The Bible Is Secondary

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

Is that true?

Your comment is one that makes an absolute statemnt regarding truth but by your own admission that absolute truth does not exist your comment is false.
In other words you just posted a self defeating statement that defies logic.

I'm not claiming my truth is absolute. My truth is relative, produced by many factors.

Are you claiming your truth is absolute?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'm not claiming my truth is absolute. My truth is relative, produced by many factors.

Are you claiming your truth is absolute?

You said there is no absolute truth which is an absolute statement about truth. Therefore if there is no absolute truth then any absolute statement regarding truth is false.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

You said there is no absolute truth which is an absolute statement about truth. Therefore if there is no absolute truth then any absolute statement regarding truth is false.

When I said there was no absolute truth, that was in relation to my view of truth. In other words, my truth is relative, it may be true or it may not be true, depending on one's view of what truth is.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Luke

By comparing them with the other with the other books of the Bible. Also those that would be considered as as pre new testament books are never qouted by any of the apostles or Jesus (with the possible exception of in Jude).

And this is where the can of worms open. I believe you're referencing the book of Enoch quoted in Jude. Shouldn't such a book be included in our bible today?

It seems that the "canon committee" (if I may so say) was divided on this issue.

Short extract from wiki

The Book of Enoch was considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)[23] and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras,[24] Clement of Alexandria,[25] Irenaeus[26] and Tertullian,[27] who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[28] However, later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book, and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work.[29]

By the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian canons, and it is now regarded as scripture by only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

But besides the book of Enoch, we also have the books of Nathan and Gad referenced in 1 Chr 29

1 Chr 29
29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer,
30 with all his reign, his power, and the circumstances which came on him, on Israel, and on all the kingdoms of the lands.

Currently, we don't have these books, but if these books are found in the near furture (like the dead sea scolls), would you be comfortable adding them to the collection of books we have now?

Perhaps, this is where the leading of the Spirit comes into play.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Just thinking out loud folks...

[Luke]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

And this is where the can of worms open. I believe you're referencing the book of Enoch quoted in Jude. Shouldn't such a book be included in our bible today?

It seems that the "canon committee" (if I may so say) was divided on this issue.

Short extract from wiki

The Book of Enoch was considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)[23] and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras,[24] Clement of Alexandria,[25] Irenaeus[26] and Tertullian,[27] who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[28] However, later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book, and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work.[29]

By the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian canons, and it is now regarded as scripture by only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

But besides the book of Enoch, we also have the books of Nathan and Gad referenced in 1 Chr 29

1 Chr 29
29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer,
30 with all his reign, his power, and the circumstances which came on him, on Israel, and on all the kingdoms of the lands.

Currently, we don't have these books, but if these books are found in the near furture (like the dead sea scolls), would you be comfortable adding them to the collection of books we have now?

Perhaps, this is where the leading of the Spirit comes into play.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Just thinking out loud folks...

I wouldnt be in favor of adding them i believe that if God had wanted them in the Bible He would have not have allowed them to be lost.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

When I said there was no absolute truth, that was in relation to my view of truth. In other words, my truth is relative, it may be true or it may not be true, depending on one's view of what truth is.

So correct me if i am wrong but what you are saying is that since you dont believe in absolute truth there is no absolute for you but since i believe in absolute truth there is absolute truth for me?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

So correct me if i am wrong but what you are saying is that since you dont believe in absolute truth there is no absolute for you but since i believe in absolute truth there is absolute truth for me?

Right. Your experience concludes there is absolute truth. My experience concludes there isn't absolute truth, only relative truth.

For example, I'm guessing that you believe God exists and that is absolute truth. I, on the other hand, believe God exists but that is relative to my sensory input. Absolute truths should be provable and the existence of God isn't a truth which can be proven.

Also, I'm speaking of philosophical beliefs, not scientific beliefs. Just wanted to make that clear. Throw a ball in the air on earth and it's an absolute truth that it will come down. That's different than philosophical truths.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Right. Your experience concludes there is absolute truth. My experience concludes there isn't absolute truth, only relative truth.

For example, I'm guessing that you believe God exists and that is absolute truth. I, on the other hand, believe God exists but that is relative to my sensory input. Absolute truths should be provable and the existence of God isn't a truth which can be proven.

Also, I'm speaking of philosophical beliefs, not scientific beliefs. Just wanted to make that clear. Throw a ball in the air on earth and it's an absolute truth that it will come down. That's different than philosophical truths.

Your basis is wrong. For example if what you are saying is true then there must be many multiple Jesus' in existence since you say He is not God and I say that He is God. If we are bith right then there are atleast two Jesus'. If we continue with this line of reasoning then Jesus both exist and does not exist since some say he does not exist and others say he does. If what you say is true then Jesus both rose from the dead while at the same time He never rose from the dead and His body was actually hidden by the disciples. Do you see the falacy of your argument. Two completely opposite views cannot both be true at the same time. Either one is true and the other wrong or both are wrong.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

Your basis is wrong. For example if what you are saying is true then there must be many multiple Jesus' in existence since you say He is not God and I say that He is God. If we are bith right then there are atleast two Jesus'. If we continue with this line of reasoning then Jesus both exist and does not exist since some say he does not exist and others say he does. If what you say is true then Jesus both rose from the dead while at the same time He never rose from the dead and His body was actually hidden by the disciples. Do you see the falacy of your argument. Two completely opposite views cannot both be true at the same time. Either one is true and the other wrong or both are wrong.

No, stating that Jesus isn't God doesn't result in multiple Jesus'. Of course there are many people named Jesus, but only one Jesus the Christ. But that truth is relative, dependent upon my understanding. You on the other hand believe that Jesus is God, a truth relative to your personal experiences.

We may both be wrong, maybe Jesus was simply a wise sage, not anointed by God, not the Son of God. Again, the truth is relative, dependent upon one's biases and understanding. You cannot prove your truth is absolute truth any more than I can prove my truth is absolute truth.

[Praxeas]

The RCC bible's NT is no different in content from the Protestant. All the additional books are in the OT and don't really affect any doctrinal view