This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
It isn't a "drive-by." I was stating the fact that you are fallaciously begging the question by presuming the very definition of "word of God" that you're concluding. There simply is no biblical basis to understand that "word of God" in the Bible actually refers to the Bible. Again, you haven't refuted anything.
Now that is a violation of the ToS. Any more such statements towards anyone or other violations of the ToS and you'll be removed from this discussion.
Which version you read do not matter because no version is perfect IMO.
I said that about drive by shooters, murderers. That violates the TOS? Clearly, moderation isn't your forte.
www.christianforums.com
To some extent I agree, all the versions agree on essentials. But it is inconsistent I have faith God saved me from eternal death utilizing His Word the Bible to accomplish this, but didn't prevent serious corruption of His Word.What's missing from your Bible?
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative. So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the...
God’s message is preserved despite efforts to corrupt and change it. I can take the corrupt New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation.
Using the accepted definition of a word or phrase isn't begging the question. And I documented where oral tradition became scripture, hence it is the Word of God even according to Catholic premises.
The NWT was my first Bible, read it cover to cover. I like it to some degree, but not the corruption of John 1:1, 3 etc. However, I came to Christ via the KJV with the help of a Baptist preacher.
When we allow traditional teachings to take place over truth then we fall to man's interpretation falling away from allowing the Holy Spirit teach us all truths. We also have to remember the money making bandwagon of man's doctrines over that of the Doctrines of Christ does cause a great falling away from truth. Majority rule teachings lead others to fall away from truth as the word of God is not a majority rule word, nor is it socially acceptable.miamited
Well said! I think so much of Christianity today is buried underneath thousands of years of tradition and debates and splits over quibbles and squabbles about words like you have said. If I'm guilty of anything it's for erring on the side of the minimalist approach that wants to bypass all that tradition and even debates on the canon of Scripture and go back to the comparative simplicity of the first century church; before we had all these debates; before we have all the schisms; even before we had the Bible, which didn't come until ~300 years later.
I find it a breath of fresh air. I also find it improves my hermeneutics and is more accurate when we continually remind ourselves that we must interpret in the proper first century context of the time. Too often interpretation is done through the lens of a particular tradition, which then leads to misinterpretation and accusations against others of blasphemy when that interpretive lens is forgotten.
For example, in the present case it can sound blasphemous for me to point out that the Bible doesn't expressly teach that it (today's Bible) is the Word of God. That sounds so bad even to the one saying it (me! As I feel the indictment of my own Protestant tradition condemning me). It is difficult to separate the factual statement from what seems the natural emotional reaction ("You are saying the Bible's not authoritative!")---when, no, that is not what I'm saying. It IS authoritative. But that still doesn't change the fact that the proof texts Protestants (of my own tradition) use to support doctrines of Scripture are misuses of Scripture, itself.
I'm not sure how to point that out without being misunderstood or subjecting myself to such accusations. But for what's it's worth I find it refreshing and eye opening when we read the Bible in the way that it was meant to be understood.
Case in point, I just did a search on "the word" in the New Testament (not including the gospels; although that would add to the number), and out of the 90 or so verses in Acts-Revelation (I forget the exact amount), I discovered that in around 80 of those verses "the word," "the word of God," etc. refers to the gospel message that was preached (*maybe I should do a separate post on this). All my years growing up I would always read those verses as meaning "the Bible" (which has significant ramifications for one's theology!).
Now I see the New Testament in a whole new light. The gospel message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection was "the word" and "the word of God" to the apostles (*who did not anticipate the later Bible, but believed the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and possibly would happen in their lifetime). They were all about the gospel and nothing but the gospel ("For I resolved to know nothing but Christ crucified"). And *everything* depended on, centered in, and revolved around the gospel message. So, yes, I'm guilty of being a minimalist, but I figure I can't go wrong if I follow Paul's lead.
Stop misrepresent what others have said and quit putting words in others mouth or you will be banned from this thread. Please take this as a warning.Please make it crystal clear. You don't believe the "gospel message" is in the bible?
Agreed
Yes, a voice of reason! Thank you. As you said, context is everything and there is no 'law of self-contradiction' at play here for the simple fact that words are used to mean different things all the time in languages, and including in the Bible.
Thumbs up on your last paragraph!
I have to agree
While there is disagreement, I consider 2 Tim 3:16-17 as applying to the NT. The reasons are what Peter says about Paul's writings, putting them on equal footing with the OT:
2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter and was probably written late first century to early second century. It's always been one of the disputed books in Church history.
You're right and explain it very well.2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter and was probably written late first century to early second century. It's always been one of the disputed books in Church history.
But even ignoring that we have to remember that we have the benefit of cross checking all the various books of the New Testament against each other, while the writers weren't necessarily aware of each other's letters.
And even if 2 Peter was written by Peter and recognized Paul's letters as on the level of Scripture, there's no evidence that Paul considered his writings to be so. It would be against Paul's self deprecating character to self promote his own writings that way as being on par with Scripture and there is no indication in the NT that he does so; including 2 Timothy.
So on balance 2 Timothy 3.16-17 is referring to the OT (At the least, 2 Timothy certainly can't be referring to itself and including the letter of 2 Timothy itself as part of the sacred Scriptures to which it refers).
And regarding the common argument about the "worker due his wage," Paul can't be quoting Luke's gospel, because it probably didn't yet exist. Instead, Paul is most likely quoting a well-known oral tradition going back to Jesus; quoting Jesus's own words, which were obviously accepted as the words of the Lord, not because they are contained in a book but because the Lord Jesus said them. It's also possible to read it parenthetically as Scripture says "don't muzzle the ox" and the worker is worthy his wage.
Finally, even if we dismiss all my points above for sake of argument it still doesn't solve the problem that there is no inspired "Table of Contents" that accompanies Scripture to tell us for certain which writings the Scriptures are identifying as rubber-stamping as sacred Scriptures (if for sake of argument the above verses actually show this).
"All Scripture is God-breathed" but what does that include? Many second century Christians accepted works like 1 Enoch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. While other Christians rejected 2 Peter, and Jude, and Hebrews, and Revelation, and James (which no one even mentioned until the third century). The book of Jude and 2 Peter themselves also rely on and/or quote Jewish pseudopigrapha like 1 Enoch and the Ascension/Assumption of Moses. Jude quotes 1 Enoch as an example of end time prophetic fulfillment.
So, again, Scripture itself does not provide us with clear guidance regarding what constitutes Scripture (which is my overall point). We can only appeal to canonization outside of the Bible, which is equally debated and a matter of dispute.
BUT the good news is none of it obscures the Good News gospel message