justly, will in fact bring each one of His servants before Him, including Paul, to examine their Christian life. This is at the bema judgment seat of Christ which is also the judgment seat of God.

This is a judgment for CHRISTIANS.
And of course unbelievers will be judged.


Nor does it say that anyone has in fact removed the log from his own eye. I take these passages to mean that anyone who judges another is like unto him who casts the first stone at an adulteress but is himself a sinner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The passage in Matthew does not have to inform that one HAS removed the splinter from one's own eye. It is not that kind of teaching. It is an exhortation and a warning. It is not a review of the current state of Christians.

Of course, some believers HAVE dealt with their own faults to be qualified to help or even exhort others. The churches to whom the epistles were written could not have possibly been formed at all, unless there had been some more mature ones to help less mature ones.

Paul himself judged a rampant lustful believer in the church in Corinth -

" It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication that does not even occur among the Gentiles, that someone has his step-mother.

And you are puffed up? And have not rather mourned, that the one who has done this deed might be removed from among your midst?

For I, on my part, though being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already judged, as if being present, him who has done this,

In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Cor. 5:1 - 5)

Paul judged. Paul told the congregation to discipline this Christian by removing him from the fellowship of the local church.

It should be noted that the same person seems to have repented, been forgiven and received back into the fellowship, with Paul's forgiveness also. We see therefore judgment in BOTH the negative type and the positive type (2 Cor. 2:5-10).

Paul scolds the Corinthian church when they had internal law suits. He asked in amazement that could it possibly be that no one among them had the spiritual maturity to rightly judge a certain difficult dispute.

" I say this to your shame. So there is no one wise among you, who will be able to discern between his brothers? " ( 1 Cor. 6:5)

Two Christian brothers are taking each other to a court of unbelievers. Paul is saying in essence - "Discerning judgment was needed here. You mean to tell me that none of you has the maturity and experience to grant a judging settlement between these two members of the congregation?"

The tone is that the lack of someone's ability to judge is not normal. It is abnormal. Not only the omniscient God will judge. Righteous saints, though not the Final Judge, should be able with maturity to help judge some troublesome affairs.

Cont. below

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Wouldn't it have been more omnisciently logical to work His perfection 'directly' and cut out the imperfect middleman altogether? I suspect a modern day (and unequivocal) miracle would reach more hearts than an ancient manuscript open to human misinterpretation.

Any number of alternatives would have been omnisciently more logical.

If I were God, and I wanted to impress my omnipotence and omniscience upon creatures I had made in my image, I would have done it differently. I would have emblazoned my face on the heavens, instead of spangling it with mute stars and vastly remote galaxies and mostly dark emptiness. I would have emblazoned my image in the deepest caves and on the highest mountain tops. No matter where people wandered, they'd have seen the same face. I would have incarnated myself with the same face in every generation, not only once. Then there really couldn't have been any doubters. But then, I'm not omniscient.

Someone once said that humanity is God playing hide-&-seek with himself.

Originally posted by moonbus

Further note to sonship:

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” does not say that anyone in the crowd which had assembled to stone an adulteress was without sin and therefore entitled to pass judgment upon her. It says just the opposite (rhetorically), namely that no one in that assembly was without sin and therefore that no one was fit to judge her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one felt in their conscience that they had the right to judge the woman. That is correct.

This not Him speaking to the church. And to the church, formed after His death and resurrection, the consciences of men became keener.

This does not mean that the church was to practice stonings. It means that the Jesus who was OUTSIDE of the mob in John 8, was after His resurrection WITHIN the disciples being formed into the church.

The confess our sins, receive cleansing, grow spiritually, and have the wisdom to help weaker members is part and partial of the normal church life.

In the normal Christian church life, love, mercy, and at times judgment (not physical stoning of course) must take place. The proof that Jesus expected this is in His exhortation that the unrepentant member of the church has to be dealt with by the church, when all other remedies have failed to correct him.

"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go, reprove him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he refuses to hear them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH; and if he refuses to hear the church also, let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." (Matt. 18:15-17)

[My emphasis]

One had to judge.
One had to take two or three others to help him.
As a last step the unsettle matter had to be taken "to the church".
This probably means to the elders of the church.
Then the church had to judge.

Please, please do not jump to conclusions about my usage of this verse. The following teaching from Jesus concerning binding and loosing in prayer indicate that to treat this unrepentant church member as a Gentile or tax collector is more along the lines of realizing that he needs desperate prayer of authoritative wrestling with the spiritual forces that are keeping this brother in a state LIKE an unbeliever.

This is deeper. I will not go into it in this post. Suffice it to say that judging here is expected and taught HOW properly the believers in the church should go about it.

Your comment ?

The same applies to the passage about a sliver in someone else’s eye and a log in one’s own. It does not say that anyone ever does remove the log from his own eye; it says that one should refrain from criticizing minor offenses in others because one has surely committed worse oneself. That’s how I read Jesus’s message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you are serious ? I'll comment below.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You and I have very different interpretations of the limits of judgement here. I interpret it to mean that only Omniscience is fit to judge, given that only Omniscience is pure and objective enough to see into the hearts of men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not at all disagree ...[text shortened]... inal Judge, should be able with maturity to help judge some troublesome affairs.

Cont. below[/b]

Judging (and settling) a dispute and judging a person are two different kettles of fish.

That Paul was wont to make judgments, I do not dispute. But I note that Jesus did not condemn Pilate or the Jewish rabble who called for his death when Pilate was willing to pardon him. Nor did he cast a stone against the woman accused of adultery.

"having the wisdom to help weaker members is part and partial of the normal church life" is not what we mean by judging someone here, and I think you know that. Educating someone in the spiritual path is not judging him.

EDIT: Paul was rather a hothead, don't you think? And very keen to impose his version of the glad tidings on a diverse fledgling religion. There are other branches of Christianity (such as the Thomas Christians in India) which were not influenced by Paul's teaching. It is interesting reading to compare them.

Originally posted by moonbus

Judging (and settling) a dispute and judging a person are two different kettles of fish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the congregation of the believers - settling a dispute is treated as the saints judging. This is proved by Paul saying that they should be able to JUDGE affairs IN the church. In the section on the lawsuits among the offended and the offender (to be sorted out by the "wise" among the Christians in the local church) judging is involved -

"Does anyone of you who has a case against another dare to be judged before the unrighteous and not before the saints ?" (1 Cor. 6:1)

What is the tone? The tone is that the church which has a righteous standing before God positionally should also have some ones who are dispositionally righteous in character. This is due to Christ's salvation working on them.

"Don't send those brothers with a quarrel with each other before the unrighteous. You are the redeemed, the justified, the sanctified. Some spiritually older ones among you must have attained a practical level of righteous living that you are able to properly JUDGE this situation.

You say "But that is not judgning". But someone was in the right and someone was in the wrong. And the WISE among the believers should, in principle be able to JUDGE these two trouble Christian brothers.

Someone one or possibly BOTH are not living in this matter as they should before God.
How can you say that settling a matter of dispute between two Christian brothers has nothing to do with judging ?


That Paul was wont to make judgments, I do not dispute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be a masterbuilder of the church the apostles HAD to, at times, judge people. They had to discern. They had to detect. They had to spiritually size up just like a parent has to size up their children.

"Should he have known better by now?"
" Is this just a new believer who has not yet realized the wrong of his action?"
" How shall we deal with such a destructive and disruptive person ?"
"How can we not damage by being overly strict this weak believer?"

The apostles had to judge. They had to judge as Jesus instructed - with their OWN problems under control so that they could, LIKE GOD, be keen, sensitive, right, clear, constructive in their judging.

No moonbus. The Lord is not saying "Just leave the old splinter in that other brother's eye." He is saying that He wants the splinter removed PROPERLY -

Deal with your own problem. Maybe it is worse. Then when you deal with your own problem you will see clearly to help the other brother.

Yes, sometimes it is better to say nothing.
No, it is not mandatory that a Christian ALWAYS say nothing.

Originally posted by moonbus
Any number of alternatives would have been omnisciently more logical.

If I were God, and I wanted to impress my omnipotence and omniscience upon creatures I had made in my image, I would have done it differently. I would have emblazoned my face on the heavens, instead of spangling it with mute stars and vastly remote galaxies and mostly dark emptiness. I ...[text shortened]... I'm not omniscient.

Someone once said that humanity is God playing hide-&-seek with himself.

An in-your-face god like that would have driven humans insane. This bit with using 2 and 4 thousand year old books is really much better don't you think? Now this alleged deity has billions under its rhetorical thumb.

If you believe all that crap, that is.