The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

What sort of action would be evidence of a divine plan to close the canon?

The risen Jesus was seen by a few hundred people, and a small crowd saw Jesus ascend into heaven. The rest of the people, and all the people who came later, have the testimony of eyewitnesses to rely on. This testimony is at first oral, then written down. Saul's testimony of an encounter with the living Jesus, after the ascension testified to by other apostles, and Paul's epistles, together with the other epistles and the apocalypse fill out the canon.

If God had included in the canon a concrete statement that the canon is now closed, would that convince you of a divine plan? Or would you dismiss that as something a human wrote for human reasons? (That's assuming that the closing words of the Apocalypse do not close the canon.)

There have always been those who seek to reduce the entire Bible to merely the result of human effort. These people simply do not believe 2 Peter 5:20-21. Deciding that the catalogue of the canon is the result of human effort is a first step in this direction.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

exactly

i mentioned earlier that all of the NT was written by the Apostles or those who had intel from an Apostle -- James & Jude were brothers of Jesus so had direct interaction, despite not being believers prior to His Death

i don't have time to dig thru the OT but here's something few christians tout: Is. 26:19-21

now compare that to John 14:1-3 & see if any lightbulbs go off

Strider33, you ask what would be evidence of a divine plan? Here are a couple of ways I can think of right now:

1. Jesus comes and writes down a book expounding his teachings and all major doctrines in the original language he spoke, Aramaic. Then one or two of the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection writes down a diary of all that happened during the 40 days, also in Aramaic. And finally, after the Ascension, apostles write their own memories by their own hand, also in Aramaic. At this point you have a full body of doctrine, plus all necessary interpretations. Then someone comes along to translate all this material in Greek and here you have the way to take the Gospel to all corners of Roman Empire. The originals are miraculously preserved and are made part of history.
2. Jesus doesn't write anything himself, but one of the apostles writes down a pretty detailed diary of all his time with them, always in Aramaic, which is later translated in Greek to assure wide spreading of the Gospel. Again, the original is preserved.

What is the advantage of these 2 ways? All quarrels and messy history of Christianity are eliminated, and nobody needs to label anybody else 'heretic', because the original record is there for all to see.

Now if I can come up with such a way that has obvious advantages, I don't think it would have been too difficult for God.
And by the way, the saying that Jesus appeared to 500 hundred comes from a single source, Paul, who was not there himself in the first place, not from a participant in the event.

And Paco, no, the Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles, they are copies of copies of copies of stories written by people who claimed to be apostles or close friends with them, which is not the same thing as being apostles themselves.

& you know this how?

nice to know someone on earth knows better than God...

Paco, it would be much appreciated if you could resist the urge to lower the level of discussion. Strider asked me what I would see as evidence of a divine plan and I responded. It's as simple as that.

Z -- ain't trying to lower the conversation -- i took the time to reply but you've twice now disparaged my posts & ignored valid Qs -- that's your choice but please know that your comments to me count just as much as mine to you

to my knowledge, here's a Q no 1 has asked -- do you consider yourself a christian?

i don't think that has been determined & it's the most imp Q

Paco, yes, I consider myself a Christian, you can rest assured about that. I am just posing some questions that I believe have intellectual value and deserve clear answers.
But please don't forget the other troubling fact related as to what people consider themselves: most of people throughout the history of Christianity have considered themselves Christian, which hasn't kept them at all from committing horrendous atrocities, in the same way as other Christians have committed very laudable acts of generosity and self sacrifice. Now acts of both groups have changed world history, so IMHO we shouldn't get too much excited about labels people put on themselves.

Each person, at some time in their life, has to ask themself that question. It's very important.

However, asking that question of another person in these discussions can be very confrontational, depending on the context. The TOS have some rules of conduct regarding challenging the validity of someone's profession of Christian faith.

Some of us skirt that issue even more widely than the TOS rules require. Speaking just for myself, I know that I avoid raising the question of another participant's Christianity out of a desire to avoid violating either the spirit or the letter of the TOS.

This discussion is one where there might be a legitimate way to get the OP to consider such a question, in the quiet of their own soul.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

As there haven't been any more follow up to my original points, I am posting here the second half of my comments to Gideon's responses (continuation of my Jan. 21 post):
Issue #5: I find you dismiss the role and place of the Jews with a sleight of hand, like they are totally replaced by the believers in the Messiah and that's the end of discussion. Allow me to say that this is exactly the idea that brought about all the persecutions against Jews, because they were now 'almost nothing' so why care? Also you add something totally untrue and with no historical basis when you say 'the terrible persecutions of the Jews have come from other quarters such as the Nazis, Communists, and Muslims'.
Why this is untrue? Because: 1. the Nazis came into existence in the beginning of the 20th century and they found the bed of their antisemitism completely ready and totally made for them by the long history of Christian antisemitism (there are numerous books on the subject, just google the 2 words), their anti-Jew virulence would have been impossible without Martin Luther's 'On Jews and their lies' (read it cover to cover if you have a strong stomach) or without St. John Chrysostom's homilies 'On the Jews' (there are 8 of them I think). 2. the Communists also came on the scene in the 20th century, their founders were also Jews, and the anti-Jew streak starts with Stalin only, who incidentally, was a seminarian, so somewhat versed in the Church's antisemitism.

Issue #6: My question was about Hell's (and more generally, afterlife's) absence from the Old Testament, and I think what you say is not addressing such point at all. Yes, Jesus talked about judgment of sinners, but in many cases He equaled righteousness with good deeds (the Good Samaritan, the parable of Sheep and Goats etc). But my main point remains: why there's no afterlife in the OT, especially in the 5 books of Moses as the longest episode of direct communication between Yahweh and His people?

Issue #7: I'm afraid here again you assume something with no historical basis: that the book of Revelation is written by John the apostle of Jesus, son of Zebedee. This may be the tradition of the Catholic Church (for many reasons), but nothing in the book itself supports such claim, except for the fact, obviously, that the writer was named John, which was a very common name at the time. So this is not a 'simple historical fact'.
As far as further revelations, my question was why do we say they stopped after the book of Revelation. To answer that 'God has not led the church worldwide to accord any subsequent revelation with the same esteem and authority as that accorded to the canon of Scripture' is again to state the subject of the question, not to give an answer.

confronting wasn't the intent -- context for the Q was -- plus the person had "seeking" down for faith -- so i thought it a valid clarification -- am cautious about this too -- what i asked is far different than accusing 1 of not being a Christian...<shrug>

Good point.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.