Where does the Bible say that the New Testament is Scripture, the "Word of GOD"?

[Riverwolf]

First off, I am not saying that it is not.
I would really like to believe that that the whole Bible is without error and every word is indeed the word of God.
A friend came over today who is someone that I would call very religious. I ask him why he believes everything word for word in the bible, and he says because it is the word straight from God. I ask who told him this? He says it is in the Bible. I say where for the New Testament? He starts to quote some passage calling it scripture. But I say, yes but that passage is really referring to the Old Testament. I tell him that there was no New Testament at the time that it is referring to. And anyway this was not about my day, and maybe I have spent way too much time on google studying the history of how the Bible was made and put together. So, fire away, and help to show me that I am wrong.

 

[Jake]

First off, I am not saying that it is not.
I would really like to believe that that the whole Bible is without error and every word is indeed the word of God.
A friend came over today who is someone that I would call very religious. I ask him why he believes everything word for word in the bible, and he says because it is the word straight from God. I ask who told him this? He says it is in the Bible. I say where for the New Testament? He starts to quote some passage calling it scripture. But I say, yes but that passage is really referring to the Old Testament. I tell him that there was no New Testament at the time that it is referring to. And anyway this was not about my day, and maybe I have spent way too much time on google studying the history of how the Bible was made and put together. So, fire away, and help to show me that I am wrong.

Since he already gave you the scripture pointing to the Bible being the entire Word of God, I will just say that God knows beginning to the end.
Have you given any thought that just because the NT was not written, that God did not know it would be written? Of course He did.
The entire OT points to Jesus and He had not been born of virgin yet.

Here is a link on this forum to a study that was done on the Word of God:
http://www.christianforums.net/f34/word-god-33792/

peace.

 

[Nathan]

This will open up a can of worms...be prepared.

I believe the NT is inspired by God. It contains SO much of the OT that it is already 'part' of it. You will find the NT writers quoting much of the OT. It is estimated at around 10%.

Now. You are correct, the NT never makes the claims that the OT makes. But because it sticks so close, and never contradicts the OT, it can be assured that it is the word of God also.

However, there is a BIG difference, and its not 'splitting hairs'. Why? Because to understand the context of passages, we must distinguish that the NT writers, when using the terms "word of God" and "Scriptures" are indeed talking about the OT. That was what they studied, and were taught from. When the Apostles taught, they used the Scriptures.

Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures...

Act 17:10-11 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

They used the OT to prove what Paul was saying was true. And they were called noble for it!

Act 18:24-28 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

The last example we have is why it is imparative to have the NT along with the OT. This guy was very well learned, instructed in the way of the Lord, and he taught specifically from the OT. But he was lacking one thing, he only knew of the baptism of John. The baptism of repentance. He did not yet know the baptism of Christ.

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

But after receiving this more accurate instruction, which is to say, he was given the FULL measure of what the Christ did for us; he still yet, but in a more powerful way, proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ from the OT. But it clearly states that he knew and taught accurately even before receiving this instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

For some reason or another people want to say that the OT points to the the NT. When in fact the opposite is true. The NT points back to the OT, showing the fulfilling of prophesies and the revealing of mysteries. But regardless, they are all together one. They speak in harmony, therefore they can all be considered the word of God.

The only time we need to be inclusive is when it comes to reading context. Is it that important? I think so.

 

[elijah23]

First off, I am not saying that it is not.
I would really like to believe that that the whole Bible is without error and every word is indeed the word of God.
A friend came over today who is someone that I would call very religious. I ask him why he believes everything word for word in the bible, and he says because it is the word straight from God. I ask who told him this? He says it is in the Bible. I say where for the New Testament? He starts to quote some passage calling it scripture. But I say, yes but that passage is really referring to the Old Testament. I tell him that there was no New Testament at the time that it is referring to. And anyway this was not about my day, and maybe I have spent way too much time on google studying the history of how the Bible was made and put together. So, fire away, and help to show me that I am wrong.

Certainly the teachings of Jesus, found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the Word of God.

 

[Alabaster]

Certainly the teachings of Jesus, found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the Word of God.

Yes, but don't you believe that all the other NT books are not authoritative or the word of God?

 

[Riverwolf]

Certainly the teachings of Jesus, found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the Word of God.

I suppose that my problems are concerning the rest, mostly with Paul.

I belong to several online forums with other interests and it seems that none of the search engines work real well. I am not bashing, just saying that I did try that first here. With the replies given so far , I have more than enough to read and research before posting back here. If someone feels the need that is ok, but I will probably not respond for a few days? Again, I am a Christian, but I am not a sheep. I think some people would believe Huck Finn was the gospel without even reading it if that is what they were told from birth. Sad but true.

Rockie - My friend did not quote an actual verse, he was simply defending what he was told and learned from a lifetime of church. Interestingly, he had no real idea how the books were put together or by whom. He just says that God did it.

 

[Jake]

I suppose that my problems are concerning the rest, mostly with Paul.

I belong to several online forums with other interests and it seems that none of the search engines work real well. I am not bashing, just saying that I did try that first here. With the replies given so far , I have more than enough to read and research before posting back here. If someone feels the need that is ok, but I will probably not respond for a few days? Again, I am a Christian, but I am not a sheep. I think some people would believe Huck Finn was the gospel without even reading it if that is what they were told from birth. Sad but true.

Rockie - My friend did not quote an actual verse, he was simply defending what he was told and learned from a lifetime of church. Interestingly, he had no real idea how the books were put together or by whom. He just says that God did it.

Oh, sorry, I thought he did, here is one, please check out that link. The history of how the books were put together is a rather large topic, if you research it, am sure you will find plenty.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[warhorse]

First off, I am not saying that it is not.
I would really like to believe that that the whole Bible is without error and every word is indeed the word of God.
A friend came over today who is someone that I would call very religious. I ask him why he believes everything word for word in the bible, and he says because it is the word straight from God. I ask who told him this? He says it is in the Bible. I say where for the New Testament? He starts to quote some passage calling it scripture. But I say, yes but that passage is really referring to the Old Testament. I tell him that there was no New Testament at the time that it is referring to. And anyway this was not about my day, and maybe I have spent way too much time on google studying the history of how the Bible was made and put together. So, fire away, and help to show me that I am wrong.

This may help you. written by paul to timothy in 2 tim 2. timothy was a student of christ under paul.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Acts 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto BEREA: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

The Bereans took Paul's teaching and compared it to the old testiment to validate his teachings, Paul was the penmen for most of the NT. The best way for you to gain confidence in its validity is to study it. with the holy spirit as your Guide and with no preconceived notions to box you in.

 

[Alabaster]

I suppose that my problems are concerning the rest, mostly with Paul.

I belong to several online forums with other interests and it seems that none of the search engines work real well. I am not bashing, just saying that I did try that first here. With the replies given so far , I have more than enough to read and research before posting back here. If someone feels the need that is ok, but I will probably not respond for a few days? Again, I am a Christian, but I am not a sheep. I think some people would believe Huck Finn was the gospel without even reading it if that is what they were told from birth. Sad but true.

Rockie - My friend did not quote an actual verse, he was simply defending what he was told and learned from a lifetime of church. Interestingly, he had no real idea how the books were put together or by whom. He just says that God did it.

How is anyone a Christian and not a sheep?

John 10:3
The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

John 10:7
so he explained it to them: “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.

John 10:8
All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them.

John 10:11
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10:12&version=NLThttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10:13&version=NLT

John 10:14
“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me,

John 10:15
just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep.

John 10:16
I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd.

John 10:26
But you don’t believe me because you are not my sheep.

John 10:27
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

 

[jasoncran]

bAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

 

[Alabaster]

bAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

 

[Jake]

:toofunny

 

[jasoncran]

you gotta do that and wiggle your tounge. i was so bored in afghanistan at times i learned to imitate those things.lol i had to get one out of the shower as she got in the showers and all the big bad marines were to scared to grab it because she had horns. i grabbed here and carried her outside. she was the base pet. we werent to eat that one.lol.

really docile creatures.

 

[tim-from-pa]

This is why I love the OT even though a lot of Christians spiritualize everything and rather truncate it. The question is a valid and intelligent one.

I believe the NT is the word of God BECAUSE:

In all 4 gospels they quote the OT so are confirming what the OT said about the Christ. After all, all the NT is ALREADY in the OT even if in coded form. Jesus and the apostles had ONLY the OT and did quite well with it. So, the gospels, and for that matter Acts, are historical records of what the OT predicted and are stating everything plainly. In other words, the NT was written off of the OT.

MOST of the epistles were written by Paul which Peter claimed his writings were scripture. (And we know that Christ called Paul directly, so that is not far-fetched)

Lastly, we only have Revelation yet which is considered the Revelation of Jesus Christ---- directly saying it was inspired.

Above all, the NT is repeating and emphasizing prophetic fulfillments of the OT. In other words, what the NT states the OT predicted and therefore confirms the NT as Scripture.

Now, for those critics of mine, you can see why I lean very heavily on the OT which is the foundation of the NT. There is actually nothing in the NT that is not already predicted and foreshadowed in the OT. And this is why I lay heavy emphasis on Israel. Like it or lump it, besides Christ, the Bible is a book about Israel and they are vey much in the picture yet. To say they are cast away because they "rejected Christ" is to effectively cut off most of the OT which the NT is based upon. I wish people would think about that a little deeper instead of spewing off God's supposed hated of the Jews because they rejected Christ and become Gentile pride in themselves.

 

[Jake]

This is why I love the OT even though a lot of Christians spiritualize everything and rather truncate it. The question is a valid and intelligent one.

I believe the NT is the word of God BECAUSE:

In all 4 gospels they quote the OT so are confirming what the OT said about the Christ. After all, all the NT is ALREADY in the OT even if in coded form. Jesus and the apostles had ONLY the OT and did quite well with it. So, the gospels, and for that matter Acts, are historical records of what the OT predicted and are stating everything plainly. In other words, the NT was written off of the OT.

MOST of the epistles were written by Paul which Peter claimed his writings were scripture. (And we know that Christ called Paul directly, so that is not far-fetched)

Lastly, we only have Revelation yet which is considered the Revelation of Jesus Christ---- directly saying it was inspired.

Above all, the NT is repeating and emphasizing prophetic fulfillments of the OT. In other words, what the NT states the OT predicted and therefore confirms the NT as Scripture.

Now, for those critics of mine, you can see why I lean very heavily on the OT which is the foundation of the NT. There is actually nothing in the NT that is not already predicted and foreshadowed in the OT. And this is why I lay heavy emphasis on Israel. Like it or lump it, besides Christ, the Bible is a book about Israel and they are vey much in the picture yet. To say they are cast away because they "rejected Christ" is to effectively cut off most of the OT which the NT is based upon. I wish people would think about that a little deeper instead of spewing off God's supposed hated of the Jews because they rejected Christ and become Gentile pride in themselves.

I do agree about it pointing back to the OT, they point to one another, and in the later books (after the gospels) of the NT, it teaches us how to be the Church, and the prophecies of what is coming. Yet the OT did point to the NT, they compliment one another, unified, and we can not have one without the other. It is no doubt the Word of God.

 

[jasoncran]

Tim that occurs because most churches either dont teach the bible directly but use sermons and verses cherry picked to that man-made doctrine. it should be read the bible then see what it says to you, (exegesis).that and some anti-semiticsm has crept in and wasnt removed fully.

 

[warhorse]

This is why I love the OT even though a lot of Christians spiritualize everything and rather truncate it. The question is a valid and intelligent one.

I believe the NT is the word of God BECAUSE:

In all 4 gospels they quote the OT so are confirming what the OT said about the Christ. After all, all the NT is ALREADY in the OT even if in coded form. Jesus and the apostles had ONLY the OT and did quite well with it. So, the gospels, and for that matter Acts, are historical records of what the OT predicted and are stating everything plainly. In other words, the NT was written off of the OT.

MOST of the epistles were written by Paul which Peter claimed his writings were scripture. (And we know that Christ called Paul directly, so that is not far-fetched)

Lastly, we only have Revelation yet which is considered the Revelation of Jesus Christ---- directly saying it was inspired.

Above all, the NT is repeating and emphasizing prophetic fulfillments of the OT. In other words, what the NT states the OT predicted and therefore confirms the NT as Scripture.

Now, for those critics of mine, you can see why I lean very heavily on the OT which is the foundation of the NT. There is actually nothing in the NT that is not already predicted and foreshadowed in the OT. And this is why I lay heavy emphasis on Israel. Like it or lump it, besides Christ, the Bible is a book about Israel and they are vey much in the picture yet. To say they are cast away because they "rejected Christ" is to effectively cut off most of the OT which the NT is based upon. I wish people would think about that a little deeper instead of spewing off God's supposed hated of the Jews because they rejected Christ and become Gentile pride in themselves.

Agreed the OT is rich in info and Pauls teaching was based on it and verified by the bereans.

 

[montanaviking]

I think the clearest example of the NT being called scripture is II Peter 3:16 where Peter calls Pauls writings scripture. It is the same word that is used by other NT writers in referring to the OT writings. So Peter recognized Pauls authority as a writer equal to those of the OT. Now, as far as the other writers, such as Paul and James etc, I don't think it is a stretch to lable them as scripture either, even though there is no particular reference that specifically states "Peters (or James or John etc) writings are scripture." The reason for that is they were disciples of Christ. And Christ particularly called them and spoke directly to them and told them about their mission and what they were to teach and preach. They are doing what Jesus told them to do. They were doing nothing different than what the OT writers were told to do. In the OT God spoke to the authors and told them to write. Jesus, who is divine God, also told the disciples what to preach and teach and that is contained in their writings. So there is no reason to not consider that what they wrote is scripture. Revelation is obviously scripture as Jesus told John to write the revelation. The gospels are Jesus' words which are divine revelation and thus scripture and his actions are also the divine works of God and so cannot be dismissed.

 

[Scotth1960]

First off, I am not saying that it is not.
I would really like to believe that that the whole Bible is without error and every word is indeed the word of God.
A friend came over today who is someone that I would call very religious. I ask him why he believes everything word for word in the bible, and he says because it is the word straight from God. I ask who told him this? He says it is in the Bible. I say where for the New Testament? He starts to quote some passage calling it scripture. But I say, yes but that passage is really referring to the Old Testament. I tell him that there was no New Testament at the time that it is referring to. And anyway this was not about my day, and maybe I have spent way too much time on google studying the history of how the Bible was made and put together. So, fire away, and help to show me that I am wrong.

The Church says that the NT is Scripture. It is the Church that is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. The Church is the guardian and keeper and sole infallible interpreter of the Bible, OT and NT together. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS What is the Church: one holy catholic and apostolic. Orthodox.
In the beginning, Greek-speaking.

 

[Alabaster]

The Church says that the NT is Scripture. It is the Church that is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. The Church is the guardian and keeper and sole infallible interpreter of the Bible, OT and NT together.

The Bible means we believers make up the sum total of the Church. We need to set that standard and stop letting an institution do it for you.

PS What is the Church: one holy catholic and apostolic. Orthodox.
In the beginning, Greek-speaking.

It's all Christians. Period.