Scripture vs the written Gospel?

#61
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.
I trust the prophets. They were humble men. Realizing the need to be humble. They chose to humble themselves wearing sackcloth and owning nothing. God can use men like that. They can be trusted because they know not to try to steal his glory. These preachers today, making big bucks, expensive suits, etc. They can not be trusted.
 
#62
I should clarify that I see most of the OT as "scripture". I also believe scripture was left out of the canon. So, man decided, yet it contains scripture but is missing scripture
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
#63
I should clarify that I see most of the OT as "scripture". I also believe scripture was left out of the canon. So, man decided, yet it contains scripture but is missing scripture
Then you are saying God is not able to rightly convey His entire guide in certainty. Make no mistake about it there is one author of the Bible with many writers. God recorded entirely what He chose to reveal to us.

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Bible - How we got it - MacArthur.pdf
 
#64

Israel

Senior Member
#65
What if a thing existing in contradiction was set upon by what cannot be contradicted?

Jesus said "and the scripture cannot be broken".

It can be spoken against to no diminishing, and yet, even if it can be endorsed, or is...likewise nothing is "added to it".

When a man enters the place where this is seen for what it is "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"...man may see a something.

The "seen for what it is" is this...the man who believes his assent to agreement with God...adds anything to the matter of settling, or in any way increases God's "believability" is sorely deceived.

It might be salutary to read again Jesus' exchange that begins with

"So He said to the Jews who had believed Him," in John 8:31 and see where that goes.

This is not a man who needs man's testimony of man to Himself. This is not a man at all contradicted by lies and unbelief all around Him. And this is surely not a man who regards not offending what would "lends its endorsement" to Him.

One thing a disciple might learn as he beholds Jesus Christ (and that testifies so very strongly of His being the truth, and true) is that Jesus Christ is totally unconcerned with trying to get men to believe Him.

He knows whose work this is:

Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.' YLT

I am persuaded no man desires to be shown liar. No man has any affection for shame (unless he foolishly believes he can heap it to others with impunity). But little does the man know that his concern and striving to merely appearing believable is all to his own undoing.
This is why man adds oaths and promises to his own word, why Bibles are trotted out in court...and why Jesus tells men...

"but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No, and that which is more than these is of the evil."

The man who "swears" to tell the truth already shows where that comes from.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King

And if I have learned anything, anything at all (as God alone be true) this learning has come from a man's effort to be in contradiction to the word of Christ. To think he could live there, find life there, exist there...but only to find God contradicting him of lie at every single point.

But...

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" God forbid.
 
Last edited:

Spineyman

Senior Member
#68
Seriously? Have you read it?
Absolutely, all the time. I would stake my life on it! That is precisely why it says to study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God to good works which is your reasonable service. It also says to be like the Bereans who search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. Just because you don't understand it or can't explain it doers not mean it is incorrect. It is the Truth that testifies to the Way, the Truth, and the Life,Jesus Christ!!!
 
#69
Absolutely, all the time. I would stake my life on it! That is precisely why it says to study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God to good works which is your reasonable service. It also says to be like the Bereans who search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. Just because you don't understand it or can't explain it doers not mean it is incorrect. It is the Truth that testifies to the Way, the Truth, and the Life,Jesus Christ!!!
OK, out of respect for the thread, I won't point any out for you to explain. If it were the AAA thread, I would be making you a list
 
#71
That link..... It's not real validation for a NT writer to refer to "all scripture" as God breathed, him referring to the OT, then years later, someone including his words as scripture, validating itself. Not to mention, that it was his opinion to start with. I don't entirely discount the bible. It would not have read it hundreds of times if that were the case, however, I can't speak of these things as if it's fact as you all can. Because the so called facts are contradictory. You can have contradictions that may have been typos but context contradictions tell the real story
 
#72
The Apocryphal Books

In some of the large family Bibles there is a section of fourteen books called the Apocrypha, a group of spurious books that were rejected from our present canon of Scripture because:

1. They did not pass the tests required books.

2. They were not written or approved by a prophet.

3. They were not recognized by Jews as inspired and as part of Scripture.

4. They were not recognized or even quoted by Christ and the Apostles, a fact more striking as Paul quotes twice from heathen poets.

5. The last Old Testament prophet predicted the next messenger to come to Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal. 3:1). Most of these books were written during this period between Malachi and Christ.

6. Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is virtually disowned (Macc. 2:23; 15:38).

7. They contain statements at variance with the Bible history.

8. They are self-contradictory and opposed to doctrines of Scripture.

9. Josephus did not regard them as Scripture. He lived at the time of the apostles and stated that the present books of the Old Testament which are in our version are the only inspired books (See Josephus, Book I section 8).

10. They not a part of the ancient versions of Scripture.

11. They were first added after 300 A.D. The Laodicea Council in 363 A.D. rejected them as being not inspired, thus proving by that time some were claiming inspiration for them. They first appeared in the Vatican Version of the fourth century. At the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D., the Catholics accepted six of these books as inspired and added them to their modern versions of Scripture. They are the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

12. Philo and others did not regard them as inspired.

13. The lack of prophetic element in them, and apparent imitation of other books of the Old Testament that are inspired.

14. Too free use of imagination, giving rise to silly stories, and the lack of spiritual force and power.
 
Thread starter #73
Why would God need to direct the Roman Emperor to have a council of men convene to vote on which books were God's word?
It sounds more political than something God would do or even need to do.

Now if it was one man such as Moses writing for God then yes. I can't see where God would need more than one man to pick and choose the books that God wanted in the Bible.
Then the voting is confusing as well. Why would God want man to vote on such an important thing?

Moses didn't bring the commandments down and have a council vote on the ones they thought should be included.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
#75
Why would God need to direct the Roman Emperor to have a council of men convene to vote on which books were God's word?
It sounds more political than something God would do or even need to do.

Now if it was one man such as Moses writing for God then yes. I can't see where God would need more than one man to pick and choose the books that God wanted in the Bible.
Then the voting is confusing as well. Why would God want man to vote on such an important thing?

Moses didn't bring the commandments down and have a council vote on the ones they thought should be included.
It was political. Exactly like today. The US is split right down the middle with Rep and Dems. We are more divided than ever. Constantine decided to end the controversy, once in for all, at the time, he was not even religious. So he did not care, he just wanted it ended. Strange that they were in such sharp dispute because at that time, the Arian crowd believed Jesus was God but lesser, pointing to verses like, "the Father is greater than I", etc. Constantine later regretted his decision and was influenced by someone's sister, I can't recall and became "Arain" Christian. So interesting to see the writings recorded on this. What is super interesting is the winners of the Council of Nicea, they were not trinitarian. The men whom decided which books.... they were bitarian. They tried to belittle Arius by means of association, claiming that he was acquaintances with a man, I can't recall his name, I will find it if anyone is interested, that believed in the exact version they now call the trinity. Yet they used this against Arius. Modern day Trinitarians sweep this under a rug. He was the first man to ever spell out the trinity in todays version, yet he was deemed at the time as a 'knostic". So rather than even use him as the first sign of the trinity in church history in early 300AD, LOL, they have to wait until it evolves into a trinity until 400+AD. We have record of all these things
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
#76
It was political. Exactly like today. The US is split right down the middle with Rep and Dems. We are more divided than ever. Constantine decided to end the controversy, once in for all, at the time, he was not even religious. So he did not care, he just wanted it ended. Strange that they were in such sharp dispute because at that time, the Arian crowd believed Jesus was God but lesser, pointing to verses like, "the Father is greater than I", etc. Constantine later regretted his decision and was influenced by someone's sister, I can't recall and became "Arain" Christian. So interesting to see the writings recorded on this. What is super interesting is the winners of the Council of Nicea, they were not trinitarian. The men whom decided which books.... they were bitarian. They tried to belittle Arius by means of association, claiming that he was acquaintances with a man, I can't recall his name, I will find it if anyone is interested, that believed in the exact version they now call the trinity. Yet they used this against Arius. Modern day Trinitarians sweep this under a rug. He was the first man to ever spell out the trinity in todays version, yet he was deemed at the time as a 'knostic". So rather than even use him as the first sign of the trinity in church history in early 300AD, LOL, they have to wait until it evolves into a trinity until 400+AD. We have record of all these things
Here are the statements used against Arius at the Nicea Council. Proof that they did not believe in a trinity, because the mere thought of it was considered heritical, and became a means to discount Arius, simply by means of association, that was not even validated as true



Wiki......In the fourth century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus,[10] who is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

Quote "Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[11]"

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra was a staunch opponent of Arianism, but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical, and was later condemned for his teachings. Marcellus attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:

Quote "Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."[12]
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
#77
That link..... It's not real validation for a NT writer to refer to "all scripture" as God breathed, him referring to the OT, then years later, someone including his words as scripture, validating itself. Not to mention, that it was his opinion to start with. I don't entirely discount the bible. It would not have read it hundreds of times if that were the case, however, I can't speak of these things as if it's fact as you all can. Because the so called facts are contradictory. You can have contradictions that may have been typos but context contradictions tell the real story
There are no contextual contradictions that can not be correctly and factually explained. Just interpretation and translations. That is precisely why we need to be like the Bereans who searches the scriptures daily, and do your absolute best to rightly divide the Word of Truth!
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
#78
There are no contextual contradictions that can not be correctly and factually explained. Just interpretation and translations. That is precisely why we need to be like the Bereans who searches the scriptures daily, and do your absolute best to rightly divide the Word of Truth!
Oh no my friend. There are major context contradictions. If you care to face them head on then I can point some out
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
#79
Oh no my friend. There are major context contradictions. If you care to face them head on then I can point some out
I've gone through this before with someone on FS back when they has the politics forum. They are problems in translation and interpretation, not actual text. If you would like you can pm me a few and I will see what you are referring to.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
#80
We should start a thread on the AAA forum. I had rather not do this here. There needs to be a safe place
 
Top