Why weren't newer theological texts added to the bible?

File: Deuterocanonical.png (174KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 499x499px

>>2892207
It's unnecessary

>>2892207
Because that isn't what the Bible is for?

They did at one point. Look up music from before the middle ages.

File: 1494029142479.jpg (8KB, 200x146px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x146px

>>2892207
>newer theological texts added to the bible?
>added to the bible

>>2892207
That's kind of what the Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles, and the Book of Revelation are. Later texts written by early Church forefathers that give insight on Jesus's teachings.

>>2892470
The Bible is a collection of books that were composed over hundreds of years (including the Old Testament). So it's not a crazy assertion that newer books could hypothetically be added.

The problem is though that most Christians see Jesus as the last prophet, and see the Bible as the true word of God. And adding a new book would violate one of these key principles for most Christians.

>>2892502
>>2892207

If Augustine were born a century earlier, De Civitate Dei would have been part of the bible after the council of Nicea

>>2892502
>composed over hundreds of years
AND edited numerous times
>Jesus as the last prophet
they think he's literally God, actually

>>2892556
>AND edited numerous times
like?
>So it's not a crazy assertion that newer books could hypothetically be added.
On what criteria? The church father knew why they added in the NT scriptures for a good reason and assessed them day and night to make sure that it was correct
>Jesus as the last prophet
also the Son of Man/God
>they think he's literally God, actually
according to the scriptures yes

>>2892207
Because that would've gone against the creed that was established at the First Council of Nicaea.
However some later additions have been made.

>>2892571
What criteria was chosen to add the books from the new testament then? Why were the others purged?

>>2892648
They literally gathered up and memed the thing. Because of what that bunch said there's now countless retards claiming nothing the bible say is untrue, and that the thing was written by God himself with his godly hand.

Anyways, have there been editions with an appendix of newer books?

Kinda wish The Maccabees had made it in there. So badass.

They already dont follow or listen to the books that are already in the bible. Why would you add new ones to ignore too?

Ask any Christian how often they live life according to Leviticus, then ask them when theyd like to go out back and stone their wife to death with you, because they dont follow Leviticus.

>>2893613
>Kinda wish The Maccabees had made it in there

But they did? There's 1 and 2 Maccabees, Eastern canons even have a 3 Maccabees.

>>2893795
Leviticus has never applied to non-Jews, read a book.

>>2892207
The Bible isn't primarily a theological text. What would be the point of adding to it? Works can be good and true without being a part of the bible, consider the Didache or The Shepherd of Hermas

>>2892648
Nicea had nothing to do with setting up canon. The idea that it did is a common meme

>>2893856
>But they did?
I grew up an American protestant. If it ain't KJV, it ain't even mentioned.

>>2892207
That's what making other books is for, to have different texts. The bible is chunky enough as it is without us wearing ourselves out with yet another set of pages being added to the binding. Not to mention that all denominations can't even agree on what's canon.

>>2893892
Still, it's pretty common for the KJV to have 1 and 2 Maccabees in an appendix or something even if Protestants don't use it in their canon.

>>2893605
>What criteria was chosen to add the books from the new testament then? Why were the others purged?
1. All were written within the 1st century
2. The church fathers knew people, travellers other church fathers and in which these oral traditions and messages were circulating
3. All of them have a consistent theological message across the board and were understood clearly as something that was Jewish/Israelite
4. All of the documents were assessment thoroughly to see if they were authentic, the clearest example of this was the book of Revelations which caused much bickering before its acceptance into the NT
5. Due to their investigations from very early church fathers they sought to find the authors before the writing and confirmed it through their early sources
6. The rejection of Gnostic was done for a good reason, since it contradicts the message of Christianity and the early sources, it presumes an evil God, it promotes polytheism to solve the problem of evil, all of them are written after 100 AD and all of them were never trying to express what the Gospels are (which are biographies of the 1st century) and rather trying to promote a theological issue.

>>2892546
Why would you say that? Was this ever considered or do you just like the book?

>>2892571
>my father is stronger than me

>>2892571
goliath went from 2 to 3 meter for example

Really because there hasn't been a need. Catholic theology is fleshed out by the catechism. Other sacred text which exist are considered non-Christian.

>>2892207

It's called the book of Mormon.

>>2893613
>The Maccabees

Funny considering the Maccabees and the Hasmonean dynasty have more actual evidence behind them then all the Ancient Kings of Israel combined.