The scandal of the evangelical heart and mind

[Grazer]

Support this doctrine of yours that the words of scripture were not God Breathed. (inspired)

I never said it wasn't, just that its very much a part of the culture within which it was written and that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Grazer]

Perhaps I can add something before I have to get on a train to go home. We can be 99.95% certain we have now was what was originally written. What was written is what God wanted written. The questions that I've been asking for a while are what does that mean and what do we do with it? Welcome to the journey with God

 

[P31Woman]

So Paul used his own writings to say "I got this from the spirit and here's my scriptural support"?

God used Paul to write that the "scripture" not everything Paul and the others wrote was God Breathed.

 

[P31Woman]

Perhaps I can add something before I have to get on a train to go home. We can be 99.95% certain we have now was what was originally written. What was written is what God wanted written. The questions that I've been asking for a while are what does that mean and what do we do with it? Welcome to the journey with God

Good place to start is with the "inspired word" and understanding what that does and does not mean.

 

[Grazer]

Good place to start is with the "inspired word" and understanding what that does and does not mean.

Perhaps you could start a thread on that

 

[P31Woman]

Perhaps you could start a thread on that

Found this.

Book Review: The Bible Among the Myths by John Oswalt

​

We live in an age of reductionism. Most commonly this comes through the use of the word just. Reductionists say, “the human mind is just a complex system of matter” or “morality is just an evolutionary byproduct for group survival.[1]” In biblical studies, it usually takes the form of, “The Genesis narratives are just another Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) myth.”

Post-evangelicals today regularly use such arguments. At the popular level, writers like Rachel Held Evans comment on the “remarkably similar” ANE flood and creation accounts to those found in Genesis. Understanding Genesis as non-historical, non-scientific myth, which contains the same “human literary devices” and “cosmological assumptions” as the ANE was “freeing” to her.[2] Peter Enns is the post-evangelical scholar most frequently associated with this view. In his book Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns sought to show that God accommodated himself to the cultures of ANE by using non-historical and non-scientific literary forms in Genesis (and elsewhere) to communicate his message.[3] Many have followed his lead, especially those seeking resolution of the perceived discord between faith and science.
...............................

Oswalt contends that the key reason behind the persistent reductionist view isn’t the data itself, but “prior theological and philosophical convictions” held by those in the field


http://www.apologetics315.com/2013/01/book-review-bible-among-myths-by-john.html

I think this will be on my "next to read" list.

 

[P31Woman]

more from that book review. This deals with the person who wrote the review:

At this point, I have to admit to a personal bias in favor of Oswalt’s perspective. Whenever I began studying biblical studies, I did so at a mainline Protestant university. The professors spoke of Genesis as being mythical and sharing countless characteristics with the myths of the ANE. As such, I assumed the truth of their statements. I must admit, that it was shocking whenever I actually began reading ANE literature. The differences were profound and many of the suggested similarities seemed ad hoc. Whereas I could understand some of these similarities as veiled polemics against other ANE literature, seeing the Genesis narratives as a progression from these writings seemed (and remains to seem) impossible. Why? Oswalt does a wonderful job outlining the perspective of the OT on origins to show just how distinct its worldview is from the worldview of other ANE writings.

 

[Grazer]

But the differences show the differences in worldview. There are differences and similarities, the question again is what does it mean and what do we do with them?

 

[Agape]

So Paul used his own writings to say "I got this from the spirit and here's my scriptural support"?

Paul is not the author of 2 Peter. Peter is the author and the witness here.

 

[Grazer]

Paul is not the author of 2 Peter. Peter is the author and the witness here.

But Paul didn't have 2 Peter to hand because I don't think it had even been written so I'm not sure how that supports the premise of "Paul supported his revelation with scripture"

 

[Agape]

But Paul didn't have 2 Peter to hand because I don't think it had even been written so I'm not sure how that supports the premise of "Paul supported his revelation with scripture"

You wanted evidence, beside Paul's own testimony, that his writing were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit and I gave that to you.

 

[Grazer]

You wanted evidence, beside Paul's own testimony, that his writing were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit and I gave that to you.

No I didn't. I wanted reasons why Paul can claim his revelations from the holy spirit without supporting that revelation with scripture when everyone else has to. Plus 2 Peter was written afterwards so at the time, Paul had no evidence and it still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Deborah13]

But Paul didn't have 2 Peter to hand because I don't think it had even been written so I'm not sure how that supports the premise of "Paul supported his revelation with scripture"

Paul was "vetted" by his contemporaries, the apostles who had walked with Jesus. It was by Peter's witness of who Paul was and by Who's authority Paul spoke. 2 Peter, was written by Peter so we know this to be true.

 

[Grazer]

Paul was "vetted" by his contemporaries, the apostles who had walked with Jesus. It was by Peter's witness of who Paul was and by Who's authority Paul spoke. 2 Peter, was written by Peter so we know this to be true.

So who do I have to get vetted by?

 

[Agape]

I wanted reasons why Paul can claim his revelations from the holy spirit without supporting that revelation with scripture when everyone else has to.

There are 40 inspired authors including Paul. Can you please give me examples of how the other 39 authors supported their revelation with scripture so I understand what you're looking for.

 

[Deborah13]

So who do I have to get vetted by?

I don't know of anyone alive in the flesh today that would have the authority to "vet" you. Do you?

The reason other's ask for scripture is because that is where the authority is, the inspired words of God.

Peter got his authority directly from Jesus. The people understood that Peter had this authortiy because they knew that he had learned from the Messiah Himself. Peter was ordained, if you will by Jesus Himself, to preach the gospel.

 

[Grazer]

There are 40 inspired authors including Paul. Can you please give me examples of how the other 39 authors supported their revelation with scripture so I understand what you're looking for.

There is nothing in genesis that says the entire human population for all time will suffer the consequences of what Adam and eve did yet Paul says we do. Paul claims to have got this revelation from the spirit which is fine. People have said they've had revelations from the spirit only to be told that it couldn't have been because what is being revealed to them is not in scripture. But neither was Paul's so why is it ok for Paul but not for anyone other Christian?

 

[Grazer]

I don't know of anyone alive in the flesh today that would have the authority to "vet" you. Do you?

The reason other's ask for scripture is because that is where the authority is, the inspired words of God.

But as I'm trying to point out, what makes Paul more God inspired than anyone else?

 

[Deborah13]

But as I'm trying to point out, what makes Paul more God inspired than anyone else?

Because God in His Sovereign authority Chose Paul and we can verify that in the Scriptures.

Because someone says that they have received a revelation from God we have no way to be absolutely sure. This is where discernment given by the Holy Spirit comes in.
But if what they have said is contradictory to the Scriptures then we must know that it is false.

 

[Grazer]

Because God in His Sovereign authority Chose Paul and we can verify that in the Scriptures.

Because someone says that they have received a revelation from God we have no way to be absolutely sure. This is where discernment given by the Holy Spirit comes in.
But if what they have said is contradictory to the Scriptures then we must know that it is false.

We can verify after the fact with 2 Peter but it appears Paul has added to OT account. I notice no one is refuting the claim that its not in genesis.