Scripture vs the written Gospel?

Thread starter #1
Discussion in the AAA forum has me asking what is the Scripture that Jesus often quotes and makes comments about vs the gospel.

Jesus talks about the scripture a lot. It is the Word of his Father. The Gospel accounts were not written when Jesus did this. Foretold but not written. Well at least by the authors of the four gospels.

Could the scripture be the lesson or story leading up to the need of the gospel?

The scripture is pretty much cut and dry. We know it is the Word. Jesus comes, dies, resurrects, and ascends. This account is recorded by four men. The first three a bit different from the other and the fourth an account of a smaller time frame of Jesus. John being more of his death and resurrection. His story not being a repeat as Matthew, Mark, and Luke's account.

The Gospel being just as important as the scripture. The Word was scripture and the Word was the Gospel.

Then came Paul and his revelation was revealed to the world.

Eventually man decided it was necessary to compile it all together. Scripture, the Gospel, and those spreading the Gospel. They had a council and voted on what to include and what to toss away. Men did this.

So when Jesus said how important scripture was or his Father's Word, what was he referring to? The Gospel had not been recorded yet. Paul's letters had not been written yet.
But we do know the Gospel was the plot. The Word was with God before time. The plan of Jesus coming, ie the Gospel was the plan from the get go.

We can't ignore the importance of the gospel. It is the core of Christianity but is it Scripture? Is it the literal writings of the Father? The four humans writing about his Son?

Next up is Paul. He had a calling from God. He wasn't even seeking God. Yet God elected him to reveal the Gospel to the world. He wrote a bunch a letters to the many new believers. Stuff about faith and not returning to past beliefs.
His story is also important. Important as God's Word? Important as the Gospel accounts? I guess so but is his letters the literal word of God?
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #2
I think it's all important and it's great that we have all of this recorded but when I read Jesus quoting scripture, it makes me wonder about what was written past his quotes.

I'm trying to see that God doens't change. If God doesn't then why did his Word? Why was it added to include the written account of the gospel and Paul's revelation and letters?

I'm not saying the gospel was added or the revelation of it being offered to the Gentiles but the recording of these events which came later in time.

When the men sit around the table in Nicea, were they trying to figure out what to consider what to add to Scripture? What can we add to Scripture? What can be added to God's Word? The Gospel accounts? Paul's letters?
Were they tasked with adding the writing's of man to the literal Words of God? I do realize they were also compiling Old Testament authors as well.
I sure would hate to have had that responsibility.
 
Thread starter #3
The Early Church had to spread the gospel for 325 years before the First Council of Nicaea.
Were they using Scripture and the Gospel? Imagine trying to spread the Gospel before it was officially added to the Word of God.
Not the concept which would be easy but trying to quote scripture to prove it or show it as we do today. It wasn't the written or approved Word of God at that time.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
When the council of Nicea, 325 AD, decided which would be considered inspired and which would not, the world was divided almost in half. So much similar to today Republican and democrat controversy. The votes being like 52% to 48%. It was a nasty battle between the Arians and the Bitarians. Constantine was not interested in truth, he only wanted to settle the fight because it was hurting peace, economy, etc. So the council was called. It was a stacked deck, Arius against the Bitarians. I say Bitarians because the idea of the Holy Spirit as a co equal third person had not yet hatched. These men, sat around arguing over "truth", Arius even being physically slapped. Arius fought for the belief that Jesus was lesser than the Father, using such verses as the father is greater than I, that the son did not know the hour or day, etc. Arius was not alone, half the believing world was with him on this.... but not at the council. Constantine ruled in favor of the bitarian view, and let them chose what was to be considered "scripture". He commissioned 1 man to write 50 bibles to be distributed to the churches as a standard. He approved and disproved of secondary writings, making illegal any writing that contradicted the bitarians. All opposing writings were burned. And anyone caught with an unauthorized writing would be considered a capital punishment. Realize that the men were ruthless, fighting to win, with no regard for truth, only to win. Just exactly like we see these day between the demos and repubs. We have so much documentation from this council. They would try to win against each other just like we see, by means of making the other look bad by means of association. If they could think of someone whom had been looked down on, they used it, trying to imply that person, in the others camp. It then became as you would expect, if you can't win, you insult the opposing side. It was nasty. Nothing Godly went on during the council of Nicea. And this is exactly where our scriptures came from. Who knows what all we may have lost in secondary writings. As with any creed, it's a circle drawn, stating orthodox belief as someone has defined it. An attempt to stamp out opposing ideas, considered "once in for all" that the matter is settled, that any belief that does not fit within that circle, is heresy. Much thought goes into it. It wholly reveals what they believe worded as such to shut the door on any other beliefs present or future. Who knew then that it would be written over 100 years later to add the Holy Spirit as a coequal third person of a trinity. While I believe we have sufficient scriptures to know the gospel, don't be fooled into thinking that Godly men whom were inspired were the one's whom chose which books. And we can also assume that this standardized 50 bibles sent out, also reflected their interpretation of the questionable verses. These are facts, varified by first hand writings, amounting to more 1st hand sources than the books of the NT. It's available to anyone whom wants to study it, and early church history. You can read the arguments of all these "players" as they tried to make their case for right belief. Volumes and volumes from each player adding up to tons of writings..... But sorry, you will not find but one side of this, because the opposing writings were burned. But you can however clearly see both sides view by simply reading 1 side by realizing the argument.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness . . . 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul says an interesting thing regards to what he says and does, " I think that I too have the Spirit of God." So if he had the Spirit of God and was called to be an original apostle.... hum....

http://magazine.biola.edu/article/08-summer/gods-word-or-pauls-personal-opinion/

Souced from above link.... The three sources of authority for the earliest Christians were: (1) the teachings of Jesus passed on orally by the apostles; (2) the instructions of the apostles (cf. Acts 2:42); and (3) the words of the prophets, that is, the Old Testament Scriptures. These three streams of authority were different from each other stream, but each of the three was binding on early Christians.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #8
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness . . . 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul says an interesting thing regards to what he says and does.
I think that is my question. What scripture was Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy? Paul's teachings were not yet scripture when he told Timothy this.
 
Thread starter #9
Does the Christian make a distinction between God and Scripture?

Of course not.
No, my question is define Scripture? What was the Scripture Jesus referred to? What Scripture was Paul referring to?

The Logos of God. Something thought, something said, the mind of God. This written down into Scripture.

Does God still speak today? Is this scripture? Are their no present day saints who write the Word of God? I'm not saying there is or isn't. Just trying to see a definition for Scripture. Maybe God's Scripture is part of his Word but not all of his Word is Scripture. He still speaks to us today, we just don't call it scripture.
Come to think of it, we don't even call it his Word. We just say God spoke to me and said or God lead me to give this sermon.

But when God spoke to Saul, there was already written scripture. Maybe the four Gospels were already a part of the written scripture by then. I'm not sure. Still though the revelation Paul was spreading concerning the Gospel was a part of God's Word.

I can see where the dispensations are seen as one reads the Bible and see where the Scripture changed as the books were added. The Gospels added probably brought about a change. The revelation of Paul and his letters probably brought about a change.

Some Churches added even more books that brought about even more changes.

But what was the scripture Jesus and Paul referred to?
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
I think that is my question. What scripture was Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy? Paul's teachings were not yet scripture when he told Timothy this.

Well they ( apostles) used the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Christ, much as Jesus did. They used the prophets... to instruct when and where it was profitable to do so.

Timothy's calling was as a teacher, not an apostle... so Paul as an apostle who had authority was instructing him where to go for sources. So Tim's sources at this point were the apostles ( evangelists and leaders) and the prophets or what we call the Old Testament today.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #11
Well they ( apostles) used the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Christ, much as Jesus did.
What about Paul, I don't think the Gospels were written yet when he was preaching? Not to say that the gospel wasn't the Word but was it scripture during that time?

Maybe I'm just having a weird wondering. I'm just thinking that the Word of God is bigger than scripture yet scripture is a part of God's Word.

Then seeing God's written Word increase as things changed and the written Word changed with it.

Prophesies revealed and then recorded, maybe. The Gospel revealed and then recorded. Paul's revelation revealed and then recorded. Is that the end?
If so, why?

When Jesus returns, will men still record those events and add them to Scripture?
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
What about Paul, I don't think the Gospels were written yet when he was preaching? Not to say that the gospel wasn't the Word but was it scripture during that time?

Maybe I'm just having a weird wondering. I'm just thinking that the Word of God is bigger than scripture yet scripture is a part of God's Word.

Then seeing God's written Word increase as things changed and the written Word changed with it.

Prophesies revealed and then recorded, maybe. The Gospel revealed and then recorded. Paul's revelation revealed and then recorded. Is that the end?
If so, why?

When Jesus returns, will men still record those events and add them to Scripture?


Paul knew the witness of the of the very first Christians from the get go... was presumably baptized in Damascus and he was familiar with Peter at least, he rubbed elbows with Luke for example... So Paul did not need the New Testament.

He most likely used the Old Testament when it was to his advantage to do so...

At the final redemption that some will write its events?... I don't know... but when all is in all... it might just include a no need to book existence... I really don't know. Where to go and being there might just end up as one and same venue.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Pauls writings are the earliest writing of the NT. We consider them scripture, but for sure, at that time, he had no idea that one day, these letters would also be called scripture. In his mind, the OT was scripture.........and so was the book of Enoch
 

Israel

Senior Member
I don't know how to see it except as Jesus said. The scripture is unbreakable, and likewise that which testifies of Him.

We know further by His statement after declaring both His ability to ask for, and His declaration of His Father's response to 12 legions of angels:

But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Isn't that an interesting seeming fork?

I could do this...but I don't...even though I know the Father would respond with "yes".

Is it because there's a greater motive at work in Jesus than escape of...well (am I confident to say this?) what we yet see of His enduring in a thing is of less consequence to Him than faithfully fulfilling the word of God? (And I am persuaded 12 legions of angels sufficient to a deliverance, an escape)

I suppose the closest in mind I can achieve to any comparison is this.
A POW is given a prepared statement by "the" enemy to recite on camera, and if done, the beatings will stop. Food will be provided, torture will cease. Does he do it? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Who will judge the one who does it? He may even have some sense of knowing "my people will understand...they will know I have endured much and I have found...little choice." (Some have even signaled while doing it...to sort of relay the "truer" message that they don't agree with what they are doing.)

The other, who perhaps resists (even with the probable same knowledge "my people would forgive me") but may be finding a thing within...that even were he "excused";...to himself...it is just not right. And so a different...or (as perhaps could be said) stronger thing is at work within him. At least as compared to the other man who seemed to fold.

But this is what I find inescapably captivating. I don't find Jesus occupying either "place" in the above.

He could easily do a thing to His own deliverance...but...also with, and in, (as He has said) complete assent of His Father. "He would presently give me 12 legions"

He owes no secret message to excuse or show a thing. He does nothing wrong against himself...or his conscience or His God who would be in assent. Who it could be said...is already "ready" in assent. This I know...Jesus speaking truth...always maintains an undefiled conscience.

To me He is plainly saying "Even if I were to do this (which I do not)...I remain wholly in the Father's will".

And that's what remains captivating, that relationship.

That place where nothing is done except by the constraint of love, and such that even no betrayal could be found in even the seeking of relief...yet something else prevails, quite plainly.

And manifest.

A devotion to Word. And His integrity. His manifest...integrity.

O! To know this...to know Him!

(I cannot help but add...as all around Him was swirling and churning to a single voice "look at what WE do to you...look at WHAT WE DO! As a sheep before it's shearers is dumb He maintained His testimony "This is the Father's work")
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
---------------------Someone thought that this was genuine...and the truth.

Acts 20-27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
 

Israel

Senior Member
---------------------Someone thought that this was genuine...and the truth.

Acts 20-27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.


Yes.
 
The Early Church had to spread the gospel for 325 years before the First Council of Nicaea.
Were they using Scripture and the Gospel? Imagine trying to spread the Gospel before it was officially added to the Word of God.
Not the concept which would be easy but trying to quote scripture to prove it or show it as we do today. It wasn't the written or approved Word of God at that time.
The gospel wasn't added to scripture. Scripture is the gospel, you will find it in Genesis 3.
 
Thread starter #18
The gospel wasn't added to scripture. Scripture is the gospel, you will find it in Genesis 3.
I agree, the concept was there before Creation. The Word was with God. I meant the Gospel story as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Gospel of the Grace of God that had been given in precise details to Paul which he was to proclaim to the Gentiles. To the Jews first and then the Gentiles.

Also referred to by Paul as a mystery or secret revelation.

Romans 16:25-26
Now to Him who is able to strengthen you by my gospel and by the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery concealed for ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith--


Again the concept was always there. Before the fall. Even before time. Concealed for ages past but now revealed. It was made known years ago by Scripture, the writings of the prophets by God's command.

It would be harder to spread the Gospel with just the Old Testament accounts. We can see it now after the Cross but even though it was there it was hidden from the masses, the World, the Gentiles. God's plan to bless the world, the Gentiles.
With the Gospels written and Paul's revelation written, the Great Commission and God's grace would now be easier to present.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #19
The way I see the Gospel is, it has always been there. The Cross has always been there. The plan, concept, image, or Word has always been there.
In the Old Testament the prophets told of it. It was hidden until it finally happened. Maybe hidden from some and revealed to others.

Then at some point Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote of this revelation or prophesy while it was happening. Thus adding to Scripture already written. Their accounts of the gospel were added, not the gospel itself. It was already there.
Then a bit later Paul had a revelation from God, a mystery, a secret concealed from the people for ages. Paul writes his revelation and it is added to Scripture.

Ephesians 1:9
he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Ephesians 2:12-13
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
 
Top