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?

[Difflugia]

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?

Broadly, yes, but it depends on what you're looking for. You're unlikely to find much literal history, but there's not much of that in the Protestant canon, either.

In particular, I love the various books of Maccabees, because they shed some light (in the sense of a historical novel) on the historical Maccabean wars, but 2 Maccabees in particular offers interesting insight on Jewish ideas of piety and martyrdom that were near-contemporary to the rise of Christianity.

2 Macc 7:1-6

And it came to pass that seven kindred also with their mother were at the king’s command taken and shamefully handled with scourges and cords, to compel them to taste of the abominable swine’s flesh. But one of them made himself the spokesman and said, "What would you ask and learn of us? for we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers." And the king fell into a rage, and commanded to heat pans and caldrons: and when these forthwith were heated, he commanded to cut out the tongue of him that had been their spokesman, and to scalp him, and to cut off his extremities, the rest of his kindred and his mother looking on. And when he was utterly maimed, the king commanded to bring him to the fire, being yet alive, and to fry him in the pan. And as the vapor of the pan spread far, they and their mother also exhorted one another to die nobly, saying thus: "The Lord God sees, and in truth is entreated for us, as Moses declared in his song, which witnesses against the people to their faces, saying, And he shall be entreated for his servants."

I don't know if this fits within the expanse of "truth," but I confess that I like several of the books because they're delightfully weird. 2 Esdras includes an account (part of which I quoted in the earlier post) of how all of the Jewish scrolls (including the entire Hebrew Old Testament) were burned, but Ezra was supernaturally given the ability to recreate the Bible as it was and then some, for a total of 94 books. In addition to its entertainment value, that tells us that there was some apocalyptic Jewish sect during the Second Temple period that had 94 books of Scripture, some of which were excluded to outsiders.

Aside from just the standard Deuterocanon, there are several others that are equally important. One that I think everyone should read is the Shepherd of Hermas, if for no other reason than several of the Church Fathers thought that it should be included in the Christian canon. That means that as weird as the Shepherd of Hermas is (and it is definitely weird), there were influential early Christians that thought that it complemented Christianity as they saw it. It's contemporary with (and perhaps earlier than) the Pastoral Epistles, which gives some secular insight into the theological diversity of second-century Christianity.

[2timothy316]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

[Difflugia]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

Nobody did stop it. As a human being, though, you just have to have the discernment to choose a church in which God has preserved the entirety of His Word instead of only part of it.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Considering the text-twisting and allegorizing that Christians otherwise use to see Jesus in various parts of the Old Testament, that's just trivially false. The books of Maccabees are about the successful Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids. With far less imagination than it takes to see Jesus in, say, Leviticus or Judges, the Maccabean success can be seen as a biblical type of the David vs. Goliath battle (itself often invoked as a messianic metaphor) involved in the nation of Judah overcoming, with Yahweh's blessing, the power of the corrupted world. Where the Maccabean revolt was, as all earthly things are, temporary, it was nonetheless a foreshadowing of the permanent revolution that would be brought about by Yahweh's true Messiah, Jesus Christ.

[2timothy316]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

Nobody did stop it. As a human being, though, you just have to have the discernment to choose a church in which God has preserved the entirety of His Word instead of only part of it.

If want I truth then I can't make my own truth. I can't make the not true statements in the Apocrypha true.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Considering the text-twisting and allegorizing that Christians otherwise use to see Jesus in various parts of the Old Testament, that's just trivially false. The books of Maccabees are about the successful Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids. With far less imagination than it takes to see Jesus in, say, Leviticus or Judges, the Maccabean success can be seen as a biblical type of the David vs. Goliath battle (itself often invoked as a messianic metaphor) involved in the nation of Judah overcoming, with Yahweh's blessing, the power of the corrupted world. Where the Maccabean revolt was, as all earthly things are, temporary, it was nonetheless a foreshadowing of the permanent revolution that would be brought about by Yahweh's true Messiah, Jesus Christ.

[/quote]Only what is God-breathed should be in the Bible. Not every historical account written by some person. The difference between the Maccabean account and the David written by Samuel and others is that those books were written at God's command. They were also told what to write. As you know Jehovah's Witnesses have written a ton of publications. Do you know how much of should go into the Bible? None of it. The Watchtower, Awake, and all the books ever written by JWs are not God-Breathed no matter how much true history is in them.

[2timothy316]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

Nobody did stop it. As a human being, though, you just have to have the discernment to choose a church in which God has preserved the entirety of His Word instead of only part of it.

If want I truth then I can't make my own truth. Discernment can't make the not true statements in the Apocrypha true.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Considering the text-twisting and allegorizing that Christians otherwise use to see Jesus in various parts of the Old Testament, that's just trivially false. The books of Maccabees are about the successful Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids. With far less imagination than it takes to see Jesus in, say, Leviticus or Judges, the Maccabean success can be seen as a biblical type of the David vs. Goliath battle (itself often invoked as a messianic metaphor) involved in the nation of Judah overcoming, with Yahweh's blessing, the power of the corrupted world. Where the Maccabean revolt was, as all earthly things are, temporary, it was nonetheless a foreshadowing of the permanent revolution that would be brought about by Yahweh's true Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Only what is God-breathed should be in the Bible. Not every historical account written by some person. The difference between the Maccabean account and the David written by Samuel and others is that those books were written at God's command. They were also told what to write. As you know Jehovah's Witnesses have written a ton of publications. Do you know how much of should go into the Bible? None of it. The Watchtower, Awake, and all the books ever written by JWs are not God-Breathed no matter how much true history is in them.

[William]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Following your argument "The coming of the Messiah" [according to Christian Mythology] is in relation to pre-coming of Messiah days. We then have stories of different peoples witness to supposed events in relation to Jesus [the Christian Messiah] as well as a very interesting tidbit from John [The Beloved Disciple] who informed us that most of what God breathed was not recorded in the Bible.

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

If all of what [the Gods only begotten son {Jesus}] had to say. was not considered by the God to be something which should be recorded in the Bible , then the God obviously doesn't see the Bible as all that important for that to be the case.

If anything, one can say with fair certainty that, the Bible is the "handmaiden" to the folk who have little to no interest in the information not reveled to them, and that is why the God only gave the nod for those things which those type of folk could handle, because those type of folk are only [even perhaps just] worthy of the little they can handle and even with that information, they are confused and gather themselves into denominations and have different versions of the Bible as their preference which they use to oppose one another whilst claiming to be "the one" through which 'God breathes' [to use the phrase] through.

The downside of this is that it [more often than not] gives the God a bad name...obviously the God can live with that...as *those who can handle much, much more of The Truth, bear witness to. [*These are generally treated by Christians as individuals who are demonically influenced...]

Most of the time the folk who have no interest in the information not reveled to them, raise their collective voices to drown out such witness, much the same way in which people who don't want to know something might put their hands over their ears and make the "lalala" sound as a sort of mantra.

[2timothy316]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Following your argument "The coming of the Messiah" [according to Christian Mythology] is in relation to pre-coming of Messiah days. We then have stories of different peoples witness to supposed events in relation to Jesus [the Christian Messiah] as well as a very interesting tidbit from John [The Beloved Disciple] who informed us that most of what God breathed was not recorded in the Bible.

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

First Jesus isn't God, second explain what you think God-Breathed means so that we are in agreement as to what is God-Breathed. If we can agree on what is God-Breathed then we can apply it to the writings available to us. And yes I understand not everything Jehovah has ever said has been written down. But that is not what we are talking about here. The question is: Is the Apocrypha God-Breathed?

[William]

The main reason that some books are not considered canon is because Jehovah God is in control of what goes into his book. It's not men lone. Just as the books are not written by men alone. If the books of the Apocrypha were meant to be as accepted into the Bible as canon then no one could stop it.

For example, the books of Maccabees Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” So while it might hold some information from a historical standpoint it is not 'God-Breathed'. It has historical and geographical inaccuracies as well as lacking a reference to the coming of the Messiah which all other books have in some way.

Following your argument "The coming of the Messiah" [according to Christian Mythology] is in relation to pre-coming of Messiah days. We then have stories of different peoples witness to supposed events in relation to Jesus [the Christian Messiah] as well as a very interesting tidbit from John [The Beloved Disciple] who informed us that most of what God breathed was not recorded in the Bible.

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

First Jesus isn't God,

So what. Nor are any of the authors of the Bible.

second explain what you think God-Breathed means so that we are in agreement as to what is God-Breathed.

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

If we can agree on what is God-Breathed then we can apply it to the writings available to us.

I doubt that, as there are many writings outside of the Bible which I think qualify as being "God-inspired" but would not go so far as to argue with anyone about those things. Generally it can be considered an individual thing as to who decides what is "inspired by The Creator" and what is not. [Assuming that you believe the god, "Jehovah" as portrayed in the Bible is also "The Creator"]

And yes I understand not everything Jehovah has ever said has been written down. But that is not what we are talking about here.

You might not be 'talking about it here" but I Am. [If you don't want to talk about it, I understand why.]

The question is: Is the Apocrypha God-Breathed?

Nope. The questions are:

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 #9]

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

So much more than that. Being God-breathed or God-Inspired is what separates what is inferior from what is superior. If one doesn't know what it means for a book to be God-Breathed then there will be confusion. A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria. This is why the word 'canon' is used. Canon means 'as a rule' or 'measuring device'. One needs to know what those measurements and rules are in order to understand if something is to be added to the canon of the Bible. Meaning, was the writer under the spirit of God when writing the account? The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no. What is in the 66 books of the Bible must meet a standard measure and it is not left up to the individual to determine what is what. The book being God-breathed is one of the measurements. And if you don't want to talk about what it means for a book to be God-Breathed, then I will understand why.