do you believe the whole bible or just some parts of it`?
- Thread starter Holy999
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Parts. It's very apparent for example, the Comma Johanneum was added by the Catholic church to support the Trinity Doctrine against the Gnostics.
If you believe the whole Bible, I'll contend you don't. The Bible has more than a few concepts and books referenced and promoted in the Bible that most denominations (and most all so-called non-denominations) reject. Some are justified but some are willfully ignorant, but neither accept the whole Bible.
If you believe the whole Bible, I'll contend you don't. The Bible has more than a few concepts and books referenced and promoted in the Bible that most denominations (and most all so-called non-denominations) reject. Some are justified but some are willfully ignorant, but neither accept the whole Bible.
Last edited:
Ehh, which things? All of it?
1 John 5:7 known as the Comma Johanneum,
"Today no Greek manuscript dating from before the sixteenth century is known to contain the comma Johanneum." (Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, et al, "The Correspondence of Erasmus", Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press, [1988], pg. 427)
Strongly suggesting it's a late addition by somebody to buttress the doctrine of the trinity. The earliest manuscripts all lack it. Of course, it's hard to be sure because there are no original manuscripts.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 Jn 5:7-8).
This verse appears nowhere in the earlier New Testament manuscripts, and is believed by scholars that it was added to bolster the 'Trinity' doctrine. This reading is in eight manuscripts from the 16th century (Codex 2318, 221, 61, 88, 429, 629, 836 and 918) and the oldest one is from the 10th century but only has it as a marginal note (Codex 221).
There is no evidence of this reading "in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s and no Greek witness of any kind until AD 1215", "This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity." (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8).
Concepts the Bible promotes yet most Christians don't believe in
Divination, astrology, multiple heavens, a tripartite existence, creation from material, dragons, secret initiation rites and teachings, theosis, theophanies, nation gods, God in an anthropomorphic form, polygymy, the Holy Ghost is a woman, etc.
Books the Bible authors believed in yet most Christians don't trust
There are loads of "pseudepigraphal" texts referenced in the Bible as scripture, but do the majority of Christians accept any outside books? No, not even if it's stated to be scripture in the Bible. Hebrews' list of Heroes of Faith references 1st Book of Enoch, it says Enoch was taken after he gave a "testimony" that pleased God which is unique to 1st Enoch (Hebrews 11:5). It references the Ascension of Isaiah's detail of Isaiah's unique martyrdom is, "the prophets: who... stopped the mouths of lions [Daniel]... women received their dead raised to life [Elisha]... and others ... were stoned [Zechariah], they were sawn asunder [???]" (Hebrews 11:33-37) that's a very specific detail, who and where was a prophet sawn asunder other than Isaiah in other books outside the Bible?
Jude references The Testament of Moses' lost ending, the Assumption of Moses where Moses' body was taken (Jude 9) and quotes from 1st Enoch as the "prophecy" of Enoch (Jude 14-15).
Paul references the names of the Priests of Pharoh who "opposed" Moses, from the Book of Jannes and Jambres, yet unnamed in Exodus (2 Tim 3:8). Jesus references the Book of Tobit as the "scripture" where 'a woman with seven husbands' sinerio derived (Matthew 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29). James references the Testament of Job that promotes the virtue of "patience" (James 5:11). Peter references Joseph and Aseneth which uniquely teaches "do not return evil for evil" (1 Pt 3:9).
The idea of a "whole Bible" is a man-made construct of many books and not others, which was not something that was possible for them to decide. What they chose as books was to be used by the 'in's to maintain control over dissidents and defend against the 'out's.
1 John 5:7 known as the Comma Johanneum,
"Today no Greek manuscript dating from before the sixteenth century is known to contain the comma Johanneum." (Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, et al, "The Correspondence of Erasmus", Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press, [1988], pg. 427)
Strongly suggesting it's a late addition by somebody to buttress the doctrine of the trinity. The earliest manuscripts all lack it. Of course, it's hard to be sure because there are no original manuscripts.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 Jn 5:7-8).
This verse appears nowhere in the earlier New Testament manuscripts, and is believed by scholars that it was added to bolster the 'Trinity' doctrine. This reading is in eight manuscripts from the 16th century (Codex 2318, 221, 61, 88, 429, 629, 836 and 918) and the oldest one is from the 10th century but only has it as a marginal note (Codex 221).
There is no evidence of this reading "in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s and no Greek witness of any kind until AD 1215", "This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity." (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8).
Concepts the Bible promotes yet most Christians don't believe in
Divination, astrology, multiple heavens, a tripartite existence, creation from material, dragons, secret initiation rites and teachings, theosis, theophanies, nation gods, God in an anthropomorphic form, polygymy, the Holy Ghost is a woman, etc.
Books the Bible authors believed in yet most Christians don't trust
There are loads of "pseudepigraphal" texts referenced in the Bible as scripture, but do the majority of Christians accept any outside books? No, not even if it's stated to be scripture in the Bible. Hebrews' list of Heroes of Faith references 1st Book of Enoch, it says Enoch was taken after he gave a "testimony" that pleased God which is unique to 1st Enoch (Hebrews 11:5). It references the Ascension of Isaiah's detail of Isaiah's unique martyrdom is, "the prophets: who... stopped the mouths of lions [Daniel]... women received their dead raised to life [Elisha]... and others ... were stoned [Zechariah], they were sawn asunder [???]" (Hebrews 11:33-37) that's a very specific detail, who and where was a prophet sawn asunder other than Isaiah in other books outside the Bible?
Jude references The Testament of Moses' lost ending, the Assumption of Moses where Moses' body was taken (Jude 9) and quotes from 1st Enoch as the "prophecy" of Enoch (Jude 14-15).
Paul references the names of the Priests of Pharoh who "opposed" Moses, from the Book of Jannes and Jambres, yet unnamed in Exodus (2 Tim 3:8). Jesus references the Book of Tobit as the "scripture" where 'a woman with seven husbands' sinerio derived (Matthew 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29). James references the Testament of Job that promotes the virtue of "patience" (James 5:11). Peter references Joseph and Aseneth which uniquely teaches "do not return evil for evil" (1 Pt 3:9).
The idea of a "whole Bible" is a man-made construct of many books and not others, which was not something that was possible for them to decide. What they chose as books was to be used by the 'in's to maintain control over dissidents and defend against the 'out's.
NotTheRock
Well-Known Member
It sounds to me as if God allows us to be lost from him, at least for a while. Do you share this view?
I'm very cautious about arguments from providence. There is a sloppy appearing grand design, a method to the madness, but not to say that people are all intended to be or stay where they are at, as divine providence. Stepping stones gospel, an evolutionary walk. God may even move us to be lost, a Prodigal Son.
All Christians, whether they know it or not, are aspiring to be royal priestly sons of God, and the royal road is like the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal Son goes on a "journey into a far country" (Lk 15:13). The Father's house is heaven, and this is the spirit's decent to earth. An angel son left his first estate, out of his Father's sight. He wasted his inheritance, his temporal and spiritual blessings and gifts on "riotous living" (Lk 15:13). Then came a "mighty famine" (Lk 15:14). A figure of ignorance, the deprivation of the truth (Amos 8:11) a stage of everyone's life, a necessary prelude to finding the truth, it leads us to hunger and search for truth (Mt 5:6). So, "he began to be in want" (Lk 15:15) and the search for truth began.
He becomes hired to by an earthly figure to feed swine (Lk 15:15), a low for a Jew, swine represent the heathen Gentiles and all that is unclean, (Prov 11:22; Isa 66:3; 2 Pt 2:22), so to serve them must be humbling, to feed them husks while he is famished. He begins to eat the husks. The swine feed on husks and crusts of men, things hard to eat and ingest, it is hard to be nourished, or receive truth from it. The husks of the world is not just worldly knowledge, but even a Bible passage can be a hard to eat husk of truth.
You might be thinking, did I just call the Bible a hard to eat husk? While it was written by inspired people, those people are long dead, and the books don't speak for themselves without modern inspiration to interpret it. There is no private interpretation (2 Pt 1:20). People are struggling everyday to feed themselves with it and no matter how thoroughly they study it, they interpret it wrong. The wide diversity of interpretation among "Bible-only" churches testifies the Bible is not so easy to eat or decipher.
Until it finally occurs to the Prodigal Son, as it does to us, that he doesn't actually have to eat husks. His Father gives substantive meals to even to his lowest servants. Husks are lesser teachings, first principle commonly spoken of and written about, while his Father's food are higher teachings feed to only the mature (Heb 5:11-6:2), the mysteries directly from God and are unwritten (2 Cor 12:4), deep doctrines kept secret, things told only in parables (Mt 13:35). These are the things the Prodigal Son desires, because he has matured, he has outgrown husks, he had renounced his old life, "no man gave unto him", and the husks of men do not satisfy (Lk 15:16).
The parable of the Prodigal Son is how we may return from their fallen state on earth and be welcomed back into the Kingdom of God. Humbly return to be a servant, a royal priest prepares to meet God. In Revelations, the Christians aspire to be like the ancient priest-kings (Rev 1:6), who seek heavenly food (Rev 2:17). He resolves to "arise and go to my father" (Lk 15:20), an ascent to God, to his "house" (Lk 20:25), heaven.
If there were any doubt of the transcendent nature of the parable, "My son was dead and is alive again, he was lost and is found". If the Prodigal Son is every sojourning spirit's mortal life, the Father is God, then who is the Elder Brother? Then the "Elder" brother enters the "house" (Lk 15:25), he is a first born, an angelic figure who never left heaven, never having dared to venture into the world to be tempted. You could say he is a Satanic figure, an accusing angel, like the one that spoke out against the loyalty of Job (Job 1:6) the purity of Joshua the High Priest (Zech 3:11). Angels don't understand fallen beings, they've never lost their connection with God. They judge mortals for their impurity in their tunnel vision or delusion of their own perfect state. Vexed by why the Father would allow such unworthy sons back into his presence.
The Prodigal Son confesses to him, as being "no more worthy to be called thy son" (Lk 15:21), an expression of contrition. The Prodigal Son's journey was a testing, his fall was necessary for his personal growth. Though he isn't in pristine shape, as his flesh became tainted, his confession of guilt demonstrates that he was humbled, so his spirit became pure (2 Pt 4:6), it's a much simpler matter to fix and purify the outer flesh, like Job and Joshua, than to fix a flawed character within. And in exchange the Father received a more spiritually worthy, humble and grateful son than the one that had left.
All Christians, whether they know it or not, are aspiring to be royal priestly sons of God, and the royal road is like the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal Son goes on a "journey into a far country" (Lk 15:13). The Father's house is heaven, and this is the spirit's decent to earth. An angel son left his first estate, out of his Father's sight. He wasted his inheritance, his temporal and spiritual blessings and gifts on "riotous living" (Lk 15:13). Then came a "mighty famine" (Lk 15:14). A figure of ignorance, the deprivation of the truth (Amos 8:11) a stage of everyone's life, a necessary prelude to finding the truth, it leads us to hunger and search for truth (Mt 5:6). So, "he began to be in want" (Lk 15:15) and the search for truth began.
He becomes hired to by an earthly figure to feed swine (Lk 15:15), a low for a Jew, swine represent the heathen Gentiles and all that is unclean, (Prov 11:22; Isa 66:3; 2 Pt 2:22), so to serve them must be humbling, to feed them husks while he is famished. He begins to eat the husks. The swine feed on husks and crusts of men, things hard to eat and ingest, it is hard to be nourished, or receive truth from it. The husks of the world is not just worldly knowledge, but even a Bible passage can be a hard to eat husk of truth.
You might be thinking, did I just call the Bible a hard to eat husk? While it was written by inspired people, those people are long dead, and the books don't speak for themselves without modern inspiration to interpret it. There is no private interpretation (2 Pt 1:20). People are struggling everyday to feed themselves with it and no matter how thoroughly they study it, they interpret it wrong. The wide diversity of interpretation among "Bible-only" churches testifies the Bible is not so easy to eat or decipher.
Until it finally occurs to the Prodigal Son, as it does to us, that he doesn't actually have to eat husks. His Father gives substantive meals to even to his lowest servants. Husks are lesser teachings, first principle commonly spoken of and written about, while his Father's food are higher teachings feed to only the mature (Heb 5:11-6:2), the mysteries directly from God and are unwritten (2 Cor 12:4), deep doctrines kept secret, things told only in parables (Mt 13:35). These are the things the Prodigal Son desires, because he has matured, he has outgrown husks, he had renounced his old life, "no man gave unto him", and the husks of men do not satisfy (Lk 15:16).
The parable of the Prodigal Son is how we may return from their fallen state on earth and be welcomed back into the Kingdom of God. Humbly return to be a servant, a royal priest prepares to meet God. In Revelations, the Christians aspire to be like the ancient priest-kings (Rev 1:6), who seek heavenly food (Rev 2:17). He resolves to "arise and go to my father" (Lk 15:20), an ascent to God, to his "house" (Lk 20:25), heaven.
If there were any doubt of the transcendent nature of the parable, "My son was dead and is alive again, he was lost and is found". If the Prodigal Son is every sojourning spirit's mortal life, the Father is God, then who is the Elder Brother? Then the "Elder" brother enters the "house" (Lk 15:25), he is a first born, an angelic figure who never left heaven, never having dared to venture into the world to be tempted. You could say he is a Satanic figure, an accusing angel, like the one that spoke out against the loyalty of Job (Job 1:6) the purity of Joshua the High Priest (Zech 3:11). Angels don't understand fallen beings, they've never lost their connection with God. They judge mortals for their impurity in their tunnel vision or delusion of their own perfect state. Vexed by why the Father would allow such unworthy sons back into his presence.
The Prodigal Son confesses to him, as being "no more worthy to be called thy son" (Lk 15:21), an expression of contrition. The Prodigal Son's journey was a testing, his fall was necessary for his personal growth. Though he isn't in pristine shape, as his flesh became tainted, his confession of guilt demonstrates that he was humbled, so his spirit became pure (2 Pt 4:6), it's a much simpler matter to fix and purify the outer flesh, like Job and Joshua, than to fix a flawed character within. And in exchange the Father received a more spiritually worthy, humble and grateful son than the one that had left.
I love the narrative of the prodigal angel (s) who will one day come back home 'when he came to his senses' Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, (his former self).
One day Satan will remember from where he came and Whom he came, his Creator. Satan (prodigal) will repent, turning back toward home, towards his Maker will be content to be the least of all angels. But that won't satisfy the heart of the Father Who will forgive the repentant one. Yes the heart of God will not withdraw from anyone who draws near to Him, in fact Jesus said, Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
What a fantastic revelation of the heart of the Creator, the Divine Father.
Yes, we Gentiles will receive mercy and grace from our Creator, our Father.
I acknowledge we didn't live with God previously. I acknowledge we didn't leave Him. I acknowledge we didn't return as a former child, as we were children of the devil, but we can still identify with Jesus's story.
The children of God, His chosen people Israel can more readily relate to this parable.
Isn't it great that Jews, Gentile and Angels can relate to this story.
Last edited:
Similar threads
