Should the books of the bible been more like 77?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please answer my questions and I will answer yours: You have no opinions and assumptions? They were not listening to the Holy Spirit?

You alluded that you "doubt" that they were listening to the Holy Spirit. If they were alive today they would doubt you are listening sooooo where does that leave us???

Patient Mary

They wouldn't care about my experience, any more than I care about theirs. We all have to work out our own salvation and walk with the Lord.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Marymog

This is the church age of Pergamos, the church age when the books were being canonized.

The Compromising Church
12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: 13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.” ’

I find it interesting that Jesus uses the phrase two-edged sword, meaning the Scriptures.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,231
113
North America
@Marymog

This is the church age of Pergamos, the church age when the books were being canonized.

The Compromising Church
12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: 13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.” ’

I find it interesting that Jesus uses the phrase two-edged sword, meaning the Scriptures.
I think that tendencies at the various 7 churches of Asia can probably be manifest in different parts of the world today...
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think that tendencies at the various 7 churches of Asia can probably be manifest in different parts of the world today...

The seven letters from Jesus were three-fold letters, so yes one of the directions was universal, one to the current towns of that time, but the third is the different ages of church history.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, I'm NOT rejecting anything.

There is more in the EoB than that one verse on abortion. Just because MAN decided not to include the EoB does not mean that God didn't want it included. I obey God not man.

I know you're not. I am asking why not? If abortion and infanticide are the reasons you want to include the book of Barnabas as inspired and consider it Scripture, why shouldn't you reject the portions of Scripture that show God as responsible for the same?

You have made yourself the one who determines whether or not a book is inspired or not. So, what is your method of determining? And have you applied it to the rest of the Bible?

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I know you're not. I am asking why not? If abortion and infanticide are the reasons you want to include the book of Barnabas as inspired and consider it Scripture, why shouldn't you reject the portions of Scripture that show God as responsible for the same?

You have made yourself the one who determines whether or not a book is inspired or not. So, what is your method of determining? And have you applied it to the rest of the Bible?

Stranger

That is just one of many things I learned in the EoB, which I've already explained. I have a broader understanding of God, and isn't that what the Bible is for? I have a hunger and thirst for ALL of God's word, so why not read a book that the early Christians considered the work of the apostle Barnabas. And when I read it, I found nothing but truth, plus explanations missing in the 66 books.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is just one of many things I learned in the EoB, which I've already explained. I have a broader understanding of God, and isn't that what the Bible is for? I have a hunger and thirst for ALL of God's word, so why not read a book that the early Christians considered the work of the apostle Barnabas. And when I read it, I found nothing but truth, plus explanations missing in the 66 books.

But you can find some early 'Christians' who claimed a lot of other books were inspired. In fact, that was one of the reasons a true Canon of Scripture had to be determined. Many were making their own canon. Do you consider all of those Scripture also? If not, why not? How do you determine?

You can of course read and enjoy a book that is full of good things about God. I have no problem with that. But, just because a book is about God or Christ, does not make it Scripture. Just because it is written by an apostle, does not make it Scripture.

I'm pretty sure Paul wrote another letter to the Corinthian Church. If that letter were found today, should it be included into Scripture? No. Just because Paul wrote it did not make it Scripture.

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If that letter were found today, should it be included into Scripture? No. Just because Paul wrote it did not make it Scripture.

Yes. All his other epistles were included. Paul was an apostle. Just like all three epistles of John were included.

Barnabas was an apostle, Clement was not. (That was to another poster if she is reading.)
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes. All his other epistles were included. Paul was an apostle. Just like all three epistles of John were included.

Barnabas was an apostle, Clement was not. (That was to another poster if she is reading.)

How do you know how much John wrote? Or Luke? Or Peter? Or Paul? Or any other writer in Scripture?

Being an apostle did not guarantee a writing was inspired by God. Luke was no apostle. And though tradition gives the Gospel's the name of the writer, there is no proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John was the author. They do not name themselves specifically in their writing that they are the writer.

In other words, many things are involved in the placing of a writing as inspired by God. Authorship is but one. This is why I have asked you, how do you determine your canon?

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How do you know how much John wrote? Or Luke? Or Peter? Or Paul? Or any other writer in Scripture?

Being an apostle did not guarantee a writing was inspired by God. Luke was no apostle. And though tradition gives the Gospel's the name of the writer, there is no proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John was the author. They do not name themselves specifically in their writing that they are the writer.

In other words, many things are involved in the placing of a writing as inspired by God. Authorship is but one. This is why I have asked you, how do you determine your canon?

Stranger

How do you know those men chose all the inspired works, and didn't leave any out? They weren't inspired.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How do you know those men chose all the inspired works, and didn't leave any out? They weren't inspired.

Give me their methods of determining a book. How is that a book without an author such as Hebrews can make it's way into the Canon. Why do you accept any of the books in the Bible? How do you know they are inspired works? Couldn't they have made a mistake? You say they have left some out. Well, how do you know that they didn't allow some in that shouldn't be there?

Give me their methods of determining. Then give me your methods of determining.

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Give me their methods of determining a book. How is that a book without an author such as Hebrews can make it's way into the Canon. Why do you accept any of the books in the Bible? How do you know they are inspired works? Couldn't they have made a mistake? You say they have left some out. Well, how do you know that they didn't allow some in that shouldn't be there?

Give me their methods of determining. Then give me your methods of determining.

Stranger

You didn't answer my question.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You didn't answer my question.

You haven't answered any of mine. Nor will you.

I have studied the making of the Canon of Scripture quite a bit. You will find there is no hard and fast rule upon including a book into the Canon. Authorship can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Apostleship can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Understanding of what is said in the book can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Men of letters approval of the book can be important, but then at times, it doesn't matter. Contradictions can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter.

I have found only one common theme that allowed for a book to make it into the Canon of Scripture...that overrides any of the learned mens objection to it. Was it accepted by the believers as from God? Did they request it? Did it minister to their spirit.

These first pockets of Christians didn't have the whole Bible at all. And when they got a letter from an apostle or one who was a believer, they would have it read in their fellowship. And because they had the Holy Spirit, they wanted it read time and again...if it ministered unto them. Other churches would have other letters and so they would pass them along to each other. But of course they would make inquiry of the ones they wanted. And they would not ask for those that did nothing for them.

So, you might have the book of Barnabas in a church. But no one was wanting it. It did not impact believers lives. They instead would ask for the Gospels or a letter from Paul. Just because a certain one or a certain church said we have this writing of Baranbas and we think it is good didn't matter. They didn't want it. It didn't minister to their spirits. It was like eating cardboard.

This is how I know that all the books that God wanted in the Bible are located in the 27 books we have in the New Testament.

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You haven't answered any of mine. Nor will you.

I have studied the making of the Canon of Scripture quite a bit. You will find there is no hard and fast rule upon including a book into the Canon. Authorship can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Apostleship can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Understanding of what is said in the book can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter. Men of letters approval of the book can be important, but then at times, it doesn't matter. Contradictions can be important, but then at times it doesn't matter.

I have found only one common theme that allowed for a book to make it into the Canon of Scripture...that overrides any of the learned mens objection to it. Was it accepted by the believers as from God? Did they request it? Did it minister to their spirit.

These first pockets of Christians didn't have the whole Bible at all. And when they got a letter from an apostle or one who was a believer, they would have it read in their fellowship. And because they had the Holy Spirit, they wanted it read time and again...if it ministered unto them. Other churches would have other letters and so they would pass them along to each other. But of course they would make inquiry of the ones they wanted. And they would not ask for those that did nothing for them.

So, you might have the book of Barnabas in a church. But no one was wanting it. It did not impact believers lives. They instead would ask for the Gospels or a letter from Paul. Just because a certain one or a certain church said we have this writing of Baranbas and we think it is good didn't matter. They didn't want it. It didn't minister to their spirits. It was like eating cardboard.

This is how I know that all the books that God wanted in the Bible are located in the 27 books we have in the New Testament.

Stranger

LOL They didn't want it? It was on 6 lists. I don't care if they didn't want it, which you have no way of knowing so you are just blowing hot air, I LOVE IT, AND IT MINISTERS TO ME. Not only that, but it is needed more now, than it was then as Jesus is coming soon, whereas back then it was centuries away. God has protected and preserved it and it was no coincidence that when found, it was minutes away from being burned for fuel. That's God. If that is foolishness to you, so be it.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL They didn't want it? It was on 6 lists. I don't care if they didn't want it, which you have no way of knowing so you are just blowing hot air, I LOVE IT, AND IT MINISTERS TO ME. Not only that, but it is needed more now, than it was then as Jesus is coming soon, whereas back then it was centuries away. God has protected and preserved it and it was no coincidence that when found, it was minutes away from being burned for fuel. That's God. If that is foolishness to you, so be it.

It doesn't matter if it was on 6 lists. Anyone can make a list. The first New Testament canon known was a false canon by Marcion in 140 A.D.

When you say, 'I love it, and it ministers to me', you set yourself up as the one who determines whether or not a book should be included into the canon of the New Testament. As I said, you can enjoy the book all you want. But don't try and make it worthy of being Scripture.

I at least answered your question. And all you have to say is I am blowing hot air. You avoid my questions because they bring you to a conclusion you don't want to admit.

Here are some hot air quotes to consider.

(The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP, 1988, p. 41-42) "When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon.....when in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to 'the scriptures', they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents....But, as later with the New Testament, so with the Old Testament it is probable that, when the canon was 'closed' in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community."

From the same as above: p. (130) "What is important is this: from the early second century onward Paul's letters circulated not singly, but as a collection. It was as a collection that Christians of the second century and later knew them, both orthodox and heterodox."

From the same as above: p. (131) "Before the production of this collected edition, a beginning had already been made with gathering some of Paul's letters together. He himself encouraged the churches of Colassae and Laodicea, two neighbouring cities in the Lycus valley of Phrygia, to exchange letters which they had received from him (Col. 4:16)."

From the same as above: p.(131-132) "It might be expected that local collections of letters would be made at an early stage....."

From the same as above: p. 282-283) "Certainly, as one looks back on the process of canonization in early Christian centuries, and remembers some of the ideas of which certain church writes of that period were capeable, it is easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion on the limits of the canon they were directed by a wisdom higher than their own....But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that 'the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that 'the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they do still, because the Kyrios Christ speaks in them."

If you want to say the book of Barnabas speaks to you and so to you it is Scripture, go ahead. But that doesn't make it Scripture. It just makes it your own special canon. Which is why the need for a canon existed in the first place.

Stranger
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It doesn't matter if it was on 6 lists. Anyone can make a list. The first New Testament canon known was a false canon by Marcion in 140 A.D.

When you say, 'I love it, and it ministers to me', you set yourself up as the one who determines whether or not a book should be included into the canon of the New Testament. As I said, you can enjoy the book all you want. But don't try and make it worthy of being Scripture.

I at least answered your question. And all you have to say is I am blowing hot air. You avoid my questions because they bring you to a conclusion you don't want to admit.

Here are some hot air quotes to consider.

(The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP, 1988, p. 41-42) "When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon.....when in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to 'the scriptures', they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents....But, as later with the New Testament, so with the Old Testament it is probable that, when the canon was 'closed' in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community."

From the same as above: p. (130) "What is important is this: from the early second century onward Paul's letters circulated not singly, but as a collection. It was as a collection that Christians of the second century and later knew them, both orthodox and heterodox."

From the same as above: p. (131) "Before the production of this collected edition, a beginning had already been made with gathering some of Paul's letters together. He himself encouraged the churches of Colassae and Laodicea, two neighbouring cities in the Lycus valley of Phrygia, to exchange letters which they had received from him (Col. 4:16)."

From the same as above: p.(131-132) "It might be expected that local collections of letters would be made at an early stage....."

From the same as above: p. 282-283) "Certainly, as one looks back on the process of canonization in early Christian centuries, and remembers some of the ideas of which certain church writes of that period were capeable, it is easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion on the limits of the canon they were directed by a wisdom higher than their own....But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that 'the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that 'the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they do still, because the Kyrios Christ speaks in them."

If you want to say the book of Barnabas speaks to you and so to you it is Scripture, go ahead. But that doesn't make it Scripture. It just makes it your own special canon. Which is why the need for a canon existed in the first place.

Stranger

Why does it matter to you whether I love it or not? You have no faith in it, fine. I do. Nothing in it contradicts anything in the Bible. It does nothing but explain things that makes me love God more, not less. You seem to be going to great lengths to argue with me about something that builds my faith. What could be your motive? And whether the EoB is the missing book from the NT or not, there IS one missing to make 28. Again, this knowledge didn't happen until closer to the end when knowledge would increase. You are not going to change my mind so if you want the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, fine. I want the Epistle of Barnabas in the new. What's it to you?
 
Last edited:

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Nothing in it contradicts anything in the Bible.
TOTALLY FALSE. Barnabas has several things which plainly contradict Scripture (which I already pointed out), but you have become obsessed with this non-canonical book. After this look out. You will be seeking out all the other apocryphal and Gnostic writings since they all sound so good.

As to what it is to others when people are tending to go off the rails is that we have a duty to warn others about things which are not helpful to Christians. There was a good reason for the Holy Spirit to exclude Barnabas from the canon.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
TOTALLY FALSE. Barnabas has several things which plainly contradict Scripture (which I already pointed out), but you have become obsessed with this non-canonical book. After this look out. You will be seeking out all the other apocryphal and Gnostic writings since they all sound so good.

As to what it is to others when people are tending to go off the rails is that we have a duty to warn others about things which are not helpful to Christians. There was a good reason for the Holy Spirit to exclude Barnabas from the canon.

Sorry Enoch, but I don't recall what you said. Can you repeat them when you have time?

Edit: Never mind, I found it. But none of them were accurate, so I had forgotten about them.
 
Last edited: