Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[stovebolts]

Lewis :D

That is what is written in the Bible. Paul said absolutely nothing about the Bible being the absolute and inerrant word of God. That is a purely human constructed doctrine and is not supported by history.

Shalom
Ted :D

If you look at it that the early church did not compose the NT cannon until four centuries later, then yes you have a point. However, what you missed is that the Church was given the authority to Bind and Loose... And our NT has been bound by the Church. Now then, we could mention Peters words on Scripture, how it was not "Mans" speaking, but words from the Holy Ghost... Would you then tell me that he was only speaking of what we call the OT?.. So much for reform.

 

[Ted]

stovebolt :D

That is your opinion. Others don't agree.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[stovebolts]

Boy your quick tonight Ted. I actually added and clarified my statment and didn't expect you to see it so quickly. Care to elaborate on my "Opinion"?

Cheers.

 

[Ted]

stovebolt :D

If you check the history of the Bible you will find that many and varied documents were being use long before the canon was set down. The fact is that the documents were many and varied. There were several copies of each particular "book" in addition to the other writings that were not voted into the canon. Among those many documents that were chosen each one such as Matt. were found in several locations. They were copies of copies of copies. There were some 400 000 variants among the ones chosen. That was a most interesting scholarly job. We did not have the autographs and thus we can never be sure if we have the words of the authors.

In addition to that there were accidental changes as well as the church making deliberate changes to what was written. There were additions, deletions and changes made. To support this one simply has to look at "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman, study the works of and listen to lectures by such Roman Catholics such as Crossan and others of different faiths such as Fox, Borg, Spong etc.

Now to the idea that what the church bound on earth is bound the first question is what is meant by the "church". The church is not an organization or institution as such but the whole of the body of the followers of Jesus, of which I am one.

The next point is that those words apparently spoken by Jesus were one of those later additions by the church to the Bible. Those words cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. Crossan, Vermes and others.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Lewis]

There is a lot that I don't agree with here.

Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4)
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

 

[Ted]

Lewis :D

A lot of folks wrote the Bible. Many authors for whom we don't even know their names.

In D. Crossan's book "The Historical Jesus" he has a list of the sayings that can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

Vermes does the same in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ".

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[stovebolts]

Boy Ted,
You've really been studying a lot of different stuff and from what I've been reading from you, it appears that your more into tearing down the faith than building it back up. I mean, do you even believe in what our modern day Bibles have to say? If so,what parts and if not, what do you believe and where do you get your sources? Please, correct me if our short discussions have given me the wrong impression of you, but It sounds as if your saying that our bibles are full of a bunch of hogwash, yet you demand that we are brothers and accuse others of erroneously judging you? Now, I know that brothers fight and argue, but most have something in common and that would be the assurance of who their parents, as well as their brothers are, and as a Christian who has recently witnessed two deaths close up, our family has found much peace and joy in the assurance that Jesus rose from the grave and is now sitting at the right hand of God.

Lets start with a definition of what a neighbor is. A neighbor, among other things, is one who sees sombody in need, and acts upon that need. Now, my bible says that Jesus calls me a brother and my bible also tells me that if any of my brothers have a problem with me, then it's my responsibility to go to them to be reconcilled before I come to the alter. In addition, my bible tells me that Jesus is the truth. Now, truth is not subjective, it is only our perception of that truth which is subjective. Should this cause doubt in us? Absolutly not, but rather it should cause us to be humble in service to our Lord. Now, I can also read in my bible where it says that we are to seek truth out from every source (A quote from Paul), and in my opinion, there is truth in the Quran and there is truth in Hinduism etc. After all, we were all made in the image of God and each of us has that devine imprint, at least, that's what I read in my bible.

From reading the Bible, I find out that from Adam and Eve, a community was started. I also find that after the flood, Noah and his family started another community. Hundreds and then thousands of years later, we come up with these different groups of people and oddly enough, when we look at people today, we seem to group them as either us or them. The truth of the matter is this, I see much truth in the bible, as I'm sure that a muslim see's much truth in what they are reading and what they as Muslems believe.. and I'm reminded of a song by Pink Floyd that hold the lyrics, "For all you touch, and all you see.. is all your life will ever be..." and yet I see much truth in those words as they are in agreement of what Paul writes, "Who can fathom the mystery and the depths...." So yes, there is much truth in most religions, but when one sizes them up, Christianity has much to offer for if it is truly the good news, then it is not only good news to the Christian, but also to the Muslim and the Hindu as well as the Athiest or the Wiccan. Additionally, as one who believes in free will, we, like Eve have the choice to decide for after all, YHWH said that what he had created was, "Very Good", not perfect while oddly enough, Christ was perfected through suffering. You see, the bible is one of the few religions that I know of that puts the subjective right next to the objective and they both co-exist in harmony and this... is where things are bound or loosened.

As far as "Other" books and letters that were written in that same era, I have much respect for, such as the Didache and Clement of Rome and have my eye set on Origin and Justin, and if I were to place these writings as commentary of what the first and second century church believed, then I would have to most certainly hold them higher than scholars of today, though there is value in scholars of today and two of my favorites are Breuggerman and House. Ohh yes, I also know a tidbit about Marcion and I get a feeling that you do as well. But I say this not to toot my horn, for I freely admit that there is much that I do not know of, but instead of chasing leaves in the wind, I choose to study on thing that will help me to help those around me, for I beleive that my bible teaches that we are blessed by God, so that we can be a blessing to those around us and not meerly for our own comfort, for that ideology would contradict our Lord and Savior who set as an example how we should serve one another.

Now, to the matter of the Roman Catholic Church. First and formost, Catholic in it's original meaning simply meant universal. In other words, salvation was offered to all of humanity and it is my belief that those that are elected, are elected to be a light to the nations. In other words, well.. read Ez 16 if you find that trustworthy. But back to the RCC, also known as the "West" and of their schizim with the "East" in 1054. Tell me, how is this any different than when Israel and Judah split? That is to say, there is truth in the proverb, "There is nothing new under the sun" and, our own little cliche, "History repeats itself" and thus, one day all of Christianity will one day be reunited and the sheep and the goats will be seperatated.

As far as the "church", that is an organization. If you were to ask me what the "Church" was, then I'd say that it is the Ekklesia which includes all the rightous in Christ for all of time, and is truly universal lest Melchizedek should perish as one not chosen as being elected according to ones "church".

As far as the words of Jesus, I find it odd that you say that they cannot be traced back to this "Historical" Jesus according to these modern day scholars of history that you've been posting, so then I challenge you to give me your opinion on 1 Clement of Rome, a disciple of the Apostle John or the Didache which some believe were written by the Apostles themselves as recorded in the book of Acts.

 

[Ted]

StoveBolt :D

I commend you on an excellent post with some good questions that I will try to answer.

I don't see pointing out the alternatives that have arisen as tearing down. That is hardly what it is doing. It is pointing out that there are others who think differently based on study, research, prayer, meditation and commonsense. Not everyone accepts the ancient view such as Adam and Eve as actual characters. That story is now understood as a myth. The proper definition of myth is a story invented to present truth.

I have never used the word hogwash that is your word. God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible. Sure the writers were inspired and so was Charles Dickens. Profound truths can be taught and much better through myth, legend, folk tale, poetry etc. It does not all have to be historically accurate. That is a fallacy from the enlightenment. They were wrong.

Of course Christ rose from the dead. I have repeatedly said that I have had the experiential reality of the risen Lord. I happen to believe it was a spiritual resurrection. The essential us does not need a body to survive certainly not under God.

I do think you are correct about the perception of truth. I will come back to this later.

I am also extremely pleased that you recognize that truths can be found in other non-Christian sacred writings.

Now we come to the point that deals with truth. Religions have a very strong cultural factor to them. Judaism reflects Jewish culture. Western Christianity is different from eastern Christianity in many ways. Western Christianity reflects the culture of the reformers. The east did not change but it did break apart between the Church of Rome and the Church of the Eastern Orthodox. Here again we face a cultural difference. Hinduism reflects the culture of its location or origin, India.

God, being just has spoken to all people of the world in a way they could best understand based on their language, culture, history, fund of knowledge, conceptualization abilities, world view etc. So is Hinduism equal to Christianity? It is for the Hindus or the Muslims both of whom are as equally convinced that they are correct as you are so convinced.

Christianity is the subjective beside the objective. That is certainly the western approach. However others see it as subject beside subject. Our goal as Christians is to become one with God. Thus we look for the Divine within us. We do not accept a dualism but only a unity a One.

You are mistaken about the scholars and the writings of other ancient people. Clement is being looked at as is the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of Meister Eckhart, Aquinas and all of the other great Christian fathers of the past.

You mention the separation of the sheep from the goats. This is of course from Matt 25. Jesus welcomed into the kingdom those who did it to the least of these his brothers and sisters. The one who fed the hungry got invited in as did the one who cared for the ill. Jesus said since you did it to the least of these you did it to me. If we try to add in a proviso that one has to have said the word Jesus Christ etc. one is adding to the sacred writings what is not there in the original Greek. I know because I can read the Greek. Clearly we are not to add to these writings. In the Great commandment we are told to love our neighbours as ourselves and as Christ loved us. There is no proviso for this sudden magical experience of salvation.

We are called to be transformed. This means to turn about. This is done in many faiths and they all are based on this transformation of justice (distributive) and compassion.

If we wish to talk about the righteous in Christ that is fine for the Christian culture but it is not fine for the Hindu or the Muslim who are also equally convinced they are correct. As in Micah 6:8 those who do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with God are doing exactly what we have been commanded to do. Jesus said "I am the way . . .". In most of the Bible the word way is used to mean a path or road. In fact the earliest followers of Jesus were called the "People of the Way." Indeed Jesus showed them the way; to do justice and exercise kindness on all people but especially the oppressed and down trodden. This can and does happen in all of the great faiths. Inasmuch as they do it unto the least they do it unto Jesus. They accept his way whether or not they know his name. We are told the law is written in our hearts. God judges the motives behind our actions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with good works but good works backed up with the right motivation.

Acts 10 "All who do what is right and love God are acceptable to him.

All of the great church fathers had much to say that was positive. It is no different today. There are many great Christians who produce good research and very worthy writings. That they may not agree with you is no indication they are wrong. They have been led by God to see things differently and in tune with our age or era and culture. Does that make you wrong or the other great people of the past wrong? Of course not. They could only understand as per their era and culture. God does not change but our perceptions and views do as time goes on.

It makes no difference to me whether anyone agrees we me or not. This is what I have been led by the Holy Spirit to accept. I must do what I am called to do or I am ignoring God's call and that is not my way. My church accepts it. The clergy accept it. In fact I have a sermon to do in a few weeks and I did one just a few weeks ago. I have also been accepted into the Eucharistic ministry.

Again, I enjoyed your post and found it in the spirit of discussion and worthy of a lengthy and honest response. As I am visually impaired it can be difficult at times that is why I generally try to keep posts short though it is not always possible.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[francisdesales]

I don't see pointing out the alternatives that have arisen as tearing down. That is hardly what it is doing. It is pointing out that there are others who think differently based on study, research, prayer, meditation and commonsense. Not everyone accepts the ancient view such as Adam and Eve as actual characters. That story is now understood as a myth. The proper definition of myth is a story invented to present truth.

Catholics are not afraid of science or research. There is nothing wrong with analyzing and making theories about how God has spoken to mankind. That is how we come to understand God better, so keep doing it...

However, know that God HAS given mankind truth and that we CAN know truth, at least some truths, not all. So where do we go to find this infallible, error-free truth? WHO proclaims that THEY have such a truth? Do one of the "22000 denominations" make this claim? No. The Catholic Church's claim is bold - and is either correct or not. But it certainly should be analyzed and taken seriously. Even if you think that I "don't want you in the Catholic Church"... To doubt man's ability to know is a recent fad of philosophy.

I have never used the word hogwash that is your word. God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible. Sure the writers were inspired and so was Charles Dickens. Profound truths can be taught and much better through myth, legend, folk tale, poetry etc. It does not all have to be historically accurate. That is a fallacy from the enlightenment. They were wrong.

Again, Catholics will agree that God uses many different literary genres to give man His revelation. Even in the OT, we have examples of history, poetry, historical narratives, parables, and so forth. The point is that different genres speak differently to man - and that is God's intent. We recognize this fact. It is a mistake to group all Christians into some sort of "fundamental Christian" category that only sees the literal side of particular writings.

Of course Christ rose from the dead. I have repeatedly said that I have had the experiential reality of the risen Lord. I happen to believe it was a spiritual resurrection. The essential us does not need a body to survive certainly not under God.

Your belief does not match the Christian belief that Jesus rose BODILY from the grave. This is KEY, because part of our beliefs are that we WOULD ALSO rise, body and spirit, following the "Second Adam". Really, this attitude smacks of a philosophy that a priori discounts the mystical. Anything that cannot be comprehended is explained away... The Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection, miracles, and so forth.

I believe that Sprong is a return to Gnosticism, the idea that the body is evil and we only win release when we SEPERATE from this "prison". IF you have read the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, you would know that this certainly was NOT the belief of Christianity. If you like, I can certainly post some clips from these men, teachers of the faith who believed that Christ rose BODILY from the grave.

I am also extremely pleased that you recognize that truths can be found in other non-Christian sacred writings.

I have also mentioned this in my first postings to you.

Now we come to the point that deals with truth. Religions have a very strong cultural factor to them. Judaism reflects Jewish culture. Western Christianity is different from eastern Christianity in many ways. Western Christianity reflects the culture of the reformers. The east did not change but it did break apart between the Church of Rome and the Church of the Eastern Orthodox. Here again we face a cultural difference. Hinduism reflects the culture of its location or origin, India.

Naturally.

God, being just has spoken to all people of the world in a way they could best understand based on their language, culture, history, fund of knowledge, conceptualization abilities, world view etc. So is Hinduism equal to Christianity? It is for the Hindus or the Muslims both of whom are as equally convinced that they are correct as you are so convinced.

The Scriptures are FULL of the concept that God set aside a PARTICULAR people. In time, this people would bring forth the Messiah, one who would save the human race from slavery to sin. Could God have done it differently? Of course. But only through Christ can man be saved. Hinduism does not make such a claim. Islam does not make such a claim. Their tenets are not so historically objective as a man rising from the dead and claiming to be God. Other religions, at best, can merely give moral teachings that in the end, are at least partly in line with Christianity.

Christianity is the subjective beside the objective. That is certainly the western approach. However others see it as subject beside subject. Our goal as Christians is to become one with God. Thus we look for the Divine within us. We do not accept a dualism but only a unity a One.

But you have already said we are dualistic by saying that Christ only rose spiritually. IF God became man, He became man entirely. Thus, as the Fathers were fond of saying, what Christ became was saved by Him. If Christ's spirit ALONE rose, then man was not restored to his original image and likeness of God. There was then no recapitulation that the Bible speaks of. The bible is clear that Christ's salvation of man MORE than made up for what was lost by Adam. Thus, man's ENTIRE self was rescued by God, not just the spiritual part... To suggest otherwise is to say that Christ's salvation was of less effect than Adam's sin. We don't find that in Scriptures.

You mention the separation of the sheep from the goats. This is of course from Matt 25. Jesus welcomed into the kingdom those who did it to the least of these his brothers and sisters. The one who fed the hungry got invited in as did the one who cared for the ill. Jesus said since you did it to the least of these you did it to me. If we try to add in a proviso that one has to have said the word Jesus Christ etc. one is adding to the sacred writings what is not there in the original Greek. I know because I can read the Greek. Clearly we are not to add to these writings. In the Great commandment we are told to love our neighbours as ourselves and as Christ loved us. There is no proviso for this sudden magical experience of salvation.

I would agree, being Catholic, that salvation is not only a magical moment in the past. And while you concentrate on what man does, you are forgetting that man is ALSO told that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God while rejecting Jesus Christ. Salvation is not about ONLY loving your neighbor, but includes believing in what God has revealed.

If we wish to talk about the righteous in Christ that is fine for the Christian culture but it is not fine for the Hindu or the Muslim who are also equally convinced they are correct. As in Micah 6:8 those who do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with God are doing exactly what we have been commanded to do. Jesus said "I am the way . . .". In most of the Bible the word way is used to mean a path or road. In fact the earliest followers of Jesus were called the "People of the Way." Indeed Jesus showed them the way; to do justice and exercise kindness on all people but especially the oppressed and down trodden. This can and does happen in all of the great faiths. Inasmuch as they do it unto the least they do it unto Jesus. They accept his way whether or not they know his name. We are told the law is written in our hearts. God judges the motives behind our actions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with good works but good works backed up with the right motivation.

Acts 10 "All who do what is right and love God are acceptable to him.

All of the great church fathers had much to say that was positive. It is no different today. There are many great Christians who produce good research and very worthy writings. That they may not agree with you is no indication they are wrong. They have been led by God to see things differently and in tune with our age or era and culture. Does that make you wrong or the other great people of the past wrong? Of course not. They could only understand as per their era and culture. God does not change but our perceptions and views do as time goes on.

Being Catholic, I can't argue with much of anything here. Part of our Tradition, our lived life of faith, relies on the past as well as the present. We believe that the Spirit of Christ was present in the Church of the past, as well as today. Thus, we take in the entire Tradition passed down to us from the Fathers.

I have also been accepted into the Eucharistic ministry.

That would be interesting to hear what exactly "Eucharist" means to someone who holds Sprong near and dear. He didn't believe in the "Real Presence", as the Church has for 2000 years, which leads one to ask "WHY NOT"? Is this the "holy spirit" speaking to him? Is this something a priori disregarded because he cannot understand the mystery behind it?

May the peace of Christ be with you.

And you as well. We do share some ideas in common, and that is something that should not be cast aside, despite your aversion to being a Catholic.

Regards

 

[Lewis]

Ted that their are many authors of the Bible, is old news. But it does seem that stovebolts is right, it appears that you are tearing down the Bible instead of lifting it up. If you don't believe one part of the Bible or it's authenticity, you can't believe the Bible at all. If you think that something is wrong with the Bible, it is corrupt to you.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi :D

Josephus and Tacitus spoke of Jesus in their work.

As for eyewitnesses there is no one who has written in the Bible who was an eye witness. We have no idea whatsoever as to who wrote the Gospels. The names Matthew, Mark, etc. were appended by later scholars so as to distinguish one from another.

Paul, of course had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus. As to whether or not he actually saw the risen Lord is not clear.

What the gospel writers were doing was writing history remembered and history metaphorized. They were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of writing.

Shalom


Ted

Both Joesphus and Tacitus described Jesus at most in one paragraph. So again, why would you listen to people who barely knew Jesus over those who knew him the best? :o

And it is clear that Paul met the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, which means he knew him personally all born again Christians do as well. You would know that if you were born again as well. So calling paul a liar when you can't prove he's a liar is called slander and is therefore libelous. The bible tells us what God thinks about slanderers.

You are also claiming that John, Matthew, Peter, James and Jude didn't know Jesus himself. That is not only irrational, it is a blatant lie. And since you have shown zero credibility to know Jesus better than the gospel writers, then I'm certainly not going to believe you over Paul, James, Jude, Peter, John, Luke, Mark and Matthew! Who do you think you are? :x "He who exalts himself will be humbled." ANd you will be humbled indeed. :roll:

 

[Lewis]

Heidi :D

Josephus and Tacitus spoke of Jesus in their work.

As for eyewitnesses there is no one who has written in the Bible who was an eye witness. We have no idea whatsoever as to who wrote the Gospels. The names Matthew, Mark, etc. were appended by later scholars so as to distinguish one from another.

Paul, of course had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus. As to whether or not he actually saw the risen Lord is not clear.

What the gospel writers were doing was writing history remembered and history metaphorized. They were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of writing.

Shalom


Ted

Both Joesphus and Tacitus described Jesus at most in one paragraph. So again, why would you listen to people who barely knew Jesus over those who knew him the best? :o

And it is clear that Paul met the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, which means he knew him personally all born again Christians do as well. You would know that if you were born again as well. So calling paul a liar when you can't prove he's a liar is called slander and is therefore libelous. The bible tells us what God thinks about slanderers.

You are also claiming that John, Matthew, Peter, James and Jude didn't know Jesus himself. That is not only irrational, it is a blatant lie. And since you have shown zero credibility to know Jesus better than the gospel writers, then I'm certainly not going to believe you over Paul, James, Jude, Peter, John, Luke, Mark and Matthew! Who do you think you are? :x "He who exalts himself will be humbled." ANd you will be humbled indeed. :roll:

:wink: :multi: :multi: :wink: :wink: :smt038 :smt038
Good post Heidi

 

[Guest]

Im asking, how could the Bible have been put together with no earthly central authority to physically put it together, compiling the correct books and leaving out those which were not inspired.

To my knowledge there never has been any church authority that extended over the entire Body of Christ, and whatever secular authority that ever extended to the entire church was fleeting at best.

In the decades before Constantine became the sole emperor of Rome the Emperor Diocletian divided the Empire into two parts. Each part had an Augustus, i.e., an emperor and each Augustus had a Caesar- an emperor in waiting. When an Augustus died his Caesar would take his place and then appoint his own Caesar. Diocletian served as one of the original Augusti (Augustuses?) and eventually Constantine’s father became an Augustus with Constantine as his Caesar.

Diocletian hoped that the Augustus-Caesar system would insure a peaceful succession when violence and civil war had become the norm for Rome rather than the exception. However, the system didn’t work and war between Constantine’s father and the other Augustus developed. Constantine then inherited his father’s war and eventually defeated the other Augustus and Caesar thereby becoming sole emperor.

Constantine claimed the throne in the name of Christ, but he made no effort impose Christianity on the Roman aristocracy. The Roman Senate built a triumphal arch in Constantine’s honor and an inscription on this arch gave praise to the “Deity†for Constantine’s victory.

Constantine did, however, wish to impose order on the Church. After putting the Empire back together, he certainly didn’t want to have the church torn apart so no religious conflict could ever become a political conflict. But, in the midst of Rome’s civil war over the throne the church had been splintered by heresy. A deacon named Arius taught that Jesus was a created being and not God. His main opponent was Athanasius (who eventually became Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt). Shortly after he became sole emperor Constantine convened a conference at Nicaea. At the conference Constantine sided with the orthodox faction. A little while later Constantine ordered the production of a number of complete copies of the Bible. This would have the first systematic, church-wide effort to canonize the Bible since no one would have wanted to present the emperor with an incomplete Bible.

But Constantine’s Bible has serious flaws as a tool for telling us what the Bible is and is not supposed to be according to earthly/church authority. First of all not one single copy of Constantine’s Bible is known to exist so we don’t know what books his Bible contained and what books were excluded. And second, Constantine was not a Christian. Shortly after Nicaea Constantine sided with the Arians for political purposes and he had Athanasius exiled. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop- and remember that he made no effort to change the inscription on his triumphal arch.

Athanasius was exiled, recalled and exiled again throughout his lifetime as political conditions in the Empire changed over time. But, Athanasius is the person that is chiefly responsible for establishing the Cannon that Protestant churches today follow. But it should be noted that the Protestant Bible does not contain several books that the Roman Catholic Church does accept as Scripture (I don’t know anything right off about the Eastern Orthodox Church).

 

[Guest]

I’ll probably be tarred and feathered for saying this but I don’t think God intended for the Bible to be compiled and become the source of debate that it has become, any more than he had intended that Israel be governed by an earthly king.

By the time Christ was born the Hebrew Bible had pretty much already been compiled, so it was probably inevitable that the Christian portion of the Bible would be compiled as well. But the problem is that even though the Bible tells us that Scripture has authority, the Bible doesn’t tell us what we should accept as Scripture. You can claim that we know what is and is not Scripture based on the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but since all of us that claim to be Christian don’t all have the same Scripture, we must conclude we are not all guided by the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost would surely tell all Christians the same thing. That leaves us with faith. If we are willing to accept certain things as Scripture, then we must have faith that what we accept as Scripture is in fact Scripture.

I believe that God has allowed it as an authority on spiritual matters but it is a poor second to the Holy Spirit.

If Scripture doesn’t have sole authority, what tells you what the Holy Ghost is? How do you know that what you accept as the guidance of the Holy Ghost actually comes from the Holy Ghost? If you want to claim that the Holy Ghost told you do such and such, is there anything that can tell you that you misunderstand what the Holy Ghost told you to do or that it wasn’t the Holy Ghost that you were talking to?

 

[Lewis]

Revelation 22 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

[unred typo]

I’ll probably be tarred and feathered for saying this but I don’t think God intended for the Bible to be compiled and become the source of debate that it has become, any more than he had intended that Israel be governed by an earthly king.

By the time Christ was born the Hebrew Bible had pretty much already been compiled, so it was probably inevitable that the Christian portion of the Bible would be compiled as well. But the problem is that even though the Bible tells us that Scripture has authority, the Bible doesn’t tell us what we should accept as Scripture. You can claim that we know what is and is not Scripture based on the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but since all of us that claim to be Christian don’t all have the same Scripture, we must conclude we are not all guided by the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost would surely tell all Christians the same thing. That leaves us with faith. If we are willing to accept certain things as Scripture, then we must have faith that what we accept as Scripture is in fact Scripture.

I believe that God has allowed it as an authority on spiritual matters but it is a poor second to the Holy Spirit.

If Scripture doesn’t have sole authority, what tells you what the Holy Ghost is? How do you know that what you accept as the guidance of the Holy Ghost actually comes from the Holy Ghost? If you want to claim that the Holy Ghost told you do such and such, is there anything that can tell you that you misunderstand what the Holy Ghost told you to do or that it wasn’t the Holy Ghost that you were talking to?

Well ,this is indeed a mystery. And we love those. :wink: Abraham believed God and he didn’t have written knowledge of God, according to what we call scripture; the Bible. In fact, he was called righteous although brought up by an idolatrous family in an idolatrous country. Who told him what to do? How did he know if it was God or an evil spirit telling him to get out of town? You see, either the scripture you have is incomplete and missing some books or you don’t need the Bible to follow Christ either. Of course I’m baiting you here. You may be surprised to learn that both are true. The Bible has lost at least 1 or more books that complete the picture that it attempts to put together for us and you can follow the Holy Spirit without a Bible because he is real, not just a figment of your imagination. Cool, huh?

 

[unred typo]

quote by Lewis W on Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:06 pm

Revelation 22 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

You know, Lewis, I hope you’re not trying to imply that Ye Merry Ole King James Version of the Bible is the book John is talking about there. He’s talking about the book of Revelation which he just penned, doncha know. I don’t even think he could have been talking about the other 65 books of any Bible, do you? Not since he was purported to have written it while exiled on the Isle of Patmos and probably didn‘t have access to all the scriptures available in our nice bound book form. Do you think John wrote Revelation on the end of a scroll containing all the other books of the Bible??? Just what are you trying to say without actually saying it?

Now maybe I have misread your intentions here. Maybe you are suggesting that the compilers of the present KJV were in violation of this strict warning by their placing John’s book at the very end of the Bible and making it appear that John was warning all readers not to mess with their new improved version? Wow, that’s a radical thought! John says not to add a word to the prophesy of the book of Revelation and they added another 65, not just words but entire books!

But maybe that’s just me. I never liked messing with curses of plagues so I just prefer to read Revelation and let the Spirit give me the meaning and then just keep it to myself, in case I might be wrong about what I understood. I’m not going to add to what John prophesied. I’ll leave that to those foolhardy expositors who dare to charge in where angels fear to tread.

Didn’t we do this ‘thou shalt not add to the words of this book’ discussion before, Lewis, or was that someone else on here? I’m not wanting to plague you or derail the latest tangent in this thread, anyways. I’m really interested in what flaja has to answer to my last post above this.

:-D

 

[Lewis]

quote by Lewis W on Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:06 pm

Revelation 22 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

You know, Lewis, I hope you’re not trying to imply that Ye Merry Ole King James Version of the Bible is the book John is talking about there. He’s talking about the book of Revelation which he just penned, doncha know. I don’t even think he could have been talking about the other 65 books of any Bible, do you? Not since he was purported to have written it while exiled on the Isle of Patmos and probably didn‘t have access to all the scriptures available in our nice bound book form. Do you think John wrote Revelation on the end of a scroll containing all the other books of the Bible??? Just what are you trying to say without actually saying it?

Now maybe I have misread your intentions here. Maybe you are suggesting that the compilers of the present KJV were in violation of this strict warning by their placing John’s book at the very end of the Bible and making it appear that John was warning all readers not to mess with their new improved version? Wow, that’s a radical thought! John says not to add a word to the prophesy of the book of Revelation and they added another 65, not just words but entire books!

But maybe that’s just me. I never liked messing with curses of plagues so I just prefer to read Revelation and let the Spirit give me the meaning and then just keep it to myself, in case I might be wrong about what I understood. I’m not going to add to what John prophesied. I’ll leave that to those foolhardy expositors who dare to charge in where angels fear to tread.

Didn’t we do this ‘thou shalt not add to the words of this book’ discussion before, Lewis, or was that someone else on here? I’m not wanting to plague you or derail the latest tangent in this thread, anyways. I’m really interested in what flaja has to answer to my last post above this.

:-D

Nope, I was just trying to imply that things should not be added or taken away from the Bible at all. Because the rest of the books belong to the Bible also. The below link, will explain what I am trying to say. And I have always said that.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-B-15.htm

 

[unred typo]

[quote="unred typo":24c28]

Revelation 22 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

You know, Lewis, I hope you’re not trying to imply that Ye Merry Ole King James Version of the Bible is the book John is talking about there. He’s talking about the book of Revelation which he just penned, doncha know. I don’t even think he could have been talking about the other 65 books of any Bible, do you? Not since he was purported to have written it while exiled on the Isle of Patmos and probably didn‘t have access to all the scriptures available in our nice bound book form. Do you think John wrote Revelation on the end of a scroll containing all the other books of the Bible??? Just what are you trying to say without actually saying it?

Now maybe I have misread your intentions here. Maybe you are suggesting that the compilers of the present KJV were in violation of this strict warning by their placing John’s book at the very end of the Bible and making it appear that John was warning all readers not to mess with their new improved version? Wow, that’s a radical thought! John says not to add a word to the prophesy of the book of Revelation and they added another 65, not just words but entire books!

But maybe that’s just me. I never liked messing with curses of plagues so I just prefer to read Revelation and let the Spirit give me the meaning and then just keep it to myself, in case I might be wrong about what I understood. I’m not going to add to what John prophesied. I’ll leave that to those foolhardy expositors who dare to charge in where angels fear to tread.

Didn’t we do this ‘thou shalt not add to the words of this book’ discussion before, Lewis, or was that someone else on here? I’m not wanting to plague you or derail the latest tangent in this thread, anyways. I’m really interested in what flaja has to answer to my last post above this.

:-D

Nope, I was just trying to imply that things should not be added or taken away from the Bible at all. Because the rest of the books belong to the Bible also. The below link, will explain what I am trying to say. And I have always said that. [/quote:24c28]

I read your link. It wasn’t great. It was greatly overrated. What it actually was, was pitiful. Who does he think he is to declare God is all done speaking to us? He has decided that Revelation is the last book of the Bible which wasn’t even compiled as yet. Then he proclaims that John is saying that not only you can’t add to the Revelation that John saw, but you can’t add to God’s word and that the Bible is all of God’s word. Not only that but it seems he has decided that God can’t add to his word either. Yet he has added his two cents worth that is actually something entirely different than what John said. In all of this, he has ignored that John said you can’t take away fro the words of “this book†either and how many books were left out of the KJV? And even stranger is the fact that you all accept that as normal and right. Pass the KoolAid.

 

[francisdesales]

Pass the KoolAid.

OOOHHH YEAAA! :D

Regards