Scripture Contains God's Word.

[Guest]

I Cor. 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."

II Cor. 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."

Above are three self identified examples of Scripture not being the proscribed Word of God.

II Timothy 3:16 "theopneustos, God breathed," #2315, is the only Scriptural appearance of that textual word. The only other example of the translated word "inspiration" is in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit," presumably the Holy Spirit.

God has Divinely provided, preserved, and transmitted to us accurate historical accounts of the spiritual history of the World in Scripture, but by the self disclosure of Apostle Paul, and others, not all of their writings in Scripture are the uttered Word of God.

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God. Just listen to any modern preacher, and just read the writings of any early Church patriarch. They are always a mixture of many things. Scripture usually identifies which of its words are indeed the uttered Word of God, and frequently identifies the personal accounts of standing witnesses.

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

Shelli.

 

[unred typo]

Very good. I agree. The obvious fact that parts of the Bible have been self admitted by the authors to be their own additions, proves it, as you say. I love the Bible but anything man does contains errors. The fact that all the supposed errors have been left out of the KJV version of the scriptures, doesn’t make it infallible. Only God is infallible. And nowhere does the Bible claim infallibility for itself.

 

[mondar]

I Cor. 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."

Christ had given the command that husbands and wives were not to separate, but gave no specifics. Yet when it comes to commandments of what a believing mate should do if the other mate is an unbeliever, there was no OT, nor any gospel command directly from Christ. Thus, Paul asserted his own apostolic authority. As an apostles he did not need a direct command from the Lord. His word in the matter was still theopneustos.

II Cor. 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."

Paul, with his apostolic authority could have commanded the Corinthian Church to make an offering. Paul chose not to exercise this apostolic authority but to point to the example of the Macedonians (the frowardness of others). This concerned a specific offering to Jerusalem. The fact that the apostle chose not to command the Corinthians to make an offering has no negative implication on scriptural authority. The scriptures accurately states that this was not an apostolic command, but rather an encouragement for Corinth to follow the example of Macedonia.

Above are three self identified examples of Scripture not being the proscribed Word of God.

Only if you totally ignore the context of each of the three passages.

II Timothy 3:16 "theopneustos, God breathed," #2315, is the only Scriptural appearance of that textual word. The only other example of the translated word "inspiration" is in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit," presumably the Holy Spirit.

God has Divinely provided, preserved, and transmitted to us accurate historical accounts of the spiritual history of the World in Scripture, but by the self disclosure of Apostle Paul, and others, not all of their writings in Scripture are the uttered Word of God.

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God. Just listen to any modern preacher, and just read the writings of any early Church patriarch. They are always a mixture of many things. Scripture usually identifies which of its words are indeed the uttered Word of God, and frequently identifies the personal accounts of standing witnesses.

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

Shelli.

Let me ask how you read 2nd Tim 3:16. Is "some" of the scripture inspired? Do you think it says "most" of the scripture theopneustos? Is it possible that the text is clear, ALL scripture is theopneustos. Every single word of the scriptures is the word of God. The whole of it is the word of God. Once one begins to pick and choose what is inspired, then Christianity will loose the essence of what causes it to be Christianity. We replace the sovereignty of God with our own. Is that not what Satan originally did?

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
Let me ask how you read 2nd Tim 3:16. Is "some" of the scripture inspired? Do you think it says "most" of the scripture theopneustos? Is it possible that the text is clear, ALL scripture is theopneustos. Every single word of the scriptures is the word of God. The whole of it is the word of God. Once one begins to pick and choose what is inspired, then Christianity will loose the essence of what causes it to be Christianity. We replace the sovereignty of God with our own. Is that not what Satan originally did?

Oh, really? ALL? What about the book of Enoch? What about the book of Jasher? Just to name a couple. These are scriptures… holy writings by prophets, but are they not included in your estimation of what should be considered “theopneustos†scripture?

 

[wavy]

Define 'scripture', please, mondar.

 

[cyberjosh]

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God.

Paul was driven by the Spirit as an apostle and what he said of his own opinion is no less important than the rest of the letter he writes. Paul did not give useless advice but just as the Apostles had the special ability to lay hands on people to give them the Spirit they also had a special office and annointing as Apostle to shepherd their flock. Jesus didn't write the Gospels but his spoken words were still important, and that same Spirit in Christ was in Paul.

There is no reason to make this arguement other than to create excuses or push an agenda.

~Josh

 

[Guest]

I Cor. 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."

Christ had given the command that husbands and wives were not to separate, but gave no specifics. Yet when it comes to commandments of what a believing mate should do if the other mate is an unbeliever, there was no OT, nor any gospel command directly from Christ. Thus, Paul asserted his own apostolic authority. As an apostles he did not need a direct command from the Lord. His word in the matter was still theopneustos.

II Cor. 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."

Paul, with his apostolic authority could have commanded the Corinthian Church to make an offering. Paul chose not to exercise this apostolic authority but to point to the example of the Macedonians (the frowardness of others). This concerned a specific offering to Jerusalem. The fact that the apostle chose not to command the Corinthians to make an offering has no negative implication on scriptural authority. The scriptures accurately states that this was not an apostolic command, but rather an encouragement for Corinth to follow the example of Macedonia.

Above are three self identified examples of Scripture not being the proscribed Word of God.

Only if you totally ignore the context of each of the three passages.

II Timothy 3:16 "theopneustos, God breathed," #2315, is the only Scriptural appearance of that textual word. The only other example of the translated word "inspiration" is in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit," presumably the Holy Spirit.

God has Divinely provided, preserved, and transmitted to us accurate historical accounts of the spiritual history of the World in Scripture, but by the self disclosure of Apostle Paul, and others, not all of their writings in Scripture are the uttered Word of God.

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God. Just listen to any modern preacher, and just read the writings of any early Church patriarch. They are always a mixture of many things. Scripture usually identifies which of its words are indeed the uttered Word of God, and frequently identifies the personal accounts of standing witnesses.

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

Shelli.

Let me ask how you read 2nd Tim 3:16. Is "some" of the scripture inspired? Do you think it says "most" of the scripture theopneustos? Is it possible that the text is clear, ALL scripture is theopneustos. Every single word of the scriptures is the word of God. The whole of it is the word of God. Once one begins to pick and choose what is inspired, then Christianity will loose the essence of what causes it to be Christianity. We replace the sovereignty of God with our own. Is that not what Satan originally did?

 

[Guest]

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God.

Paul was driven by the Spirit as an apostle and what he said of his own opinion is no less important than the rest of the letter he writes. Paul did not give useless advice but just as the Apostles had the special ability to lay hands on people to give them the Spirit they also had a special office and annointing as Apostle to shepherd their flock. Jesus didn't write the Gospels but his spoken words were still important, and that same Spirit in Christ was in Paul.

There is no reason to make this arguement other than to create excuses or push an agenda.

~Josh

Is Paul's opinion the Word of God?

 

[Guest]

I Cor. 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."

Christ had given the command that husbands and wives were not to separate, but gave no specifics. Yet when it comes to commandments of what a believing mate should do if the other mate is an unbeliever, there was no OT, nor any gospel command directly from Christ. Thus, Paul asserted his own apostolic authority. As an apostles he did not need a direct command from the Lord. His word in the matter was still theopneustos.

II Cor. 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."

Paul, with his apostolic authority could have commanded the Corinthian Church to make an offering. Paul chose not to exercise this apostolic authority but to point to the example of the Macedonians (the frowardness of others). This concerned a specific offering to Jerusalem. The fact that the apostle chose not to command the Corinthians to make an offering has no negative implication on scriptural authority. The scriptures accurately states that this was not an apostolic command, but rather an encouragement for Corinth to follow the example of Macedonia.

Above are three self identified examples of Scripture not being the proscribed Word of God.

Only if you totally ignore the context of each of the three passages.

II Timothy 3:16 "theopneustos, God breathed," #2315, is the only Scriptural appearance of that textual word. The only other example of the translated word "inspiration" is in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit," presumably the Holy Spirit.

God has Divinely provided, preserved, and transmitted to us accurate historical accounts of the spiritual history of the World in Scripture, but by the self disclosure of Apostle Paul, and others, not all of their writings in Scripture are the uttered Word of God.

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God. Just listen to any modern preacher, and just read the writings of any early Church patriarch. They are always a mixture of many things. Scripture usually identifies which of its words are indeed the uttered Word of God, and frequently identifies the personal accounts of standing witnesses.

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

Shelli.

Let me ask how you read 2nd Tim 3:16. Is "some" of the scripture inspired? Do you think it says "most" of the scripture theopneustos? Is it possible that the text is clear, ALL scripture is theopneustos. Every single word of the scriptures is the word of God. The whole of it is the word of God. Once one begins to pick and choose what is inspired, then Christianity will loose the essence of what causes it to be Christianity. We replace the sovereignty of God with our own. Is that not what Satan originally did?

Where in Scripture is it given that all Apostolic word is theopneustos?

 

[Guest]

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God.

Paul was driven by the Spirit as an apostle and what he said of his own opinion is no less important than the rest of the letter he writes. Paul did not give useless advice but just as the Apostles had the special ability to lay hands on people to give them the Spirit they also had a special office and annointing as Apostle to shepherd their flock. Jesus didn't write the Gospels but his spoken words were still important, and that same Spirit in Christ was in Paul.

There is no reason to make this arguement other than to create excuses or push an agenda.

~Josh

There is no reason to add personal intuitive assessments to Scripture, while ignoring Scripture's self disclosure, except to find emotional security in churchy sounding ideologies.

I am still wondering if there will be given any Scripture in this discussion more than in the original post, and any discussion apart from mere human rationale and speculative "reasoning."

Do people today who have the "same Spirit in Christ" write Scripture?

Remember, "Speak I, not the Lord."

Shelli.

 

[cyberjosh]

Paul's advice is upheld by the Spirit as sound for teaching, instruction, and for reproof, just as the Bible says Scripture is. God is not below using fleshly (earthly) forms of advice. We should not think that out of Paul's own "wisdom" he gathered this advice (that is from human effort and contrivance), but rather of God's own revelation to Him of what is good and right and acceptable. So in that way yes it is indeed inpired of the Lord to be spoken, regardless of whether it is a 'command' or not. Not as if the advice lacked Godly integrity in the first place.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Please enlighten me as to your position, since I am thoroughly confused:

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

I am confused as to where you are coming from. Why do you feel any need to make a distinction? I need a punch line: what are you trying to "prevent" from happening when someone reads the "advice" in Scripture? Why even take up this argument? What do you mean "contrived doctrinal tradition"? Whose contrived doctrinal tradition? Paul's?! You're not accusing the Apostles advice of falsefood are you?!

 

[Guest]

Paul's advice is upheld by the Spirit as sound for teaching, instruction, and for reproof, just as the Bible says Scripture is. God is not below using fleshly (earthly) forms of advice. We should not think that out of Paul's own "wisdom" he gathered this advice (that is from human effort and contrivance), but rather of God's own revelation to Him of what is good and right and acceptable. So in that way yes it is indeed inpired of the Lord to be spoken, regardless of whether it is a 'command' or not. Not as if the advice lacked Godly integrity in the first place.

~Josh

Just exactly how have you proved, or even deduced, that "We should not think that out of Paul's own 'wisdom' he gathered this advice ... , but rather of God's own revelation to him?" Are you making some assumptions to in order to say this?

Shelli.

 

[Guest]

Please enlighten me as to your position, since I am thoroughly confused:

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

I am confused as to where you are coming from. Why do you feel any need to make a distinction? I need a punch line: what are you trying to "prevent" from happening when someone reads the "advice" in Scripture? Why even take up this argument? What do you mean "contrived doctrinal tradition"? Whose contrived doctrinal tradition? Paul's?! You're not accusing the Apostles advice of falsefood are you?!

Are all of Pauls' written words in The Bible the Word of God?

Just for your information, I am not using my "feelings" to present and discuss this issue, but rather am using cognitive observation of what Scripture says about itself.

A "contrived doctrinal tradition," as each word in this phrase would specify, is a supposed foundational teaching not directly taken from Scripture, but is just assumed to be true by means of its common appearance in preaching and Christian writings. Does Faithfulness to God pursue such a thing? I do not think so.

Apostle Paul did not engage in any falsehood of mirepresenting God's Word, because Paul clearly identified his own words, as for example in I Corinthians 7:12a, 7:25a, and II Corinthians 8:8a.

Shelli.

 

[Guest]

I Cor. 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."

Christ had given the command that husbands and wives were not to separate, but gave no specifics. Yet when it comes to commandments of what a believing mate should do if the other mate is an unbeliever, there was no OT, nor any gospel command directly from Christ. Thus, Paul asserted his own apostolic authority. As an apostles he did not need a direct command from the Lord. His word in the matter was still theopneustos.

II Cor. 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."

Paul, with his apostolic authority could have commanded the Corinthian Church to make an offering. Paul chose not to exercise this apostolic authority but to point to the example of the Macedonians (the frowardness of others). This concerned a specific offering to Jerusalem. The fact that the apostle chose not to command the Corinthians to make an offering has no negative implication on scriptural authority. The scriptures accurately states that this was not an apostolic command, but rather an encouragement for Corinth to follow the example of Macedonia.

Above are three self identified examples of Scripture not being the proscribed Word of God.

Only if you totally ignore the context of each of the three passages.

II Timothy 3:16 "theopneustos, God breathed," #2315, is the only Scriptural appearance of that textual word. The only other example of the translated word "inspiration" is in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit," presumably the Holy Spirit.

God has Divinely provided, preserved, and transmitted to us accurate historical accounts of the spiritual history of the World in Scripture, but by the self disclosure of Apostle Paul, and others, not all of their writings in Scripture are the uttered Word of God.

Not all divinely "inspired" talk and writing is spoken by God. Just listen to any modern preacher, and just read the writings of any early Church patriarch. They are always a mixture of many things. Scripture usually identifies which of its words are indeed the uttered Word of God, and frequently identifies the personal accounts of standing witnesses.

It is far better to rely upon the self disclosure of Scripture for the identification of any first person utterances, rather than on any sweaty allegiance to humanly contrived doctrinal tradition.

Shelli.

Let me ask how you read 2nd Tim 3:16. Is "some" of the scripture inspired? Do you think it says "most" of the scripture theopneustos? Is it possible that the text is clear, ALL scripture is theopneustos. Every single word of the scriptures is the word of God. The whole of it is the word of God. Once one begins to pick and choose what is inspired, then Christianity will loose the essence of what causes it to be Christianity. We replace the sovereignty of God with our own. Is that not what Satan originally did?

If "Every single word of the Scripture is the Word of God," why does not Paul say so? Why does he rather say, "Speak I, not the Lord?"

There is no Scripture to say the NT in its entirety is the "Word of God."

Hope I have helped you some more. God bless.

Shelli.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Hi Shelli,
Welcome to the boards.
I need to ask you a favor. There is a "preview" button at the bottom of the window where you write your posts. It allows you to see what it will look like after you submit your post.

I am having trouble reading your entries because the quotes are not coming out right. :crazyeyes:

When you quote somebody, it helps to distinguish your comments from theirs, thus making it easier to respond.

This is what it should look like when you post something that someone else said.

If it does not show up that why when you click on the preview button, please do some editing.
Thanks!

 

[cyberjosh]

Just exactly how have you proved, or even deduced, that "We should not think that out of Paul's own 'wisdom' he gathered this advice ... , but rather of God's own revelation to him?" Are you making some assumptions to in order to say this?

To believe or say that Paul of his own wisdom gave the advice devoid of godly conviction of it(which he explicitly preaches against the wisdom of man which is darkness and foolishness in comparison to the true light and wisdom of God) is to say that Paul gave fallible statements and that his advice was imperfect in some way & inappropriate or inadequate. God bears witness to the saved by His Spirit those things that are good and edifying to speak to one another, and out of that inward testimony that all the saints have Paul spoke, and with authority given from God no less. How could you come to any other conclusion of Paul's words?

A "contrived doctrinal tradition," as each word in this phrase would specify, is a supposed foundational teaching not directly taken from Scripture, but is just assumed to be true by means of its common appearance in preaching and Christian writings. Does Faithfulness to God pursue such a thing? I do not think so

What does this have to do with Paul's advice? You aren't talking about people taking the advice over the explicit freedom that the Bible gives us about observing such things in general are you? Because if so that should be obvious to any true student of the Bible that we have those freedoms.

P.S. You cannot put more than 3 quotes inside one another or it will not show up, so if you want it to work try to trim down the previous "nested" quotes. ;)

~Josh

 

[Guest]

Hi Shelli,
Welcome to the boards.
I need to ask you a favor. There is a "preview" button at the bottom of the window where you write your posts. It allows you to see what it will look like after you submit your post.

I am having trouble reading your entries because the quotes are not coming out right. :crazyeyes:

When you quote somebody, it helps to distinguish your comments from theirs, thus making it easier to respond.

This is what it should look like when you post something that someone else said.

If it does not show up that why when you click on the preview button, please do some editing.
Thanks!

Is there some way you can explain how to make other peoples' posted words appear different in my responses, rather than assuming I already know?

You need to edit your comments for rational thinking.

Shelli.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Is there some way you can explain how to make other peoples' posted words appear different in my responses, rather than assuming I already know?

You need to edit your comments for rational thinking.

Shelli.

Nah. I Changed my mind. I was not really assuming that you knew anything.

My take on this is that the anti-Paul comments together with the rudness to other members of the forum will end badly, very quickly, with TOS violations. One last bit of advice, then I will be on my way. A simple "Please" and "Thank you" will work miracles for you. Blessings.

 

[Guest]

Is there some way you can explain how to make other peoples' posted words appear different in my responses, rather than assuming I already know?

You need to edit your comments for rational thinking.

Shelli.

Nah. I Changed my mind. I was not really assuming that you knew anything.

My take on this is that the anti-Paul comments together with the rudness to other members of the forum will end badly, very quickly, with TOS violations. One last bit of advice, then I will be on my way. A simple "Please" and "Thank you" will work miracles for you. Blessings.

Do you wish to explain the use of highlighting quotations, or not ... ?