Bubby,
I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time.
If modern scholarship could provide us with documents regarding the life of Christ that were written decades earlier than the synoptic gospels and found to be consistent with their teachings would you be open to the idea of including them in the New Testament Canon?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good question Dan. I am pondering it over a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale. My Father is sitting on the couch next to me and he responded: "If He wanted them in there, he would have already put them in there and there would be 67 books in the Bible." But, he quickly rescinded with a smile and said: "well, what if He wanted them found now..." Just like you present.
I guess I would be first skeptical as to how we know they are decades older than the original scriptures. And all that. I'm not sure we need more books in the Bible, especially if they are consistent. Would they add anything?
Dan- I bought the Nintendo Wii. We should have a get-together when I return to have a game night. Tiger Woods Golf baby. I just started out with 5 birdies. They are marching.
I have a hard time believing the Bible can be completely without fault. Having said that, I do have an enormous amount of respect for the historical consistency and accounts of how God has moved throughout time. I think I am skeptical because it was put together by humans. Inspired or not, humans find a way to ruin things most of the time. I guess I'm saying I believe in the Bible, but if it were ever proven to be false or incomplete in some way, my belief in God wouldn't be shaken. I don't think the Bible is a part of the "trinity," so to speak.
This is on a bit of a different note ... but the book of revelation was a controversial book ... what if it was put in when it shouldn't be? or what if it wouldn't have been put it?
Bubby,
this blog is in desperate need of a new topic. You are just the man to think of one.
Post a Comment