Bible versions

[Athelwulf]

Jenyar,

This is the Torah which was considered authoritave by the Jews and by Jesus and his disciples, and that's good enough for us.

How can "good enough" be good enough?

Because of the dangers of false apostles and false teachings, after those apostles and disciples died and weren't available to consult anymore, Christians only accepted writings and traditions authorized by them.

But who are you to say that any book that wasn't written by an apostle isn't the Word of God?

The further one moves from that inner circle, the less authorative such works become, and usually, the less they actually have to say about Jesus--and the more they rely on (or deviate from) the earlier books.

What does authority have to do with anything? And why must a book be about Jesus? There are plenty of books in the Old Testament that aren't about Jesus, yet they're in the Bible.

We would only have need for more and more books if we consider Jesus to be God's failure, in a kind of compensation for it--in which case I don't see how any "Christian" books would be of any use; what can a book do that God wouldn't? But if we consider Jesus' ministry to have been succesful, and his message real, we should pay attention to his words.

Why would having books not about Jesus have to mean He was God's failure? I don't see why ya can't have other books alongside books about Jesus, and I don't see what ye'r saying.

THE CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING A BOOK AS CANONICAL...
1. Written by an apostle (e.g., Matthew, John, Paul, Peter)
2. Written by a close associate of an apostle (Mark, Luke, James, Jude)
-- Thus the writing had to be "apostolic" in addition to showing
evidence of inspiration
from Can we trust the Bible regarding its canonicity?

Hmm . . . The entire Old Testament fails both criteria. What say you about that?

I get the feeling that ye'r forgetting about (or disregarding) about half of your Holy Book. Why is that? That is, after all, some of the Word of God ye'r forgetting/disregarding.

 

[Jenyar]

The existance of alternative texts indicate that our present picture of Christianity may well be flawed. If you have read Pagels then you would know her view regarding the consolidation of the early Church by Irenaeus. Partly achieved by banishing and discrediting the Gnostic texts. The Gnostic texts indicate an alternate path to salvation, in direct experience of the divine, nullifying the need for priestly intervention. Spot the potential threat to the existing hierarchical powerbase.

No, Jesus was that threat to priestly intervention:

Hebrews 9:25-26 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.​

The gnostics made of themselves a new elite -- those who could understand the mysteries and a supposed special or "hidden knowledge" (gnosis) that Christ made available to them after his resurrection. Like the Mormons today, they emphasized a special origin of man, which could only be accessed and realized through their teachings, which of course, only they could understand "fully".

Like most religious texts, the Gnostic texts range from the ridicoulous to the sublime. I firmly believe though that what passes for Christian doctrine today is a million miles removed from the original message that Jesus (assuming he existed at all) tried to convey. For example some of the Gnostic texts display an uncanny kinship to Buddhist principles, and many of the canonical teachings of Jesus display a similar Buddhist slant. I believe Christians can find a lot of inspiration within the Gnostic texts, but alas this would be deemed satanic by the church. As if an omniscient god would quibble about the route to gnosis.

That is because they operate from the assumption that all matter is evil--irredeemably corrupt. Therefore they reject any "earthly" connotations with divinity or godliness, deny the material world, and seek enlightenment through secret spiritual mysticism. This is not "satanic", but completely contradicts the Jewish religion which Jesus himself accepted and relied on. Gnosticism supposes that only the elite, enlightened, and especially wise could inherit the kingdom, while Jesus promised it to the poor, the destitute, and the sinner who repented and accepted God's grace. As Ignatius remarked: "They have no concern for love, none for the widow, the orphan, the afflicted, the prisoner, the hungry, the thirsty. They stay away from the Eucharist and prayer". Their concern was for the next life, and this life was a curse to be shed, not one redeemed by God.

Gnosticism is attractive because it is narcissistic and individualistic. It is interesting and sometimes useful, but it does not provide a route for salvation outside Christ. Not even they believed that.

"I believe it was the good news of God: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near" (Matt. 4:17 and Mark 1:14-15)."

I am not being fecitious, but repent from what exactly? And what would the "kingdom of heaven" be exactly?

You could easily find this out by reading the Bible: Admit your guilt before God, repent from sin (as revealed by the law and conscience) and turn to Him. Jesus explained the kingdom of heaven in his parables (Matt. 13 & 18-23), and his own role in it.

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

 

[Jenyar]

I'll get back to you later with regard to your earlier comments, and respond in more depth to this but for example nobody believes the Gospels of Matthew and John to be written by the apostles. Thats not claimed by the gospels either. Matthew is derivative, based on Mark, not the work of an eyewitness, John contains errors that an eyewitness would not make.

Those two criteria aren't the only ones required for canonicity. More witnesses to the same event is a good thing, not a bad thing. None of them differ in testimony, theology or doctrine, and were in common use since early on. There is only so much that even an eyewitness can physically observe, and even that must be corroborated with other witnesses. For that, we have enough information.

 

[Jenyar]

How can "good enough" be good enough?

If God approves of it, that is as good as it gets. The law and Torah was sufficient to expose sin and lead us to recognize God. What it lacked, Jesus brought.

But who are you to say that any book that wasn't written by an apostle isn't the Word of God?

It has to do with authority: what God says, is his word. God reveals who He is, God decides who speaks for Him, and God decides what we know about Him. He has done this through the law and prophets, and ultimately, through Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2). God's word is not limited to a "Bible", but to the truth. We simply rely on the apostles for the truth about Jesus, and on Jesus for the truth about God. He is God's Word (John 1:1). Both Jesus and the apostles referred to the law and the prophets as testimony, to make it clear that they weren't telling us something new about God, but that God was fulfilling his promises to those who had faith in Him.

Books are only testimonies -- and in that sense any testimony that confirms what God did and said, either through Jesus, the law or his prophets, may be considered the Word of God. The reason why we don't accept "new" revelations, is that we consider that God delivered on his promises, and that it was proven conclusively in Christ.

What does authority have to do with anything? And why must a book be about Jesus? There are plenty of books in the Old Testament that aren't about Jesus, yet they're in the Bible.

And yet they are about Jesus, because we would not have understood him without the Old Testament--the laws and covenants of God to his people. The law shows us what sin is, and without knowing what sin is we would not have understood Jesus' message of repentance and forgiveness. We would have been deaf to God, and blind to what He did.

Why would having books not about Jesus have to mean He was God's failure? I don't see why ya can't have other books alongside books about Jesus, and I don't see what ye'r saying.

More books cannot add to what Jesus did, or what God did through Him. If you don't believe in Him, no amount of peripheral information will change that you don't believe in Him. It can only dilute his message into vague, relativistic political correctness or self-worship, devoid of judgment and forgiveness.

Hmm . . . The entire Old Testament fails both criteria. What say you about that?

I get the feeling that ye'r forgetting about (or disregarding) about half of your Holy Book. Why is that? That is, after all, some of the Word of God ye'r forgetting/disregarding.

Those were the criteria for New Testament canonicity, which is what we are discussing. Check the link.

 

[Prester John]

Those two criteria aren't the only ones required for canonicity. More witnesses to the same event is a good thing, not a bad thing. None of them differ in testimony, theology or doctrine, and were in common use since early on. There is only so much that even an eyewitness can physically observe, and even that must be corroborated with other witnesses. For that, we have enough information.

Yes but the list specifically names the two mentioned after saying a condition is being written by an apostle. The impliction that Mathhew and John are apostles is clear, and wrong. As for none of them differing in testimony this is clearly wrong. Perhaps you could recontruct the Easter events for me, lots of contradictions between the gospel versions. Matthew looks to be derived from Mark. None of the gospels is an eyewitness account.

 

[Prester John]

Yes, because the page only compares the relative historicity of extant texts (cf. Manuscript evidence). But even though we don't have complete extant manuscripts, we can at least see what was certainly known. And these fragments are not without context--it would be evident if only those fragments were authentic, and all "later", more complete manuscripts were fabricated around them.

And have you looked at the contents of some of the earliest fragments? If the question here is belief, then they are as problematic as any of the later manuscripts.

"After coming to him, they exactingly tested him, saying, "Teacher Jesus, we know that you have come from God. For the things you do bear greater witness than all the prophets."
- from Papyrus Egerton 2

Therefore Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into society: to witness to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Judeans again, and he told them, "I find no crime in him."
- from John Rylands papyrus P52​

Fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament manuscripts date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 AD) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. From the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75) alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. And p46 (which contains most of Paul's letters and Hebrews) has been redated to c.85 AD.

This does not actually address my point. The earliest copy in the table for the New Testament is lited at 130AD. This a manuscript fragment not a copy of the new testament. Thats why it is misleading, but if its done in gods name i guess thats alright then. I haven't heard anyone suggesting the NT is based on fabrication around the surviving fragments.

The preaching is irrelevant.

The p46 fragments date of c85AD does not appear to be accepted and has been refuted by Griffin and regardless of their actual date does not pose any particular issues.

 

[Prester John]

Dinysus, Bishop of Corinth seemed to think a fair amount of tampering was going on.(c170AD)

For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such.

Until the 3rd Century the NT canon was in debate. What we have is the view of the winning faction.

 

[Jenyar]

Yes but the list specifically names the two mentioned after saying a condition is being written by an apostle. The impliction that Mathhew and John are apostles is clear, and wrong. As for none of them differing in testimony this is clearly wrong. Perhaps you could recontruct the Easter events for me, lots of contradictions between the gospel versions. Matthew looks to be derived from Mark. None of the gospels is an eyewitness account.

They may not have been written by the apostles in their present form, that's true. But they were already accepted as 'the gospel' by AD 115 (Ignatius). Conflicting details do not amount to contradictory accounts. The mere fact that you can call them "Easter events" already supposes I would find these events easily in all four gospels and be able to compare them. They don't disagree with what happened, only how and when some of it happened.

 

[Jenyar]

Until the 3rd Century the NT canon was in debate. What we have is the view of the winning faction.

We have the very same documents that were under debate. You also do not really distinguish between what was debated.

 

[Prester John]

They weren't written by the apostles at all.

It is quite possible that the 4 gospels as we know them (but not neccessarily in their exact modern form) were written by the time of and known by Ignatius. However this is not proven and at that time they were not canonical. In reply to questions about the authoritory of the old Testament he refers to the authoritory of Jesus Christ, not the New Testament. It is likely that the various writing were regarded as wise writings, not authoritory.

Also the presence of the gospels, plus others that were eventually discarded does not mean they survive until today in their original form. ThaAs i indicated above there was compettion between various christian sects, each with their own interpretation.

Why are conflicting details not contradictory accounts? How much differnt do all the details have to be until they become contradictory. Does the Easter story not just show the evolution of how christians saw the ressurection from a spiritual one initally to a bodily one later?

 

[Prester John]

We have the very same documents that were under debate. You also do not really distinguish between what was debated.

How would we know we have them all? There are lots of issues to be debated, this debate carries on until this day in Christianity. The establishment of the canon restricts the bounds of debate and establishes Christ as a human with a bodily resurection. These views of christ are not neccessarily reflective of how the early church viewed him. There is deabte that Christ was a mythological being, a heaven,y intermediary between humans and god (Christus, greek concept). Pauls work reflects this view.

Its not the presence of the major works thats the big issue, its how they have been changed that is the problem. The time period until the 3rd century when sufficent copies were around to establish the texts is the dark age

 

[okinrus]

Until the 3rd Century the NT canon was in debate. What we have is the view of the winning faction.

The entire NT wasn't debated, just a few books such as Revelation and Peter 2. There were other books of course. But the debate wasn't about what documents were good for instruction, but what documents were historically valid and an early testament to the church. To that end some of the letters of the early Christians were rejected--they were not early enough. Other books were rejected because they weren't historical.

 

[§outh§tar]

And please try not to be condescending. It's unneccessary.

As long as you keep the ad hominems to yourself.

1. Written by an apostle (e.g., Matthew, John, Paul, Peter)
The apostles were Jesus' disciples first. They were handpicked by Christ, knew Him and were taught by Him personally. They knew his message before there was any "Bible".

Why is it valid to assume the apostles were taught by Jesus personally? And what of Paul, who knew him not?

2. Written by a close associate of an apostle (Mark, Luke, James, Jude)
For the obvious reason that they could corroborate their material with the apostles while they were still alive. It is also the principle of apostolic succession still in use by the Orthodox churches.

Why is this principle of apostolic succession valid (to you)? Secondly, why is it valid to assume these second-hand works are inspired?

 

[Prester John]

The entire NT wasn't debated, just a few books such as Revelation and Peter 2. There were other books of course. But the debate wasn't about what documents were good for instruction, but what documents were historically valid and an early testament to the church. To that end some of the letters of the early Christians were rejected--they were not early enough. Other books were rejected because they weren't historical.

The first "orthodox" canon was that of Tatian. This included the Diatessaron, the epistles of paul and acts. Nothing else. The Diatessaron is a single gospel woven from the four gospels. We don't know which epistles were included. Interestingly the Diatessaron as well as containing verses which are inthe four accepted gospels also contain verses not inlcuded. This suggests that they have been in some way altered or deleted.

To suggest that the NT bar peter 1 and revelation has been there since the start is simplistic and incorrect. Whilst i am not and do not claim to be a bible scholar a simple look at the variety and history of the early christian texts will dispel such notions.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[Athelwulf]

Jenyar,

If God approves of it, that is as good as it gets.

And how exactly do ya find out which books He approves and which ones He doesn't?

. . . Or do ya mean "If the Pope approves of it . . .", or "If a bunch of Catholic biblical scholars approve of it . . ."?

God reveals who He is, God decides who speaks for Him, and God decides what we know about Him. He has done this through the law and prophets, and ultimately, through Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2).

He could just as well do all that through Old Man Jenkins down the street. So why reject any writings by Old Man Jenkins if they're inspired by God?

God's word is not limited to a "Bible", but to the truth.

Then why have a Bible anyway?

The reason why we don't accept "new" revelations, is that we consider that God delivered on his promises, and that it was proven conclusively in Christ.

What if God needs to tell you something — not about His "promise", but about something else? Ye'r ignoring it all. Don't ya see what ye'r doing?!

And yet they are about Jesus, because we would not have understood him without the Old Testament--the laws and covenants of God to his people.

The way ya describe it, the Old Testament isn't about Jesus. It's merely a foundation for His teachings. That's different.

More books cannot add to what Jesus did, or what God did through Him.

And what if some of these books introduce something else that Jesus did as well? If I'm not mistaken, the Book of Mormon talks about Jesus coming to North America. That would certainly add stuff.

Besides, who said these new books had to add to what Jesus did? That's pretty close-minded, wanting everything to be about Jesus. I mean, I realize He defines yer religion, and what He did was pretty great. But come on, can't ya allow for more than just Him?

What if we need these books kuz they talk about something else that could be nearly as important as Jesus? It seems to me that you reject it all just kuz you want it to be all about Jesus.

If you don't believe in Him, no amount of peripheral information will change that you don't believe in Him.

Why is this about the non-believers? That doesn't make sense.

Don't forget you're catering to believers as well, plenty of whom love Jesus. I'm sure they'd love to read all about Jesus in these new books, no?

It can only dilute his message into vague, relativistic political correctness or self-worship, devoid of judgment and forgiveness.

Or it could share more about Jesus that we don't know, that we need to know. Or it could share some stuff about something else.

 

[Jenyar]

As long as you keep the ad hominems to yourself.

I can't help it if you take my arguments personally. I have nothing against you, and nothing to gain by slandering you.

Why is it valid to assume the apostles were taught by Jesus personally? And what of Paul, who knew him not?

It's not an assumption. That's what an apostle is. Jesus chose them from among his disciples (that included but were not limited to the original Twelve) and you can see how He taught them by simply reading the Bible, like in Mark 10:32, or the parables. Jesus spoke, they listened; they asked questions, Jesus answered.

The Christian Apostles were Jewish men chosen from among the disciples, who were "sent forth" (as indicated by the Greek word "απόστολος" apostolos= 'messenger'), by Jesus to preach the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, across the world.
"He called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." — Gospel of Luke vi. 13. (Wikipedia)​

Paul was accepted by the disciples because of the "things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles" (2 Corinthians 12:12). After his conversion and calling by Christ, he went first to Arabia and Damascus, then to Peter and James, but the disciples were still afraid of him (Acts 9:26-28). After fourteen years he went to Jerusalem again, with Barabbas, and was officially acknowledged as an apostle to the non-Jews (Gal. 2:8-10). There, James, Peter and John vouched for his knowledge of the gospel.

Why is this principle of apostolic succession valid (to you)? Secondly, why is it valid to assume these second-hand works are inspired?

"Inspiration", as you can see, is not to be assumed or arbitrarily attributed. It is specifically and systematically authorized. The apostles were the first witnesses and appointed guardians of the truth, chosen and set apart for their specific work, and therefore we respect their authority. We trust them because Jesus trusted them. Since their message was Christ's gospel and that alone, there is no reason to look further than their testimonies, and any gospel but the one taught by Christ himself is suspect.

1 John 4:1-3
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.​

 

[okinrus]

The first "orthodox" canon was that of Tatian. This included the Diatessaron, the epistles of paul and acts. Nothing else.

No, I'm not talking about a canon here. What I'm talking about is the books in wide used. For instance, no early Christian writer will debate the use of the four gospels. These four were used throughout all the churches, so also were Paul's writings. But what your left, then, is the letters of John, Peter, and Revelation, along with certain later later writings of early Christians.

The Diatessaron is a single gospel woven from the four gospels. We don't know which epistles were included. Interestingly the Diatessaron as well as containing verses which are inthe four accepted gospels also contain verses not inlcuded. This suggests that they have been in some way altered or deleted.

If the Bible was going to be a collection of all the books good for instruction and teaching, then it would swell a lot larger than it is today. The standard for the collection of books was not only unwavering orthodoxy but also date, the book had to be composed sufficiently close to the apostles, and tone, the book must be concise and not too specific for the current people.

 

[Prester John]

No, I'm not talking about a canon here. What I'm talking about is the books in wide used. For instance, no early Christian writer will debate the use of the four gospels. These four were used throughout all the churches, so also were Paul's writings. But what your left, then, is the letters of John, Peter, and Revelation, along with certain later later writings of early Christians.


If the Bible was going to be a collection of all the books good for instruction and teaching, then it would swell a lot larger than it is today. The standard for the collection of books was not only unwavering orthodoxy but also date, the book had to be composed sufficiently close to the apostles, and tone, the book must be concise and not too specific for the current people.

The establishment of a canon was to ensure only certain texts were read. There was a period of maybe 100 years after the presumed death of Christ where Christian writers composed with no control, edited and changed each others work. The Canon was to impose control over that.

The gnostic canon, which was the first did not use the four gospels, it used one that has been identified as Lukes(modified), but it was not named as the Gospel of Luke by 144AD. Interesting eh? The canon also had 10 of the epistles. So that kinda sinks your no early christian writer line

The surviving material is almost by defintion orthodox, heretical material was slowly expunged as the canononical material firmed up. How do you define sufficiently close to the apostles? Tone is a natural given the purpose of the canon is to have your interpretation be orthodox.

Whatever the minor points it is clear that the NT evolved over a couple of hundred years, in both the books it contained and the contents of those books. All the processes and evolutions are reflective of how you would expect a religous text to evolve if there was no god. Now if it had been written in one sitting and remained clear and unchanged over 2000 years dispite humanities attempts to change it, that would be impressive, and surrely not beyond the capability of an omnipotent god. It is after all apparently his brochure.

 

[okinrus]

The establishment of a canon was to ensure only certain texts were read. There was a period of maybe 100 years after the presumed death of Christ where Christian writers composed with no control, edited and changed each others work. The Canon was to impose control over that.

No, it wasn't. Later Christian theologians and writers kept writing even after the canon was established. The canon established what priest's readings for mass.

The gnostic canon, which was the first did not use the four gospels, it used one that has been identified as Lukes(modified), but it was not named as the Gospel of Luke by 144AD. Interesting eh? The canon also had 10 of the epistles. So that kinda sinks your no early christian writer line

There was no gnostic canon that supported all of the gnostic writers. Marcion had a canon, but he modified the NT to support his heretical possition.

The surviving material is almost by defintion orthodox, heretical material was slowly expunged as the canononical material firmed up. How do you define sufficiently close to the apostles? Tone is a natural given the purpose of the canon is to have your interpretation be orthodox.

The Christians who established the canon were orthodox, and so were able to, under the guidance of the holy spirit, select which books to place in the canon.

Whatever the minor points it is clear that the NT evolved over a couple of hundred years, in both the books it contained and the contents of those books. All the processes and evolutions are reflective of how you would expect a religous text to evolve if there was no god. Now if it had been written in one sitting and remained clear and unchanged over 2000 years dispite humanities attempts to change it, that would be impressive, and surrely not beyond the capability of an omnipotent god. It is after all apparently his brochure.

This a contrived view, however. For instance, if the Holy Spirit guides the creation of the Bible, will the Holy Spirit protect the book from all modifications? or will the Holy Spirit allow certain scribes to make small errors, not essential to the meaning of the text, come in during copying? Does the Holy Spirit so guide individual Christians that they don't make mistakes?

The surviving material is almost by defintion orthodox, heretical material was slowly expunged as the canononical material firmed up.

There's no evidence of early christian book burnings or any such thing.

How do you define sufficiently close to the apostles?

Those who were apostles and those who worked and supported by the apostles. For instance, Luke can be supported because he was supported by Paul. Paul's writings can be supported, because his writings were reviewed by the apostles in Jerusalem.

Tone is a natural given the purpose of the canon is to have your interpretation be orthodox.

For a writing to be allowed, it has to be original, to the extend that it adds new but orthodox ideas to the canon. Tone, while not making an unorthodox writing orthodox, is required for a broad audience. For instance, Irenaeus' work against heresies does have orthodoxy, but does not have the general audience. The heresies he wrote about have largely disappeared.

 

[Jenyar]

And how exactly do ya find out which books He approves and which ones He doesn't?

. . . Or do ya mean "If the Pope approves of it . . .", or "If a bunch of Catholic biblical scholars approve of it . . ."?

See my answer to SouthStar. It's not really "books" that are approved, but testimonies. The criteria for approval is truth -- the truth about God, and the truth about Christ. God gave Israel the truth about Himself, and Jesus gave us the truth about Himself. That information had to be taught and preserved, and this was the manner in which it was taught and preserved. Israel had to kill anyone who deviated from it (Deut. 14), so that it could be preserved until Jesus came to confirm it.

He could just as well do all that through Old Man Jenkins down the street. So why reject any writings by Old Man Jenkins if they're inspired by God?

He could, but nothing Old Man Jenkins could say can make anything that God had already said invalid. He can't make God into a liar. Words only point to something, they have no authority of their own. "Inspired" does not mean "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7) but "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16). It does not make anyone God.

Then why have a Bible anyway?

As I said: it was one of the ways that what happened could be preserved and relayed. That's why we have any book. But we didn't move into a literary culture until fairly recently.

What if God needs to tell you something — not about His "promise", but about something else? Ye'r ignoring it all. Don't ya see what ye'r doing?!

Have you been to a Christian bookstore recently? There's plenty to read, and plenty of people to whom God had spoken one way or another. Also plenty of rubbish. But none of those books can change who God is, what His promises were, or how He fulfills them.

What we "need to know" is contained in everything God already said and did. The important things have been declared frm the beginning: justice, obedience, compassion and mercy. Who we need to know is God.

The way ya describe it, the Old Testament isn't about Jesus. It's merely a foundation for His teachings. That's different.

Jesus is the Christ described by the Old Testament. He is our foundation, just as the Law was Israel's foundation. The foundation for all of them is God, and Jesus was God revealing something about himself. What Jesus taught about God, the Old Testament taught about Jesus.

And what if some of these books introduce something else that Jesus did as well? If I'm not mistaken, the Book of Mormon talks about Jesus coming to North America. That would certainly add stuff.

Jesus came to the world (John 11:27; 2 Corinthians 5:19). What makes Missouri or Salt Lake special?

Besides, who said these new books had to add to what Jesus did? That's pretty close-minded, wanting everything to be about Jesus. I mean, I realize He defines yer religion, and what He did was pretty great. But come on, can't ya allow for more than just Him?

What if we need these books kuz they talk about something else that could be nearly as important as Jesus? It seems to me that you reject it all just kuz you want it to be all about Jesus.

It is God who makes anything important, and He is Jesus' importance. There are many things besides Jesus in the world, but they must be judged by their own merit. I don't reject them, but you can't very well include everything everybody wants to say about Jesus in the Bible. And you certainly can't regard everything as equally authoritive.

Why is this about the non-believers? That doesn't make sense.

Don't forget you're catering to believers as well, plenty of whom love Jesus. I'm sure they'd love to read all about Jesus in these new books, no?

Yes, and that's why stories about Jesus and Mary's lives were made up -- to satisfy that desire to know everything about them. The same happened with the apostles. After a while you started getting Christian propaganda like "Acts of Paul", "Acts of Peter" and the "infancy of Jesus", telling wonderful stories about how great these people were and how Jesus made swallows in primary school. But we can't believe them just because we'd like to, or accept them as true simply because we "love to read all about Jesus".

Or it could share more about Jesus that we don't know, that we need to know. Or it could share some stuff about something else.

[/quote]
Like what? Have you looked? Jesus told people what they needed to know, and did what He needed to do. There is no mystery left to uncover. If there is something else you'd rather believe, that's up to you.

1 Timothy 3:16
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.​