care to discuss.......................
Should the Bible get a 3rd Testament?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
No.
Rev. 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Rev. 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Last edited:
Maybe a Zeroeth Testament would be better. It could say "Sorry about all the confusion and misunderstandings. Everything you are about to read in the following two testaments are just hot air from some bloated windbags with penis envy. Some is good, some is not so good. Use your own judgement." 
I have always been partial to the last message of god as related in the Hitchhiker's Guide. "Sorry for the inconvenience." That would somehow make it better. If only a little.
I have always been partial to the last message of god as related in the Hitchhiker's Guide. "Sorry for the inconvenience." That would somehow make it better. If only a little.
The need for consolidation and delimitation
Viewed both phenomenologically and practically, the canon had to be consolidated and delimited. Seen historically, however, there were a number of reasons that forced the issue of limiting the canon. Oral tradition had begun to deteriorate in post-apostolic times, partly because many or most of the eyewitnesses to the earliest events of Jesus' life and death and the beginning of the church had died. Also, the oral tradition may simply have suffered in transmission. Papias (died c. 130), a bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, was said by Irenaeus (died c. 200), a bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France) to have been an eyewitness of the Apostle John. Papias had said, “For I did not suppose that the things from the books would aid me so much as the things from the living and continuing voice.” Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340), a church historian, reported these comments in hisEcclesiastical History and pointed out inconsistencies in Papias' recollections, doubted his understanding, and called him “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.” Large sections of oral tradition, however, which were probably translated in part from Aramaic before being written down in Greek—such as the Passion (suffering of Christ) narrative, many sayings of Jesus, and early liturgical material—benefitted by the very conservativism implicit in such traditions. But because the church perceived its risen Lord as a living Lord, even his words could be adjusted or adapted to fit specific church needs. Toward the end of the 1st century, there was also a conscious production of gospels. Some gospels purported to be words of the risen Lord that did notreflect apostolic traditions and even claimed superiority over them. Such claims were deemed heretical and helped to push the early church toward canonization.
Faced with heresy and claims to late revelations, the early church was constrained to retain the historical dimension of its faith,the ephapax, or the “once for all,” revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Impulse toward canonization from heretical movements
Gnosticism (a religious system with influence both on Judaism and Christianity) tended to foster speculation, cutting loose from historical revelation. In defense the orthodox churches stressed the apostolic tradition by focussing on Gospels and letters from apostolic lives and distinguished them from Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Truth (mentioned by Irenaeus) and now found in Coptic translation in a collection of Gnostic writings from Egypt; it is a Coptic manuscript of a Valentinian Gnostic speculation from the mid-2nd century—i.e., a work based on the teachings of Valentinus, a Gnostic teacher from Alexandria. In the same collection is the Gospel of Thomas in Coptic, actually a collection of sayings purporting to be the wordsof the risen Christ, the living Lord. This “gospel” also occurred in Greek (c. 140), and warnings against it as heretical were made by the Church Fathers in the 2nd to the 4th centuries.
In a general prophetic apocalyptic mood, another heresy, Montanism, arose. This was an ecstatic enthusiastic movement claiming special revelation and stressing “the age of the spirit.” Montanus (died c. 175) and two prophetesses claimed that their oracular statements contained new and contemporary authoritative revelations. This break with the apostolic time caused vigorous response. An anti-Montanist reported that “the false prophet is one who speaks in ecstasy after which follow freedom . . . and madness of soul.”
The single most decisive factor in the process of canonization was the influence of Marcion (flourished c. 140), who had Gnostic tendencies and who set up a “canon” that totally repudiated the Old Testament and anything Jewish. He viewed the Creator God of the Old Testament as a cruel God of retribution and the Jewish Law. His canon consisted of The Gospel, a “cleaned up” Luke (the least Jewish), and the Apostolikon (ten Pauline letters with Old Testament references and analogies edited out, without Hebrews, I and II Timothy, and Titus). This restrictive canon acted as a catalyst to the formation of a canon more in line with the thought of the church catholic (universal).
-------
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Viewed both phenomenologically and practically, the canon had to be consolidated and delimited. Seen historically, however, there were a number of reasons that forced the issue of limiting the canon. Oral tradition had begun to deteriorate in post-apostolic times, partly because many or most of the eyewitnesses to the earliest events of Jesus' life and death and the beginning of the church had died. Also, the oral tradition may simply have suffered in transmission. Papias (died c. 130), a bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, was said by Irenaeus (died c. 200), a bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France) to have been an eyewitness of the Apostle John. Papias had said, “For I did not suppose that the things from the books would aid me so much as the things from the living and continuing voice.” Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340), a church historian, reported these comments in hisEcclesiastical History and pointed out inconsistencies in Papias' recollections, doubted his understanding, and called him “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.” Large sections of oral tradition, however, which were probably translated in part from Aramaic before being written down in Greek—such as the Passion (suffering of Christ) narrative, many sayings of Jesus, and early liturgical material—benefitted by the very conservativism implicit in such traditions. But because the church perceived its risen Lord as a living Lord, even his words could be adjusted or adapted to fit specific church needs. Toward the end of the 1st century, there was also a conscious production of gospels. Some gospels purported to be words of the risen Lord that did notreflect apostolic traditions and even claimed superiority over them. Such claims were deemed heretical and helped to push the early church toward canonization.
Faced with heresy and claims to late revelations, the early church was constrained to retain the historical dimension of its faith,the ephapax, or the “once for all,” revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Impulse toward canonization from heretical movements
Gnosticism (a religious system with influence both on Judaism and Christianity) tended to foster speculation, cutting loose from historical revelation. In defense the orthodox churches stressed the apostolic tradition by focussing on Gospels and letters from apostolic lives and distinguished them from Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Truth (mentioned by Irenaeus) and now found in Coptic translation in a collection of Gnostic writings from Egypt; it is a Coptic manuscript of a Valentinian Gnostic speculation from the mid-2nd century—i.e., a work based on the teachings of Valentinus, a Gnostic teacher from Alexandria. In the same collection is the Gospel of Thomas in Coptic, actually a collection of sayings purporting to be the wordsof the risen Christ, the living Lord. This “gospel” also occurred in Greek (c. 140), and warnings against it as heretical were made by the Church Fathers in the 2nd to the 4th centuries.
In a general prophetic apocalyptic mood, another heresy, Montanism, arose. This was an ecstatic enthusiastic movement claiming special revelation and stressing “the age of the spirit.” Montanus (died c. 175) and two prophetesses claimed that their oracular statements contained new and contemporary authoritative revelations. This break with the apostolic time caused vigorous response. An anti-Montanist reported that “the false prophet is one who speaks in ecstasy after which follow freedom . . . and madness of soul.”
The single most decisive factor in the process of canonization was the influence of Marcion (flourished c. 140), who had Gnostic tendencies and who set up a “canon” that totally repudiated the Old Testament and anything Jewish. He viewed the Creator God of the Old Testament as a cruel God of retribution and the Jewish Law. His canon consisted of The Gospel, a “cleaned up” Luke (the least Jewish), and the Apostolikon (ten Pauline letters with Old Testament references and analogies edited out, without Hebrews, I and II Timothy, and Titus). This restrictive canon acted as a catalyst to the formation of a canon more in line with the thought of the church catholic (universal).
-------
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Rather convenient. "What we say is true and everyone else is full of crap, don't listen to them lest ye be damned..."
Your quote on the canonization and delimititation and whatnot just furthers the unfairness that these men should be able to say that only they possess the truth. All other truths are irrelevant. Injustice and inhumanity...
Ok, you got me on that one. They don't claim to have written it, but they choose what is right and what is wrong. They choose the texts to include. That is the power of an editor. Any writer knows that a book can be made or broke by the editor's power. He is almost as important and responsible as the author. And in such a case where they can go through this and that and find that which appeals to them from myriad sources, their power is even greater. They might as well have written it.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible without a church that created it; yet conversely, having beennurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisivein the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously—i.e., using the name ofsome acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either a trick or fraud. Apart fromletters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested—as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul—the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid-2nd century, however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end-time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was a gradual cessation of “authentically pseudonymous” writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition.
The process of canonization
The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognizedas inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
---------
Encyclopaedia Britannica
**In compliance with the complaint that all I quote from is the Bible..
The process of canonization
The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognizedas inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
---------
Encyclopaedia Britannica
**In compliance with the complaint that all I quote from is the Bible..
JustARide said:Oh, no need to thank me. The entertainment value of your posts more than suffices. And yes, my nihilist cat and I are in complete agreement about destroying you.
But please, continue with your cut-and-pastings...
I'm shaking in my boots..
As for my "cut-and-pastings", just following starofeight's advice not to use the Bible alone to "repudiate" you Gentiles.
Ha ...does it matter?....
seriously.....I think the greatest mistake of any faith is to lock itself into an unevolving state.
If the bible was allowed to flow with the times I doubt there would be so much hmmmm....debate about validity or veracity.
If Christianity maintained the integrity of the 2nd book and allowed for a 3rd that never ended then the faith woudl have more relevance to today.
At present people are forced in to a sort of time capsule of thought. Quoting historical context but failing to quote context to today.
As the knowledge of the world and it's universal ambience has progressed and as the world has progressed moraly and ethically so to should the religions.
To know that the universe is evolving and to suggest that God is unevolving is a serious mistake of judgement. And by closing the book with that threat of plague and hex means that God can not communicate his evolution due to the threat implied.
So the bible has closed off growth not only for religious thought but also for the acknowledgement of "God's" evolution. So we know have a state of the past corrupting the future., and I find this dissappointing.
okinrus said:
Are you then saying the canon is incomplete?
An excerpt from Sproul's 'Essential Truths of the Christian Faith'
Roman Catholic view:
The Canon is an infallible collection of infallible books.
Classical Protestant view:
The Canon is an fallible collection of infallible books.
Liberal Critical view:
The Canon is an fallible collection of fallible books.
“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
— Westminster Confession, 1647.
Deuteronomy 12:32 32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 4:2 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
The bible is a work of fiction and is quite complete. There is no need for a sequel. However it would have helped enormously if the first page had not been lost. Fortunately this was found recently and I have reproduced it here. It is also at this weblink - The Real First Page of the Bible
The Real First Page of the Bible
They recently discovered a smaller scroll hidden in the cylinder of the first scroll of the ancient Biblical scriptures, believed to be the actual "first page" of the Bible. When deciphered, it read:
"Copyright (c) 300 B.C. God. All Rights Reserved First scrawling First-Sunrise-After-Stonehenge-Keystone-Is-Shadowed, 300 B.C.
All beings, places and events depicted in this work are fictional, and any resemblance to actual beings, places and events past, present or future is purely coincidental.
WARNING: Some of the actions performed in this work are dangerous and should only be attempted by professionals familiar with the action in question.
NOTE: Those tiny points of light in the sky when it gets dark are called 'stars'. Some of them do blow up on occasion. In no way should this be construed as a sign that there is, beneath such an explosion, any form of saviour. Should such a misconstrual happen, the author will not be held responsible for the avalanche of arrogance, zeal, bigotry, humanocentricity and other vile acts which will surely follow the residents of the planet into time eternal until someone sees fit to erase the denizens of the world and let the author start over.
DSBN 0-000000-0000-1
Suggested retail: 1 sheep."
The Real First Page of the Bible
They recently discovered a smaller scroll hidden in the cylinder of the first scroll of the ancient Biblical scriptures, believed to be the actual "first page" of the Bible. When deciphered, it read:
"Copyright (c) 300 B.C. God. All Rights Reserved First scrawling First-Sunrise-After-Stonehenge-Keystone-Is-Shadowed, 300 B.C.
All beings, places and events depicted in this work are fictional, and any resemblance to actual beings, places and events past, present or future is purely coincidental.
WARNING: Some of the actions performed in this work are dangerous and should only be attempted by professionals familiar with the action in question.
NOTE: Those tiny points of light in the sky when it gets dark are called 'stars'. Some of them do blow up on occasion. In no way should this be construed as a sign that there is, beneath such an explosion, any form of saviour. Should such a misconstrual happen, the author will not be held responsible for the avalanche of arrogance, zeal, bigotry, humanocentricity and other vile acts which will surely follow the residents of the planet into time eternal until someone sees fit to erase the denizens of the world and let the author start over.
DSBN 0-000000-0000-1
Suggested retail: 1 sheep."
Just thought I'd add my own bit..in red.....
Hasn't anybody else here heard of the Book of Mormon?
And South, my problem with your frequent recourse to Biblical quotation is that the Bible is absolutely meaningless as a metaphysical document - unless the Christian conception of God exists. Should the Christian conception of God be proven absolutely correct, hey ... I'll be the first to write a check to the next televangelist fuckhead I catch at three in the morning. Then, to purify myself, I'll douse myself with kerosene, and make like the album art for Rage's self-titled debut, but that's another matter entirely. Point being, in the absence of prof of the the traditionalChristian conception of God, the fact the Bible demands a monopoly of revelation doesn't disprove Allah, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or the Seventh Day Adventists, or anybody else who claims to have God on a conference call ... it proves they didn't want competition, and nothing more.
And South, my problem with your frequent recourse to Biblical quotation is that the Bible is absolutely meaningless as a metaphysical document - unless the Christian conception of God exists. Should the Christian conception of God be proven absolutely correct, hey ... I'll be the first to write a check to the next televangelist fuckhead I catch at three in the morning. Then, to purify myself, I'll douse myself with kerosene, and make like the album art for Rage's self-titled debut, but that's another matter entirely. Point being, in the absence of prof of the the traditionalChristian conception of God, the fact the Bible demands a monopoly of revelation doesn't disprove Allah, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or the Seventh Day Adventists, or anybody else who claims to have God on a conference call ... it proves they didn't want competition, and nothing more.