Scripture vs the written Gospel?

Spineyman

Senior Member
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?
Just as Holy men were carried about by the Holy Spirit to record the Word of the Living God. So were Holy men carried about by the Holy Spirit to make the collection of what was kept and what was discarded to form the cannon of Scripture. It is all important and it was all recorded for our benefit.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Inspired by God literally means God Breathed. which means 100 % accurate. What was cannonized is also exactly what God meant to be recorded and kept.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
I think many folks see my quest or any of our quests as faltering if we ask deep heartfelt questions. That we should not have these thoughts. That just by asking puts us in a place of not having God's coverage or salvation.
I see Paul as such a person. "by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”

"If somehow?" From a man who writes scripture.

I believe that all of us have a faith that's different from each other. Sometimes it's strong and sometimes it wains. None of us have all of the answers. It's not this set of legalistic rules that one follows to gain acceptance.
I think God is saying that his faith in us never wains.
Paul had an encounter with the Risen Christ and that is why he was such a stalwart of the faith. He was not tutored by the pre crucified Christ but the Risen Lord.
Acts 9:3-6 New King James Version (NKJV)

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
 
Thread starter #43
Just as Holy men were carried about by the Holy Spirit to record the Word of the Living God. So were Holy men carried about by the Holy Spirit to make the collection of what was kept and what was discarded to form the cannon of Scripture. It is all important and it was all recorded for our benefit.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Inspired by God literally means God Breathed. which means 100 % accurate. What was cannonized is also exactly what God meant to be recorded and kept.
When Paul told Timothy this about "All Scripture," was 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture?
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
When Paul told Timothy this about "All Scripture," was 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture?
OK so what are you saying? Any recorded scripture past that doesn't count?. Just remember what I said the Holy Spirit conveyed it, Holy men recorded it and Holy men canonized it. Everything that is there should be there as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
Thread starter #45
OK so what are you saying? Any recorded scripture past that doesn't count?. Just remember what I said the Holy Spirit conveyed it, Holy men recorded it and Holy men canonized it. Everything that is there should be there as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
No that's not what I'm saying at all. I think that is part of the problem with my presentation of this thread.
Basically I was just looking for a discussion on the definition of Scripture as defined by Jesus and Paul.
That definition. What they defined as "all scripture" vs the written gospel.
The written gospel went on to include what Jesus said, what the apostles said, and to include Paul's letters.

When Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is given from God, this very letter, his epistle to Timothy wasn't a part of the written Gospel.
It was still the gospel. It was from God via Paul. It was part of the message of the Good News.

Yet at that time, it wasn't scripture.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
No that's not what I'm saying at all. I think that is part of the problem with my presentation of this thread.
Basically I was just looking for a discussion on the definition of Scripture as defined by Jesus and Paul.
That definition. What they defined as "all scripture" vs the written gospel.
The written gospel went on to include what Jesus said, what the apostles said, and to include Paul's letters.

When Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is given from God, this very letter, his epistle to Timothy wasn't a part of the written Gospel.
It was still the gospel. It was from God via Paul. It was part of the message of the Good News.

Yet at that time, it wasn't scripture.
But it is now and it was still God breathed. Obviously the New Testament wasn't even penned when Jesus walked among us here on earth. But His and the apostles constantly quoting Old testament Scripture speaks to the veracity and validity of the scripture itself. So because we can be assured that the Old Testament is correct and true, then we can be assured that the new Testament is also true. The entire Bible is God Breathed, inspired by God, the Holy Spirit and He will lead you into all truth. The New Testament or actually New Covenant was instituted in Jesus' blood. You can bank on what it says.
You have to realize that Jesus referred to the last days many times, and so did His Disciples. That refers to the last days of the Old Testament, when God wrapped it up like a scroll, and instituted the new covenant by Jesus shed blood on Calvary.
 
If then, all scripture is God breathed....... and the NT writers refer to the book of Enoch many times....... then why was it not included? It is validated as much as any other book is? Reason.... It did not say what they wanted it to say, those whom decided which books were God breathed
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
If then, all scripture is God breathed....... and the NT writers refer to the book of Enoch many times....... then why was it not included? It is validated as much as any other book is? Reason.... It did not say what they wanted it to say, those whom decided which books were God breathed
Show me in scripture where anyone refers to the book of Enoch?
 
Thread starter #49
This is all I could find;

Enoch 2:1-2 Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

Jude 1:14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Maybe Enoch was quoting Jude.
 
Thread starter #50
We do know that Enoch was a prophet. We don't know for sure that all of the book of Enoch was written by Enoch. Are there any other prophets of God whose prophesies aren't recorded in their own books?

I'm thinking there are many. What Old Testament books have the recorded prophesies of Enoch that the New Testament writers are quoting?

I mean when someone quotes Abraham, Isaiah, or Elijah, these quotes can be found in other scriptures, correct?

So when someone quotes Enoch, it either has to come from some Old Testament scripture or the Book of Enoch.
I would assume Jude is quoting scripture. If not then would that mean Jude is not scripture either? Where is Jude getting this information about Enoch's prophesy?

Also since Jude quoted Enoch, it was also controversial as being considered Scripture as well.
 
Last edited:

Spineyman

Senior Member
We do know that Enoch was a prophet. We don't know for sure that all of the book of Enoch was written by Enoch. Are there any other prophets of God whose prophesies aren't recorded in their own books?

I'm thinking there are many. What Old Testament books have the recorded prophesies of Enoch that the New Testament writers are quoting?

I mean when someone quotes Abraham, Isaiah, or Elijah, these quotes can be found in other scriptures, correct?

So when someone quotes Enoch, it either has to come from some Old Testament scripture or the Book of Enoch.
I would assume Jude is quoting scripture. If not then would that mean Jude is not scripture either? Where is Jude getting this information about Enoch's prophesy?

Also since Jude quoted Enoch, it was also controversial as being considered Scripture as well.
Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html
 
Thread starter #52
Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html
Paul quoting Epimenides who was not a prophet of God is a bit different than a New Testament writer quoting a prophet of God. I can agree that the Book of Enoch may not have all been written by Enoch but the Epimenides example is a bad example. Paul was using Epimenides' famous ironic statement about Cretans.

A better example would be showing a prophet of God that doesn't have his own book such as Elijah. If one quotes Elijah then we know it is either oral or from written Scripture. It's an example that not every prophet has a book with their name on it.

I wonder if there are any prophetic quotes in the New Testament that aren't from scripture? Imagine a man who is given words to tell that isn't scripture. I guess it's possible that in some way God had him speak but didn't want it recorded. Interesting concept.
 
Thread starter #53
Maybe God had his words spoken through Enoch written but somehow "man" lost the recorded word of God. Perhaps God decided what was suppose to be Enoch's scripture wasn't what was found and let the council in on it.

God could have decide he didn't need Enoch's prophesy recorded in a whole book and just had Jude and a few others record the important parts.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Paul quoting Epimenides who was not a prophet of God is a bit different than a New Testament writer quoting a prophet of God. I can agree that the Book of Enoch may not have all been written by Enoch but the Epimenides example is a bad example. Paul was using Epimenides' famous ironic statement about Cretans.

A better example would be showing a prophet of God that doesn't have his own book such as Elijah. If one quotes Elijah then we know it is either oral or from written Scripture. It's an example that not every prophet has a book with their name on it.

I wonder if there are any prophetic quotes in the New Testament that aren't from scripture? Imagine a man who is given words to tell that isn't scripture. I guess it's possible that in some way God had him speak but didn't want it recorded. Interesting concept.

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own feet and hands, and said, “The Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

We know this was recorded.

We could speculate whether this was the first and only time Agabus ever spoke as a prophet for it is all we have recorded. We could also speculate that all and only what is recorded of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos...et al, is all they ever spoke as prophets. We could be wrong.

The scripture tells us Agabus was recognized as a prophet, therefore I am more inclined to believe this was not the first and only time he spoke as one.

But...the matter is not "what else may have been..." but right attention to what is.

I am well aware of certain contentions regarding these, and other callings, as I would believe, are many of you.
(Also even to the making of distinctions as to what is a NT prophet in contrast to the "older".) What is "like" it was...what cannot be "like it was" because of the cessation arguments.

This a capitulation. And that to unbelief. And it is strongest contended by the mind that has institutionalized, systematized, "formularized"...what cannot be made, or even remain so; our relationship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

The sighing, and deep longing for God's manifestation in power, cannot leave the disciple. Nor must it. Even by the strongest of argument...or even testimony of eye "I have not seen it". That must be changed, and of a surety will be, amongst those calling themselves by the Name that has called them.

It must at best become "Though I may not have seen it yet, God is true, and Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever"

Oh! here is a contending. And that before God. A winnowing only the Spirit knows inside a man. "I dare not be of that which only seeks a sign" and yet "I claim to belong to Him who has promised such will proceed in His name".

Were devils pressed to speak out in cry only "once upon a time?" If so, perhaps we do embrace a fairy tale. To ourselves, anyway. Or does a light carried, if it be same light, have no less effect upon creation today, than ever it had? Perhaps the examination of ourselves is far more in order than a "looking around" outside to conclusions of what can and cannot be. "We do not see such and such happening...therefore we are free to formulate doctrines to enforce according to our seeing".

God forbid! And again...God forbid!

Look, this apostle, this one whose banner is raised quite high, this Paul (Oh God! Our blindness!) whose words are trotted out in places called "St. Paul's Church" or the words of James in "St. Jame's Church"...or Peter's likewise...to all confusion and interchange (think rightly for the love of Christ)...do we not see?

Do we not see cisterns covered up? A path strewn with stones? And, if we do claim to be among the seeing, why do we not see these things...the thirsty among us, the hobbling whose feet and ankles are turned by an unclear path, the withering...? The deeply doubting and those now given only to speculations?

Look, again. This brother (whose words need not fall upon deaf ears) spoke clearly. He has told us...in our coming together, of our deportment. "Let the prophets speak" two or three! Is he double tongued? Is he?

Do you think, might you think, could you think, he should have added "until such times as there can be no more among you"?
Then amend his words...amend his speech, amend the whole of his life to read "this be only for once upon a time".
Or this:

"Call unto Me, and I do answer thee, yea, I declare to thee great and fenced things -- thou hast not known them." YLT

God help us, O! God help us!

How much finer we remain to our own sight to assume this speaks only "of others", taking no heed:

But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!

We can turn away from ourselves, are given to, are commanded to.

looking to the author and perfecter of faith -- Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him -- did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down; YLT

And that is why Jesus suffered outside the city gate, to sanctify the people by His own blood. Therefore let us go to Him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace He bore. (Italics mine)

Where are we camped?

"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where are you?"


For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, you know it altogether.
 
Thread starter #55
Agabus, a better example than Epimenides. Thanks Israel. Some of these prophets may have been called around the time of Paul as well.
We can't say that every prophet old or new is scripture. Rather everything they said for God may not be scripture.

A man speaking for God but since it's not written, it's not scripture. That makes sense, scripture has to be written. So maybe all of God's word isn't written.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #56
Paul is telling us what he heard from Agabus. He didn't need to quote anything written.
Jude was quoting what Enoch said many, many years earlier. It was probably written. Not that that make it scripture though.
 
Maybe God had his words spoken through Enoch written but somehow "man" lost the recorded word of God. Perhaps God decided what was suppose to be Enoch's scripture wasn't what was found and let the council in on it.

God could have decide he didn't need Enoch's prophesy recorded in a whole book and just had Jude and a few others record the important parts.
God did not decide anything. Man chose to throw out Enoch because they did not like what it said. You have to realize the time period. It was exactly like it is now. Between the Democrats and Republicans. Exactly. Each side wanting to make the other side look bad, each side playing dirty, taking things out of context that was said, each side using means of association with anyone whom they could crush as a sword against the other. Each side just wanting to win, regardless of right or wrong. And to top it all off, these guys were not even trinitatian at the time. How do you explain that? That these Godly men decided which books. They were not even saved by todays so called christian standards. What a mess.
 
Thread starter #58
God did not decide anything. Man chose to throw out Enoch because they did not like what it said. You have to realize the time period. It was exactly like it is now. Between the Democrats and Republicans. Exactly. Each side wanting to make the other side look bad, each side playing dirty, taking things out of context that was said, each side using means of association with anyone whom they could crush as a sword against the other. Each side just wanting to win, regardless of right or wrong. And to top it all off, these guys were not even trinitatian at the time. How do you explain that? That these Godly men decided which books. They were not even saved by todays so called christian standards. What a mess.
And back to one of my questions. I'm seeing this council of men. Two different leanings or parties. Maybe even more. Much like any other council of men. Their pride of winning overcomes everything really.
It's sad the way that works isn't it?

Even what may be considered the "Word" of God voted on by the yeahs and nays. Man's free will. God giving man the free will to do so. By prideful men no less.

A group of men politically motivated to pick and choose from the actual inspired Words of the God almighty. To vote on it no less. Talk about pressure. Could you imagine being tasked with such a mission? Perhaps it wasn't God's decision but one of the freewill of man.

I can see them in the separate rooms before the council. If you vote against Enoch, I'll vote for Jude.

So what then? What is scripture? How do we know what is and what isn't? We can't just receive like Jude and Paul did. They were prophets. They had incoming from the Mainline. People "voting" in a council, maybe not.
They may have had to use freewill. They may have had to study, talk, choose, and perhaps vote along the lines of party affiliation.

If so, where does that leave us? Where or what is scripture? What is the actual written words of God if not Paul and Jude?

Prophets speaking and no one listening? Jude reiterating what Enoch said. Enoch speaking for God yet his written word not God's word.

Why? Because a man using freewill said Enoch did not say that. A biased council of men using freewill said that?

Yet without the Scripture, what is the Gospel? Prophets speaking the Word. The Gospel but not the Scripture.
 
Last edited:
And back to one of my questions. I'm seeing this council of men. Two different leanings or parties. Maybe even more. Much like any other council of men. Their pride of winning overcomes everything really.
It's sad the way that works isn't it?

Even what may be considered the "Word" of God voted on by the yeahs and nays. Man's free will. God giving man the free will to do so. By prideful men no less.

A group of men politically motivated to pick and choose from the actual inspired Words of the God almighty. To vote on it no less. Talk about pressure. Could you imagine being tasked with such a mission? Perhaps it wasn't God's decision but one of the freewill of man.

I can see them in the separate rooms before the council. If you vote against Enoch, I'll vote for Jude.

So what then? What is scripture? How do we know what is and what isn't? We can't just receive like Jude and Paul did. They were prophets. They had incoming from the Mainline. People "voting" in a council, maybe not.
They may have had to use freewill. They may have had to study, talk, choose, and perhaps vote along the lines of party affiliation.

If so, where does that leave us? Where or what is scripture? What is the actual written words of God if not Paul and Jude?

Prophets speaking and no one listening? Jude reiterating what Enoch said. Enoch speaking for God yet his written word not God's word.

Why? Because a man using freewill said Enoch did not say that. A biased council of men using freewill said that?

Yet without the Scripture, what is the Gospel? Prophets speaking the Word. The Gospel but not the Scripture.
I have come to terms with the fact that our bible is not the word of God, but rather that of men. But I see inspiration in parts of it. The context within, still remains. The simple gospel. As far as Enoch, I think the first, something like 63 books are legit. The latter was written by someone else, validated by writing annalist. Someone tried to pass off their writing under the guize of a known writing. It's not hard to see why those fighting that Jesus was fully God would not want the book of Enoch included. Even though it is specifically validated in the NT several times. Weird that they even accepted books that mentions/validates Enoch
 
Thread starter #60
I have come to terms with the fact that our bible is not the word of God, but rather that of men. But I see inspiration in parts of it. The context within, still remains. The simple gospel. As far as Enoch, I think the first, something like 63 books are legit. The latter was written by someone else, validated by writing annalist. Someone tried to pass off their writing under the guize of a known writing. It's not hard to see why those fighting that Jesus was fully God would not want the book of Enoch included. Even though it is specifically validated in the NT several times. Weird that they even accepted books that mentions/validates Enoch
I think there was some trouble validating Jude.

The prophets though, weren't they speaking for God? When Jesus referred to "Scripture says" wasn't he referring to the actual Word of God? Did Jesus ever say that Scripture was the Word of his Father?
Maybe Jesus himself knew that scripture was the written work of man. Important none the less but the recording of man telling the story.

The prophets were speaking by divine authority. Some of their "speakings" were recorded and some were not. Yet they were relaying the messages they were receiving from God.
 
Top