Why are no bible books written today?

Originally posted by moonbus
The scrolls were canonized in the 4c CE. The issue is closed; no new 'books' will be added to the Bible.

You mean 'your Bible'. There is no such thing as 'the Bible'. If I want to add a book, then I will add a book and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It looks clear Jesus would not have approved any of the NT. His words say that much very clearly.

You do realise that 'his words' were written and most likely made up by the NT writers?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You do realise that 'his words' were written and most likely made up by the NT writers?

You do realise that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?

And you know this how exactly?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yet 'scripture' WAS broken. You do realize this reference to 'scripture' was the Septuagint , right? That WAS their bible. And mostly the Greek LXX translation, not even the original Hebrew.

So all the books written after that WAS 'Scripture broken'. As spoken by Jesus himself.

It looks clear Jesus would not have approved any of the NT. His words say that much very clearly.

It is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19 NASB

From the Old Testament:

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prop ...[text shortened]... to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB

You really don't get it. That verse PROVES JC would have dissed any NT books. And just how could he have approved of books written 50 years after he fled up the silk road, escaping sure death?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You do realise that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?

And you know this how exactly?[/b]

Did you see the words 'most likely'? And you then ask 'you know'? I did not claim to know.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really don't get it. That verse PROVES JC would have dissed any NT books. And just how could he have approved of books written 50 years after he fled up the silk road, escaping sure death?

You are overlooking the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and was given all authority in heaven and on earth to instruct His disciple what to do, as well as the Holy Spirit to guide and direct the building of His church and inspire the writing and establisment of the Holy Bible.

We also have proof by the Shroud of Turin and empty tomb that Jesus did not excape sure death, but died by crucifixion and rose from the dead. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean 'your Bible'. There is no such thing as 'the Bible'. If I want to add a book, then I will add a book and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

In one sense you are correct, that anyone can add sections to the Bible (or take them away), since no one owns copyright in the Bible in the way that someone does own copyright in, for example, The Da Vinci Code. Moreover, there are variants of the Bible, despite the canon having been established in the 4th c. However, it is hyperbole to say that there is no such thing as the Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prop ...[text shortened]... to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB

The writers of the NT, whoever they were, were at very great pains to interpret the OT -- which is to say, the Jewish scripture -- as pointing to the coming of a Messiah in the person of Jesus. However, there is nothing in either the OT or the NT to suggest that Jesus thought of himself as founding a new religion separate from Judaism, or that he expected his teaching to be preserved in written form apart from the Jewish scripture already known to him.

Which is why I think so-called Christianity should in fact be called Paulinity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which is why I think so-called Christianity should in fact be called Paulinity.

Then you would have to get rid of the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and James. Not likely to happen. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then you would have to get rid of the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and James. Not likely to happen. 😏

All of which were written after the fact, decades after the fact so how accurate could they have been?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you see the words 'most likely'? And you then ask 'you know'? I did not claim to know.

Of course I saw the words "most likely".

I'll try to lay it out as simply as possible for you since you struggle with conceptualizing.

Following is the definition of "realize"

To understand something:understand, know, work out...

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/realise

You wrote the following to sonhouse:

You do realise that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?

By simple substitution you were asking sonhouse:

You do [know] that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?

The inference there is that you "[know] that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers" and you're asking sonhouse if he knows this also.

I asked you:

And you know this how exactly?

So I'm asking you: How exactly do you know "that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers".

Understand now?

I certainly hope so, because I don't know if I can dumb it down much more for you.

If you remain true to form, you'll continue to say that you "did not claim to know". You're really something.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which is why I think so-called Christianity should in fact be called Paulinity.

There are (and were) variants of Christianity which pre-dated Pauline Christianity. (The Thomas Christians in India, for example, trace their lineage directly back one of the Twelve, not to Paul.) They were denounced as heretical by the faction which won.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course I saw the words "most likely".

I'll try to lay it out as simply as possible for you since you struggle with conceptualizing.

Following is the definition of "realize"

To understand something:understand, [b]know, work out...

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/realise

You wrote the following t ...[text shortened]... true to form, you'll continue to say that you "did not claim to know". You're really something.[/b]

If you saw the words 'most likely,' why have you chosen to ignore them?

'Realize' (or know) is negated by 'most likely' which makes clear it is not presuming to be a statement of fact. (Merely a likely one).