Sola Scriptura - does this foundation make you a heretic

[bbyrd009]

Well this aint God breathed

Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee

Jesus certainly made a point of it

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

you don't think the fact that they are included in Scripture as a lesson makes them God~Breathed?

 

[mjrhealth]

well its like this. God never spoke them so they are not His words, unless God and the devil are one and teh same... Are they???

Scripture in British
(ˈskrɪptʃə )

noun
1. Also called : Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, the Scriptures Christianity
the Old and New Testaments
2.
any book or body of writings, esp when regarded as sacred by a particular religious group

So teh Koran is scripture, as is every book deemed to be Holy by men,

 

[bbyrd009]

God never spoke them so they are not His words

no, but they are included in what are deemed to be Rhema as a part of a larger parable, iow the first one, v24? cannot really be contemplated without reflecting upon the second, v26 or whatever. A God~Breathed lesson is imparted in the entire parable, regardless of whether satan or whomever has been quoted or characterized in writing somewhere in that parable lol, c'mon

 

[bbyrd009]

unless God and the devil are one and teh same... Are they?

ha, do scapegoats disappear when they are no longer needed? dunno

 

[mjrhealth]

no, but they are included in what are deemed to be Rhema as a part of a larger parable, iow the first one, v24? cannot really be contemplated without reflecting upon the second, v26 or whatever. A God~Breathed lesson is imparted in the entire parable, regardless of whether satan or whomever has been quoted or characterized in writing somewhere in that parable lol, c'mon

What would you do if someone ran around saying things you never said, but making teh bold statement that is is your words.

Oh we love to blame it all on God, its all His fault.

 

[bbyrd009]

So teh Koran is scripture, as is every book deemed to be Holy by men,

they do pretty much all adhere to a pretty ratified formula tbh, i doubt one could discern any practical differences?

 

[bbyrd009]

What would you do if someone ran around saying things you never said, but making teh bold statement that is is your words.

Oh we love to blame it all on God, its all His fault.

yes, i get you there, but imo the Bible was pretty much put through the fire already, and i doubt you could discredit any of It wadr. Your characterization of Scripture as "someone ran around saying things you never said, but making teh bold statement that is is your words" is not really very representative of how the Bible really came to be, do you think?

 

[mjrhealth]

yes, i get you there, but imo the Bible was pretty much put through the fire already, and i doubt you could discredit any of It wadr. Your characterization of Scripture as "someone ran around saying things you never said, but making teh bold statement that is is your words" is not really very representative of how the Bible really came to be, do you think?

Tell me who wrote it. men or God.... ??? Who inspred -

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.

Oh not inspired by God...

Is God the autor of confusion, mentioned before 41000 different denomination. all preaching a different gospel a different Jesus and a different way to heaven from teh same book. You would think that if God wrote a book it would be without error and there would only be 1. I am pretty sure if it was His purpose He would not set out to confuse mankind, we can do that quit well on our own. yet here we are diminishing God to words in a book, His words are life there is no life in teh bible. Oh and how does one "copyright" God worth. look at the front page of your bible.

 

[bbyrd009]

Tell me who wrote it. men or God.... ??? Who inspred -

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.

Oh not inspired by God...

so you say, but the man plainly said as much, and the passage culminates in "how do you know that you might not save your wife/husband?"

i've seen you quote this before as an example here; i guess i would have to understand your objection better to give any meaningful response, sorry.

 

[bbyrd009]

Is God the autor of confusion, mentioned before 41000 different denomination. all preaching a different gospel a different Jesus and a different way to heaven from teh same book.

imo the Book explains this, @ Babbel and in other places, and it is a function of the hearer, this confusion that you attribute to God. So yes, there is a sense in which God is the Author of that, because we have literally been "confused" with Free Will, and it is difficult to read without imposing one's will in the context, as Scripture makes plain.

So i hear you once again bemoaning these clear markers of "the wide path," perhaps not realizing that it is Scripture that reveals this, and after all pretty much everyone here starts on that path, it is certainly better than no path, and who could condemn every soul in a sect anyway?

The Book is the Law, not the Truth, and It is written specifically to divide, so that we may be revealed. How can we be revealed if we are not divided? How will you read the Book of Truth if you cannot read the Book of Law? You might go to Dao's House and eat what they feed you for a year or so, and see why just telling someone truth fails. It gives you a fish for a day, but does not teach how to fish. Great and simple truths, that no one can argue against, and no one's hypocrisy is revealed to themselves.

i offer as proof here the fact that we are debating the Bible, not some Dao story, or the Book of Truth. By your own choice, iow.
You have found love, or are about to, like a lot of us i guess right now, and sure, there is a time to outgrow the Bible, so to speak, as It even plainly states, but it will not be because It has been invalidated, ok.

40,000 denominations are a reflection of the truth, they are not this bad thing that you make them out to be anyway. Who plants a garden with only one kind of tree? People who seek profit, and that's about it. Monoculture=infestation, in nature.

 

[bbyrd009]

You would think that if God wrote a book it would be without error and there would only be 1.

ha well i might think that, and you might think that, but we are not God, either. And besides that, that Book is written, it is the "Book of Truth." Why not go get a copy, and read that, if that is what you want to read?

Or alternately you might point out some error in the Bible--and i'm talking "from the Lex" here, not interested in debating obvious mistranslations, ok. If you think the wifey one earlier qualifies you'll have to expound on that more first i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

I am pretty sure if it was His purpose He would not set out to confuse mankind, we can do that quit well on our own.

i agree, and surely we might agree that we come to the Bible already "confused," yes? And i see that you are presently convinced that we should have just been given the Book of Truth right off, but i tell you that It would not serve you in that state, It would be complete gibberish to you.

So see that an argument can be made here that you are "pretty sure if it was His purpose He would not set out to confuse mankind," but i read, in many places, that we are confused, and have deliberately been confused, see Babbel et al, and "God is not the author of confusion" is generally interpreted from a confused mind. It ends up being a choice, as is clearly stated. You are manifesting your choice in every post.

You understand that God also creates evil, yes? Is that one still a mystery to you? I don't think it is, from what i have read from you. So you might see the same concept going on here. It is better to author more broadly, so that those who seek escape from reality to a place called heaven after they die can reveal themselves, see. It allows people to come to conclusions of their own. Those same people can read "the kingdom of heaven is within you" whenever they want to, if they ever want to, and if they do not, then why would you even want to wise up the marks here?

i know that maybe seems harsh or cruel, but i would just reference once again that Christ thanked God for the same thing that you are complaining about.

 

[bbyrd009]

i bet i could quote 50 vv directly stating where God "confused" various people.

yet they could all be understood to be failures of understanding, not God authoring confusion.

 

[bbyrd009]

yet here we are diminishing God to words in a book, His words are life there is no life in teh bible.

and all of that is, once again, upon the reader, as this is all clearly laid out in the Bible, right? The path to find Word is in the Bible, too. So i dunno who this "we" is that you are talking about, wadr i think you are possessed by this, although i would hate for you to take that the wrong way, i don't mean it like it sounds, we are all possessed at times, it is a common thing even for a believer. We are all possessed in a sense, iow, unless we are walking with Enoch i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh and how does one "copyright" God worth. look at the front page of your bible.

ha, i don't read those Bibles, haven't for years, for that reason. Don't even pick them up. I reference them in discussions, but i read from a Lexicon now, or sometimes a literal translation.

But i agree, "copyright" should tell one whom the copywriter is serving, yes. And that guy cannot serve two masters, either.

 

[bbyrd009]

fwiw i suspect now that you are seeking validation in company, and i understand why i think, as we can read that we are to "be of one mind, all speaking the same," etc., but this is being misunderstood, it is as much a poke at human nature as it is a prophecy, but even revealed it will not be like One kind of Tree in a Garden, as we envision, i am pretty sure.

Crowd wisdom even suggests that when you discover yourself amidst a group of people all spouting the same rhetoric, it is time to pause and reflect. God does not want monoculture, but many nests in His tree. (personally i would lose the notion of mansions, leave them for the death-eaters and the copywriters)

 

[Marymog]

Scripture was never given in books nor was it referenced as books in fact even the OT books as many call them were never formalized until around the first few centuries a.d. and of course anyone can learn about how scripture has come through history to the state it is in now.
I would suggest that you start a thread about how scripture came to be considered scripture in our current time since the facts about what was considered scripture and not were debated by many people at many times. The unfortunate part in the whole story is that a great many scriptures were destroyed as one or another faction in power would eliminate those that didn't follow with the factions point of view.

Dear KBCid,

When were the OT books formalized? Was there a meeting of Church leaders to formalize it?

I agree with you. What was considered scripture and what was not considered scripture was debated by many people at many times. It was debated because they couldn't rely on "scripture alone" to decide what is scripture. Hence, sola Scriptura is an unworkable theory. It is a a logically self-defeating principle.

Man, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided what is scripture. Scripture didn't decide what is scripture.

So the decision to make now is which men do you trust to get the number of books in scripture right? The Catholics? How about the Eastern Orthodox who have more books in their bible than the Catholics do? How about the Protestant bible that has fewer books than the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox?

IHS...Mary

 

[KBCid]

Dear KBCid, When were the OT books formalized? Was there a meeting of Church leaders to formalize it?

I know the true answer but do you?

I agree with you. What was considered scripture and what was not considered scripture was debated by many people at many times. It was debated because they couldn't rely on "scripture alone" to decide what is scripture. Hence, sola Scriptura is an unworkable theory. It is a a logically self-defeating principle.

No, you do not agree with me.
...The first non Jewish made “canon” was the Muratoria Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches....
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Does the above sound like a Holy spirit led decision?
Man without the guidance of the Holy spirit has tried to specify what is scripture but as we can see they failed so they kept taking a shot at it until we have the currently agreed upon canon which in fact is likely less than it was when it was set by those commissioned to make it.

.....No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired. How were the books of the Bible chosen?

Colossians 1:24 Now, I am rejoicing in my sufferings for you, and I am filling up in my flesh that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church; 25. Of which I became a servant, according to the administration of God that was given to me for you in order to complete the Word of God.

Of course, to grasp what is and has happened one must live by every word of the mouth of God otherwise, you would be living by words form that which is not God

 

[Marymog]

I know the true answer but do you?

No, you do not agree with me.
...The first non Jewish made “canon” was the Muratoria Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches....
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Does the above sound like a Holy spirit led decision?
Man without the guidance of the Holy spirit has tried to specify what is scripture but as we can see they failed so they kept taking a shot at it until we have the currently agreed upon canon which in fact is likely less than it was when it was set by those commissioned to make it.

.....No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired. How were the books of the Bible chosen?

Colossians 1:24 Now, I am rejoicing in my sufferings for you, and I am filling up in my flesh that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church; 25. Of which I became a servant, according to the administration of God that was given to me for you in order to complete the Word of God.

Of course, to grasp what is and has happened one must live by every word of the mouth of God otherwise, you would be living by words form that which is not God

Dear KBCid,

Looks like we are still in agreement: What was considered scripture and what was not considered scripture was debated by many people at many times. It was debated because they couldn't rely on "scripture alone" to decide what is scripture.

You left out the debates at the Council of Hippo and Carthage. Today’s Bible owes a debt to many ancient debates.

You do know that the Muratorian Canon is a fragment and scholars don't know what larger work it was a part of and that it starts in the middle of an unknown sentence. Some scholars have re-dated it to the fourth century.

If the there was a list of books that belong in the bible AND that list was in scripture, then there would not be a debate. Since we can't rely on your "scripture alone" theory then there will always be a debate.

BTW......Your Colossians 1:24-25 reference has NOTHING to do with what books belong in the bible.

IHS...Mary

 

[amadeus]

Well it is a test question to see if others have the helper. The Holy Spirit is the only helper given from the father and yes the helper would be given to all "believers". Believers being defined by Christ.
Like I said before you can simply say "I don't know". There is no pressure to answer me now or ever. The only reason I asked you directly was because you displayed an unusual amount of correct understandings on a variety of subjects that is not typical for the usual "Christian".
I commend you on what you have accomplished in gaining understanding of God and I encourage you to keep on that path.

If I may ask you a question with no tricks or tests in mind. You say the Holy Spirit is the "only" helper by the Father. My question is about the Holy Spirit also being called the Comforter in this verse:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" John 14:16

For me "another" Comforter is a second one, the first one being Jesus, himself. Would not Jesus also have been the first "helper" sent?