Are you a “True Worshipper”?

[Cnkw3]

The Bible actually explicitly states the word of God is not confined to Scripture alone. For example, St. Luke opens his Gospel stated what he is putting down was first received orally. Here are a few other examples stating the word of God is not confined to the written word:

1 Thessalonians 2:23 ---> And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Did this word they heard come from divinely inspired apostles or the pope?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ---> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

These “traditions”? Did they come from the apostles who were divinely inspired and endowed with the miraculous or did it come from some other source like the pope?

Luke 10:16 ---> Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Luke 10:1-3
What you are referring to is known as the limited commission and we see that JESUS, not the pope, specifically sent out select men to preach to ONLY the jews. Has Jesus specifically and directly appointed ANYBODY today? NO and NO again!

Hebrews 13:7 ---> Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you...

Again. I can speak the word of God to you today, but only if I speak what is written. Even Jesus fought back the devil with… “IT IS WRITTEN”.
We are commanded this…
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;
1 Peter 4:11
And again, the ONLY place we have the “oracles of God” are through the inspired word he has left us.
the church is also commanded to do this…
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1 Corinthians 4:6

The Scriptures clearly teach the word of God was spoken, heard and taught by word of mouth. Hence it is not confined to the written alone.

Was the NT always written down in the early church? Did Peter in acts 2 read off his first gospel sermon? No! Then it goes without saying that in the early days of the church the truth of God was spread orally without the written word of the NT. Nobody disputes that. And even today when someone preaches what is written down then of course the word is coming through the mouth. The difference is that today there is NO NEW revelation being distributed orally. The “truth” of God TODAY ONLY comes through the written word given us by divinely inspired men. There are NO divinely inspired men today. We know this because those in the first century could back it up with the miraculous. That does not happen today so we know they are not inspired of God.

 

[Mungo]

You still wont answer my question. we both agree that truth comes from God. I take the position that this “truth” from God ONLY comes to us through the written word of the Bible that God gave us. You say…no it doesn’t.
So please tell me….Where else do I get Gods word of truth from?

I've told you already.
God's revelation was given to the apostles.
Not all of it was written down and canonised.
Some was written down by the apostles themselves.
Some was written down by those they passed it on to.

Walpole has shown you that Scripture itself teaches that not all was written down, but was passed on orally

The NT was finished and distributed in the first century. We know that because churches were instructed to pass these letters on to other churches.
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16
we also know that the book of revelation was sent to the seven churches in Asia so no the Catholic Church didnt finalize the Bible and determine what should be accepted. These letters had been distributed for years before there was any Roman Catholic Church.
So, go ahead and say it…the pope is an inspired source of Gods word. The Catholic Church can make up whatever they want and call it….”Gods truth”.

There was much written but it took centuries before the NT was agreed and canonised.
Some was accepted readily. Some was disputed for a long time.

Apologist Dave Armstrong has done a great job showimng how various texts were gradually accepted - using only Protestant sources.
Final acceptance and canonisation only happened in the 4th century

The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes

Summary of the evidences of late acceptance of many New Testament books, and acceptance by important people of many books not in the canon as we know it.

www.patheos.com

 

[Mungo]

The NT was finished and distributed in the first century. We know that because churches were instructed to pass these letters on to other churches.
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16
we also know that the book of revelation was sent to the seven churches in Asia so no the Catholic Church didnt finalize the Bible and determine what should be accepted. These letters had been distributed for years before there was any Roman Catholic Church.
So, go ahead and say it…the pope is an inspired source of Gods word. The Catholic Church can make up whatever they want and call it….”Gods truth”.

So Paul instructed the Collosians to send the letter to the Loadocieans.
He doesn't say send it anywhere else.
Nor does that imply that all letters or writing were distributed to everyone.

Same with John. He sent it to the seven churches in Asia. Doesn't say he sent them anywhere else

And you haven't answered my question:
When was the NT finalised and by whom?

 

[Cnkw3]

I've told you already.
God's revelation was given to the apostles.
Not all of it was written down and canonised.

First of all “canonised” is a catholic term meaning the Catholic Church agrees on something. I don’t agree with your terminology. I believe the NT was accepted LONG before “canonizing”.
What parts weren’t written down? All of the NT letters have a date completed in the first century. You can look it up. Extending from 44-96 AD. These letters were passed around from church to church.

Some was written down by the apostles themselves.
Some was written down by those they passed it on to.

Who are these….”those they passed it on to”. You are speaking in generalities. No specifics what so ever. You, for some reason, don’t want to answer this question. Why don’t you just say it…..The pope is inspired!
This general speaking tells me you are making it up.

Walpole has shown you that Scripture itself teaches that not all was written down, but was passed on orally

Yes. And i answered him thoroughly. You must not have read it. If you want to break my post down explaining how it is wrong feel free to do so.

There was much written but it took centuries before the NT was agreed and canonised.
Some was accepted readily. Some was disputed for a long time.

I don’t think so. The so called “church fathers” wrote in the late first century into the second century. They quoted so much of the NT that if we lost the NT we could reconstruct all but a very small percentage just from their quotes. This is proof that these letters had been disseminated to the churches long before your Catholic councils.

Apologist Dave Armstrong has done a great job showimng how various texts were gradually accepted - using only Protestant sources.
Final acceptance and canonisation only happened in the 4th century

The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes

Summary of the evidences of late acceptance of many New Testament books, and acceptance by important people of many books not in the canon as we know it.

www.patheos.com

Do I care what some man who was not divinely inspired has to say about the Bible?
Do you feel we don’t have everything God wants us to know in the 66 books we have? We must need the Pope to give us what we are lacking. Where would we be without pope Francis. HaHa

 

[Cnkw3]

So Paul instructed the Collosians to send the letter to the Loadocieans.
He doesn't say send it anywhere else.
Nor does that imply that all letters or writing were distributed to everyone.

Of course it does. It proves that these letters were shared. Paul made this commandment..
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:2
you cant do this without sharing information. I’m amazed that you would think these churches hoarded christian information against clear Bible teaching that the word was to go everywhere. Well maybe im not surprised. wasn’t it the Catholics that chained the Bible to the pulpit so the average disciple couldn’t read it and find out how corrupt the catholic system is?

Same with John. He sent it to the seven churches in Asia. Doesn't say he sent them anywhere else

again. You don’t think much of Christian’s do you? I believe the letter of revelation is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system in AD 70. We are told that not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. How is that if only a couple of churches hoarded this prophetic information?

And you haven't answered my question:
When was the NT finalised and by whom?

I told you. EVERY SINGLE letter was finished in the first century. You can look it up. That makes them ”FINAL“.
If the so called “church” fathers knew of this information; how did they get it? Since nobody shared information.

According to you the churches that initially received these letters hoarded them and wouldn’t share with anybody. Well what about the letters not written to a specific church? Who got those letters? Who hoarded those writings? Because, according to you, NOBODY shared inspired documents with anybody. What you are saying is that NOBODY had the NT which would mean did not have the gospel of Jesus Christ until 400 years after Jesus died and commanded the great commission. You think very little of God and his ability to get his info out.

 

[Mungo]

Of course it does. It proves that these letters were shared. Paul made this commandment..
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:2

And they taught orally. The word was preached.
Paul says pass on what you HEARD from me, not the letters I wrote.
Paul writes to the Romans
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
Nothing about them reading letters.

you cant do this without sharing information. I’m amazed that you would think these churches hoarded christian information against clear Bible teaching that the word was to go everywhere. Well maybe im not surprised. wasn’t it the Catholics that chained the Bible to the pulpit so the average disciple couldn’t read it and find out how corrupt the catholic system is?

They did share information. They preached what they heard.
Paul preached to people. He didn't hand out gospel tracts.
Paul wrote letters correcting false ideas that had arisen. He didn't write a book, of systematic theology to be handed out.

again. You don’t think much of Christian’s do you? I believe the letter of revelation is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system in AD 70. We are told that not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. How is that if only a couple of churches hoarded this prophetic information?

I told you. EVERY SINGLE letter was finished in the first century. You can look it up. That makes them ”FINAL“.
If the so called “church” fathers knew of this information; how did they get it? Since nobody shared information.

According to you the churches that initially received these letters hoarded them and wouldn’t share with anybody. Well what about the letters not written to a specific church? Who got those letters? Who hoarded those writings? Because, according to you, NOBODY shared inspired documents with anybody. What you are saying is that NOBODY had the NT which would mean did not have the gospel of Jesus Christ until 400 years after Jesus died and commanded the great commission. You think very little of God and his ability to get his info out.

The texts that were finally gathered and canonised may have been written in the first century but that did not mean they were universally known and accepted as scripture then.
Follow the link I gave and read it.

You still haven't answered my question:
When was the NT finalised and by whom?

The NT was finalised when it was defined and accepted.

 

[Cnkw3]

And they taught orally. The word was preached.
Paul says pass on what you HEARD from me, not the letters I wrote.
Paul writes to the Romans
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
Nothing about them reading letters.

This is becoming a joke now! Paul specifically said….
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
On many occasions Paul instructed to obey the words of the epistle. you want another one?
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
And you really think “hearing” and “preaching” has nothing to do with the written word? HaHaha! Where did you learn this stuff?

They did share information. They preached what they heard.
Paul preached to people. He didn't hand out gospel tracts.

Hahah. Gospel tracts? What do you think these letters he handed out were? Current events newspapers? If they didnt help a christian be a faithful christian then what did they do? Sounds like a tract to me.

Paul wrote letters correcting false ideas that had arisen. He didn't write a book, of systematic theology to be handed out.

And yet Seminaries around the world use his letters in order to teach their seminary students. I can tell you don’t think much of the 27 letters we have in the Bible. I think its funny you put that “all scripture quotes are from RSV”. How many replies now and not one scripture reference? I guess i should expect this from someone who thinks this little of the written word.

The texts that were finally gathered and canonised may have been written in the first century but that did not mean they were universally known and accepted as scripture then.
Follow the link I gave and read it.

So the so called “church fathers“ didnt “accept” these letters as authoritative? Could have fooled me.

You still haven't answered my question:
When was the NT finalised and by whom?

The NT was finalised when it was defined and accepted.

Finalized? Accepted? So the early church never had a finalized NT through the letters given them?
What did Jude say…
Contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.
Oh yeah and by the way…you wont know what faith that is until 350 years later when some stuck up old men come together and agree what you should have and that would include the apocrypha which now you cannot find in any respectable modern day version.
So If I write a letter and send it to someone giving them instructions….at what point is that letter “finalized”? Does some other man have to come along and put their stamp of approval on it in order for it to be legit? You answer that and you will have your answer to the above question. Why would a letter from Paul need some uninspired man 350 years later say….ok we can accept that one.

 

[Mungo]

This is becoming a joke now! Paul specifically said….
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
On many occasions Paul instructed to obey the words of the epistle. you want another one?
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
And you really think “hearing” and “preaching” has nothing to do with the written word? HaHaha! Where did you learn this stuff?

You really are dodging the issues.
Paul said Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Paul said our epistle - single. One epistle. Paul didn't mention other epistles or gospels. You are making the fatal mistake of extrapolating from one item to all items.

Hahah. Gospel tracts? What do you think these letters he handed out were? Current events newspapers? If they didnt help a christian be a faithful christian then what did they do? Sounds like a tract to me.

Where does Paul mention other letters, or the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

And yet Seminaries around the world use his letters in order to teach their seminary students. I can tell you don’t think much of the 27 letters we have in the Bible. I think its funny you put that “all scripture quotes are from RSV”. How many replies now and not one scripture reference? I guess i should expect this from someone who thinks this little of the written word.

You can't preach the whole of Jesus' teaching from Paul's epistles.

So the so called “church fathers“ didnt “accept” these letters as authoritative? Could have fooled me.

Then you are fooled.

Finalized? Accepted? So the early church never had a finalized NT through the letters given them?
What did Jude say…
Contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Delivered how?
By preaching. The word of faith was delivered orally.
Just consider the start of Luke's gospel (vs 3&4- " it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

Theophilus was taught orally, not by reading. The writing came later.

Oh yeah and by the way…you wont know what faith that is until 350 years later when some stuck up old men come together and agree what you should have and that would include the apocrypha which now you cannot find in any respectable modern day version.
So If I write a letter and send it to someone giving them instructions….at what point is that letter “finalized”? Does some other man have to come along and put their stamp of approval on it in order for it to be legit? You answer that and you will have your answer to the above question. Why would a letter from Paul need some uninspired man 350 years later say….ok we can accept that one.

How do you know what writings were inspired and what were not.
Whose decision do you accept or have you read all the possible writings ans made you own decision?
There were many writings that some considered inspired and others didn't. Some group had to make a decision as what to canonise.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Lol! The stupidity of arguing " Oral Tradition" is , not one pope, Bishop , priest could receive and speak Orally what they have not read. You all should know once the last person gets the message spoken - blah, blah, blah, pass it on it changes. Hence, why that which was spoken was written so the next recipient could know and speak and pass it down. Haven't heard one religious leader OFF the cuff speak something Paul said simply by way of channeling Paul, if they can it still will not contradict the written word . If one speaks by revelation it still will not contradicting the written word. That is why only foolish men listen to Mungo jumbo. Oral Tradition simply means orally conveying the traditions left to us in the written word. Period. Father-in-laws love speaking about oral tradition in order to indoctrinate with doublespeak those things which divide. The Freemasons love it. With infiltration, they rest upon that bunk so they can feed it to the masses by way of denominations and add things which cannot be substantiated by the written law of God.

 

[God Is My Judge]

If people want to know God, read the Bible. If you don't want to be deceived simply respect all the saints of the bible. Don't bad mouth any. Simply profess Christ, walk away from assemblies who are under government dictates. They don't own God's church. Walk away from church leaders who tell you to serve a corrupt government. You are not to obey a government that tells you to contradict the traditions left us in the scriptures. Being law abiding does not mean God defying. God does not accept or condone homosexuality or any kind of sexual perversion , scripture says come before the Lord unmasked, reject lying shepherds, love the family, avoid being corrupted by this world and mungo jumbo. Walk away from churches that teach " you cannot know Christ personally" or tell you, you must obey a guy called pope when he tells you to listen to his version of oral tradition. Be faithful amidst harlots, throw the whores aside and walk with Christ.

 

[God Is My Judge]

As a baptized, born again believer you can celebrate the Lord's supper in your own home. Make unleavened whole wheat bread and get a red wine you like. You can baptize anyone who wants to share in the House of God, a Christian is not under denominational restraints. You love Christ ? Go forth and continue the tradition left us by the apostles. Continue in their order through the succession of time. Whether you clearly get the meaning of apostle or not you know what love means -"and the greatest of these is love! "Love truth, the scriptures are Truth. Live your faith through action! Be not confused by mad shepherds, you be a good shepherd. " You love Me Peter, feed my flock" follow Cepha's lead, something that Jorge for sure is not doing! That Shebna! In time of major change or danger a woman is sent as shepherdess, the times are perilous, a time for Rachels- Shepherdess, Judiths, Ruths , Esthers and Marys . You don't get why this or that prayer is recited, you don't get the whole veneration of saints thing, then simply honor their teachings and their labor, for they did it for you! Veneration does not mean only words but actions which supports theirs. Speak highly of them for their work and know there is no doctrine in the gospels which bashes Mary or any saint. Nor is there any doctrine that states, condenm one who honors the saints a lot. You want to honor Mary " Do whatever He tells you" honor Her Son. And He gave the commandments - honor thy mother and father. Simply love one another. Not complicated- speak love of all the household. Tell the haters keep walking, I'm not talking to you anymore and be at peace among yourselves for love of one another is the peace of God. Kick the dividers in their collective backsides and say Ciao! Arrivederci! Anyone come before you denying the divinity of Christ invite him not into the house. Christ is God, remember that and be sure to let the world know that. Throw the haters outside where they belong. Stay in love, for perfect love drives out fear!

 

[God Is My Judge]

You really are dodging the issues.
Paul said Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Paul said our epistle - single. One epistle. Paul didn't mention other epistles or gospels. You are making the fatal mistake of extrapolating from one item to all items.


Where does Paul mention other letters, or the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?



You can't preach the whole of Jesus' teaching from Paul's epistles.

Then you are fooled.


Delivered how?
By preaching. The word of faith was delivered orally.
Just consider the start of Luke's gospel (vs 3&4- " it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

Theophilus was taught orally, not by reading. The writing came later.


How do you know what writings were inspired and what were not.
Whose decision do you accept or have you read all the possible writings ans made you own decision?
There were many writings that some considered inspired and others didn't. Some group had to make a decision as what to canonise.

"You really are dodging the issues.
Paul said Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Paul said our epistle - single. One epistle. Paul didn't mention other epistles or gospels. You are making the fatal mistake of extrapolating from one item to all items."

This is simply more mungo jumbo.
Epistle: a letter:

• a poem or other literary work in the form of a letter or series of letters.
• a book of the New Testament in the form of a letter from an Apostle:

 

[Mungo]

Cnkw3
here is a simple question for you. Please try and give a simple answer.

How do you know the Letter To The Hebrews is the inspired word of God?

 

[God Is My Judge]

Hebrews 11: Faith and Assurance

1Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. 2This is why the ancients were commended.

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Seems Hebrews gives the answer as to who inspired the Letter To The Hebrews.

 

[Cnkw3]

You really are dodging the issues.
Paul said Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Paul said our epistle - single. One epistle. Paul didn't mention other epistles or gospels. You are making the fatal mistake of extrapolating from one item to all items.


Where does Paul mention other letters, or the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?



You can't preach the whole of Jesus' teaching from Paul's epistles.

Then you are fooled.


Delivered how?
By preaching. The word of faith was delivered orally.
Just consider the start of Luke's gospel (vs 3&4- " it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

Theophilus was taught orally, not by reading. The writing came later.


How do you know what writings were inspired and what were not.
Whose decision do you accept or have you read all the possible writings ans made you own decision?
There were many writings that some considered inspired and others didn't. Some group had to make a decision as what to canonise.

I get it. Ive had these same discussions in the past. You don’t care for the Bible because it contradicts everything about Catholicism. You Catholics can decide whatever you want is truth. You still have not and will not answer my question. Who can I go to today for “oral” truth? Since I cant go to the Bible.

 

[Cnkw3]

Cnkw3
here is a simple question for you. Please try and give a simple answer.

How do you know the Letter To The Hebrews is the inspired word of God?

I’m going to do for you what you wont do for me.

For the same reason I believe the other 26 books of the NT.
1. Because the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God.
2. Because from the early days that this letter was written it has not been proven false.
3. Because it does not contradict any of the other letters and Biblical doctrine of Christ.
4. It supports the rest of the NT including the 4 gospel accounts.
5. Because I believe that God has preserved his word through the years and after 2000 years the book of Hebrews is
still with us..
6. Because through the years that the Bible has been translated, not one scholar has ever thought of leaving it out.
There are certain passages that scholars have doubts about and some of them they have taken out so this tells me that if these people feel strongly enough against a Biblical work they will remove it. Just like the apocrypha. It’s not in my Bible or any other one put together in the last 100 years. It’s not an inspired work.

 

[Cnkw3]

Is someone arguing that it does?

Many people do. If you are not one of them then congratulations.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Lol! The stupidity of arguing " Oral Tradition" is , not one pope, Bishop , priest could receive and speak Orally what they have not read. You all should know once the last person gets the message spoken - blah, blah, blah, pass it on it changes. Hence, why that which was spoken was written so the next recipient could know and speak and pass it down. Haven't heard one religious leader OFF the cuff speak something Paul said simply by way of channeling Paul, if they can it still will not contradict the written word . If one speaks by revelation it still will not contradicting the written word. That is why only foolish men listen to Mungo jumbo. Oral Tradition simply means orally conveying the traditions left to us in the written word. Period. Father-in-laws love speaking about oral tradition in order to indoctrinate with doublespeak those things which divide. The Freemasons love it. With infiltration, they rest upon that bunk so they can feed it to the masses by way of denominations and add things which cannot be substantiated by the written law of God.

However, the only ones who speak Orally within the tradition of God -past , present and future are prophets. Like the Two Witnesses.
Tradition-the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
In the tradition maker-the Holy Spirit, we have different ranks of knowledge and since the scriptures are Holy Spirit inspired or breathed, you can bet Oral and Written Tradition are one. A prophet will never contradict the written word of God left to us. Prophets who were commissioned to pen future events, point to a falling away and need to return and the blessing which comes from that. Prophets and apostles are who speak to us Oral Tradition but always too pen their words (From God) down that we not forget what God's people must do and from what we all were delivered from. Reading what the prophets testify of, keeps us from repeating those mistakes.

Brings us to this day in age and the need for the Two Witnesses, they will convict men- be Witnesses against-what they have witnessed. Two prophets are yet to come and both have had their deaths tarried.
To Tarry:
1a: to delay or be tardy in acting or doing ( in the case of the Two Witnesses their deaths were tarried)
b: to linger in expectation : WAIT
2: to abide or stay in or at a place ( Like Enoch and John the beloved apostle- they are the Two Witnesses their deaths were tarried until the return period of Christ. When they come , they will now taste death after they speak the Oral Tradition which upholds the written).

 

[God Is My Judge]

I’m going to do for you what you wont do for me.

For the same reason I believe the other 26 books of the NT.
1. Because the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God.
2. Because from the early days that this letter was written it has not been proven false.
3. Because it does not contradict any of the other letters and Biblical doctrine of Christ.
4. It supports the rest of the NT including the 4 gospel accounts.
5. Because I believe that God has preserved his word through the years and after 2000 years the book of Hebrews is
still with us..
6. Because through the years that the Bible has been translated, not one scholar has ever thought of leaving it out.
There are certain passages that scholars have doubts about and some of them they have taken out so this tells me that if these people feel strongly enough against a Biblical work they will remove it. Just like the apocrypha. It’s not in my Bible or any other one put together in the last 100 years. It’s not an inspired work.

Is The Book of Enoch apocrypha? My bible has 81 books what about your Canon, how many books ?

 

[God Is My Judge]

Who can I go to today for “oral” truth? Since I cant go to the Bible.

Those who speak the eternal gospel. No?