Other gods I know

[Groundzero]

I always find it humourous when this is brought up. If the Bible is not the 100% inspired, infallible, word of God, then where and on what do we base our 'firm' doctrine on?

The fault is not with the Bible, but rather those who interpret the Bible. I was recently telling a workmate, "Most people try and fit the Bible to their view, but extremely few people fit their view to the Bible's view."
There's a world of a difference between the two views.

 

[Mungo]

I always find it humourous when this is brought up. If the Bible is not the 100% inspired, infallible, word of God, then where and on what do we base our 'firm' doctrine on?

What did people base their firm doctrines on before the Bible was written & compiled?

The fault is not with the Bible, but rather those who interpret the Bible. I was recently telling a workmate, "Most people try and fit the Bible to their view, but extremely few people fit their view to the Bible's view."
There's a world of a difference between the two views.

Yes, everyone interpreting the Bible leads to 30,000+ different "firm doctrines based on the Bible".

 

[veteran]

2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(KJV)

Of course it's God's Holy Writ that distinguishes believers on Christ Jesus unto Salvation vs. those who don't have it and instead put their faith in a coconut. What do people think was and is used to preach The Gospel Salvation to the nations? Do we intend to go back to times like Abraham or even Adam, which was PRIOR to God revealing His Gospel to mankind?

That's what those who put God's Holy Writ on a shelf are trying to do.

And talk about erroneous interpretations, what does one think happens when man is left on his own without God's Holy Writ? Does their understanding of Salvation then become perfect without God's Holy Writ? The further they get away from God's Holy Writ the further away from The Truth they get.

It's bad enough that some so-called churches exist today that declare only a small portion of The Bible, and then go and leave out the rest so they can try and create their 'own' brands of God's Plan of Salvation. Those churches are beth-avens, the idea God used in OT times about houses of vanity. And because those kind of houses have always existed to supply the workers of iniquity their feel-good outlets, one is going to say it's faulty interpretation of God's Holy Writ that causes that?!*@!? And thus we need to put The Bible on a shelf???

It's very clear to me what those are trying to do today. The devil that's over those churches plan to join them in with all the world's religions. Obviously The Bible does not fit the doctrines or beliefs of the world's religions, so they HAVE to reject The Bible in order to join their so-called brand of faith with that of the world's religions in prep for the coming Antichrist.

 

[domenic]

God chose to reveal his will through a book. Jesus often quoted the Bible and recognized its authority. We should follow his example.

In Jesus Christ the infinite God became a human. If he can do that isn't it reasonable to suppose that he could also place an infinite amount of wisdom in a book?

There was no Bible in Jesus day... there was only the Torah.

 

[mjrhealth]

2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(KJV)

So which part is scripture. which part is mens opinions. You even had to put "KJV" to ensure you didnt misqoute another doctrine, strange thing the bible.

1Co_7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

He even said it was his opinion.

In all His Love

 

[veteran]

There was no Bible in Jesus day... there was only the Torah.

You've got plenty of gnats to strain at. Time to quit playing games with God's Truth.

 

[Groundzero]

What did people base their firm doctrines on before the Bible was written & compiled?



Yes, everyone interpreting the Bible leads to 30,000+ different "firm doctrines based on the Bible".

I believe that there was a thing known as conscience, and after that, was the Law of Moses. :)

 

[Mungo]

I believe that there was a thing known as conscience, and after that, was the Law of Moses. :)

And when Jesus died and the Law of Moses was not applicable to Christians what did Christians base thier firm doctrines on then?

Back to conciences?

 

[Groundzero]

And when Jesus died and the Law of Moses was not applicable to Christians what did Christians base thier firm doctrines on then?

Back to conciences?

Go and study your Bible and it will tell you. :)

My Bible tells me that there the apostles formed a council, consisting of men who Jesus had taught his principles to and who had His Spirit. By the time the members of this council had died, the Bible as we know it had been fully composed and only needed to be compiled.

FYI: Jesus himself expounded the Scriptures. If He used them as such, I think it wise we do the same.

 

[mjrhealth]

Than He gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth, but like Jesus, no body wants Him, prefer a book to the living God.

In all His Love

 

[Mungo]

Go and study your Bible and it will tell you. :)

My Bible tells me that there the apostles formed a council, consisting of men who Jesus had taught his principles to and who had His Spirit. By the time the members of this council had died, the Bible as we know it had been fully composed and only needed to be compiled.

FYI: Jesus himself expounded the Scriptures. If He used them as such, I think it wise we do the same.

The Bible was not compiled until the 4th century. There were many texts that were considered for the canon and disputes continued for centuries over what should be adopted. For example Hebrews was not considered canonical in the West before the 4th century. The Council of Nicaea (325) questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There were others that were accepted as cononical by many people into the 3rd century, such as The Didache, the Letter of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas, and some even into the 4th century.


FYI
Jesus was not sola scriptura.
The Apostles were not sola scriptura.
The Church was not sola scriptura.

It was a novelty introduced by the "reformers" in the 16th century and is unbiblical.

 

[veteran]

The Bible was not compiled until the 4th century?!*?

What planet have you been living on?

The Old Testament Books were written centuries prior to the 4th century A.D. Those Books made up The Bible in the days of Christ's Apostles, and also long before they were born. The word 'Bible' simply means 'book' from old words like biblos, biblia. But when speaking of The Bible in the God's Holy Writ sense, it most certainly includes all the writings He sent through His servants of Israel and of Christ Jesus.

EVEN with the New Testament manuscripts, they go back further than 4th century A.D.!

---------------------------------------------------
from http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html



Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.

ca. A.D.		200	250		300	350	450

Matthew				P45		B	Sin.       
Mark				P45		B	Sin.	A
Luke				P4,P45,P75	B	Sin.	A
John			P66	P45,P75		B	Sin.	A
Acts				P45		B	Sin.	A
Romans-Hebrews		P46			B	Sin.	A
James-Jude					P72,B	Sin.	A
Apocalypse			P47			Sin.	A

 

[mjrhealth]

The Bible was not compiled until the 4th century?!*?

What planet have you been living on?

Guess when God Jesus and the Holy Spirit where around.

" in the begining "

Guess who I would rather trust....

In all His Love

 

[Comm.Arnold]

ok fella

 

[Mungo]

The Bible was not compiled until the 4th century?!*?

What planet have you been living on?

The Old Testament Books were written centuries prior to the 4th century A.D. Those Books made up The Bible in the days of Christ's Apostles, and also long before they were born. The word 'Bible' simply means 'book' from old words like biblos, biblia. But when speaking of The Bible in the God's Holy Writ sense, it most certainly includes all the writings He sent through His servants of Israel and of Christ Jesus.

EVEN with the New Testament manuscripts, they go back further than 4th century A.D.!

---------------------------------------------------
from http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html



Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.

ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A

I was actually referring to the NT rather than the whole Bible. I should have been more specific.

But if we consider the OT then it was Greek LXX that was adopted by the Christian Church from the beginninn not the Hebrew text, much less the corrupted Masoretic texts of the tenth century.

It's not a matter of when they were written, it a matter of when they were canonised and compiled into a sacred text. As I said (regarding the NT) There were many texts that were considered for the canon and disputes continued for centuries over what should be adopted. For example Hebrews was not considered canonical in the West before the 4th century. The Council of Nicaea (325) questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There were others that were accepted as cononical by many people into the 3rd century, such as The Didache, the Letter of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas, and some even into the 4th century.

 

[veteran]

I was actually referring to the NT rather than the whole Bible. I should have been more specific.

But if we consider the OT then it was Greek LXX that was adopted by the Christian Church from the beginninn not the Hebrew text, much less the corrupted Masoretic texts of the tenth century.

It's not a matter of when they were written, it a matter of when they were canonised and compiled into a sacred text. As I said (regarding the NT) There were many texts that were considered for the canon and disputes continued for centuries over what should be adopted. For example Hebrews was not considered canonical in the West before the 4th century. The Council of Nicaea (325) questioned the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There were others that were accepted as cononical by many people into the 3rd century, such as The Didache, the Letter of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas, and some even into the 4th century.

I disagree, it is ESPECIALLY about when they were first written, and given to God's people.

Did it require some Church figure or Catholic council to declare those writings canonized for them to come into effect? No, of course not. So why would you rely on that sense, which is just a bowing to men's traditions?

As for Pseudepigrapha, there's been several of those works, lot of them by Gnostics of the 2nd century forward. Even some of the texts of the sect at Qumran are suspect because of the philosophy those Essenes held per their writings.

The original 1st Edition 1611 King James Bible included the Apocryphal books, but it doesn't take much reading of them to know they aren't the same kind of writings of the rest of The Bible. One only need study and use common sense. Men's rules and councils are for those who don't have enough common sense to know the difference.

 

[Mungo]

I disagree, it is ESPECIALLY about when they were first written, and given to God's people.

Did it require some Church figure or Catholic council to declare those writings canonized for them to come into effect? No, of course not. So why would you rely on that sense, which is just a bowing to men's traditions?

As for Pseudepigrapha, there's been several of those works, lot of them by Gnostics of the 2nd century forward. Even some of the texts of the sect at Qumran are suspect because of the philosophy those Essenes held per their writings.

The original 1st Edition 1611 King James Bible included the Apocryphal books, but it doesn't take much reading of them to know they aren't the same kind of writings of the rest of The Bible. One only need study and use common sense. Men's rules and councils are for those who don't have enough common sense to know the difference.

What you are advocating is that everyone decides for themselves which books they decide should be considered scripture and which not. What becomes scripture for them is a personal thing. Very Protestant.

 

[mjrhealth]

What you are advocating is that everyone decides for themselves which books they decide should be considered scripture and which not. What becomes scripture for them is a personal thing. Very Protestant.

And what you are advocating is that man has teh right to determine what is scripture and what is not. Again we have man making God in his image instead of the other way round. Even the bible itself does not declare which part is scripture and which is not,but you know what they say of those who "assume", and the devil has made one out of christianity.

In all His Love

 

[Mungo]

And what you are advocating is that man has teh right to determine what is scripture and what is not. Again we have man making God in his image instead of the other way round. Even the bible itself does not declare which part is scripture and which is not,but you know what they say of those who "assume", and the devil has made one out of christianity.

In all His Love

I'm suggesting that the Church, which produced the various (NT) writings, is the one with the authority to discern which are inspired, and therefore worthy to be declared scripture, and which are not.

It's not up to each individual to decide for himself/herself.

How do you personally know what is scripture and what is not? Do you accept the decisions of men in the past or have you started from scratch and read all the possible books (dozens, perhaps hundreds of them) and come to a personal conclusion?

 

[mjrhealth]

Me i just trust God, stopped reading means opinions on God a long time ago.

Those who are led by the spirit they are the sons of God

In all His Love