If 66 was blessed why not 75?

[Bob Hope]

For those here who have this overwhelming FEELING that God somehow sanctioned the current 66 books of the modern bible then why not the 9 books of the apocrypha which existed in the bible until 1828? To believe that only 66 books are worthy to be called scripture is narrow minded at best. There are plenty of other books that contain Gods gospel truth. The Clementine Homilies, or the gospel of the Holy twelve, or the book of Enoch.

Enoch brings an additional problem for those who claim the bible is as God intended. Jude plagiarizes directly from the book of Enoch. Nearly quoting it word for word. Somehow one is labeled as God breathed and the other isn't worth reading.

And I say all this to help the brethren. I follow the Messiah and all His teaching. It does the people of God no good to cling to indefensible positions. It may serve the unlearned at infancy but is does a discredit to those who study and can clearly see problems with those men who assembled this collection of scripture and or the scripture themselves.

Our faith is in the truth. Just as God has guided men since there was no "bible" He will continue to do so in the future. The only people who need worry are those who put their faith in the bibles inerrancy and not in the Lord.

 

[Darrell C]

For those here who have this overwhelming FEELING that God somehow sanctioned the current 66 books of the modern bible then why not the 9 books of the apocrypha which existed in the bible until 1828? To believe that only 66 books are worthy to be called scripture is narrow minded at best. There are plenty of other books that contain Gods gospel truth. The Clementine Homilies, or the gospel of the Holy twelve, or the book of Enoch.

Enoch brings an additional problem for those who claim the bible is as God intended. Jude plagiarizes directly from the book of Enoch. Nearly quoting it word for word. Somehow one is labeled as God breathed and the other isn't worth reading.

And I say all this to help the brethren. I follow the Messiah and all His teaching. It does the people of God no good to cling to indefensible positions. It may serve the unlearned at infancy but is does a discredit to those who study and can clearly see problems with those men who assembled this collection of scripture and or the scripture themselves.

Our faith is in the truth. Just as God has guided men since there was no "bible" He will continue to do so in the future. The only people who need worry are those who put their faith in the bibles inerrancy and not in the Lord.

Each believer will have to, for themselves, decide in regards to what they consider to be Scripture. Myself, I am content with the 66 Book Canon, and have my hands full in bringing it into balance.

For those who embrace the Apocrypha, or other books presented to be works to be included, I would only be interested in discussing those doctrines that those who do embrace those books see as being found in them, and not in the 66 Book Canon.

In other words, if these other books are looked to for justification for doctrines and are appealed to because that is the only place they can support those doctrines, then, it is of interest to me.

So I pose to you, Bob, the challenge to present the doctrines you feel these books contribute to our knowledge, if there are doctrines you feel come from those books.


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

Each believer will have to, for themselves, decide in regards to what they consider to be Scripture. Myself, I am content with the 66 Book Canon, and have my hands full in bringing it into balance.

For those who embrace the Apocrypha, or other books presented to be works to be included, I would only be interested in discussing those doctrines that those who do embrace those books see as being found in them, and not in the 66 Book Canon.

In other words, if these other books are looked to for justification for doctrines and are appealed to because that is the only place they can support those doctrines, then, it is of interest to me.

So I pose to you, Bob, the challenge to present the doctrines you feel these books contribute to our knowledge, if there are doctrines you feel come from those books.


God bless.

I am not a fan of the apocrypha but only making a point about preservation. The truth exist for those who seek it. As you may know, I am in favor of less books. I am partial to 53 books of the cannon and a handful of books that did not make it in. Much of what I believe can be found here.

Www.jesuswordsonly.com

 

[Darrell C]

I am not a fan of the apocrypha but only making a point about preservation. The truth exist for those who seek it. As you may know, I am in favor of less books. I am partial to 53 books of the cannon and a handful of books that did not make it in. Much of what I believe can be found here.

Www.jesuswordsonly.com

No, I wasn't aware of that, and in that we might be close in agreement. While I view the 66 book canon as inspired, that does not mean I like every book. I am not a fan of the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes. Personally, I disagree with Solomon on a number of points, and think he was a bit of a whiner.

His experience is not true for every believer, so I don't take his view as a universal truth. The fact is, if everything were meaningless, we can all just log out now and go watch a few M*A*S*H episodes.

When it comes to some of the New Testament, I do not see the first one that should not be included. Perhaps a few of them are better left in the hands of more mature believers, but, most of the objections and proposed contradictions I have been presented with by sceptics have been, at least in my own heart, reconciled, and Scripture justified.

So be curious as to what books you are not "partial" to, and perhaps what issues cause that partiality issue.


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

No, I wasn't aware of that, and in that we might be close in agreement. While I view the 66 book canon as inspired, that does not mean I like every book. I am not a fan of the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes. Personally, I disagree with Solomon on a number of points, and think he was a bit of a whiner.

His experience is not true for every believer, so I don't take his view as a universal truth. The fact is, if everything were meaningless, we can all just log out now and go watch a few M*A*S*H episodes.

When it comes to some of the New Testament, I do not see the first one that should not be included. Perhaps a few of them are better left in the hands of more mature believers, but, most of the objections and proposed contradictions I have been presented with by sceptics have been, at least in my own heart, reconciled, and Scripture justified.

So be curious as to what books you are not "partial" to, and perhaps what issues cause that partiality issue.


God bless.

Someone asked Peter in the Clementine Homilies about an argument Peter was having with Simon the magician. In which Simon had brought up charges against God for not acting properly in certain places. Peters answer was terrific. He told Clement, is it more probable that the Almighty acted improperly or more likely that mans recording of that incident was flawed.

 

[Darrell C]

Someone asked Peter in the Clementine Homilies about an argument Peter was having with Simon the magician. In which Simon had brought up charges against God for not acting properly in certain places. Peters answer was terrific. He told Clement, is it more probable that the Almighty acted improperly or more likely that mans recording of that incident was flawed.

My suggestion for you is that you spend more time in Scripture than extra-biblical sources.

We can be very certain as to the veracity of Paul's Apostleship, as he is accepted by Peter Himself, and his writings called Scripture.

That is it for me in this thread.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay Bob, I am going to take back my previous statement because I want you to interact on this board, so, for the sake of discussion, I will ask you to show why it is that Peter can view Paul as an authentic spokesman for God...


2 Peter 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


...yet you feel you do not have to?

Do yo reject Peter's teachings as well?


God bless.