Expanding Scripture

Don't confuse classic with canonic

I'm sure there are many here who would agree with you, Neil...although they probably would want to include Lewis Carroll, ‎L. Frank Baum, The Grimm Brothers, and Quentin Tarantino also.

I think 'extended scripture' should be a personal choice, and doesn't invalidate it. Although I'm not sure anyone would choose Tarantino. I think extended scripture requires a reading of the canon and then a need for finding a deeper, more personal expression of what's there. That said, there's some bloody stuff early on, so maybe QT could provide extra resonances in that area ...

it's not confusion but flexibility ...

I think Tarantino is a natural for the early going of the Bible. And considering "the early going" of the Bible is the only part telling us what the god of the Bible actually thinks and says...

...Tarantino is a natural for the god.


(Just yankin' your chain a bit, Neil. Do whatever you think best.)

It's true that there have been many wise men/women with well considered philosophies and opinions. Consider my sig line and it's well known author. I consider it a perfect description of our relationship with Jehovah, a consideration not shared in any measure by my friend Frank.

So, regardless of erudition or razor sharp insight, when we look at things not in the canon, we risk hopeless confusion as we try to discern God's message. For the Bible was inspired and written, not as a scientific treatise, but as an explanation for the least sophisticated of us to understand how misery and death came into our world and what God intends to do about it.

For that purpose, the canonical scriptures are sufficient and we do well to consider the words of the apostle John regarding God's injuncture regarding additions and subtractions from 'scripture' - Revelation 22:18,19 

However, I understand other belief systems have their own 'scripture'.

Revelations shouldn't even be in 'scripture' - it was a late edition, much argued over. I'd replace it with Leaves of Grass.

I still think something from Lewis Carroll would be better. And more in keeping with the general trend of the book.

No. Deuteronomy 13:1 (in some Bibles it's 12:last due to a numbering glitch) says you may not add to or take away from the Torah (taken to mean add or remove commandments.)

Like what poets say why not just quote them as that instead of inserting them into theology?

I think you're referring to Deuteronomy 4:2.

Unless God himself subtracts from the Torah, as Paul claims God had done for the Gentile Christians, e.g. circumcision. It's not in reference to the other books, though.

I think most people take from different sources and their own musings to create their own beliefs and theology about God.

Well John Donne wouldn't approve.

John Donne's Sermons on the Psalms and Gospels: With a Selection of Prayers and Meditations
by John Donne and Evelyn M. Simpson

See page 75
https://books.google.com/books?id=1_bov6qpSA8C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=that+which+the+scripture+says+god+sayes+donne&source=bl&ots=K2ulfn23Oj&sig=TTZOKrSi1qvvxWDOw3fBpQAi9Cc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5q_nc1_3NAhXJ5CYKHRX4DWIQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=that%20which%20the%20scripture%20says%20god%20sayes%20donne&f=false

Paul makes no such claim, He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, taught by Gamaliel. No, he says the opposite, that those who say the formality of religion satisfies God, they are wrong. You can be circumcised and be an enemy of God.

I think it's okay to expand scripture per sermon.
expanding similar passages between saints should be kept separate.

I think it's okay to expand scripture per sermon.
Ex. Expanding a passage between saints should be kept separate. The sharper the better!