Jude 2

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea. Colossians 4:15, 16


Paul mentioned an epistle to the Laodecians and told the Colossians to read it. Where is it? If it were necessary for them why don't we need it?

Full Quiver wrote: If it were necessary for them why don't we need it?

Perhaps it dealt with an issue common between the two churches that would be sensless to us?

There is one of them in The Lost books of the Bible.

Because it wasn't addressed to TCOG. It was addressed to a denominational church, the Church of the Laodiceans.

KIDDING!

The canon of the Bible has reference to many books that are not extant today. Just because it is mentioned, doesn't mean it is "scripture", or should be in the canon.

SO the question becomes: Is it possible that God intended more writings to be included but man didn’t include them?
That kind of question reference the (anthropomorphic understanding of the) mind of God. And so answers are based on His revelation to us of Himself, and our interpretations and extrapolations.

With that said; sure it’s possible that God had intended more writings, but it's also just as possible (if not more plausible) that He did not intend for them to be canonized.The short explanation involved here is that we live in a fallen world.

By extension of that thought; I personally do not believe that it’s possible that given the manuscripts that we know about that there were any other books, letters, manuscripts (or even autographs) that God had intended to be part of the canon. A review of them would show that they are directly conflicting with the canon, or at the very least least in a theological direction that is in contradiction with the canon.

A2JGirl wrote:Because it wasn't addressed to TCOG. It was addressed to a denominational church, the Church of the Laodiceans.

KIDDING!

wow that didnt take long to start taking quick pot shots huh....

KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

RamboPreacher wrote:KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

did not mean it hateful or in a angry way. Simply meant in the same manner it was given. Kinda a sarcastic reply to a joke that is all.

Sorry if you read more into that

Maybe I should have added some smileys

one love wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

did not mean it hateful or in a angry way. Simply meant in the same manner it was given. Kinda a sarcastic reply to a joke that is all.

Sorry if you read more into that

Maybe I should have added some smileys

Oh yes, everyone knows that's me, always bitter and hateful and throwing out pot shots.
I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago, and a few years before that, I would have believed it as truth had it been taught to me. Just amusing myself is all. I knew you were only ribbing me, Kevin. At least, I would hope that you were.

A2JGirl wrote:

one love wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

did not mean it hateful or in a angry way. Simply meant in the same manner it was given. Kinda a sarcastic reply to a joke that is all.

Sorry if you read more into that

Maybe I should have added some smileys

Oh yes, everyone knows that's me, always bitter and hateful and throwing out pot shots.
I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago, and a few years before that, I would have believed it as truth had it been taught to me. Just amusing myself is all. I knew you were only ribbing me, Kevin. At least, I would hope that you were.

Though Rambo may have not caught that but I am glad you did

one love wrote:

A2JGirl wrote:

one love wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

did not mean it hateful or in a angry way. Simply meant in the same manner it was given. Kinda a sarcastic reply to a joke that is all.

Sorry if you read more into that

Maybe I should have added some smileys

Oh yes, everyone knows that's me, always bitter and hateful and throwing out pot shots.
I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago, and a few years before that, I would have believed it as truth had it been taught to me. Just amusing myself is all. I knew you were only ribbing me, Kevin. At least, I would hope that you were.

Though Rambo may have not caught that but I am glad you did

Thanks to Rambo for sticking up for me just the same. 'Pot shots' does sound kind of harsh. We're cool though.

A2JGirl wrote:

one love wrote:

A2JGirl wrote:

one love wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:KIDDING =/= potshots.

One Love, perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously?

did not mean it hateful or in a angry way. Simply meant in the same manner it was given. Kinda a sarcastic reply to a joke that is all.

Sorry if you read more into that

Maybe I should have added some smileys

Oh yes, everyone knows that's me, always bitter and hateful and throwing out pot shots.
I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago, and a few years before that, I would have believed it as truth had it been taught to me. Just amusing myself is all. I knew you were only ribbing me, Kevin. At least, I would hope that you were.

Though Rambo may have not caught that but I am glad you did

Thanks to Rambo for sticking up for me just the same. 'Pot shots' does sound kind of harsh. We're cool though.

Well i stand behind the "pot shot" remark Rachell, many could view your statement as sarcastic and harsh, though I knew it was a joke. None the less some feel good making such shots at TCOG , it did catch me off guard.

pot·shot also pot shot (pŏt'shŏt')
n.

1. A random or easy shot.
2. A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack: reporters taking potshots at the mayor.


Where is the criticism and attack in my post? What part of "I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago" did you not understand? It was a simple joke, one that I would have made when I was hardcore TCOG. If I wanted to say anything that could be perceived as negative towards TCOG, trust me, a "pot shot" is NOT how I would be doing it. I have too many people that I love in TCOG, and if I wanted to be saying anything, I would have said it in much seriousness and thought. People should not be putting words in my mouth. If you will remember, when I announced I was leaving, I refrained from publicly saying why at that time.

Just because I have left TCOG, does not mean that I have changed for the worse and for anyone to automatically assume so, hurts. Folks in TCOG have joked that those who don't know church history, are rank sinners, and yet you defended that as a joke. I knew it was a joke also and told you so. But because I have left TCOG, I am perceived as making pot shots over a joke that lacks negativity.

Just doesn't seem fair.

A2JGirl wrote:pot·shot also pot shot (pŏt'shŏt')
n.

1. A random or easy shot.
2. A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack: reporters taking potshots at the mayor.


Where is the criticism and attack in my post? What part of "I would have come up with that joke a couple years ago" did you not understand? It was a simple joke, one that I would have made when I was hardcore TCOG. If I wanted to say anything that could be perceived as negative towards TCOG, trust me, a "pot shot" is NOT how I would be doing it. I have too many people that I love in TCOG, and if I wanted to be saying anything, I would have said it in much seriousness and thought. People should not be putting words in my mouth. If you will remember, when I announced I was leaving, I refrained from publicly saying why at that time.

Just because I have left TCOG, does not mean that I have changed for the worse and for anyone to automatically assume so, hurts. Folks in TCOG have joked that those who don't know church history, are rank sinners, and yet you defended that as a joke. I knew it was a joke also and told you so. But because I have left TCOG, I am perceived as making pot shots over a joke that lacks negativity.

Just doesn't seem fair.

"a random or easy shot" sounds right Rachell and you are becoming WAY to defensive over this. If you can display some sarcasm/ joke then take it in the same manner. I was not upset. But I have always used that word in this context. You also stated if they had taught it that way you would have accepted it, that sounds as if you are claiming to being brainwashed. I knew that was not what you were saying butnone the less look how defensive you are....
I am sorry if I caused some hurt I sure did not mean to and it was not directed to really be serious but more of teh same sarcasm I percieved in your post.
Nothing more nothing less, so relax I love ya!


BTW I never put words in your mouth.

I am defensive because although I thought the air was clear about this, you came back and declared that it WAS a pot shot. If you knew it was a joke, then why do you come back to drive home your point that it is a pot shot? I stated nothing negative in my joke, yet others joke negatively and you stand up for them.

"A random and easy shot" is in reference to hunting. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pot%20shot

I have gone WAY WAY WAY out of my way to not be negative about TCOG or about my leaving. And so of course I am going to be defensive about someone trying to make it seem like that is what I am doing. I don't want to hurt those that I love, so please don't make me out to be the enemy over something silly like this, that yes I would have joked years ago. You put words in my mouth just now when you said that I am claiming to have been brainwashed, and to see some kind of negativity in my joke. If you go looking for offense, you're gonna find it, no matter what I say.