Should the books of the bible been more like 77?

[reformed1689]

It is not that you won't meet my challenge, it is that you can't.

OR I ALREADY HAVE in other threads and it would be off topic (more so than we already are) to this thread.

When you don't agree or know something you should, you don't supply additional information to actually debate; no, you just throw out "FALSE TEACHER" as if you think diversion tactics and calling people names will make people not see how uninformed you really are.

This of course is a lie and more false witness. I have supplied other information in many other threads, you just ignore it. But here again you are willfully sinning by bearing intentional false witness.

You parrot what your denomination teaches you, but still don't understand what they are saying, let alone discern how much error they actually teach.

First, you don't even know what denomination I am. Second, I DO NOT parrot what they teach. More false witness.

You can't even defend their beliefs with more than the one or two out of context scriptures they use.

Again, I doubt you even know what denomination I align myself with.

You are just a victim and still too immature and Biblically ignorant to know any better.

I think this more accurately describes you.

You can't even recognize scripture when I use it in conversation.

More false witness. I do recognize Scripture, but you MISQUOTED Scripture.

You need it in the carnal plain English of the unlearned.

No, actually I don't, but I highly doubt you know any Greek or Hebrew.

 

[shnarkle]

That could be true, as Paul, himself, admits that not every verse in a canonical book is God breathed.

He admits that some of what he writes is not God breathed, yet they're included in the bible...

 

[CharismaticLady]

So, why wouldn't the 'infanticide' in (Num. 31:9-17), or concerning the Flood of Noah, be a reason to reject those portions of Scripture.

Again, I'm NOT rejecting anything.

There is more in the EoB than that one verse on abortion. Just because MAN decided not to include the EoB does not mean that God didn't want it included. I obey God not man.

 

[CharismaticLady]

OR I ALREADY HAVE in other threads and it would be off topic (more so than we already are) to this thread.

This of course is a lie and more false witness. I have supplied other information in many other threads, you just ignore it. But here again you are willfully sinning by bearing intentional false witness.

First, you don't even know what denomination I am. Second, I DO NOT parrot what they teach. More false witness.

Again, I doubt you even know what denomination I align myself with.

I think this more accurately describes you.

More false witness. I do recognize Scripture, but you MISQUOTED Scripture.

No, actually I don't, but I highly doubt you know any Greek or Hebrew.

I scanned your post looking for a scripture. Not one. I'm not reading your vile. I just want to talk about Scripture. Again, GOOD BYE!

 

[CharismaticLady]

He admits that some of what he writes is not God breathed, yet they're included in the bible...

You don't throw out the baby because it swallowed some bath water. Paul has allowed us to discern for ourselves by telling us that not everything he writes was inspired. You don't understand. In the same books that include his non-inspired opinions, are words of God. My goal is to have ALL of God's Word, which includes the EoB. That in no way means I want to throw out a book of Paul's that is mostly God's Word.

I'm not speaking against the Bible. It is God's Word. I just want ALL OF THE BIBLE. Not just the parts that man decided to give us.

 

[reformed1689]

I scanned your post looking for a scripture. Not one. I'm not reading your vile. I just want to talk about Scripture. Again, GOOD BYE!

More lies.

 

[CharismaticLady]

More lies.

Ignored.

 

[shnarkle]

You don't throw out the baby because it swallowed some bath water. Paul has allowed us to discern for ourselves by telling us that not everything he writes was inspired. You don't understand. In the same books that include his non-inspired opinions, are words of God. My goal is to have ALL of God's Word, which includes the EoB. That in no way means I want to throw out a book of Paul's that is mostly God's Word.

I'm not speaking against the Bible. It is God's Word. I just want ALL OF THE BIBLE. Not just the parts that man decided to give us.

You're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not suggesting we throw out Paul's uninspired writings. I would even go so far as to take a more in depth look at the Oral Law as well. Much of it is incredibly inspiring. It should come as no surprise that those who endeavor to study God's word are going to eventually become inspired. Paul knew the Talmud as well as he knew the Hebrew bible.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not suggesting we throw out Paul's uninspired writings. I would even go so far as to take a more in depth look at the Oral Law as well. Much of it is incredibly inspiring. It should come as no surprise that those who endeavor to study God's word are going to eventually become inspired. Paul knew the Talmud as well as he knew the Hebrew bible.

Maybe I misunderstood your point.

 

[Marymog]

Because you have to have the Spirit to listen to Him. I believe the Church was too worldly for centuries to get anything right in the eyes of God.

Sounds like you do not believe the men of The Church were guided by the Holy Spirit and were too worldly when they decided on the 27 books that all Christians consider God breathed. That is a fascinating and un-provable theory.

 

[Marymog]

So you will accept that Clement's writings could have been canonical, but not Barnabas? At least, Barnabas was from the first century.

Thru historical writings it is said that Clement of Rome, who wrote about the Phoenix in one of his letters, was a student of Peter and Paul. His letters were in FACT from the 1st century.

The experts believe The Epistle of Barnabas to have been written anywhere from 80-130AD and was more than likely NOT written by the Apostle Barnabas.

Both were read during services in churches by the early Christians as Scripture. Both were eventually rejected as canonical and not included in the 27 books of the NT.

Soooo to answer your question: Yes, I believe the writings of a person who was a student of the Apostles Peter and Paul, to be more acceptable as truth/doctrinal/canonical than the spurious writings of Barnabas.

Why don't you?

Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

Those who are filled with the Spirit can hear God's voice and are endued with power. There are also tests of who is abiding in Christ. They keep the commandments of God and God answers their prayers. Before I was filled with the Spirit not one of my prayers were answered. But since 1977 all my prayers are answered. I receive what has been prayed.

OK...I don't see an answer to my question but I digress.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Sounds like you do not believe the men of The Church were guided by the Holy Spirit and were too worldly when they decided on the 27 books that all Christians consider God breathed. That is a fascinating and un-provable theory.

My "proof" is in understanding Revelation 2 and 3.

 

[Marymog]

There is only one meaning to every verse in the Bible. If you come across something that seems to contradict, you must first look at the context of each verse, first in the chapter or even the whole book. And that must not contradict other books. If your heart and spirit is set to desire only God's meaning, and you are willing to let go of falsehoods, He will honor that and you will receive the truth.

But there are some that are die hard denominationalists, and really don't care about God's meaning, only the false meaning they have itching ears to hear and seek no further truth. Do you fall into this category, or were you raised in a different denomination than you hold to now and are actually open minded?

Hi,

What happens when you come across something in Scripture that seems to contradict and you look at the context of each verse (or even the whole book) and your heart and spirit set you to desire God's meaning and you let go of falsehoods...... but your interpretation of that passage of Scripture is different than the 2,000 year teaching of Christianity?

Are you wrong? Or are the thousands of Church elders who have accepted that teaching for 2,000 years wrong?

Curious Mary

 

[CharismaticLady]

Thru historical writings it is said that Clement of Rome, who wrote about the Phoenix in one of his letters, was a student of Peter and Paul. His letters were in FACT from the 1st century.

The experts believe The Epistle of Barnabas to have been written anywhere from 80-130AD and was more than likely NOT written by the Apostle Barnabas.

Both were read during services in churches by the early Christians as Scripture. Both were eventually rejected as canonical and not included in the 27 books of the NT.

Soooo to answer your question: Yes, I believe the writings of a person who was a student of the Apostles Peter and Paul, to be more acceptable as truth/doctrinal/canonical than the spurious writings of Barnabas.

Why don't you?

Historical Mary

I couldn't care less what "scholars" believe. They are only opinions and assumptions. I'll keep listening to the Holy Spirit. You do what you like.

 

[Marymog]

My "proof" is in understanding Revelation 2 and 3.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

I couldn't care less what "scholars" believe. They are only opinions and assumptions. I'll keep listening to the Holy Spirit. You do what you like.

You have no opinions and assumptions and they were not listening to the Holy Spirit?????

Thank you for your time.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hi,

What happens when you come across something in Scripture that seems to contradict and you look at the context of each verse (or even the whole book) and your heart and spirit set you to desire God's meaning and you let go of falsehoods...... but your interpretation of that passage of Scripture is different than the 2,000 year teaching of Christianity?

Are you wrong? Or are the thousands of Church elders who have accepted that teaching for 2,000 years wrong?

Curious Mary

Go to the Author and ask.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You have no opinions and assumptions and they were not listening to the Holy Spirit?????

Thank you for your time.

I KNOW the voice of the Spirit, but you don't have to believe me, just believe Him. Knowing His voice is WHY 100% of my prayers are answered. Were theirs? I doubt it. Your accusations tell me you are demonstrating the spirit of the accuser of the brethren. Why allow it in?

 

[Marymog]

I KNOW the voice of the Spirit, but you don't have to believe me, just believe Him. Knowing His voice is WHY 100% of my prayers are answered. Were theirs? I doubt it. Your accusations tell me you are demonstrating the spirit of the accuser of the brethren. Why allow it in?

Please answer my questions and I will answer yours: You have no opinions and assumptions? They were not listening to the Holy Spirit?

You alluded that you "doubt" that they were listening to the Holy Spirit. If they were alive today they would doubt you are listening sooooo where does that leave us???

Patient Mary