Why are no bible books written today?

The principle of the "kingdom people" is this - Be strict with yourself and merciful towards others.

The warning is this - Woe to you if you are EASY on your self but strict and exacting towards the other Christian.

The kingdom way of Jesus is contrary to the natural way of man. The natural way is for us to be easy on ourselves but strict and exacting towards others.

The principle of the disciples living in the kingdom of the heavens is the opposite. We are to be strict and exacting towards ourselves and merciful towards others. That is because the judgment that we give out will be the kind of judgment that we will receive before Christ one day.

You should not drive this to an extreme that NO Christian is ever qualified to do the work of exhorting or scolding or helping or warning or convicting another disciple.

In another post I will attempt to speak more to a Christian speaking about someone of another religion, which I think is what your initial comment concerned - ie. Buddhism or Toaism or Judaism.

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In another post I may respond.

"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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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.

I think two different things are getting confounded here. There is omniscience and there is ethical perfection. I don't see any instant reason why an entity that is not omniscient should not be ethically perfect, they'd just be working with imperfect information like the rest of us. I understood "Judge not lest thou be judged." to be a warning against hypocrisy. The facts of the stoning case were not disputed, what was was that anyone in the crowd was a fit person to stone her, not because they were short of knowledge, but that they were "sinners" too. While the imagery of "the log in your own eye." is more accommodating to your position I still think the main drive of the message concerns hypocrisy. So I don't think an interpretation that "only omniscience is fit to judge" really works.

Originally posted by moonbus

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I don't think Paul was a hothead. I think by the time we meet the Paul who had been worked on by the Holy Spirit, his character is splendidly Jesus like.

He was human. But he did the right thing at the right time and in the right way. He could say it was no longer him who lived but Christ who lived within him.

Come ON ! Look at the man in a jail cell writing the book of Philippians. A hothead?

C'mon (to borrow ThingOfOne's phrase). He said in Philippians that as long as Jesus was being preached he was happy. Now this is a man whose rivals are wrecking havoc on churches which he planted. They are going about criticizing him, belittling him. He cannot get out of prison.

He says he won't be ashamed in anything. He says Christ will be magnified in his body in this pitiful and scandelous situation.

I can hear his opponents say "Well, if this fellow was REALLY a worker from God how come he is pining away in a jail cell? Huh? Why, We're the real deal here. We have the real gospel."

Paul says, he's happy that Jesus is being preached even if some of his rivals are doing so to make him all the more unhappy.

Huh moonbus ? A hothead ? Well, he was dedicated, if that is what you mean.
Look.

"Some preach Christ even because of envy and strife, and some also because of good will,

These out of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.

But the others announce Christ out of selfish ambition, not purely, thinking to raise up affliction in my bonds.

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truthfulness, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice; yes, and I will rejoice ..." (Philippians 1:15-18)

This he wrote while chained in a jail cell unable to visit the churches he planted and helped.

Hmmm. Hothead.

Well, moonbus, I am thinking. He was hot and rightly so when he had a hot contention with Barnabas over whether John Mark should join them in the second missionary trip.

He was insistent there. But I think he was so as much for John Mark's sake as well as for the churches that he and Barnabus had established.

Paul's letters to the Corinthians deal with doctrinal issues which were threatening to divide the church he had founded there. Specifically, the original Christian communities founded by the original 12 disciples had consisted of disaffected Jews, whereas Paul had set himself the task of converting gentiles (pagans). Serious questions had arisen, whether gentile Christians must first become Jews, whether they must accept the Jewish Law and the Jewish covenant, whether they must submit to circumcision and dietary restrictions and generally adopt the ways of the Jews. A close reading of Matthew would suggest that that was so (Matt 5: 17 -20: "... not the smallest letter of the Law will pass away ..." and so on). Paul disagreed with that, and he was evidently up against stiff resistance among the members of the church he had founded. His letters show him settling a doctrinal dispute and asserting his authority over his underlings in the church hierarchy. It's not the same as judging people in the sense indicated in my previous posts.

Originally posted by moonbus

Paul's letters to the Corinthians deal with doctrinal issues which were threatening to divide the church he had founded there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He deals with practical issues as well.
And the Corinthian letter is only a sample of his typical dealings with local churches in general. Some were more mature. Some were less mature.

What he wrote for the sake of any one church was beneficial to all the churches. And that is why they passed his letters around between different churches.

Specifically, the original Christian communities founded by the original 12 disciples had consisted of disaffected Jews, whereas Paul had set himself the task of converting gentiles (pagans).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disaffected Jews? Well the first Christian disciples were Jews. Eventually the difference between the old covenant way and the new covenant way was more and more manifested. Actually it was manifested immediately because they proclaimed a crucified and risen Messiah - Jesus.

And before Paul was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, God had told Peter that the gospel should go to all the Gentiles as well. See the house of Cornelius experience following the divine dream in Acts 10:1-8; 9-16.

So Paul was not doing something that God had not informed Peter about. And He told the 12 that they were to go into all the world in the great commission (Matt. 28:20).

If you are trying to make Paul seem like a mavrick, before him Jesus had instructed the twelve to take the gospel to the nations. Peter had God remind him in a dream just before the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius became Christians.

Serious questions had arisen, whether gentile Christians must first become Jews,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is true. But that is because the first Christians (Jews) were quite typical and human. The conservatism of the day made them assume what was rather normal for them to assume even though they worshipped a crucified and risen Messiah.

The rest of your comment I may get to below. But I can see that it will be difficult to play whack-a-mole all day. Some of what you say I concur with. And I even am opened to learn.

I don't think much of any so-called Gospel of Thomas.

Originally posted by moonbus

A close reading of Matthew would suggest that that was so (Matt 5: 17 -20: "... not the smallest letter of the Law will pass away ..." and so on). Paul disagreed with that, and he was evidently up against stiff resistance among the members of the church he had founded. His letters show him settling a doctrinal dispute and asserting his authority over his underlings in the church hierarchy. It's not the same as judging people in the sense indicated in my previous posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this is basically shaping up to be a "Jesus we like but Paul messed everything up" kind of teaching ? Are you a friend of ThinkOfOne's ?

To debunck or not to debunk. That is the question.

Come now moonbus. Paul does his asserting of the authenticity of his apostleship in Second Corinthians. He says he was FORCED by them to talk like a fool.

He speaks of transcendent experiences which he apparently kept to himself to 14 years !
In Galatians he has to do some speaking for himself too.
The physical stripes down his back, his wounds, his imprisonments argue that his care for the churches were absolute.

In Second Corinthians he says he worked within his measure and did not overstep his measure. He says that God apportioned to him a certain realm of work and he did not venture beyond that boundary presumptuously.

Maybe we can kind of steer this back towards the thread topic - Why are no bible books written today?

With the amount of misunderstanding displayed at those mis-analyzing Paul's letters, I think just getting clear on what HAS been given to us by God is enough.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead ?
Simple question.
Do you believe Paul's testimony that Christ rose from the dead?
It is relevant.

Jesus Christ lived in Paul, worked in Paul, spoke through Paul's transformed personality and sanctified character. That is the Jesus who was alive and available and who became "a life giving Spirit"

"the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

A new book of the Bible is not needed. New and more knowledge is not needed. More information to make us independent from God is not needed.

Receiving Christ as the life giving Spirit and LIVING by Christ as the indwelling life giving Spirit is what is needed. Paul pioneered in this experience. And we are so thankful that we have him as an example and some of the letters he wrote.

Others pioneered into the experience of the living and available Christ in His "pneumatic" form help us as well.

. His letters show him settling a doctrinal dispute and asserting his authority over his underlings in the church hierarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is very unfair criticism of the Apostle Paul.

The local church to Paul was NOT a matter of hierarchy. The church was a living Body and each member was directly attached to the Head Christ.

There were instructions on how his fellow apostles Timothy and Titus should appoint elders. And if you READ the guidelines carefully it only actually says that they should be NORMAL spiritually healthy ones of comparatively more maturity.

He says they should be sober minded.
Does that mean that the other believers should NOT be sober minded?
Of course not.

He says they should be grave, which means not goofy or frivolous.
Does that mean Paul wanted the other believers TO be not grave and weighty?
Of course not.

He has instructions about the responsible deacons. Again if you look carefully at his guidelines it pretty much just says they should be healthy in the faith and mature.
He desires that these elders and deacons have self control.
Does that mean he is happy that the others do not have self control?
Of course not.

There is no ordination in any way like the ordination from seminaries of today's Christianity. The local church is not an anarchy. There is to be elders (always a plurality). There are to be serving deacons.

Paul never once says that a local church BELONGS to an apostle.
Paul never once says that a local church BELONGS to a single preacher or pastor.
Paul says the church is the church of the saints.

He labors to present the church as a family and as a living Body with members who belong to one another. Every member is directly related to Jesus Christ Who is the unique Head of the Body the church. He spends time on this in First Corinthians,Ephesians and in Colossians.

Your other criticism of Paul I may speak to latter.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So even though moral dilemma's have gotten a thousand times more complex and technology a million times more advanced than 2 or 3 thousand years ago, there is no need for further books?

Correct. The basis of the concept remains the same. This is why the Bible transcends time.

Originally posted by Agerg
"More than enough" !? So not "precisely enough" then, or any other way of expressing the concept that your god met the human requirement for guidance with minimal redundancy?

I would have expected better from the all-knowing, all-doing, "perfect", creator of everything!

No. Knowing man, there should be no wonder that he had to be "redundant". How many men "get" what you tell them the first time?

Originally posted by FMF
It seems to me that the purported revelation of the Christian God figure ~ even as Christians describe it and account for it ~ was not a very well executed revelation and it quite clearly could have been more effective in convincing people of His existence and the imperative that they believe in Him and follow His supposed instructions.

"purported"... "supposed"...

And then there is no accounting for just being stupid.

Originally posted by moonbus
If there is a God and if that God ever had something to say to man, it strikes me as very unlikely that there would have been only one epiphany and only in human form and speaking only Aramaic. It seems to me much more likely that to every people, a messenger would come who addressed them in the manner to which they were accustomed, that they might better understand the message.

Of course, why not make it completely apparent (even to the stupid ones) that the message was from God? There are more than enough supposedly smart people who still don't "get" it. God wasn't obvious because that would remove free will, and because men are more likely to believe something they must "search" for. Go figure.

Originally posted by moonbus
People with a rude level of understanding tend not to understand spiritual abstractions; they need hypostatizations, miracles, absolute commandments, rigid rituals, literalistic and simplistic explanations. Whereas people with a more sophisticated level of spiritual understanding do quite well with gentle guidelines in the right general direction; they don't ...[text shortened]... 's message so comprehensively. I suspect that this may be more Paul's doing than Jesus's though.

No, we "get" it.

You don't "get" it.

You have plenty of company, apparently.

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 t ...[text shortened]... ses in others because one has surely committed worse oneself. That’s how I read Jesus’s message.

And you also maintain that no one learns from the Bible and that it must have no power to change lives. On this count you are not just wrong, but abysmally wrong.

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.

"But then, I'm not omniscient."

Funny how you gently come back to earth at the last moment.