Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > Open Discussion > Which books are inspired and authoritative, and why?

Karen
Member
Posts: 29

Hi all,

I pose this question not to start controversy, but to point out that there are many viewpoints among us.  Just as we have differing ideas on how exactly to keep Sabbath, we have different ideas as to what is indeed authoritative Scripture.  There is, of course, the "traditional" view that accepts the Hebrew Tanach (OT) and the Apostles'  Writings (OT), but not other books.  I subscribe to this view, but not because it is traditional, and I depart from it slightly in recognizing that some passages have been mistranslated, added to, or edited from the originals.

It seems that this issue should be discussed between any two considering a serious relationship to insure compatibility.  If you don't agree on which books are authoritative, then there are bound to be serious disagreements, and even worse, no good way to resolve those disagreements.  I can respect and be good friends with others who see this topic differently, but I would not want to be married to someone who holds a significantly different viewpoint on this topic.

May 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM Flag Quote & Reply

John Baltimore Trust
Site Owner
Posts: 156

Karen, you have picked a hot topic and one that is very widely debated.  To be frank, I beleive 100% in the validity of the OT but there are books missing like Jasher and Enoch (both are referred to as legitimate books other places in scripture).  The NT is more tricky...anyone who looks at the history of these books and the biblical requirements according to the Torah will quickly see that although many of the NT books are good, they should not be considered scripture.  I realize that this may shock and anger some but we don't trust the Catholic church to determine what holidays we celebrate, why do we trust their judgement as to what books are inspired?  I am 100% certain that the early church did not consider the writings of Peter, Paul, Jude, James or John on par with scripture.  Even the Jews believe that only the Torah and the Prophets are inspired scripture...the other OT books, they call the Writings and are used for their historical value.  In order to be inspired, the writer must claim that he has received revelation directly from Yah.  Then, that writer must be tested according the writings of previous prophets.  If what they say does not line up with Torah, we are to reject what they say no matter how much we like it or if others think we are heretical.   There is an excellent e-book that is available to read for free called "Jesus' Words Only"...it is really opening my eyes to how our version of the scriptures came to be and what the 100% foolproof method of testing the NT writings is.   I am open to debate on this subject with anyone but please do not use personal opinion, please back up what you are saying with facts and Torah.  

--

Erin Kuhn :)

June 5, 2012 at 9:06 AM Flag Quote & Reply

John
Member
Posts: 168

What the second temple Jews considered scripture was the Tanach, but I don't believe everything in the Tanach is direct from YHWH. Maybe we should define what is inspired. Are the books like I and II Kings inspired or just history? Now I accpet them as valid history, just like I do the NT and Paul although I don't believe his writings are scripture are solid torah as far as I am concerned. Do you know that the book of Ezekiel was debated whether it should be in the canon or not? 

 

As far as Jasher Erinia I don't think what we have today is what is referred to in the scripture. I have read it and some stuff is just to far fetched for me. It is almost like the sons of Israel were super heroes or something from what I remember. With that said I do think it fills in the gaps that the scripture doesn't address sometimes, like the flood account for example.

So for me I believe when it says "Thus says YHWH" or "YHWH spoke" that is inspired. Even the Torah which I would give my life for (at least that is how I feel, time will tell) does have some stuff that was added and a few mistakes. The Septuagint/Dead Sea Scrolls/Masoretic Texts don't all agree and we don't have the originals. So which version is inspired?????

 

Good question Frances and I respect your position, but do not believe like you.

 

Shalom

John

 

  

--

 

June 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM Flag Quote & Reply

ishah
Member
Posts: 38

i am still largely evangelical or churchy in my views - except for the fact that i have embraced the main points of the Messianic faith - and consider not the Catholic church Bible but that minus the deuterocanonicals. since im no bible canon specialist, i have to trust those who have studied it more.


so what i learned in seminary was there was this certain period that allowed for the Scriptures to be called inspired. i have not totally wrapped my brain around it yet but yeah, they explained it to a point that i was like, ok sounds fair enough lol. but i cant explain it myself since that was so long ago and i would have to ask a friend who remembers how it goes...

June 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Riley
Member
Posts: 38

I personally belive that the Torah has more authority than the prophets and writings, when Yeshua was being tempted by satan, satan quoted psalms and Yeshua quoted Deutronomy. That may not be directly saying Torah is superior to psalms but its something to think about.

June 8, 2012 at 11:59 PM Flag Quote & Reply

YAHUSEPH
Member
Posts: 84

the generally accepted OT and NT canon for starters, I also believe that the catholic apocrypha literatures, book of Enoch, Jasher, and the NT gospel of  Thomas and Epistle of Barnabas to be scripture, I believe in testing évery spirit' of the 'questionable'  books against the accepted canon so these are by no means the only ones I accept but simply the ones I can think of at present

June 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Dan
Member
Posts: 56

I share John's view on this. Whether we come from the Christian or Jewish side of the things, we are predispositioned to believe what traditions in our faith have claimed to be the Scriptures. If we are to be a newborn men/women in Messiah, we have to look at all these books(canonical and non-canonical) with scrutiny and without any preconceived notions. We owe that to our Savior. If something in the Torah doesn't jive with the rest of the Torah, it would be dishonest to ignore it and try and make up excuses and false explanations for it. Let's not forget that men wrote both the Torah and the rest of the writings. As far as I'm concerned I don't know them from Adam, and I will question everything that's been written. Let's also not forget that non of these books are originals, but copies made by men who were far removed from the original days when all these things happened.

July 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Christopher

Posts: 22

I abide by the canon of Saint John and his successors. This is the Protestant canon. Most Christians make the mistake of following the succession of Bishops from Rome, or just choosing what books go in the Bible by their own studies. Rome was a heretic church and was often rebuked by Bishops from other congregations for their pagan practices and misunderstanding of the Bible. The congregations founded by John were Messianic like us. They kept Torah and believed in Yahshua. It was John that decided which Books went into the Bible and which did not.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Biblion, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Biblion:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the Biblos of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Biblos of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Biblion.

Biblion=book

Biblos=Bible

Be very careful if you decide to add or remove Books or verses from the Bible.

September 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM Flag Quote & Reply

John
Member
Posts: 168

@Christopher I believe John was talking about the book of Revelation when he wrote that. The Nt was not even compiled at that time. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, but if we follow torah and the prophets than we can't go wrong. Even the Aramaic which is suppose to be much more reliable than the greek NT isn't the original. I don't believe anything in the NT can overreide what  torah says and 99% of it doesn't. The Aramaic does not have YHWH in it and therefore in my view could not be the original as the Apostles would not have replaced  YHWH's name. 

 

Shalom

John

--

 

September 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Christopher

Posts: 22

I think he was talking about the whole Bible. That's why I put the two Greek words he used. Biblos refers to the Bible. Biblion to the Book of Revelation. The Aramiac uses MARYAH(Master Yah). John compiled the NT canon after he wrote Revelation. Historically, the Messianic canon has always been the same as the Protestant canon. It's hard to say which language each of the NT Books were originally written in. Irenaeus wrote that the Gospels were written in 4 languages. The only complete NT that survived is Greek, Aramaic is only part of the NT. Even if a Book like Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, we don't have that in Hebrew anymore. So we just have to use what we have and that is what has been handed down through the Messianic churches from John until today.

September 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM Flag Quote & Reply

John
Member
Posts: 168

Well I disagree but that is no big deal. As far as Maryah goes it is a title and not equal to YHWH. I know there is a growing movement to promote that Maryah = YHWH but that is not true. I believe the reason is well meaning folks want to promote the false idea that Yeshua is deity. The scriptures are clear on this subject and if you look at Acts 16:16 in the Aramaic it is clearly not YHWH. It is similar to the word master or lord. Andrew Roth translates Phil 2:6 ? that Yeshua is YHWH but that is not what the text says and if would contradict dozens of verses that are very clear which I will gladly provide to anyone seeking truth on this subject.

 

Shalom

John

--

 

September 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM Flag Quote & Reply

ben908
Member
Posts: 58

I completely agree with John.  Most scholars about 95 percent of them translate maryah as master or lord.  The few that do translate it as master Yahweh to promote their trinitiy or oneness doctrines.   http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/The%20Mar-Yah%20Deception/The%20Mar-Yah%20Deception.html      ; a good page with an in depth analysis of the ignorance i geuss u could say.  even though andrew gabriel roth is my favorite teacher, this is one of his stumbling stones.

September 21, 2012 at 6:03 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Karen
Member
Posts: 29

@John, I agree that John was referring to the Book of Revelation about not adding or subtracting, not the entire Bible or Canon.  Most Christian teachers use this verse out of context to refer to all 66 books (by some counts).  Even though I accept all those books as inspired, I do not want to support that belief by taking a verse out of context.  I also agree that  Andrew Gabriel Roth's translation of Phil 2:6 is in error.

February 16, 2013 at 6:38 PM Flag Quote & Reply

renkablue
Member
Posts: 56

I just wanted to post that one of the most unique books that I have read is the Singer Trilogy by Calvin Miller.  It is a gospel message but it is unique in the presentation.

--

Psalms 119 .  Says it all

April 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM Flag Quote & Reply

ErikShalom (אֶרֶךְ)
Member
Posts: 5

John at June 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

What the second temple Jews considered scripture was the Tanach, but I don't believe everything in the Tanach is direct from YHWH. Maybe we should define what is inspired. Are the books like I and II Kings inspired or just history? Now I accpet them as valid history, just like I do the NT and Paul although I don't believe his writings are scripture are solid torah as far as I am concerned. Do you know that the book of Ezekiel was debated whether it should be in the canon or not? 

 

As far as Jasher Erinia I don't think what we have today is what is referred to in the scripture. I have read it and some stuff is just to far fetched for me. It is almost like the sons of Israel were super heroes or something from what I remember. With that said I do think it fills in the gaps that the scripture doesn't address sometimes, like the flood account for example.

So for me I believe when it says "Thus says YHWH" or "YHWH spoke" that is inspired. Even the Torah which I would give my life for (at least that is how I feel, time will tell) does have some stuff that was added and a few mistakes. The Septuagint/Dead Sea Scrolls/Masoretic Texts don't all agree and we don't have the originals. So which version is inspired?????

 

Good question Frances and I respect your position, but do not believe like you.

 

Shalom

John

 

  

John when you said, "Even the Torah which I would give my life for (at least that is how I feel, time will tell) does have some stuff that was added and a few mistakes. The Septuagint/Dead Sea Scrolls/Masoretic Texts don't all agree."

Just what verses did you have in mind?

שלום וברכה לך

--

What do I put here?

June 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM Flag Quote & Reply

YAHUSEPH
Member
Posts: 84
Is there any proof that the protestant canon is the same as the earliest canon used by believers? I'd say no. While its true that protestant historically inherited their canon from catholics (the catholics of course later added about 14 apocrypha books to their canon) but not all the ancient churches accepted the catholic canon to begin with. The canon of the ethiopic church included all the apocrypha of the tanakh as well as the books of Enoch and Jubilees and in addition to these several other books of apostolic origin like the didascalia (apostolic constitutions), and the epistles of Clement. So really affirming the common canon, is not necessarily based on the testimony of the catholic church as custodians of it, since other ancient churches also affirm the canon, I'd say the ethiopic church is more reliable than the roman
--

Shema Yisrael YHUH Elohenu YHUH Echad

November 15, 2014 at 5:48 AM Flag Quote & Reply

koss2012
Member
Posts: 3

According to 2 Edras 14: 42-48; as it was written: 

42"The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread.   43 "As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night.  44 In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.  45And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:   46 But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:   47 For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.  48 And I did so."

Shalom! 

PS. Book of Jasher, Enoch, etc., was part of these books

--


November 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM Flag Quote & Reply

koss2012
Member
Posts: 3

The books that were published openly is the Bible. But the seventy last are such book as: Jasher, Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Aprocypha, The Twelve Patriarchs, etc., to name a few, were such books delievered only to such wise among the people.

Shalom

--


November 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Markus80s
Member
Posts: 76

To me, this approach to scripture is dangerous because one can be deceived into rejecting books of the Bible that are legimate.  I and many in the Messianic community just use the Torah as the "prime directive" of the entire Bible to guard against anyone trying to use the NT scriptures to claim that the Torah has been done away with.  The NT is an extention of Torah, not a replacement.

--


November 18, 2014 at 9:07 AM Flag Quote & Reply

YAHUSEPH
Member
Posts: 84

koss2012 at November 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM

The books that were published openly is the Bible. But the seventy last are such book as: Jasher, Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Aprocypha, The Twelve Patriarchs, etc., to name a few, were such books delievered only to such wise among the people.

Shalom

Agreed!
--

Shema Yisrael YHUH Elohenu YHUH Echad

November 22, 2014 at 2:53 AM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.