books of the bible

[hanes]

why did christianity leave some books out of the bible? and on that who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

i just find it rather hypocritical to put some books in and some books out. it seems like they just put the books that made the religion sound all good.

The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may
have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute.
While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the
Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role
of women in the church.

i was just wondering why books like this werent added? a religion based on the bible should have all the points not just the ones that are fitting.

[McCulloch]

But we all are here to examine the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

You're not. You cannot do what you are not qualified to do. You are no claimant to be a Christian. If you ever claim to be born again, and if you wish to be accepted by others who claim to be be born again, you will not be accepted, unless you accept the Protestant Bible, nothing less, nothing more (and that will be just the start). Until then, this matter can be none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else who does not 'apply for membership'.

Is this not a somewhat circular argument? No one who is not a Christian can assess the objective validity of the claims of Christianity. How then does one come to accept the teachings of Christianity? Did you accept the articles of your faith uncritically?

[Tilia]

But we all are here to examine the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

You're not. You cannot do what you are not qualified to do. You are no claimant to be a Christian. If you ever claim to be born again, and if you wish to be accepted by others who claim to be be born again, you will not be accepted, unless you accept the Protestant Bible, nothing less, nothing more (and that will be just the start). Until then, this matter can be none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else who does not 'apply for membership'.

Is this not a somewhat circular argument? No one who is not a Christian can assess the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

No. No one who is not a Christian can assess the subjective validity of the claims of Christianity.

I repeat what I have written before: Christians preach the gospel, the news, true or otherwise, that Christ died for the sins of the world. Those who respond in a certain way, which encompasses all aspects of their voluntary behaviour, are accepted by them as their fellows.

[McCulloch]

But we all are here to examine the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

You're not. You cannot do what you are not qualified to do. You are no claimant to be a Christian. If you ever claim to be born again, and if you wish to be accepted by others who claim to be be born again, you will not be accepted, unless you accept the Protestant Bible, nothing less, nothing more (and that will be just the start). Until then, this matter can be none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else who does not 'apply for membership'.

Is this not a somewhat circular argument? No one who is not a Christian can assess the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

No. No one who is not a Christian can assess the subjective validity of the claims of Christianity.

My mistake. I thought that this was a debating site. Debates are where people with divergent viewpoints objectively assess various claims. I am not particularly interested in the subjective validity of the claims of Christianity. If this is simply a place for various Christians to discuss and debate their differences, I'll pack my things and go home.

I repeat what I have written before: Christians preach the gospel, the news, true or otherwise, that Christ died for the sins of the world. Those who respond in a certain way, which encompasses all aspects of their voluntary behaviour, are accepted by them as their fellows.

I repeat what I have written before. This is a debating site. The questions for debate are:

• Why did Christianity leave some books out of the bible?
• Who picks the books that get to be in the bible?
• Why books like the Gospel of Mary not added?

Rather than address these questions, you seem to be focussed on the Ad Hominem argument that I am not qualified to address these issues.

[Tilia]

quote="McCulloch"

But we all are here to examine the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

You're not. You cannot do what you are not qualified to do. You are no claimant to be a Christian. If you ever claim to be born again, and if you wish to be accepted by others who claim to be be born again, you will not be accepted, unless you accept the Protestant Bible, nothing less, nothing more (and that will be just the start). Until then, this matter can be none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else who does not 'apply for membership'.

Is this not a somewhat circular argument? No one who is not a Christian can assess the objective validity of the claims of Christianity.

No. No one who is not a Christian can assess the subjective validity of the claims of Christianity.

My mistake. I thought that this was a debating site.

Shall we debate our favourite colours, then? Which is best?

Debates are where people with divergent viewpoints objectively assess various claims.

But not any claim.

I am not particularly interested in the subjective validity of the claims of Christianity.

I think that sceptics are left with little other choice, if they are going to say anything. Christianity is very difficult to attack.

I repeat what I have written before: Christians preach the gospel, the news, true or otherwise, that Christ died for the sins of the world. Those who respond in a certain way, which encompasses all aspects of their voluntary behaviour, are accepted by them as their fellows.

I repeat what I have written before. This is a debating site. The questions for debate are:

They are not for debate. You can ask, but that is all. You may as well ask why someone's favourite colour is blue.

[*]Who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

Christians. Who else? Atheists?

[*]Why books like the Gospel of Mary not added? [/list]

Because Christians don't think that they are from God. They think that many of them are from Satan. They take a very suspicious view of people who suggest to them that such books are from God.

you seem to be focussed on the Ad Hominem argument that I am not qualified to address these issues.

You decided that. You can't have it both ways. You can't be both a sceptic and a believer at the same time.

[McCulloch]

The questions for debate are:

• Who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

Christians. Who else? Atheists?

It is still looking somewhat circular to me. If you believe the Bible then you are a Christian. Christians pick which books get to be in the Bible.
However, I think that you really don't mean what you said. If the Christians of the world all got together (ignore the logistical difficulties and the improbability of this occurring, this is a thought experiment) and decided that the Bible should include the Didache and exclude the Apocalypse of John, would that make it so?
No. My understanding of conservative Christian theology is that God authored the Bible, using human agents. From bible.org

That God would provide and preserve a Canon of Scripture without addition or deletion is not only necessary, but it is logically credible. If we believe that God exists as an almighty God, then revelation and inspiration are clearly possible. If we believe in such a God, it is also probable that He would, out of love and for His own purposes and designs, reveal Himself to men. Because of man’s obvious condition in sin and his obvious inability to meet his spiritual needs (regardless of all his learning and technological advances), special revelation revealed in a God-breathed book is not only possible, logical, and probable, but a necessity.

The evidence shows that the Bible is unique and that God is its author. The evidence declares that “all Scripture is God breathed and profitable …” (2 Tim. 3:16) and that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). In view of this, the logical question is: “Would it not be unreasonable for God to fail to providentially care for these inspired documents to preserve them from destruction and so guide in their collection and arrangement that they would all be present with none missing and none added that were not inspired?”

The problem which this debate question is addressing is who and how was it determined that a particular set of books are collectively The Bible. There are and have been many religious books which contain the claim that they are revealed from God. It looks as if, from a historical perspective, that a series of councils were needed to decide which books to include and which books to exclude. God, apparently did not make his choices all that clear, since the councils did not all agree nor did they make up their minds in one sitting. Further along in the historical process, the Protestants altered the previously accepted list by excluding the Apocrypha. Even today, persons of faith, all claiming to be followers of Jesus, cannot agree on which books are divinely inspired. From the skeptic point-of-view, it does challenge the Christian claim to the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Bible.

The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation. Scripture as the Word of God brings with it its own witness, the Holy Spirit, who alone can give certainty and assurance.

Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament To this I can agree. It appears as if the canonicity of the Bible cannot be objectively determined. It involves a subjective spiritual experience, to which I have no claim. However, it would strengthen the Christian claim, if the subjective spiritual experience would produce consistent reliable results.

[Tilia]

The questions for debate are:

• Who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

Christians. Who else? Atheists?

It is still looking somewhat circular to me. If you believe the Bible then you are a Christian.

Is that what I wrote? Why don't you go back and check.

However, I think that you really don't mean what you said. If the Christians of the world all got together (ignore the logistical difficulties and the improbability of this occurring, this is a thought experiment) and decided that the Bible should include the Didache and exclude the Apocalypse of John, would that make it so?

Yes. The church is the only spiritual authority on earth, and whatever it says, goes.

'"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."' (Matt 16:19 NIV)

My understanding of conservative Christian theology is that God authored the Bible, using human agents.

Quite so. But the only people who decide that there is a Bible, and what it consists of, is the church.

It looks as if, from a historical perspective, that a series of councils were needed to decide which books to include and which books to exclude.

But I wrote about Christians, not those people.

Even today, persons of faith, all claiming to be followers of Jesus, cannot agree on which books are divinely inspired.

How do you know who it is has faith?

The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation.

That's rank heresy. Let's get down to fundamentals. Forget that the Bible exists (and at first, after the resurrection, it didn't). Somebody comes along with the news of the gospel. Another person is converted. That person then has the mind of Christ. He has all authority in his thoughts and speech. Whatever he binds, is bound. Whatever he condemns, is condemned. Why does he even need a Bible? He can write one!

The same thing happens today. The Christian is the true authority. It is the Christian who validates the Bible, not the Bible that validates the Christian. It is the Christian who who defines it, who causes it to be known in the world, whose persecution makes it what it is.

[Cathar1950]

queen annie wrote:

I have more than a strong suspicion that John (as in the author of the fourth gospel) was actually Mary!

I have had that same suspicion. Then I was reading a link where a fellow make a pretty strong argument for MM being the author and later editors wrote her out as the church became more and more dominated by men. I will see if I can find the link.
Hey I found it. Considering what a mess my links are, that is pretty good.
http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusi ... alene.html
Tilia wrote:

Now what business is it of yours, or anyone's, what sources people identify as being of supernatural origin? Who am I, who are you, to tell them what to pick?

They are in the public domain and subject to critical study.
As part of my tradition both OT and NT, I have every right and duty to question. When I look at your belief system I notice ideas that are not agreed upon by all Christians. Being born again is a highly subjective interpretation as well as the Authority of the books in the bible. That a group or groups decided upon what is relevant for them. It is in no way written in stone.

You're not. You cannot do what you are not qualified to do. You are no claimant to be a Christian. If you ever claim to be born again, and if you wish to be accepted by others who claim to be be born again, you will not be accepted, unless you accept the Protestant Bible, nothing less, nothing more (and that will be just the start). Until then, this matter can be none of your business, nor is it the business of anyone else who does not 'apply for membership'.

I believe he is qualified. There are Christians who do not believe Jesus was God or that he died as a sacrifice for sin. Such as the Ebonites. They would say these ideas came from Paul's thinking and the gospels reflect his thoughts. The early church often disagreed and there was a falling out between James and Paul. Got to go eat lunch. later folks!

[McCulloch]

Yes. The church is the only spiritual authority on earth, and whatever it says, goes.

'"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."' (Matt 16:19 NIV)

Which particular church is that? There are so many! How is a poor skeptic supposed to determine which one is the True Church? If you say by the Bible, then we have another circular argument. Maybe the Holy Spirit will tell me.

It looks as if, from a historical perspective, that a series of councils were needed to decide which books to include and which books to exclude.

But I wrote about Christians, not those people.

OK. Would you list which Christians? When and how did the Bible first get compiled and validated by a Christian?

Even today, persons of faith, all claiming to be followers of Jesus, cannot agree on which books are divinely inspired.

How do you know who it is has faith?

Even today, persons claiming faith, all claiming to be followers of Jesus, cannot agree on which books are divinely inspired. There seems to be no objective way to determine which ones are legitimate and which ones are evil deceivers.

The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation.

That's rank heresy.

Maybe now you can appreciate the difficulty this poor skeptic has sorting out Christian theology. I find what seems to be a reputable conservative bible-believing theologian with apparently good credentials. But Tilia, whose credentials I don't know, tells me that what he says is rank heresy. How does one separate the wheat from the chaff? No offense, but how do I know that Tilia is not the heretic and MJ Sawyer is not correct. Or is it that since I have not got the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I am doomed to perpetual ignorance.

Let's get down to fundamentals. Forget that the Bible exists (and at first, after the resurrection, it didn't). Somebody comes along with the news of the gospel. Another person is converted. That person then has the mind of Christ. He has all authority in his thoughts and speech. Whatever he binds, is bound. Whatever he condemns, is condemned. Why does he even need a Bible? He can write one!

The same thing happens today. The Christian is the true authority. It is the Christian who validates the Bible, not the Bible that validates the Christian. It is the Christian who who defines it, who causes it to be known in the world, whose persecution makes it what it is.

This seems strange to me. Please elaborate. It would seem then that every true Christian should be able to get direct revelation from God. What then would be the point of having a written Bible? Why do Christians keep falling back on the argument, "The Bible tells me so."? Or are those evil deceivers again?

[trencacloscas]

So it's not okay for Christians to interfere in the business of others, but others can tell Christians what to believe. Nothing new there.

In fact, Christians have been telling the world what to believe for seventeen centuries. They still do. It's highly ironic when Christians victimize themselves for some freedom of speech they denied everyone else for so long.

[McCulloch]

The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation.

That's rank heresy.

Would you please elaborate as to which part of Professor Sawyer's statement is rank heresy. Which statement is not heresy?

1. The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation.
2. The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something other than historical investigation.
3. The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon only historical investigation.
4. The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God is grounded upon nothing at all.

Edited to fix typos