Scripture vs the written Gospel?

[1gr8bldr]

So.... are you implying that since I don't agree with your version of truth, that I must not be saved? Are the uninformed more saved than the studied? I have read the NT over 1000 times. I know what's in there and just as important, what's not. I don't have a blind faith. I can not entrust my faith to the bias of men, therefore, I learned to read greek, to see for myself the original translation. I have compared every single word against the greek in the NT, 5 times or more. I spent years, specifically studying church history and the arguments and writings of the early church fathers. I went wherever the search led me, whether it was what I wanted to hear, or not. I have read all the books that were denied a place in the Canon of scripture. I stand 100 percent firm in my faith, in what I believe, not because this is what my preacher said, or my upbringing, or what's accepted, but because I am informed. I am a true apologist because I am informed. If you don't know the opposing issues, then you can't be an apologist. You would then just be considered a fan, in the stands, who yells out occasionally. As far as assuming there are no biblical contradictions.... this only shows that your a "devotional" christian, who reads here and there, wondering around, rather than a bible student. Nothing wrong with that. Not everybody is motivated by the spirit to be a bible student. This in itself can hinder the better calling of those called to minister to others, not at all meaning pastors. I would prefer the better gift of love, but I was lead elsewhere, only problem is that those like myself, meant to keep the church in correct doctrine, have been wrote off as heretical, because no one wants to hear what we have to say. The bride has gone astray, she has climbed into bed with an impostor posing as Jesus. But then, this is what the bible told us would happen.

 

[Spineyman]

I am in no way insinuating that you are not saved. Just simply asking if you are blood bought?

 

[Spineyman]

2 Peter 3:14-16
Be Steadfast
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


I still have never heard anyone say the New Testament was not written by and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have had many say the Old is done away with and obsolete, but not the New. To which I also reply. All scripture is inspired by God, both Old and New. What separates the two is merely the Blood of the Living Christ!

 

[Artfuldodger]

2 Peter 3:14-16
Be Steadfast
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


I still have never heard anyone say the New Testament was not written by and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have had many say the Old is done away with and obsolete, but not the New. To which I also reply. All scripture is inspired by God, both Old and New. What separates the two is merely the Blood of the Living Christ!

Are all of Paul's letters scripture and inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Any idea why God would have chosen Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria for a council to pick Holy Spirit inspired books of his Word?
Can we assume there was no free will in these councils, some free will, or just divine intervention? Maybe the emperor used free will to form the council and God used his divine intervention to make them vote the way he wanted them to.

Come to think of it, isn't that how he operates anyway? We only think we are in control such as Irenaeus but in reality God is in control such as with Enoch.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Any idea why God would have chosen Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria for a council to pick Holy Spirit inspired books of his Word?
Can we assume there was no free will in these councils, some free will, or just divine intervention? Maybe the emperor used free will to form the council and God used his divine intervention to make them vote the way he wanted them to.

Come to think of it, isn't that how he operates anyway? We only think we are in control such as Irenaeus but in reality God is in control such as with Enoch.

If God had done it, I wonder why he had the opposing writings burned, as if it were a threat to truth.... since he reveals truth anyway? Why would he care. Think of all the opposing views to Christianity.... he did not have them burned and banned? Luckily, we can clearly see what the Arians believed by looking at the opposing writings. We just don't have any left from the Arian side. Anyone burning opposing views in an effort to keep others from having a choice in their belief has a motive to "win", not for truth

 

[Artfuldodger]

If God had done it, I wonder why he had the opposing writings burned, as if it were a threat to truth.... since he reveals truth anyway? Why would he care. Think of all the opposing views to Christianity.... he did not have them burned and banned? Luckily, we can clearly see what the Arians believed by looking at the opposing writings. We just don't have any left from the Arian side. Anyone burning opposing views in an effort to keep others from having a choice in their belief has a motive to "win", not for truth

True, God didn't destroy the Hindu or Buddhist writings as you mentioned. It might be God had nothing to do with the free will of the Catholics and was more aligned with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church or the Christian Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt.

It's funny how a bunch of Protestants believe that the Catholics got it all right at the beginning but somehow lost it later on. Either they were always right or always wrong. If they missed the boat on grace vs works then maybe they missed the boat on Canon.

"The Coptic Church is based on the teachings of Saint Mark who brought Christianity to Egypt during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in the first century, a dozen of years after the Lord's ascension. He was one of the four evangelists and the one who wrote the oldest canonical gospel."

I'm gonna have to go with the Coptic Church of Egypt.

"The Coptic Church produced thousands of texts, biblical and theological studies which are important resources for archeology. The Holy Bible was translated to the Coptic language in the second century. Hundreds of scribes used to write copies of the Bible and other liturgical and theological books. Now libraries, museums and universities throughout the world possess hundreds and thousands of Coptic manuscripts."

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

 

[Artfuldodger]

How would one make this out to be?

Luke 1:1-4
1Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I see it as Luke composing an account as they were handed down to him by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. In other words, men. Luke carefully investigating these accounts. Researching, testing, checking, composing.
Using his own free will with a tad of divine intervention? If complete intervention, why would he need to carefully investigate?
In other words, Luke didn't set down with God as Moses did and write what God told him to write. Luke wrote an account based on eye witnesses and servants of the word.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The four Gospel accounts do have some differences or variations. I don't believe it takes away from what Jesus did on the Cross though.
Four different storytellers using free will to gather data maybe. Maybe Luke asked different eyewitnesses than Mark. Maybe one was more lazy than the other. Maybe one felt pressured to hurry up and finish.

That being said, if the actual hand of God instead of men using free will to gather accounts, why four? Wouldn't one inspired account be better than four fact gathering accounts?

Why didn't the Council just pick Mark and be done with it? No future fussing about the differences that way. Just say Mark was the inspired version. Mark had the hand of the Holy Spirit. He didn't have to research eye witnesses.

 

[1gr8bldr]

The problem with Luke is that he is far reaching...... and would have to be one of two things. He would have to be inspired by God..... or a liar. For instance.... Mary was a humble girl. There is no way that she made up a song while staying with Martha, then told anyone about it. Then Luke knows it word for word. Then, another example.... How does Mary get all this info from angels, sees Jesus turn water to wine, etc.... then show up at a house with the family "to take charge of him for he must be out of his mind"? Lots of embellishments in Luke's writings as well, even the stories that are supported in Mark. This should be called Lukes song. He made it up, not Mary.

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors.”

 

[Artfuldodger]

2 Peter 3:14-16
Be Steadfast
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


I still have never heard anyone say the New Testament was not written by and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have had many say the Old is done away with and obsolete, but not the New. To which I also reply. All scripture is inspired by God, both Old and New. What separates the two is merely the Blood of the Living Christ!

If we are to put our trust in the "taught" and "stable" men who chose Canon, do we also put our trust in their ability to choose everything else as well? Did this Church in the Roman empire get it all right at these same councils?
Things such as the nature of Christ and salvation based on works? Things such as one losing their salvation?

 

[Artfuldodger]

I was thinking last night while going to sleep that the Word was the Son. That being more important than anything written. Perhaps what is written in our hearts.
Maybe that old spiritual vs physical thing becoming more important.
Then maybe it's possible the Holy Spirit calls whom he wants in far away villages and islands where they never had anything written.

I still see the importance of the written, the Scripture, and the Gospel. It needs to be recorded for future generations. But if the Holy Spirit can elect, he can do it without one hearing the Word recited. He can do it when the Holy Spirit reveals the Word from the inside out.

Maybe it's somewhere between all of this. Somewhere between the spiritual and physical. Somewhere between divine revelation and learning from other men.

 

[Israel]

The problem with Luke is that he is far reaching...... and would have to be one of two things. He would have to be inspired by God..... or a liar. For instance.... Mary was a humble girl. There is no way that she made up a song while staying with Martha, then told anyone about it. Then Luke knows it word for word. Then, another example.... How does Mary get all this info from angels, sees Jesus turn water to wine, etc.... then show up at a house with the family "to take charge of him for he must be out of his mind"? Lots of embellishments in Luke's writings as well, even the stories that are supported in Mark. This should be called Lukes song. He made it up, not Mary.

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors.”

What do we do? Who do we trust? What...do we trust?
Anyone? No one?
I am not speaking as though "we must make this all smooth or it is that all will appear rough..." as though difficulties perceived are difficulties indeed, and needing a therefore explanation...conclusion...reduction to being made...amenable to the mind. "Even" the mind of the man calling himself believer.

Why does one...why does one not?
What makes a man a liar...? (I think you may have said it...!)
What (who?) makes a man a hearer?
What other bathwater needs a care lest we throw out the baby? And...ultimately...does it matter if (what looks to us like the baby!) the baby is thrown out?

We might as well "get down to it", right?
(But I don't want to run naked down the street!)

I am now too old to resist. Old in years? God knows.

Here is one thing I do believe. I do believe on the day of Pentecost a "thing" happened. Irresistible to our brothers. Something came out of hiding...came out of waiting. Something of total propulsion...of all propulsion.
It moved men to speak of a recently executed man...a man so manifestly a treasonous enemy of Rome as to merit crucifixion. A man so reasoned to be accursed of God by the Jews (For it is written, everyone that hangs upon a tree is cursed...) that their speech is manifestly in opposition to what may men may know of Empire (Rome was indeed, the power in, and of the "world") and religion, yet, they spoke so boldly in that propulsion...something happened.
Yes...something happened. Men heard their invitation...the call from that beyond, their invitation to stand with the man described above...in manifest siding with what appeared an enemy of Rome...and a shame to Jews. They were convicted of their dire and desperate need. Something opened their eyes...to their estate. And Messiah formed in their sight.

This was far more than eloquent preaching, far more than what comes of diligent notes and outlines and flow charts...and man's reason.

They preached one thing...the man who needs no explanation. (And will not suffer it...of man) Jesus the Christ. The one who needs...no man's testimony.

How much caution...must be thrown to the winds? (But, I don't want to run down the street naked!) Is thrown to the winds? Those 5,000 didn't need someone to explain to them the significance of crucifixion. They didn't need explained to them...what it meant to take that name...of that man, as Lord. They didn't need explanation of where that put them relative to Rome. Of Caesars.
Or of their powerful religious leaders. Or even relative to their own kin. What sense could make sense of that...to any?

Who hears what takes place in the garden? Who...records...and makes known? And to whom? Who really knows?

You answered your own question. A man is either a liar...or inspired of God.

 

[Spineyman]

Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?
Apologetics

by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017

Many people deny that Scripture teaches its own inerrancy, but Brian Edwards shows that, based on Scripture, Christians should absolutely hold to biblical inerrancy.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

 

[1gr8bldr]

Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?
Apologetics

by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017

Many people deny that Scripture teaches its own inerrancy, but Brian Edwards shows that, based on Scripture, Christians should absolutely hold to biblical inerrancy.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

He is simply saying what people want t

Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?
Apologetics

by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017

Many people deny that Scripture teaches its own inerrancy, but Brian Edwards shows that, based on Scripture, Christians should absolutely hold to biblical inerrancy.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

Foolish mindset. It's like saying the earth is flat. I could make him look like the fool that he is. At first he would twist everything beyond reason to try to make contradictions work, but after awhile he would get exhausted and his trying so hard would eventually been seen as bending logic. You have no idea to the extent of contradictions and errors. No idea.

 

[Spineyman]

Because there are none!

 

[1gr8bldr]

Because there are none!

Seriously. Do you really want to start running all over the internet, seeing what weak defenses you can find for all the errors and contradictions that I will post? Because apparently you don't realize the extent of it. Can your faith handle it? Will it shake your faith to see them? Are you capable of dealing with them? The churches need to learn how to deal with them, so that their faith is not shaken if and when this day comes? Maybe you could find some help that will divide up the task of trying to justify each one. It will be alot of work on my end but waaaaay more on yours trying to search for justification. I honestly don't want to..... but I will if you think you can prove me wrong? Let me know if you wish to proceed. I will make a specific thread on the AAA forum. Let me know

 

[1gr8bldr]

I will give you a few examples, and you can hunt for justification, just to see what your up against. All I need is one to make my case. If they aren't any as you assume. This is a context issue. I don't resort to anything that might have a back door, or a chance that a scribe miscopied. I don't need to since there are 100's of these.
The genealogy of Jesus. The writer of Matthew tries to make some special event out of Jesus's geology . 14 generations, fourteen more from Ab to David....and 14 to Christ. Actually he mistaken listed 13 to Jesus, but that can be a mistake of the pen. However the mistake is not pen related. It is context that he created. 14.14,14, numbers of 7 I suspect. However, he left out Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, between Jehoram and Uzziah. So we see that his 14,14,14 was wrong with no possible excuse.
I will give you another. 3 gospels have Mary being sent to comfort the others on finding out Jesus was alive. But in John, "so she came running to Simion and the others and said, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they put him". I have seen many men try to justify this with all sorts of nonsense. In the end, they make a fool of themselves.
Oh, what the heck.... Which did they eat first, the Manna or the quail. "First they ate only manna. Then God sent them quail." numbers 11:6,31 "First they ate quail, then they ate manna" Ex16:12-13.
This should keep you busy awhile

 

[1gr8bldr]

We can't make the bible into something that it is not. It is what it is. And that's enough. We lose all credibility with Atheist, secular world and sadly college students when we try to force something as one way that they know is not so. So what is the bible? It's man's best attempts at preserving that which they deem as truth. It contains inspiration, which the NT says will be hidden until one's eyes have been opened. This I believe. The OT has several "traditions" we will call it. One geograpical area had a tradition of the OT books, and another geographical area had another. They were very much alike in context, but not in details. These traditions were later merged together by a scribe to create harmony, but the task was burdemsome and he made lots of mistakes called writer fatigue. For instance, Gen 1 is written by a different writer than Gen 2. They use different language, style, words for God, and contradict each other. Later, we see sooooo many mistakes/contradictions in what is called doublets. Meaning the copiest trying to merge traditions together would give us conflicting info. Things like amount of horses, height of columns, etc. Whole stories told twice with different people. This is where the bulk of contradictions arise. There is a reason for it, thus, so it's not worth the big cover up that inerrants try to impose. Also, we see mans hands in this rather than Gods. For example, simply read Gen 1 and 2. There are not 2 great lights. Only one and the moon reflects that light. Darkness was not created or separated, it is a result of the earth blocking the sun. It's a total mess given from one whom likely thinks the earth is flat. If God had inspired him, since God created it all, it would be correct. That does not mean God did not create the earth from nothing. It only means that mans attempt to explain it was limited to his knowledge.[ JEPD theory]

 

[1gr8bldr]

For a list of Doublets, I found this. I have not looked at them. I do not know if it's complete. I know nothing about the source or beliefs of the site. Only that it claims to be a list of doublets. https://biblebrisket.com/2014/03/17/doublets-in-the-hebrew-bible/