B Knott Wildered
2013-09-24 14:38:17 UTC
My reply:
Disclaimer: I am merely an individual Baha’i and not an official spokesperson. What follows is my opinion, however I do believe that I can use either the Bible or Baha’i Scripture or both to back up what I state.
The Bible does not teach that the Bible is enough. The book that you have mentioned, 2nd Timothy, was almost certainly written in 64 C.E. At that time, 10 of the books of the New Testament had yet to be written, including the first and fourth books of the New Testament, Matthew and John. In addition, it was not to be for hundreds of years that what today we know of as the Bible was collected into one volume. There were a large number of books that were considered for possible inclusion in the Bible but which were rejected. What that means is that regardless of how you view it, it was the Roman Catholic Church that decided for not only the Roman Catholics but also for the various Protestant denominations and Jehovah’s Witnesses as well which books would be regarded as inspired Scripture.
The very fact that there are 10 books in the Bible that were not even written when 2nd Timothy was written tells me that we need to take a broader look at the meaning of that passage of Scripture. Most people are unaware of the number of shared areas in the Scripture of all the world’s great religions. Just one of many examples is the fact that the Golden rule is a part of the Scripture of each of the major religions. In addition, there are very specific time prophecies in the various religions that all specify the same year. It would take much to room to get into here exactly how they all fit together, but you will find 1260 years mentioned in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I would suggest that if one of those is invalid then they all are equally invalid. But since all support each other so exceedingly well, I would suggest that they should all be considered under the overall body of Inspired Scripture.
In addition, in John 16:12 Jesus said that He had other things to teach us but that we were not yet ready for that additional material. I can find no compelling case for anything additional that Jesus taught anywhere in the New Testament after He was crucified, buried and resurrected. Some people would argue that the Spirit of truth spoken of in John chapters 16 and 17 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, but I see some obvious problems with that. Objections much too lengthy to go into at present in this forum.
Finally, I see absolutely no basis on which to assume that when Christ returns He will have nothing new to say. In fact, I find much both from the Bible and from looking at it logically to believe that just as Jesus changed some of the social laws in his time (divorce and dietary laws as an example) that once again not only will there be changes made, there will be new things for us to learn. I agree with that verse from second Timothy where it says that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine.” I feel to limit myself to only a certain few books chosen by men that have been dead for over 1000 years is to deny that very Scripture. I prefer to think for myself rather than let someone I have never met think for me.