That's correct: the idea of the renewed covenant referred to in Jer 31:31-34 which Hashem ( "YHWH G-d" ) makes with the house of Israel and the house of Judah whereby the "Torah" ( ~teaching or instruction ) is written on the hearts of human beings rather than on stone.

What about those Gentiles outside of these houses? There is David H. Stern's ( author of the Jewish New Testament ) idea of the "Olive Tree Theology" whereby Gentiles ("wild olive branches") are grafted into the natural olive tree represented by faithful Jews; this is written by Shaul ("Paul") in Rom 11:17-21. An alternative idea is that Yeshua is the administrator of the renewed covenant and one partakes in that covenant by being united in Yeshua the Messiah; this is evident by Shaul's writings where he often uses the phrase "in Christ Jesus". The "Logos"="Word"~"Torah", enables this in humanity: by becoming a man, Yeshua, to be the rightful judge of all mankind and being the firstfruits of all those raised from physical death. Since the Ruach HaKodesh indwelt Yeshua during his ministry, in like manner, all who trust and follow Yeshua will also receive the Ruach HaKodesh from Hashem.

The Tanakh and the New Testament writings are sufficient "Torah" ( ~ teaching ) for "following Yeshua" and receiving the Ruach HaKodesh = "Spirit of Truth" which can be inferred by Heb 1:1-3.

Yeshua and Yochanan the Immerser both stated: Repent! For the "Kingdom of G-d" is near!

One got nailed to a tree, the other got his head chopped off. If that's their idea of living, then I'm not real keen on this whole "kingdom of god" thing.

If you want inspiring reads I would suggest going into BBV and reading "2 years of degeneracy".

Moti-****ing-vational!

Mt 11:7-15 ( Jewish New Testament)
=======================

⁷As they were leaving, Yeshua began speaking about Yochanan [ "John" ] to the crowds: "What did you go out to the desert to see? Reeds swaying in the breeze? ⁸No? Then what did you go out to see? Someone who was well-dressed? Well-dressed people live in kings' palaces. ⁹Nu [ "Well?" ], so why did you go out? To see a prophet! Yes! and I tell you he's much more than a prophet. ¹⁰This is the one about whom the Tanakh says,

'See, I am sending out my messenger ahead of you;
he will prepare your way before you.'
[ Malachi 3:1]


¹¹Yes! I tell you that among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than Yochanan the Immerser! Yet the one who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he! ¹²From the time of Yochanan the Immerser until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been suffering violence; yes, violent ones are trying to snatch it away. ¹³For all the prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan. ¹⁴Indeed, if you are willing to accept it, he is Eliyahu [ "Elijah" ], whose coming was predicted. ¹⁵If you have ears, then hear!

Rev 20:4-6 ( Jewish New Testament )
=======================

⁴Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them received authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for testifying about Yeshua and proclaiming the Word of G-d, also those who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands. They came to life and ruled with the Messiah for a thousand years. ⁵( The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over. ) This is the first resurrection. ⁶Blessed and holy is anyone who has part in the first resurrection; over him the second death has no power. On the contrary, they will be cohanim [ "priests" ] of G-d and of the Messiah, and they will rule with him for the thousand years.

bump.

god really needs to come out with a new book. it's been over 1.5 millennia, it's about time, don't you agree?

he used to really crank them out. 66 books in just a few centuries. and now, none?

if god came out with a new book, theists wouldn't have to pretend that the bible says things that it doesn't, and doesn't say things that it does!

no new books for centuries just doesn't seem right. he must have inspired one or two since biblical times. but how do we figure out which ones they are??

You're forgetting about this one.

It's just another version of the Bible. The Unification Church book was also a "corrected" version of the Bible.

Texts I have found to be Divinely Inspired. Certainly there are others and my list is certainly too focused on eastern orthodoxy. I feel like it's worth distinguishing between what is widely considered to be Canonical Scripture and what is Divinely inspired. Surely many great writings can be inspired.

YMMV of course

- The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (5th century CE)

- The Ladder of Divine Ascent, John Climacus (6th Century CE)

- The Philokalia (4th-15th century CE, compiled in 1792)

- The Way of a Pilgrim, Unknown author (1884)

- Prayer, Abhishiktananda (1973)

- Christophany, Raimon Pannikar (2004)

cool. may i ask, why do you think these are divinely inspired? how do you know?

also, being the word of god, why aren't these books more popular? i've never heard of any of them.

That they are inspired is just my opinion. (Well, and the opinion of probably thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of people for the first four, but eastern orthodoxy is not well known in the US). I apologize but I'm not sure I am either capable of or particularly interested in trying to justify such a claim epistemologically. I find them to be inspired because I experience God through them, and at least in the case the oldest of them, they are still extant as works because people have found them valuable (especially monastics) for a very long time

My opinion is that the Word of God is a person, not a work. It is Christ. Although the term is often used to refer to the accepted canon of scriptures. I think it's an interesting question as to why the set of books that most christians consider to be Scripture has been fixed for a long time, but I don't necessarily consider the answer to depend on something metaphysical. Maybe human nature and history are enough to explain it, as well as fragmentation among the churches. I guess I would also note that while in western Protestantism there has been a strong emphasis on Sola Scriptura for a long time, which might explain why western christians don't tend to think of non-biblical works as being inspired, in both Roman Catholicism and especially in eastern Christianity, there is an understanding that the Holy Spirit continues to guide through the works and writings of the saints.

Beyond the cultural and regional explanations for a lack of popularity (The Way of a Pilgrim is very popular in Russia, for example), I could only guess. Well, "Prayer" is a very short book written by a french roman catholic monk who spent years living as a sadhu in India. It's just not widely known in general. I don't think that diminishes its value. I suppose inherent in your question is some supposition that for a thing to be Inspired means that God would make sure it was widely known, but I don't think that's axiomatic. It's a more complicated question

Sorry if this is a bit rambly :P

Well said, especially what I've bolded!

Well said. I dig. post here more pls

whoa there! as someone who is obviously well spoken, you should know that is a pretty empty statement, especially to a non-christian.

when i say "word of god," "divinely inspired," etc, i mean the creator of the universe directly influencing a human being into writing a book containing god's thoughts/statements.


couldn't a person say this about any book?


i am not sure what you mean. how do human nature and history help explain why most christians believe that god has not come out with a new book?


phrased slightly differently, don't you think that any divinely inspired book would propagate naturally based only on the weight of it's words? shouldn't a divinely inspired book be something that couldn't have been written by a mere human alone?

sorry augie I didn't know you were a non-christian. I don't mean to be too nitty with words it was just confusing because the term is sort of a term of art (for lack of a better word?) in Christian theology

You are correct, a person could say that about any book. I understand there is again an epistemological question that underlies the question but I may have to try to answer it in detail later. But I'm not thinking of Inspiration as something that's an objective property of a thing that holds universally in that sense. Individuals may be inspired differently, although I do think there are certain universal ideas and virtues which are hallmarks of the best religious writing. That may just be my particular bias, of course.

What I mean about history, roughly, is that if you consider the process by which we actually arrived at what Christians consider as the "Bible", it involved a group of the leaders of the churches at the time getting together and making a decision about which of the many books that were in use should be included. Christianity has grown tremendously and fragmented tremendously since those times, and people being people (Christians aren't immune from all the normal faults people have) it's much harder for there to be a consensus on anything, much less something that people see as being as fundamental as the Bible. I also think it's a mistake to take the fact that there's not something "new" in terms of Scripture to mean that there's no new insights or understanding, or no development or growth. That's why I said I think there's a difference between a text being inspired and a text being considered canonical within a religion.

Fundamentally, Christianity teaches a path that is intended to lead to union with God by a process of self-denial, humility, obedience, sacrifice, and selfless love. Those values are so difficult to embody that even the vast majority of people who claim to believe in them (including me) routinely fail to live up to them. It's not at all clear to me that a divinely inspired work along those lines would propogate naturally. Humans are naturally egocentric.

I'm interpreting "Inspired" more in the sense of having an ability to convey the presence of the Holy Spirit, and to create a real experience of the Divine and a desire for transformation within the person who reads it. Or at least that's how I was thinking of it in terms of my response. I'm not sure I'd be able to evaluate the difference between a text that could be created by human effort alone, and one that requires the writer to be in special communion with God. There is a principle in Christianity that says to evaluate things by their fruits, or the outcomes that come out of them. So from that standpoint it's less about evaluating what is hypothetically possible?

great posts well named. i am going to check out one/some of the books you listed