Biblical Canon Fodder

[William]

I don't believe there are 73 inspired books in the bible canon.

How can you expect a complete picture of the Bible while cutting out and discarding a tenth of its content? You're literally decimating the Bible!

DECIMATE
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.

What evidence do you have that accepting the original 66 books of the bible canon amounts to "cutting out", "discarding" or figuratively "decimating" the bible?

Biblical Canon
2 Esdras 14:38-48

38 And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. 39 Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, he reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire. 40 And I took it, and drank: and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory: 41 And my mouth was opened, and shut no more. 42 The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 43 As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 44 In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 45 And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: 46 But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: 47 For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. 48 And I did so.

Are the various Christian denominations which accept or reject other Christian denominations canon, doing so for any other reason than it suits the particular belief systems [bias] of said individuals who sort themselves into the various denominations?

If so, can truth be found in any of these denominations belief systems worthy of trusting?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #26]

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38088
There you go. A whole thread on the subject.

Good luck with that. From experience, Christians arguing interpretation of Biblical canon, goes in the same direction as a circle. The wide path which leads to nowhere in particular.

But thank you for ceasing to attempt to derail this thread subject.

Then I don't understand why you started a thread with the title 'Biblical Canon Fodder' if you're going avoid discussing what makes a book part of Biblical canon in the first place. Sounds like you wanted a circular argument and a wide path which leads to nowhere. Yet if you can nail down what makes a writing a scared scripture and part of the Bible canon, I would think that is what would answer your question in the OP. I can't think for the life of me what else you'd be looking for.

[William]

Although the article you quoted is arguing for the exclusion of the books of Maccabees, the exact same reasoning and logic would apply to the episode of Saul and the Witch of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel and that makes my original point. The same verses in Ecclesiastes conflict, at least by Watchtower standards, with 1 Samuel. 1 Samuel is still considered canonical, however, and rather than excluding it, the NWT actually added scare quotes around Samuel's name (28:12, for example) as an odd sort of harmonization. If that's all it takes to square such disparate theological points of view, then surely a simple reference to praying for the dead can't be the reason it was excluded, can it?

What you have observed here is apparent contradiction. I am positive that if they could have gotten away with it, Christians would have excluded the OT references to life after death. Instead they assign "Lying Spirits" in regard to any who experience things of that nature and claim that 'true Jews" do not believe in such things.

Digging deeper one begins to realize that it does not really matter. According to all religious tradition [re Middle Eastern Mythology] whatever way it happens, it will happen.

But digging deeper still, one also realizes that Jesus taught a lot about "The Mysteries of The Fathers Kingdom" in private [things not recorded in any Biblical canon] and these all must have to do with the 'place' the dead experience.

The argument seems to be that Biblical canon says one cannot experience these things unless one is resurrected [reinstated] in a future time, so any such experience one might have NOW [nowadays referred to as "Alternate"] can only be "of the devil".

In this way, those who believe this, cannot [will not] experience the mysteries which Jesus taught, because they believe these to be "of the devil".

This is what the Bible says.

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

Not what was passed on by word of mouth and not all of what your priest, deacon, pope, neighbor etc etc says. Now, next: What makes a writing, sacred scripture?

Are you suggesting that John The Beloved Disciple was not passing on 'by word of mouth' that which later became part of Biblical canon?
Are you suggesting that those things Jesus taught which were not passed on by word of mouth, are to be ignored as being things Jesus would have you know for yourself?

[2timothy316]

Ah. To put it charitably, you are using the word canon differently than everyone else does, or at least differently than scholars do. There was no canon "in the days of Moses" and I'm using the word the way they do.

I gotta hear this. Please, define canon the way they do.

[2timothy316]

Are you suggesting that John The Beloved Disciple was not passing on 'by word of mouth' that which later became part of Biblical canon?

Yep. Until it was writen down, it was not scripture.

Are you suggesting that those things Jesus taught which were not passed on by word of mouth, are to be ignored as being things Jesus would have you know for yourself?

Yep. If we needed to know what was said we'd have it in scripture. And furthermore not everything written is to be canonized. Paul apparently wrote another letter to the Corinthians. Yet we only have 2 of those 3 known letters. But it's not in the canon, so it's not important to us.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #26]

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38088
There you go. A whole thread on the subject.

Good luck with that. From experience, Christians arguing interpretation of Biblical canon, goes in the same direction as a circle. The wide path which leads to nowhere in particular.

But thank you for ceasing to attempt to derail this thread subject.

Then I don't understand why you started a thread with the title 'Biblical Canon Fodder' if you're going avoid discussing what makes a book part of Biblical canon in the first place.

If you observe in the OP, there are questions regarding the "Biblical Canon" claim. If you took a teeny bit of time to think about said questions and even try to answer them, your understanding as to why I started this thread and named it such, should [logically] increase.

As has been the case, I have quoted those OP questions on more than one occasion, and you have continued to ignore them.

Sounds like you wanted a circular argument and a wide path which leads to nowhere. Yet if you can nail down what makes a writing a scared scripture and part of the Bible canon, I would think that is what would answer your question in the OP. I can't think for the life of me what else you'd be looking for.

That is why I encouraged you to discontinue participating in this thread and wished you good luck with the new thread you started.

[2timothy316]

That is why I encouraged you to discontinue participating in this thread and wished you good luck with the new thread you started.

Your questions can't be answered if we can not agree on what makes a writing part of the Bible canon in the first place. You started a DOA thread.

[William]

Are you suggesting that John The Beloved Disciple was not passing on 'by word of mouth' that which later became part of Biblical canon?

Yep. Until it was written down, it was not scripture.

So what was it regarded as before then?

Are you suggesting that those things Jesus taught which were not passed on by word of mouth, are to be ignored as being things Jesus would have you know for yourself?

Yep. If we needed to know what was said we'd have it in scripture. And furthermore not everything written is to be canonized. Paul apparently wrote another letter to the Corinthians. Yet we only have 2 of those 3 known letters. But it's not in the canon, so it's not important to us.

Therefore I am correct [in the truth] in my observing that what went public was for those who are unwilling [not enabled] to take in the vaster things which altogether make up reality and that they should know their place in the scheme of things rather than attempt to speak with authority concerning the mysteries to which they have no knowledge of regarding the truth of said mysteries.

[William]

That is why I encouraged you to discontinue participating in this thread and wished you good luck with the new thread you started.

Your questions can't be answered if we can not agree on what makes a writing part of the Bible canon in the first place. You started a DOA thread.

On the contrary you answered the first question;

Are the various Christian denominations which accept or reject other Christian denominations canon, doing so for any other reason than it suits the particular belief systems [bias] of said individuals who sort themselves into the various denominations?

By answering another question;

Are you suggesting that those things Jesus taught which were not passed on by word of mouth, are to be ignored as being things Jesus would have you know for yourself?

Your answer was;

Yep. If we needed to know what was said we'd have it in scripture.

Therefore, the things you need to know are designed as 'it suits you'

In that, the second OP question:

If so, can truth be found in any of these denominations belief systems worthy of trusting?

The answer would depend on what suits those who are wanting to trust what others say...including what others say about scripture.

In that, scripture is really only for those who - by their own admission "don't need to know" most everything else that Jesus taught, which is not in the scriptures..

[2timothy316]

Are you suggesting that John The Beloved Disciple was not passing on 'by word of mouth' that which later became part of Biblical canon?

Yep. Until it was written down, it was not scripture.

So what was it regarded as before then?

Information for the people of John's time. When it was written into scripture it became something for all followers of true worship.

Are you suggesting that those things Jesus taught which were not passed on by word of mouth, are to be ignored as being things Jesus would have you know for yourself?

Yep. If we needed to know what was said we'd have it in scripture. And furthermore not everything written is to be canonized. Paul apparently wrote another letter to the Corinthians. Yet we only have 2 of those 3 known letters. But it's not in the canon, so it's not important to us.

Therefore I am correct [in the truth] in my observing that what went public was for those who are unwilling [not enabled] to take in the vaster things which altogether make up reality and that they should know their place in the scheme of things rather than attempt to speak with authority concerning the mysteries to which they have no knowledge of regarding the truth of said mysteries.

If a person wants to believe something other than what is written in the Bible be my guest. I can't stop them. I will not say it's God-Breathed whatever it is they are listening to. Concerning true worship of God, with the Bible, nothing is a mystery to me.

[2timothy316]

Therefore, the things you need to know are designed as 'it suits you'

No. It's designed so I can know what I need to do to suit true worship. I suit God's ways not God suit my ways.