Spoken Word and Written Word are the Same

[Selene]

the enemy does too, take a look at the world around you, few can discern teh difference, religion is his greatest deception??

In all His Love

It was NOT the enemy who wrote the Bible nor canonized the books of the Bible. Isn't that what we were discussing about?

 

[Graceismine]

That link says that God spoke authoritatively through human beings outside of the Bible to impart revelation, doesn't it? That the inspiration of the books belonging to the canon of scripture was made known to them by God, and not through the Scriptures? That seems to confirm the idea that God's revelation is not limited to Scripture alone, it seems to me.

I don't see how they could have been "outside the Bible" when they were interpreting the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.The Scriptures had already been written and in this case as far as revelation from God goes He was not so much revealing something new as He was inspiring them in the truth of the already written word.

The biblical scripture you quoted simply says that all scripture is inspired by God, but it never told you which scripture was inspired by God. God always uses people as His instrument to carry out His will. It was men inspired under the Holy Spirit who wrote scripture, and it was men inspired under the Holy Spirit who CHOSE AND CANONIZED the Bible. The Bible was canonized by the end of the 4th century at the Council of Carthage.

I don't follow your questioning of the Scripture I quoted, not that it matters. I agree with the rest of what you said....didn't realise I inferred an opposite view.

 

[mjrhealth]

and it was men inspired under the Holy Spirit who CHOSE AND CANONIZED the Bible. The Bible was canonized by the end of the 4th century at the Council of Carthage.

No this is not knwon this is purely conjecture and all teh evidence proves otherwise.

Assumptions lead to ignorance.

In All His Love

 

[Selene]

No this is not knwon this is purely conjecture and all teh evidence proves otherwise.

Assumptions lead to ignorance.

In All His Love

What evidence would that be?

 

[mjrhealth]

Lets do a simple one for starters, do a search on the word" church:", and see where it came from the original meaning and why one man was burnt at the stake by a certain church because he knew it was wrong and would not use it. See if you took the word " church" in its original form than no "church: today would have a basis for its existence. Its amazing how many words where changed to suit the particular thinking of the " church": or person who translated it. The enemy works is simple way, for it is so easy to confound the minds of men.

In all His Love

 

[Selene]

Lets do a simple one for starters, do a search on the word" church:", and see where it came from the original meaning and why one man was burnt at the stake by a certain church because he knew it was wrong and would not use it. See if you took the word " church" in its original form than no "church: today would have a basis for its existence. Its amazing how many words where changed to suit the particular thinking of the " church": or person who translated it. The enemy works is simple way, for it is so easy to confound the minds of men.

In all His Love

What has this have to do with the historical fact that the Bible was finally put together and canonized at the Council of Carthage?

 

[Rex]

What has this have to do with the historical fact that the Bible was finally put together and canonized at the Council of Carthage?

From my perspective because a church now claims credit for the words inspired by God. Probably the same church that burned people who were in disagreement.

It was NOT the enemy who wrote the Bible nor canonized the books of the Bible. Isn't that what we were discussing about?

 

[Selene]

From my perspective because a church now claims credit for the words inspired by God. Probably the same church that burned people who were in disagreement.

And why should that surprise you? Didn't you know that when Christ built His Church, it was for the sinners? His Church consisted of the sinners since the beginning. Didn't you know that even the Apostles He chose were all the worst sinners. St. Matthew was a cheating tax collector, St. Peter denied Him three times, Judas turned traitor, and even St. Paul persecuted and killed Christians.

 

[Rex]

And why should that surprise you? Didn't you know that when Christ built His Church, it was for the sinners? His Church consisted of the sinners since the beginning. Didn't you know that even the Apostles He chose were all the worst sinners. St. Matthew was a cheating tax collector, St. Peter denied Him three times, Judas turned traitor, and even St. Paul persecuted and killed Christians.

Looks like this stuff was taking place before they became disciples, whats your churches excuse?
A finer point would before receiving the HS. Again whats your churches excuse? for burning people?

 

[Selene]

Looks like this stuff was taking place before they became disciples, whats your churches excuse?
A finer point would before receiving the HS. Again whats your churches excuse? for burning people?

This stuff was taking place even AFTER Christ already chose them as Apostles. Don't you remember, Peter denied Christ three times and all the Apostles abandoned Christ after He was arrested? Even after Christ ascended into Heaven, the Apostles still admitted that they are still sinners.

We don't deny our sins, Brother Rex. We're well aware of them, and the Pope has already apologized for those sins that the Church members have committed in the past. So, we learned to repent just as the Apostles did. How easy it is for you to point out the sins of others. Did you honestly think that God's true Church is going to be members full of righteous people?

 

[mjrhealth]

Did you honestly think that God's true Church is going to be members full of righteous people?

It will in the end, its just not the church you think it is, Now back on topic, go and look up about the word " churcH" it has nothing to do with waht any church claims. Go seek things out for yourself and stop believing all the twisted truth told to you. No one can make you see what you do not choose to see. The turth is there for those who seek it.

iN ALL HIS Love

 

[bosco]

Whether or not you think it's the right church, it is the church that assembled the canon of Scripture-- a canon for which there is no biblical method of determination, and yet which all Christians consider authoritative. That takes us back to the OP: the acceptance of the NT canon by all Christians tells us that there MUST be a way for God to work authoritatively outside of Scripture, or else we wouldn't have such a canon. It is not anti-Scripture (if it was, we would have to reject it), but it is not explicit in Scripture, either. The argument should really only be on what form it takes when not Scripture, not whether there is another form; accepting the NT canon is accepting that there IS another form (at least occasionally).

 

[Selene]

I agree with Bosco. It was the Church that put together and canonized the New Testament books, which all Christians consider authoritative. Afterall, the Bible did not just fall down from the sky.

 

[mjrhealth]

which all Christians consider authoritative

Well this is not the case, as many christians are beggining to see that it is not what some christians claim it to be. It matters not if a church canonized it, it only matters what God says.

In all His Love

 

[bosco]

So... which books from the 27-book canon don't belong, in your opinion, and why? And why do you think God would let pretty much every Christian get it wrong for more than 1 and 1/2 millennia?

 

[mjrhealth]

As someone else posted. if it was good enough for Jesus to reference some books that where not in the bible why is it that the "church" thought they where not good enough to put in. Come on how tiny is your God. did He not create the heavens and the earth, do you really think you can squeeze the infinite knowledge of God into a book, they couldnt even fit all the works of Jesus into what we have. Than there is the way words where interpreted, can change the whole meaning of some verses. But than I could write about this forever, one should search these things out for ones self. It ss easy just to believe what you are told, doesnt make it right.

In all His Love

 

[bosco]

I'm not believing it simply because I'm told; I'm believing it because it's true. The evidence is there to back it up: theological, physical, historical, etc. I am not sure at this point what canon you believe in-- the way you phrased this last post, it sounds like you don't accept the 27 New Testament books that most other Christians do. The OP was whether or not Scripture is the only mode of divine revelation that we possess, and you seem to be questioning whether that can be considered a complete mode of divine revelation. I take it you'd agree that scripture alone is not the full expression of God's self-disclosure to man, but you seem to be stating in a method which calls into question whether we can look to scripture with any certainty at all. Could you provide more detail on the canon that you believe is that which God intended us to have, and what your criteria is for it?

 

[mjrhealth]

Did not Jesus say, I came to "show you the father". He did not come to write about Him. Now He also says, according to the bible",

Joh_14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It si teh Holy Spirit that bears wirness to the truth not the bible which contains some truth.

If the bible is all the truth we need why are there so many christian froum arguing over it. If it was all the truth, there would be nothing to discuss. Its easy to swim with the flow, its harder ti go against it.

In all His Love

 

[bosco]

I agree with you, Mrjhealth-- we need another source of revelation to confirm the correct interpretation. You have no argument from me there. But I'm not seeing what you believe that other source is, or what exactly you think is true and what is false in the Bible. For instance, you just quoted the Bible to show that scripture alone isn't sufficient, but since you are quoting scripture to make your point and you are saying the Bible isn't entirely true-- how do we know that quote is reliable? I'm still not sure what you would include/exclude as being reliable from Scripture, either as part of a canon in general or more specific scriptures?

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi Bosco, this one may help

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yes it is sad that christians have limited God so much than complain when nothing happens. Revelation comes form God, this is why Christ gave us the Holy Spirit. Ask Jesus yourself, He will answer.

In all His Love