A Cultural Bible

[Free]

Free

In the view I present, the reason is simple. Human nature. The denominational character of Christianity is due to its human nature. And the view presented by the NT is contrary to the nature and character of Christianity. Not only as it exists today, but as it has existed overtly since the fourth century.

Well, this doesn't really address the argument as we are discussion Scripture, not denominations. Your point must also answer why different people get different meanings from the text. While human nature is certainly a part of the equation, there is more to it than that, unless you want to claim that you are above human nature.

 

[Stormcrow]

Stormcrow

Wouldn’t one be considered a little off a readin someone else’s mail?

FC

Paul wasn't writing Shakespeare. He was writing letters, not one of which was addressed to you or me.

How do you factor in the inspiration of the bible...

Beautiful flowers or laughing children can inspire people. God inspired most of the Bible in the same way: He didn't dictate it, Revelation being one very notable exception.

...that the bible is profitable for instruction on that account...

You do know that when Paul wrote this...

{16} All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; {17} so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

He was not referring to his own letters as scripture, don't you?


He was referring to that which virtually every Jew of his day believed to be the inspired Scriptures: the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament.)


The NT wasn't even canonized into what we now call "scripture" until a couple hundred years later!

the common idea in Evangelical Christianity that the bible is the Word of God and as such is living and powerful?

Our very own Constitution is considered a "living document." While I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I don't need Evangelicalism to tell me that. The argument that "Evangelicalism" believes something to be true - while I may agree with it - is hardly compelling. There are some things I simply don't see eye-to-eye with Evangelicalism over anymore; Dispensationalism and Futurism being two of its more untenable doctrines.

How do you answer the contention that the bible is as applicable today as it was to those in the first century.

In many ways, it isn't and those who try, for instance, to apply the Law of Moses to the Christian Church are doing egregious damage to the Word and the church.

Putting gasoline in a fire bucket is a misapplication of the fire bucket. Trying to douse a fire with the flammable hydrocarbons in it is a misapplication of the gasoline.

Unfortunately, that's how many churches treat the Bible and - by extension - the people in these churches.

Proper application is achieved by sound hermeneutics and exegesis, not simply accepting everything in it as written to us! That's a recipe for disaster!

I suggest that maybe your simplification isn’t quite as simple as it seems if there’s a supernatural involved.

The Bible is God's greatest "love letter" to mankind. In that regard, my example - however simple - is precisely how God wants His children to see it: through child-like faith that believes He loves us and communicated that to us in His Word.

That, however, does not diminish our responsibility for understanding and applying it properly.

 

[smaller]

Paul wasn't writing Shakespeare. He was writing letters, not one of which was addressed to you or me.

That, however, does not diminish our responsibility for understanding and applying it properly.

Nope, no logical fallacy there. Huh uh.

s

 

[smaller]

I suggest that maybe your simplification isn’t quite as simple as it seems if there’s a supernatural involved.
FC

Indeed. Another logical fallacy that is very often applied to theological understandings is that scripture is written 'only to mankind.'

That is not a factual case. Satan quoted scripture to Jesus and Jesus countered scripture to Satan.

God in Christ often addressed His Words to demonic entities and Satan, and did so primarily 'in man.'

Few theological understandings even contain this factor, yet it is one of thee primary teachings of Jesus about what happens 'where Word' is sown (in people.)

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Since 'all' have sin as a 'present tense' matter and sin is of the devil, at the point above where the fact Jesus taught transpires, it is no longer 'just and only' the PERSON that Word is dealing with.

A believer can hear every damning Word in the text and every Word condemning Satan and devils to wrath and ultimately to destruction and it would apply to the TEMPTER in our hearts.

The 'fact' is also why believers get so ridiculously divided.

s

 

[westtexas]

You do know that when Paul wrote this...

{16} All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; {17} so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

He was not referring to his own letters as scripture, don't you?


He was referring to that which virtually every Jew of his day believed to be the inspired Scriptures: the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament.)


The NT wasn't even canonized into what we now call "scripture" until a couple hundred years later!

Stormcrow, maybe I'm missing your point to FC here. I've read many of your posts and think I understand your beliefs theologically. If I agree or disagree with you is not the issue. My question is "how can you debate an issue if you don't consider the epistles or the gospels scripture, simply because they weren't canonized yet, and use these same letters as proof of your position?" You say later on that you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I know you do. Do you not consider the epistles scripture? Did I misunderstand something here?

Westtexas

 

[Free]

Stormcrow, maybe I'm missing your point to FC here. I've read many of your posts and think I understand your beliefs theologically. If I agree or disagree with you is not the issue. My question is "how can you debate an issue if you don't consider the epistles or the gospels scripture, simply because they weren't canonized yet, and use these same letters as proof of your position?" You say later on that you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I know you do. Do you not consider the epistles scripture? Did I misunderstand something here?

Westtexas

Agreed. This completely removes any inspiration from the entire NT. We ought to convert to Judaism if that is indeed the case.

But of course that simply isn't the case:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

This clearly shows that Peter considered Paul's letters equivalent to "the other Scriptures," that is, the OT books, in the very least. Not to mention that the way the NT books were written is exactly the same the OT books were written, so there is no reason to not consider the NT books equal Scripture as well.

 

[Stormcrow]

This clearly shows that Peter considered Paul's letters equivalent to "the other Scriptures," that is, the OT books, in the very least. Not to mention that the way the NT books were written is exactly the same the OT books were written, so there is no reason to not consider the NT books equal Scripture as well.

If I say, "Noah took his family on the ark along with all the other animals" does that mean Noah's family was nothing more than a bunch of animals or that the animals were all part of Noah's family?

Or if I say "the team mascot - a bulldog - boarded the bus with all the other players", does that mean all the other players are bulldogs, or that the mascot is a player?

You have to be careful with the language here.

Likewise, "Paul's letters and all the other scriptures" does not confer equivalence to Paul's letters with "all the other scriptures", especially when every other instance of the word "scriptures" in the New Testament refers solely to the Law and Prophets, as the NT canon didn't even exist at the time Christ and the apostles were referring to "scripture."

This shouldn't even be an issue. At all.

And - for the record - please look at the greetings of the letters Paul wrote and tell me how many of them were addressed to you by name.

 

[Stormcrow]

Agreed. This completely removes any inspiration from the entire NT. We ought to convert to Judaism if that is indeed the case.

So a letter written to someone else cannot be inspired? In other words, the test for inspiration means that something written had to be written just to and for you?

Please, by all means, read the letter to Philemon and let me know how much of it is written just for you. It must be if it's inspired, yes?

 

[Stormcrow]

My question is "how can you debate an issue if you don't consider the epistles or the gospels scripture, simply because they weren't canonized yet, and use these same letters as proof of your position?" You say later on that you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I know you do. Do you not consider the epistles scripture? Did I misunderstand something here?

The NT came to be considered "scripture" after it was canonized, a process which began late into the 2nd century AD: more than 100 years after it was written. The scripture of the early church was the Septuagint, because it was written in Greek, the common language of the Roman Empire:

The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums). The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it's not the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Paul's letters were written to address issues that had arisen in the churches he addressed. Does that mean there are not kernels of truth we can take from Paul's letters and apply today? Of course we can! But Paul was not writing to us!

Does the fact that Paul was addressing specific people with specific issues - like eating meat offered to idols - mean that his words are not inspired?

Of course they are, even though they are not addressed specifically to us!

Whether something was written specifically to us has nothing to do with whether it's inspired. Again, Paul's words are inspired even though they were not addressed specifically to us.

Therefore, it behooves us to read, interpret, and apply them carefully, given the fact that there are cultural issues addressed we simply don't confront, slavery and the eating of meat offered to idols being two of them.

Paul writes to treat slaves well. For years this was taken by some in the South to mean that Paul condoned slavery, and the Bible was used to justify it.

That is a critical misapplication of Paul's words and intent. Were we to begin with the premise that Paul wasn't addressing us, perhaps slavery might never have taken hold in this country.

Certainly there are universal, timeless truths we can take from what he wrote, but that requires study and discernment. When Paul writes about the issue of eating meat offered to idols, the larger truth we are to take from it is not to let one's freedom in Christ to [fill in the blank] become a stumbling block for others.

Understanding and applying the Bible is not an "all or nothing" proposition. It's much more complicated - and interesting - than that.

Do you not consider the epistles scripture?

I do consider them scripture because the church considers them scripture, and has since the Council of Trent. But that's not the issue I was addressing: Paul did not consider his own letters scripture in the sense that the apostles - all Jews - viewed scripture, applying that term specifically to the Law and Prophets (what we call the Old Testament today.)

So when Paul writes "all scripture", he's not lumping his letters in with the writings of Moses, Isaiah, David, or Daniel.

Clear enough?

 

[Former Christian]

Free

FC said,
In the view I present, the reason is simple. Human nature. The denominational character of Christianity is due to its human nature. And the view presented by the NT is contrary to the nature and character of Christianity. Not only as it exists today, but as it has existed overtly since the fourth century.

Well, this doesn't really address the argument as we are discussion Scripture, not denominations. Your point must also answer why different people get different meanings from the text. While human nature is certainly a part of the equation, there is more to it than that, unless you want to claim that you are above human nature.

Denominationalism is the result of human nature. The reason people don’t understand the bible alike is human nature. The different meanings are due to human nature and how that human nature understands truth. The natural way to understand any writing is by interpretation. Christians practice the same natural way to understand the bible. Human nature understanding the bible produces a natural effect. A myriad of ways to understand the bible. If I tried to understand the fact that Christians don’t understand the bible alike in any other way, I would have no choice but to disavow any belief in the supernatural. Because the different biblical interpretations in Christianity prove beyond any shadow of a doubt to me that the bible they call the word of God obviously isn’t.

Why would you think that I’m above human nature. I’m not a Vulcan. I’m fully human, just as, I assume, you are. If that was all I thought was possible in the acquiring of truth, I certainly wouldn’t be anything resembling a believer in the supernatural. That I believe that I’m in contact with the supernatural (the idea of Christian Mysticism in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the idea of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in Protestantism, the idea of walking by the Spirit in the NT), is the only reason I believe in the supernatural at all. That which makes any human to appear to be more than human must be some kind of influence with that which is more than human. Being more than human is not innate to human nature. I emphasize the supernatural on that account. Because it’s the only reasonable solution that makes the bible something more than just the writings of men, something more than the man-made religion that is Christianity. And it’s the only reasonable solution that makes understanding the bible more than just a natural human understanding. If a natural understanding is all that’s possible, then obviously that’s all the bible is to be understood.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

Paul wasn't writing Shakespeare. He was writing letters, not one of which was addressed to you or me..... And - for the record - please look at the greetings of the letters Paul wrote and tell me how many of them were addressed to you by name.

The idea of which makes the bible none of our business, and us interlopers to think that it is our business. We’re reading mail that isn’t ours and trying to apply that which doesn’t belong to us, to ourselves.

Applying ideas in such writings would be no different than applying ideas from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. Which wasn’t written to us either. Eventually we must write our own letters that would incorporate our own interpretations of the ideas gleaned and have more meaning to ourselves and be more important to the era in which we live than any letter written by anyone who didn’t write to us to begin with.

Beautiful flowers or laughing children can inspire people. God inspired most of the Bible in the same way: He didn't dictate it, Revelation being one very notable exception.

The idea of which makes any poetry that’s a reflection on something more than just the natural, just as much “Scripture†as the bible. Rather, the bible just as much scripture as such poetry. And why you would single out Revelation as being something different just because it writes about visions, just as Paul wrote about being sent by Christ and having the mind of Christ.....

You do know that when Paul wrote this...

{16} All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; {17} so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

He was not referring to his own letters as scripture, don't you?
He was referring to that which virtually every Jew of his day believed to be the inspired Scriptures: the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament.)

That was the opinion of Paul and Peter. Which is all it could be if inspiration is nothing more than roses and children.

If you’ve read any of my prior posts on that verse, then you know that I agree with you in that regard. You would also know that in the view I present, the writers knew they were writing Scripture in the same sense as the OT. I refer to it as by extension. Paul regarded what he wrote as being from Christ, except the couple of times he said he was giving his own opinion. Why would he mention that something is his own opinion if he thought the rest of what he was writing was just as much his own opinion?

The NT wasn't even canonized into what we now call "scripture" until a couple hundred years later!

Canonization, if it is a legitimate way to authorize the bible or any part thereof, it only reveals the human nature of the bible. Which makes the bible as man-made as Christianity itself. Those who believe in a NT that didn’t exist until canonization, are denying the existence of the content and what God revealed through Christ in the NT for more than merely a couple hundred years. The authorized canon didn’t actually exist in the West until the Council of Trent. The local councils in the 5th and 6th centuries weren’t authoritative in a complete sense, even though what they claimed about the bible may have been generally accepted. The only thing left is a very man-made bible that has no need of a real supernatural authority to exist. Any more than the Koran of Islam or the writings of Buddhism. Or closer to the Christian home, the Book of Mormon of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

Christians never seem to take into account the Spiritual “gifts†when they talk about whatever era they choose to believe is the era of NT canonization. That the existence of the content of the NT was prior to any such era of canonization. All of it in written form before the first century ended, if the consensus of modern scholarship is any indication. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts mentions no author. The authors are Traditional. They could easily be pseudo-texts written later by other than whom the authors attributed to them. I may be wrong, but I don’t think even the Liberals would go along with that.

While I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I don't need Evangelicalism to tell me that.... Beautiful flowers or laughing children can inspire people. God inspired most of the Bible in the same way: He didn't dictate it, Revelation being one very notable exception.

Not only a cultural bible, a man-made bible as well. That’s all a bible that’s inspired by thoughts of God would be. To say that you believe the bible is inspired is meaningless to anyone but yourself in light of your understanding of inspiration. Even to others who have the same understanding of inspiration as yourself. It makes the bible subjective and susceptible to whatever meaning the individual wishes to give it.

Let me put it this way, and try not to take offense. For me to see the bible in the same light you do, I would have to become an Atheist and get it over with. Because that’s the only venue your view of inspiration would make sense to me. Now, I’m trying to understand the idea of a cultural bible. That’s hard enough for me to fathom from the view of one who still believes the bible is much more than a man-made collection of man-made writings. But that the bible is also inspired in the sense of secular poetry that happens to be considering the supernatural, that’s just totally unfathomable except from the point of view of one who doesn’t believe the supernatural actually exists. Certainly not compatible with the idea that “The Bible is God's greatest "love letter" to mankind†(your own words).

You know, you sound a lot like me when I first became a former Christian. Still stuck between two different points of view. And that can create a lot of dichotomies until things get resolved.

There are some things I simply don't see eye-to-eye with Evangelicalism over anymore; Dispensationalism and Futurism being two of its more untenable doctrines.

Well, at least we agree on something. No doubt I go even further than you when I say I don’t hold to the Protestant idea of bible alone, nor the Protestant idea of Justification by faith alone. That’s assuming you started out in Protestantism like I did.

Proper application is achieved by sound hermeneutics and exegesis, not simply accepting everything in it as written to us! That's a recipe for disaster!

Surely you realize that what is considered “sound hermeneutics and exegesis†is the basis for every different view in Christianity. Including that the meaning of that phrase changes depending on who you talk to.

Likewise, "Paul's letters and all the other scriptures" does not confer equivalence to Paul's letters with "all the other scriptures", especially when every other instance of the word "scriptures" in the New Testament refers solely to the Law and Prophets, as the NT canon didn't even exist at the time Christ and the apostles were referring to "scripture."

If the NT isn’t Scripture, then why should we believe what it says about the OT? Or are you saying that the NT didn’t become Scripture until it was Canonized (usually considered sometime in the late 5th or early 6th century, depending on which local Council is called the authority)? In which case why should we consider the NT anything more than a compilation of man-made writings by men?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

So a letter written to someone else cannot be inspired? In other words, the test for inspiration means that something written had to be written just to and for you?

The two relevant sections in Paul and Peter refer to the Spirit’s influence. What makes the bible inspired is that influence, not what they or we thought about it. The only way we can properly understand a writing written by such an influence is for us to be under that influence as well. Hence, Paul’s exhortation to walk by the Spirit and not end by the flesh. What the view I present has always contended is that who the bible was initially written to is irrelevant. Through the Spirit the bible is written to whomever Jesus teaches through the Spirit, no matter what the era, no matter who it is. The bible is perpetually a modern writing through the Spirit.

The NT came to be considered "scripture" after it was canonized, a process which began late into the 2nd century AD: more than 100 years after it was written. The scripture of the early church was the Septuagint, because it was written in Greek, the common language of the Roman Empire:

The process of NT canonization didn’t start until much later than the second century. Human canonization merely proves a human bible. Nothing inspired about that.

Do you use the Septuagint or the Hebrew Scriptures? Surely if you wish to fully understand the OT in the same way as the NT writers, you must use the same version of the OT they did. And the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint is rather extensive in some places.

Therefore, it behooves us to read, interpret, and apply them carefully, given the fact that there are cultural issues addressed we simply don't confront, slavery and the eating of meat offered to idols being two of them.

And all you will end up with is the common Christianity problem. An understanding of the bible that is different from everyone else, not because it’s true and what the bible is actually saying, but because it’s your own interpretation of what the bible is saying. The ekklesia are local expressions associated with cities. The interpretations of Christianity say otherwise. And as an interpreter, no doubt so will you. Is the bible correct or the interpretations? Depends on who you talk to isn’t it? Like you’re the only one who interprets and applies the bible carefully.

The influence of Christianity will be upon you until you actually see that interpretation of the bible is no way to understand the bible, no matter how careful you are. An interpretation is just an interpretation, and is meaningless on any other level than an individual level. And people on an individual level, which is how all the denominations started, including the RCC and EO, just don’t understand the bible the same. Does the bible actually have something to say? Surely it does. But so long as what it says is understood by interpretation, what it says will be irrelevant. Only the “careful†interpretations will be relevant.

Paul writes to treat slaves well. For years this was taken by some in the South to mean that Paul condoned slavery, and the Bible was used to justify it.

That’s the power of interpretation for you. All Paul actually says is that if slavery exists within one’s sphere of influence, which it didn’t always even in his time, Masters and slaves should treat each other with some respect. Interpretations for and against slavery have nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul said. Personally, I think that those who work 9 to 5 are under a form of slavery. And what Paul says about slavery applies to them. Hard for freedom loving Americans to handle that one. I’ve heard about every cock n bull interpretation against that idea that exists.

Understanding and applying the Bible is not an "all or nothing" proposition. It's much more complicated - and interesting - than that.

No doubt it is to one who revels in their own ability to interpret.

I do consider them scripture because the church considers them scripture, and has since the Council of Trent.

How Roman Catholic of you. Not that “the Church†even exists to consider them Scripture, or authoritatively say they are. The only authority that can declare anything biblical scripture is God. Where does he say the bible is Scripture? Guess what? According to how you view Scripture, he never does.

Paul did not consider his own letters scripture in the sense that the apostles - all Jews - viewed scripture, applying that term specifically to the Law and Prophets (what we call the Old Testament today.) Paul did not consider his own letters scripture in the sense that the apostles - all Jews - viewed scripture, applying that term specifically to the Law and Prophets (what we call the Old Testament today.)
So when Paul writes "all scripture", he's not lumping his letters in with the writings of Moses, Isaiah, David, or Daniel.

If he wrote thinking that way, we have no business believing anything he has to say. Not to the point of basing our whole life on it. Because it’s all just his own opinion. An opinion derived from his own thinking about God and the OT. And in my opinion, if that’s really all it is, then why should I care what he said? And really why should we think the rest of the bible is anything more?

Clear enough?

Too much so. I really don’t understand why you would want to bother yourself with the bible at all, considering what you think of it.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Smaller

Indeed. Another logical fallacy that is very often applied to theological understandings is that scripture is written 'only to mankind.'
That is not a factual case. Satan quoted scripture to Jesus and Jesus countered scripture to Satan.
God in Christ often addressed His Words to demonic entities and Satan, and did so primarily 'in man.'
Few theological understandings even contain this factor, yet it is one of thee primary teachings of Jesus about what happens 'where Word' is sown (in people.)

That Satan has the ability to read the bible and understand it, apparently better than most Christians, doesn’t mean it’s addressed to that element. The emphasis of the bible is on mankind. And the part about that element is for the benefit of mankind, not the demons who have no way of applying it to themselves. Surely they already know their end. As James points out when he says,

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that— and shudder.
(NIV)

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Since 'all' have sin as a 'present tense' matter and sin is of the devil, at the point above where the fact Jesus taught transpires, it is no longer 'just and only' the PERSON that Word is dealing with.
A believer can hear every damning Word in the text and every Word condemning Satan and devils to wrath and ultimately to destruction and it would apply to the TEMPTER in our hearts.
The 'fact' is also why believers get so ridiculously divided.

Since I believe that the only reference to true believers is here,

Mark 4:20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop— thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."
(NIV)

What you said really has no meaning for me.

Note the English phrase “accept it†that translates the Greek word “paradechomai†that means literally “to take nearâ€. That’s the one thing that didn’t happen to any of the other hearers of the word. And it is the important difference between one who is in Christ and one who is not. At any one moment there may be a lot of hearers. But only those who take what is heard to themselves are the ones who have eternal life.

There is good ground and not so good ground. Any one who has had any experience in tilling the soil knows that the good ground is prepared and cultivated to receive the living seed. The rest is not.

This parable isn’t quite true to real life in the sense that seed sown in those other areas might actually result in plants that yield fruit. In Jesus’ parable, every seed sown meets a definite end. And that’s the point of this parable.

FC

 

[smaller]

The claims that any actual physical event/depiction that transpired then is irrelevant to current believers isn't true, nor can it be.

Jesus Own Statement was that man shall live by EVERY WORD of God. It is not logical or reasonable then to toss a single jot or tittle.

The difficulty then transitions to 'understandings.' In order to 'find Life' in every Word of God that automatically transitions off natural/physical events, events of 'culture' or any other particular filter if the result is to toss out any jot or tittle.

Jesus' Word is The Measure of this fact. If one can't find LIFE in every Word of God, whatever methodology is used or employed is faulty by end equation in comparison to Jesus' Words.

Paul laid out a very simple principle that is rock solid in this regard. I learned it many years ago in the charismatic arena, though saw the method sorely abused.

It's called 'first the natural then the spiritual.' The understanding is found in 1 Corinthians 15.

The people of Israel resulting in the birth of Jesus Christ is the easiest observable fact of this general principle. Israel as a unit of people were 'natural' and the results of their lineage resulted in The Perfect Word in flesh Spiritual. Jesus is the culmination of this matter through their lineage, but first, there was a 'natural' body.

This principle Paul taught is solid. Once applied, it shows up everywhere in the text in many ways.

There are also 'reverse' principles. For example, Jesus again stated 'a fact' that where the Word is sown, Satan enters hearts to steal, etc etc. You all know me well enough by now to know I quote His Words in this matter 'as a fact' often. And if one observes the text, one can often observe the arousing and appearance of the 'resistors' immediately/shortly after a spiritual/Word of God event has been deployed. Again, a repeating and consistent principle that can be observed in the Word. And even today in real life, if ones ear has been tuned.

Anyone who tosses one jot or tittle of Gods Words is to me, automatically into the trashbin with their views. They don't and can't compute when they are factually and openly 'in denial.'

To be shown validity and understandings, one can not start out from a point of elimination of Word. Doesn't work that way. If you claim 'faith' then you claim every Word given of God. No Word denier will be 'approved' nor will such be given legitimate understandings.

God again automatically rolls such viewers into a place called imagination worship which is the ultimate form of idolatry and captivity of the heart. Such are their own little god in their own little world.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Among Word disciples, such will practice 'communally' breaking/dividing the Word of God resulting in a stream of LIFE and TRUTH.

s

 

[Free]

If I say, "Noah took his family on the ark along with all the other animals" does that mean Noah's family was nothing more than a bunch of animals or that the animals were all part of Noah's family?

Or if I say "the team mascot - a bulldog - boarded the bus with all the other players", does that mean all the other players are bulldogs, or that the mascot is a player?

You have to be careful with the language here.

Yes, you do have to be careful with language. Your analogies fail because you are comparing different things. Noah's family were not animals but your analogy actually does imply that they were. Same with the mascot--your analogy would actually imply that the mascot was a player.

If, however, we compare like things, which is what Peter is doing, then my point stands. Peter is comparing writings concerning doctrinal matters with writings concerning doctrinal matters. They are already in the same category, the same class of things. He is not comparing doctrinal writings with a grocery list.

Likewise, "Paul's letters and all the other scriptures" does not confer equivalence to Paul's letters with "all the other scriptures", especially when every other instance of the word "scriptures" in the New Testament refers solely to the Law and Prophets, as the NT canon didn't even exist at the time Christ and the apostles were referring to "scripture."

Peter's statement puts Paul's letters on par with the OT. The language does not allow it to be otherwise. That "every other instance of the word "scriptures" may refer solely to the OT strengthens Peter's point.

This shouldn't even be an issue. At all.

In one sense I agree. The NT is Scripture and always has been. In another sense, the fact that someone would question that, makes it a serious issue.

And - for the record - please look at the greetings of the letters Paul wrote and tell me how many of them were addressed to you by name.

How many books of the OT were addressed to you by name, or how many were addressed to Gentiles? Completely irrelevant.

So a letter written to someone else cannot be inspired? In other words, the test for inspiration means that something written had to be written just to and for you?

Please, by all means, read the letter to Philemon and let me know how much of it is written just for you. It must be if it's inspired, yes?

It seems you completely missed my point. This has nothing to do with who the letters are written to. The point is that if they are inspired, they're Scripture. It is up to you to explain the inconsistency in your position of believing the letters aren't Scripture but are inspired.

The early Church considered them Scripture. They were in circulation and widely accepted, which is why they were included in canon. Not the other way around as you would have us believe.

 

[jasoncran]

note to all.

the way the nt was put together and accepted was done similiar to way the tanach was put together.

different men in the sanhedrin as time went on and things happend and were recorded added them books. king david was such a man.

with the nt it was by oral tradition as each book could be checked with the oral recalling of the events for accuracy. meaning if the dispicles lied the whole church would know and rebuke them for that.

that too is a jewish thing. oral traditions is something i may get into im more depth, the torah has both aspects too it as moses gave oral commandments then wrote them down.

 

[westtexas]

You do know that when Paul wrote this...

{16} All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; {17} so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

He was not referring to his own letters as scripture, don't you?

I disagree. This verse in the KJV reads "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,.....". Back up in this same chapter to verse 10 and it reads "But thou hast fully known my doctrine....". I'm sure that you'll agree that the only way to establish a biblical doctrine is through scripture. Agreed? This epistle (2 Timothy) would have been the last one written by Paul. Some of his epistles would have been in circulation in the church for close to 20 years. Through these epistles the doctrine of the early church was established. Put this alongside the verse Free has quoted (2 Peter 3:15-16) and I think you'll find that Paul, Peter and the early church considered Pauls writings as scripture, and not merely as letters, as you believe.
Westtexas

 

[Former Christian]

WestTexas

Going back even farther, Paul is speaking about how people will act in the last days. No matter how those last days are viewed. (vss. 1-9) And then he shows a contrast beginning in vs. 10. The first thing he mentions is his own teaching and way of life. And then shows how that is backed up by the teaching of the OT. So that the two are virtually identical. Paul does seem to be saying that there is no difference between what Timothy learned through him and what he learned through the OT that he has been familiar with since a child. And that would itself make Paul in that regard, his teaching, to be Scripture as much as the OT itself. And going back even farther, it must be noticed that in both of these letters, Paul speaks as one with authority, not as one just giving his own opinion. And if Paul wasn’t knowingly writing something equal to the OT, one would have to say that what Paul said is just his own opinion and we’re hearing and seeing the wrong writings.

And what has Canonization by men who think too much of their own authority have to do with this? Nothing at all, near as I can tell.

FC

 

[westtexas]

Outstanding post FC. I agree.
Westtexas

 

[Stormcrow]

The idea of which makes the bible none of our business, and us interlopers to think that it is our business.

Nonsense. There are letters from the Civil War that still exist today that were not written for you and me, yet we can learn from them.

We’re reading mail that isn’t ours and trying to apply that which doesn’t belong to us, to ourselves.

Some things Paul wrote don't apply to us, just as the Law of Moses does not apply to us!

That's exactly the problem with the view many of you take to this issue: you say it's all "written to us" and then try to apply cultural norms and standards anachronistically! It's an absolutely ridiculous approach to any historical writing that anyone with an ounce of common sense would reject out of hand!

Yet here you all are arguing in favor of the absurd anyway!

Go figure.

As to the rest, I don't have the time or energy to deal with this right now. In the last 2 weeks, I've lost two friends and - strangely enough - don't have the fight in me right now to deal with all of you.

Declare yourselves victorious if it makes you, WestTexas, Free, and all the others feel better. I simply don't care.