A tricky, tricky question...

This is how I take my look at the Word of God.

I believe that the document which is called the Word of God, the Breath of the Lord, inspired by the Holy Spirit has been protected. Meaning that this is what Christians all over all through time have looked to as the definitive basis of faith. The Bible speaks that it is the Living Word and thus gives life. Now such an example and foundation for God's should not be infected or twisted. And I believe God would not allow it to be. Yes people may create other works. Or they may try to translate it nine ways to Tuesday yet God will let it remain as His Living Word. Bringing the Truth into the lives of His creation. If God can create the universe so can He keep the Bible whole and without befouling. Again a matter of faith yes. But I don't believe the Lord would allow it to become something other then what He originally intended when He inspired the many writers of the Bible to write it. God knows it is enough a stumbling block to man as it is in the original form.

But yes people try to twist it (see the inner city Bible or whatever it is called) or they try to add on to it (see the Book of Mormon) all of which are not only an offense to humanity but an offense to God. Making the language easier to comprehend for today's times has caused enough meaning to be lost aleady. It is incredible the number of times we mistake something in the Word because translated into today's language means something else entirely. Like I have mentioned before when Genesis 1:2 states "and the earth was without form" that doesn't mean there was no substance to the earth. Form actually means order in Hebrew or at least the way it is presented in that verse.. So that should really mean the earth was without order (order/chaos not "Hello, may I take your order"

But it comes down to faith. I mean you have to have faith it is the actual Words of God anyways to truly believe everything within so you either have it or you don't My belief is just a further extenstion of that belief.

I believe that the Bible we have(that would be the Protestant version) is all we need. If we found said letter (and I'm sure Paul wrote far more than we currently have) then I'm sure we would find it contained compatible advice and theology. It would be, in effect, redundant. I believe that it is beneficial to study the so called apocryphal books but not to place any weight on them. A third Corinthian letter would be apocryphal in the truest sense and would certainly be beneficial for study but would not shake my faith in the least.

The Bible was put together including some books and excluding others...by a committee. For example, the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha(sp?) whereas the Protestant Bible does not.

There was this conclave a few hundred years ago by learned scholars who made decisions about what should and should not be included.

I don't recall the actual name of the convention but yes, there are inconsistencies with regard to the numbering of the epistles.

I think it was the Guttenberg people...either that or it would be those who made the King's James version.

But none of that discounts my belief that God has allowed it to stay whole as hHe originally had it.

In the course of human history God has had a hand in everything.

Ah see I have a study Bible that has many well known Bible scholars quoted throughout for footnotes and meanings of words and principles the Bibles states.

The Spirit Filled Bible it is called main editor being the incredible Jack Hayford.

It gives easy introduction to each book including the history and authorship of the book as well as the differening opinions. It even has the varying opinions of Revelation and how people look at it whether literall or symbolically.

As for substance to my faith of course there is. I know that in fact they have yet to dispute any of the historical accuracy of the OT except think they havent found any proof of the Ammorite people that Israel faced quite often. They believe they have actually found the ark(Noah's but I would love to know where the other Ark is. Ark of the Convenant.) David was a real man. So was Solomon. I can show you were the OT foretells of Jesus perfectly. And a whole buncha other stuff. I just bring them up in the course of topics. I believe in balance. Balance of both spiritual understnading and pratical knowldge. So I am not one without the other. It is just you have to point out the faith side because that is the basis of our beliefs period. Faith. There is a reason why Jesus speaks of faith so often. You have brought up the technical aspects and I have learned from them. And thank you for stating them as I didn't know much about the Acropthya.

How the fuck you came to this conclusion I don't know, but it is extremly arrogant to assume you already know what "The Bible: The Lost Chapter" has to say.

Ah but there is an interesting bit somehwere that says life itself will teach lessons that the Bible didn't cover in the course of a Christian life. Life will be it's own teacher. Hence I always listen to those who are wise and have lived life because they almost always having something to say that I can garner knowledge from.

Sure Paul wrote a ton more letters, so did Peter, or James or Luke. But it is these books that have been chosen as they have. And though yes we do need a little redundancy in our life when it comes to issues it doesn't neccessarily need to be in the Bible. Bible repeats things many times enough.

And some of those letter could easily just say this person should be a leader and we need to contact this person and we need to do something with this place next door.

Bible doesn't necessairly need that now does it?

And to beat anyone to this yes the geneaology do indeed have their purposes. You can use it to trace Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus.

I'm going to kick you CTD.

Ah c'mon!

Whyyyyyyyyyyy?

*Insert smiley*

Kick withdrawn, but the threat of said kick is not

*whew*

wipes brow*

Burke, I am duly educated. Thank You.
-P

Oh and as to Paul recieving a full outline of the rapture I don't think that would be plausible. Seeing how it was John on Patmos that received the vision he did detailing the end of our civilization as we know it. In fact I don't anyone had received a vision like John did sine the prophets of the Old Testament.

The collection of Holy Books were chosen over a LONG period of time, beginning with the council of Jamnia in 90 AD, later the council of Josephus in 100 AD, and the Christian Canon was not finalized until 325 AD at the Council of Niceae. The books were chosen on 3 criteria:

1. Apostolicity - Books that came from people who were there.
2. Content/Truth - Other works covered the same material, thereby giving weight to the stories being told.
3. Catholicity - Universal. The Councils chose the books that the people were reading and were affected by the most.

It is believed that Biblical texts are inspired works, not written by God himself, but God revealing himself through a medium of human commuication. Thus, the authors of these works DO take some liberty with their writings, as in the case of the synoptic gospels, where each writer chooses to focus on different aspects of the stories' importance. If there are any other letters that we don't know of, it may be perhaps as someone said, they were found to be redundant, or not matching any or enough of the criteria.
Maybe the letter(s) aren't lost, they were just considered less important than the ones chosen as the completed Christian Canon.
Just a thought.

Even if the letters were discarded, they could still be lost forever. ESPECIALLY if they were discarded. That's what I was getting at.

Hence me going way back to what I said before. The books that are there are the books God Himself deemed proper for our consuption. Our daily bread. The beginning Christians lived life and learned the ways of Christ that way and they read what they had. But again God allowed what He wanted. You make ask why there isn't more or whatever happened to but then you cause yourself to doubt things. You say to yourself what if....and soon confusion enters in.

This is where faith is. This is where it saves you from apostasy. This is why if you just mouthed the words of accepting Jesus into your heart and not believing them or truly being changed inside by faith then you will fall to the wayside.

This earth this world will ask you many questions. Questions that will stump you and frustrate you and sometimes you will answer with an answer of faith an that will frustrate them but that is how it works. Faith without works is dead as the Bible says. This is why I contend so heavily for faith in God because it is the keys to all things of the Lord. You cannot rely on your earthly comprehension to figure everything out because it will not. It will fail you. It will confuse you. Ultimately it is faith that saves you from the fire not your knowledge of Peter or John's writing style.

As for the Rapture, what if God indeed wants it to be ambigous? Look at the Christians who were right after Jesus ascended to heaven. They stopped doing everything because they though the end was nigh and Jesus would return and all would be over.

That was wrong. God doesn't want us to become complacent and I tell you the Rapture could easily do that. And it being ambigious also allows people to be confused when it does happen. Most people will not think Rapture but something else entirely that are left behind. SO perhaps it's ambigousness is a teaching unto itself. A lesson in faith just the same as to many there is no tangible concrete proof of God Himself.

Something to ....chew on.

I'll basically say what I said before. The only way it would shake up anything is if it radically departed from Paul's other letters. If it were basically "in line" then it could certainly be beneficial.

You think it would only be beneficial if it just backed up what was already said?! That might be beneficial to the church so things can stay "as is" but it would be screwing the people who attend church.

Read my post again pussycat. I used the word "only" in conjunction with shaking up the church not. I said it would be beneficial to the church if it was the same. Sjaking up the church could be beneficial too. It depends on the contents of this letter I suppose. How would things staying "as is" screw the people who attend church?

Sorry, just reread my post and noticed it didn't make a lot of sense. What I meant to say was that if the letter did have some shocking revelation that changed the way the rest of the bible was viewed it would probably never see the light of day. In that scenario I think the church would scew attendees in an attempt to keep things the way they are.

Yeah because as we all know there is some secret Cabal that monitors all finds like this and keeps them buried in a vault. After all we don't like people asking uppity questions. The Christian Church is all about mind control.

Of course they do, I've seen it in the movies! I really don't have much of a point to make, I just hadn't posted in this forum in a while. Feel free to disregard my at your leisure.

Resisting...impulse...to respond to this...