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]

This is exactly why I was trying to get you to nail down what you think things mean.

You realize that you're having two parallel conversations, one with me and one with William, right?

[2timothy316]

This is exactly why I was trying to get you to nail down what you think things mean.

You realize that you're having two parallel conversations, one with me and one with William, right?

Amazing, you both have the exact same issue though. You both act as if you don't know what canon means. I keep trying to explain it as if you both do understand what canon means but then you give me replies like the one above and then I think, well I guess they don't understand the canon of the Bible.

Do you understand what canon means when it comes to the Bible? Do you understand that it has nothing to do with what you or I think should be in the Bible? Do you understand that 'canon' is a measurement established with the first writings of Moses in the days of Moses?

[William]

It seems to come up quite frequently. Christians claiming that they cannot explain something to others because those others "do not know what these Christians mean."

It appears that 2timothy316 is unwilling to answer the questions put to him/her because 'we won't understand' because 'we don't understand'.

Clearly John The Beloved Disciple wrote that he had personally witnessed hearing Jesus teach so many things that [he supposed] all the books in the libraries of the world could not contain said teachings.

At the time of his writing this of course, the Bible did not even exist as the collection of different authors writings we have today. Clearly the bible holds very little information regarding what Jesus actually taught.

So Christians have no option but to carry on the charade that they are "Followers of Jesus" when the really are just worshippers of a book they use to substitute in place of having to discover the mysteries Jesus spoke about.

That is fine as far as I can see, as long as they know their place. However, I have not meet any who call themselves Christians who understand that their position is mostly one of ignorance in relation to the mysteries Jesus taught, so they are of no real value to those of us who seek the truth. They believe otherwise, which is where they do not understand their place in the whole scheme of things.

It may be true that all scripture is inspired by a God and is useful to teach Christians what is true and to make Christians realize what is wrong in their lives. It corrects Christians when they are wrong and teaches Christians to do what is right, but it is only actually useful when applied and accepted.

If truth were a cake which needed to be eaten, then Christians who are not prepared to discover the mysteries Jesus taught, simply hold the cake and say how wonderful the cake looks and show others how wonderful the cake looks and when others don't see that the cake looks any more wonderful than other cakes, the Christians blame the others for not understanding. For not 'seeing'.

But the Christians don't actually eat the cake because then they wouldn't have a wonderful looking cake to show off to those who don't have such wonderful cake.

Yet - according to the idea that it is in the eating of the "cake" that removes the wrong in their lives and shows them what the right thing to do is - and if the 2.382 billion Christians actually ate the cake, they could not possibly fail to show the world something which was actually wonderful.

Such are the mysteries that Jesus Taught.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #24]

Then say you don't know what canon is or ask me to explain what canon means and I will explain it to you. Otherwise I will understand if you leave the conversation. Or if you know what canon is the explain what you think it is because of the gaps in your replies it seems you don't. Because I'm answering your questions but it's clear you're not understanding the answers and my sus is that you don't know what canon means and what measurements are used to place a book in the Bible canon.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #24]

Then say you don't know what canon is or ask me to explain what canon means and I will explain it to you. Otherwise I will understand if you leave the conversation. Or if you know what canon is the explain what you think it is because in your replies it seems you don't.

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?

Those are the OP questions to which you are still avoiding answering.

My replies have to do with the fact that if the Bible is canon, then it tells us plainly that there is far more to be understood and experienced than what the Bible actually tells of.

Therefore, Biblical canon itself points to the idea that there is far better [for the individual] information to be found elsewhere than in Biblical canon. Yet the way you are arguing, it appears that you are not interested in discovering that information...perhaps because "It is not in the Biblical canon"

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #26]

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38088
There you go. A whole thread on the subject.
And I am answering the questions but you're not getting it. Because you keep saying things like 'if the Bible is canon'. That tells me you don't get it.

[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".

[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.

[2timothy316]

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?

[Difflugia]

Amazing, you both have the exact same issue though. You both act as if you don't know what canon means. I keep trying to explain it as if you both do understand what canon means but then you give me replies like the one above and then I think, well I guess they don't understand the canon of the Bible.

Do you understand what canon means when it comes to the Bible? Do you understand that it has nothing to do with what you or I think should be in the Bible? Do you understand that 'canon' is a measurement established with the first writings of Moses in the days of Moses?

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. If you want to redefine the term, I have no problem with that, but it's then up to you to tell us what your definition is.

The canon of the Hebrew Bible was defined, if not yet finally closed, by the end of the first century CE. The Pharisaic canon became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism, because the majority of those who refounded the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans were
Pharisees. The process that led to this canonization needs to be explored. How should we think about the books that were eventually included in the canon? Unlike the early church, ancient Jewish communities did not have a central authority that defined the books of the canon. The formation of the Jewish canon was not prescribed by the priests of the Temple of Jerusalem; it emerged from the bottom up, with each community holding to its own collection of authoritative texts.—Timothy H. Lim, When Texts Are Canonized, page 1.

Neither was there a standard for the New Testament canon until much later.

The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature.—Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, page 1.

In any case, to be more clear about my confusion, would you mind explaining what you mean by the phrase, "Big contracts to other books like Revelation?" Then would you address my point about 1 Samuel and The Watchtower's argument about the books of Maccabees?