We believe that there are no more words of God outside the Bible; how do you think about it?

[mjrhealth]

without Tradition there would be no bishops and no Bible.

Yes just to think men would actually have to have faith in God and walk in teh spirirt, something that God seems to fail to get man to do.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes just to think men would actually have to have faith in God and walk in teh spirirt, something that God seems to fail to get man to do.

Why do you say this? Why do you reach this conclusion? I would say that God gets men to do this quite well, even while i might understand why you post this. But life is better right now by any measure you care to name than it ever has been. It is a delusion to suggest otherwise imo. Could i wish that we were spiritually advancing quicker too, ya, but then again i dunno, we are experiencing change at a pretty good clip right now lol. That thing that you don'e perceive changing is in fact changing right before your eyes imo

 

[Wormwood]

mj, you wouldn't even know what "walking in the spirit" means if it were not for your Bible. Why is it that you continually seem to argue that to believe and follow the Scriptures is unspiritual? The reality is that the Spirit uses other members of the body of Christ and the Scriptures to teach, train, and guide us so that we can walk in the Spirit. Those who follow their own gut and pride walk in the flesh. Your version of "spiritual" resembles nothing of what the Lord taught.

“In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.” (Jude 8–13, NIV84)

 

[mjrhealth]

mj, you wouldn't even know what "walking in the spirit" means if it were not for your Bible. Why is it that you continually seem to argue that to believe and follow the Scriptures is unspiritual? The reality is that the Spirit uses other members of the body of Christ and the Scriptures to teach, train, and guide us so that we can walk in the Spirit. Those who follow their own gut and pride walk in the flesh. Your version of "spiritual" resembles nothing of what the Lord taught.]

God doesnt need teh bible, never did, its mans way of determining who God is, the disiciples had no bible even after Christ was resurected, look at these forums all the bickering and arguements over a book. I had my encounter with teh Holy Spirit long before i owned a bible, took me years to understand what happened, but it was not because of teh bible i understood. man has his head in a book when even it declares "look up for your redemption draws near". Or as Jesus said to Peter,

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.

or

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.

Wisdom understanding revelation comes from God not reading books. You can sit and teach people all you know and in the end all they will know is what you know and your opinion if they went to someone else they would get someone elses opinion and not neccessary an agreement. Why do you think people from one denomination have differnet opinions to people from another denomination, taught by man not God. If people want to know Jesus or God the only choice is to spend time with them thats how relationships happen. You cant have a relationship with a book.

Any one who plays an instrument and who wants to do well, will always seek the best teacher, and there playing will be influenced by that teacher, it cant be helped, so to become like Christ one must spend time with Christ. you being so learned should understand these things.

 

[bbyrd009]

ha kind of hard to argue with that

 

[epostle1]

We believe that there are no more words of God outside the Deposit of Faith, the Written Word and the words spoken by Jesus that were handed down to the Apostles and their successors. The two are complementary and closely related, but they are not identical in the mode of transmission nor in content.

 

[Wormwood]

God doesnt need teh bible, never did, its mans way of determining who God is, the disiciples had no bible even after Christ was resurected, look at these forums all the bickering and arguements over a book. I had my encounter with teh Holy Spirit long before i owned a bible, took me years to understand what happened, but it was not because of teh bible i understood. man has his head in a book when even it declares "look up for your redemption draws near". Or as Jesus said to Peter,

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.

or

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.

Wisdom understanding revelation comes from God not reading books. You can sit and teach people all you know and in the end all they will know is what you know and your opinion if they went to someone else they would get someone elses opinion and not neccessary an agreement. Why do you think people from one denomination have differnet opinions to people from another denomination, taught by man not God. If people want to know Jesus or God the only choice is to spend time with them thats how relationships happen. You cant have a relationship with a book.

Any one who plays an instrument and who wants to do well, will always seek the best teacher, and there playing will be influenced by that teacher, it cant be helped, so to become like Christ one must spend time with Christ. you being so learned should understand these things.

Yeah, yeah. We all argue over a book and you alone have the genuine walk with Jesus. We've heard it before. Seems to me you do a lot more arguing on here than I do. In fact, I find myself in agreement with a lot of people on here, but I rarely see anyone in agreement with you. Generally because of this same tone that infers all of our spirituality is based on "man's teachings" and is void of genuine interaction with Jesus, which you alone seem to possess.

 

[bbyrd009]

We believe that there are no more words of God outside the Deposit of Faith, the Written Word and the words spoken by Jesus that were handed down to the Apostles and their successors. The two are complementary and closely related, but they are not identical in the mode of transmission nor in content.

Who is "We?" Those who have altered that "written word" to suit themselves, you mean? And now "believe" them? I know this comes across as unkind, ok, but please see the point. Love believes all things. But you suggest some "we" that believes something exclusive, when i find Support for mjr's pov also. And please see that i am really being kind here; i could quote some Christ that you could not associate with, that would even offend you. Direct commands, from Christ, that you do not follow, and neither do the rest of your "we." Which i am not meaning to accuse, but to point out that one cannot avoid being a hypocrite by defining some "we" that is not supported by the Bible, but only seems to on the surface.

"We" do not choose a pope by casting lots, now, do "we?" So what does this do for your belief? And please don't get me wrong, i am not suggesting that you abandon Catholicism or anything, and i even chose a pretty neutral observation here on purpose. It might be seen that you have chosen to follow Peter, who was chastised for attempting to crown Jesus, and called satan, whereas mjr might be characterized as following Paul, who purposely avoided the other Apostles for his first three years, and who wrote the NT, as a wanted man on the run, with a price on his head.

However one might like to put it, the "two sticks" must be rejoined. And while i guess you prolly feel that i am attacking your belief system, the battle is in me, i am "two men in a bed," and your belief system is irrelevant to me, or it should be, i mean, what do i care, what you believe? Everyone believes differently, even mates. We are strictly neighbors, and brothers (Note how the definition of "brothers" is manipulated; we are encouraged to define some "we" that incorporates our "brothers," and excludes those who do not "believe" like we do, imagining that we are following Christ in this. But we ignore the multiple Passages that present another side of "brothers," Cain and Abel, et al, and "brothers" becomes "people who believe like we do" instead of "people who do God's will").

And in either model, there is still a great way to become a hypocrite, for how exactly are we called to treat brothers any differently from non-brothers? Didn't Christ come for the sinners? Recognize that Emperors can be sold New Clothes, with all due respect.

 

[mjrhealth]

Yeah, yeah. We all argue over a book and you alone have the genuine walk with Jesus.

What me only, God forbid, it is teh way is was supposed to be, but men would rather follow after men than Christ and so we have denominations sprininging up with men following the one " they are most comfortable with". I guess you never noticed how many posts are read and how few respond. Oh and people dont have to agree with me, only God and Jesus for they are the truth and in agreement with one another. Im not here to have people say: look at that man he is so smart", no just "what I can walk with Jesus even now". Ye go and do it He will knock your shoes off, I have nothing to loose.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[shnarkle]

Many people regard the words of God in the Bible as the only utterances of God, and believe that all God’s words are in the Bible, and apart from those words, there are no other utterances of God. Such belief does not conform with the fact nor with the truth. We all know that the work of God in the Age of Law and His work in the Age of Grace are recorded in the Bible. But not everything God did in these two ages is recorded in it. Just as John 21:25 says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” It tells us clearly that many other things which Jesus did were not recorded in the Bible then. This shows that the things recorded in the Bible are too limited, and it cannot possibly record all of God’s deeds. Actually, only some of God’s words mankind knew were written down and recorded in the Bible. Apart from them, there are many other words of God which are unknown or have not been disclosed to mankind; for example, the words God said to the angles in the spiritual world, the words God said to Enoch, a man recorded in Genesis who walked with God, and so on. As a matter of fact, many of the words that God has spoken since the creation of the world are not recorded in the Bible. So, how can we say that the Bible is the entirety of the work and words of God? And how can we place God, who is so great, wondrous, and almighty, within the confines of the Bible? How can the Bible represent all that God has and is and His all-inclusiveness? Hence, the view that outside the Bible there are no more words of God is utterly untenable and wrong. Actually God can never run out of words. Of all His words, those words of His in the Bible are only like a drop of water in the sea, a grain of sand in the desert, and a star in the universe, and they cannot at all be the entirety of God’s word. So, if one believes that the Bible contains all God’s words and by it God’s entire management plan can be concluded, and outside it there are no more utterances of God, this is purely his notion. In fact, he is limiting God’s footsteps to the Bible and constraining God’s work within the scope of the Bible. In this way, has he not regarded God too small and defined God? And so, has he not resisted God grievously?

The bible contains scriptures written by holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Word doesn't exist within the pages of the bible or in any other literal book. Christ Jesus is the Word of God.

 

[epostle1]

Who is "We?" Those who have altered that "written word" to suit themselves, you mean? And now "believe" them? I know this comes across as unkind, ok, but please see the point. Love believes all things. But you suggest some "we" that believes something exclusive, when i find Support for mjr's pov also. And please see that i am really being kind here; i could quote some Christ that you could not associate with, that would even offend you. Direct commands, from Christ, that you do not follow, and neither do the rest of your "we." Which i am not meaning to accuse, but to point out that one cannot avoid being a hypocrite by defining some "we" that is not supported by the Bible, but only seems to on the surface.

Which direct commands are "we" not taught?
"We" do not choose a pope by casting lots, now, do "we?" So what does this do for your belief? And please don't get me wrong, i am not suggesting that you abandon Catholicism or anything, and i even chose a pretty neutral observation here on purpose. It might be seen that you have chosen to follow Peter, who was chastised for attempting to crown Jesus, and called satan, whereas mjr might be characterized as following Paul, who purposely avoided the other Apostles for his first three years, and who wrote the NT, as a wanted man on the run, with a price on his head.

Attempting to crown Jesus? Got a verse? Are you an expert on the conclave?

However one might like to put it, the "two sticks" must be rejoined. And while i guess you prolly feel that i am attacking your belief system, the battle is in me, i am "two men in a bed," and your belief system is irrelevant to me, or it should be, i mean, what do i care, what you believe?

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, or were the inspired books self assembled? but what do you care what I believe? Just make up a comfy bible origin fantasy and la de da de da.

Everyone believes differently, even mates. We are strictly neighbors, and brothers (Note how the definition of "brothers" is manipulated; we are encouraged to define some "we" that incorporates our "brothers," and excludes those who do not "believe" like we do, imagining that we are following Christ in this. But we ignore the multiple Passages that present another side of "brothers," Cain and Abel, et al, and "brothers" becomes "people who believe like we do" instead of "people who do God's will").

With all due respect, "we" are instructed to call all baptized Christians brothers, it's explicitly taught. Who was the model of of faith, the first Christian, that did the will of God?

And in either model, there is still a great way to become a hypocrite, for how exactly are we called to treat brothers any differently from non-brothers? Didn't Christ come for the sinners? Recognize that Emperors can be sold New Clothes, with all due respect.

Don't criticize Catholicism from a viewpoint of blind prejudice and ignorance, with all due respect.

 

[7angels]

Yeah, yeah. We all argue over a book and you alone have the genuine walk with Jesus. We've heard it before. Seems to me you do a lot more arguing on here than I do. In fact, I find myself in agreement with a lot of people on here, but I rarely see anyone in agreement with you. Generally because of this same tone that infers all of our spirituality is based on "man's teachings" and is void of genuine interaction with Jesus, which you alone seem to possess.

i am not taking sides but according to scripture we are not to conform to this world. in other words if everyone is believing the same thing as you then something is wrong. we are all in a different place in our walks with Christ. for example a new believer having the same view as a pastor of 50 years is very unlikely. i would worry more about those that seem to agree on too many points. i may not agree with all that mjrhealth says or the way he goes about saying it but there is truth in his words.

concerning this topic where i stand is that the Word of God is God breathed. in other words even though God can speak to us many different ways God will never contradict His Word. so if you come across a contradiction in what God is tell you and Between His Word then somewhere you missed God. i also know God is not one to contradict Himself so when you come across parts of the Word that seem to contradict with each other you need to actually seek out the truth. too many people just assume that they know and won't even consider that they are wrong. others who know the truth are just too sure of themselves and end up letting their pride get in the way and tell others how stupid they are and this just causes more conflict not peace and truth.

God bless

 

[bbyrd009]

Which direct commands are "we" not taught?

oh, off the top of my head, going out after the manner that the Apostles were sent, and then the 72, for instance. "Leaving the world" is also vastly minimized, imo, in most Christian systems; turned into cloistering or whatever, ships in safe harbors. But that one is a difficult concept anyway, applied to people who must still eat and shelter; or at least are convinced that they must take responsibility for these things. Eating locusts and honey and wearing hair shirts, etc, who gets sermons on that?

Attempting to crown Jesus? Got a verse?

John 6:15 Therefore, when Jesus knew that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He withdrew again to the mountain by Himself.
and further developed in Peter's admonitions to Jesus, upon grasping His prophecy of the Crucifixion...even Judas' "betrayal" can be viewed in the context of forcing Jesus' hand, as his later suicide attests. Judas was well aware that Jesus could have "walked right through them" had He desired, as He had done in the past. "The kingdom does not come by observation," but we still build edifices that we insist are "the Church," (no offense--not just Catholics, obviously), and many who claim to be Christian "look" for a bodily Rapture, etc. Literally "standing there, looking up at the sky." Um...even me, pointlessly (almost surely) intimating that the RCC or whatever other religion is not the way to go, and that Christ must be followed this way. Of course we are in a forum, discussing these things on purpose, when it is IRL that matters imo.

Are you an expert on the conclave?

well, i hope you see that i find the very notion repugnant, plus i am aware that they are not chosen by casting lots. Popes are selected, essentially, in secret, by men, like any other leader. A political process, iow.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, or were the inspired books self assembled?

i would say neither, and that Holy Writ comes from Word, and men then exclude and negate Holy Writ to suit themselves, as can be observed.

but what do you care what I believe? Just make up a comfy bible origin fantasy and la de da de da.

hey, i forgive you for that, i understand. I think it is a reflection of what anyone does, groping toward Christ; make up things like "Pray the Lord's Prayer three times a day," etc. I think the RCC is a perfect manifestation of the state of our hearts, and for that matter, the pope, too. We get the leaders that best reflect us.

With all due respect, "we" are instructed to call all baptized Christians brothers, it's explicitly taught.

and therein lies our doom, imo. Now "baptized, Christian" and "brothers" have all been defined--by some guys, some men--and differently, you might note, depending upon who you follow, what man you worship, essentially, and anyone judged to be outside of these definitions is deemed "lost." So iow the Pharisee's Prayer just does not register, lol.

Who was the model of of faith, the first Christian, that did the will of God?

hmm, my guesses there would be Paul, Christ, and Noah, in that order.

Don't criticize Catholicism from a viewpoint of blind prejudice and ignorance, with all due respect.

who is talking about Catholicism? I was remarking on the model of assuming people who have been commended to each other are now "brothers," excluding those who may very well be doing God's Will. "Catholicism" is just a religion, that imo i would be wise to relate to myself, and the edifice that i am building, that will be tested by fire. I like to pretend that the passages about Whores riding Beasts are meant for "the bad people," too, lol--but then those passages become unavailable to me, spiritually, and i am found out to be a hypocrite. Better imo to accept that i am a whore, riding a beast, serving Mammon, despising my birthright...etc, all of those things. That way at least i can read the Book with eyes that see. I note that i was useless to God as that other guy, and i am more fulfilled now, in some way that i can't really explain. Obviously i still have a lot of work to do, finding humility, etc, but at least i am aware that i am obnoxious now. Condemning the RCC = condemning myself, imo.

 

[epostle1]

oh, off the top of my head, going out after the manner that the Apostles were sent, and then the 72, for instance. "Leaving the world" is also vastly minimized, imo, in most Christian systems; turned into cloistering or whatever, ships in safe harbors. But that one is a difficult concept anyway, applied to people who must still eat and shelter; or at least are convinced that they must take responsibility for these things. Eating locusts and honey and wearing hair shirts, etc, who gets sermons on that?

Not many are called to live a life of mortification to that extreme degree, but "we" have a 40 day period of preparation for Easter. It's not a matter of listening to sermons, it's about doing. Prayer and fasting on various levels. It's called Lent.

hey, i forgive you for that, i understand. I think it is a reflection of what anyone does, groping toward Christ; make up things like "Pray the Lord's Prayer three times a day," etc. I think the RCC is a perfect manifestation of the state of our hearts, and for that matter, the pope, too. We get the leaders that best reflect us.

Our leaders are divinely appointed to teach and guide. To "feed my sheep". Did that command from Jesus to Peter expire? Why was this command given exclusively to Peter?

 

[mjrhealth]

Our leaders are divinely appointed to teach and guide. To "feed my sheep". Did that command from Jesus to Peter expire? Why was this command given exclusively to Peter?

Only works when we are talking about those who are called, not those who do it on there own bidding.

King James Bible
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.

That day is fast approaching.

 

[bbyrd009]

Not many are called to live a life of mortification to that extreme degree, but "we" have a 40 day period of preparation for Easter. It's not a matter of listening to sermons, it's about doing. Prayer and fasting on various levels. It's called Lent.

fine, show me Easter and Lent in the Bible, and we will move on from there then. I mean yikes, do you do it under every green tree, too? "Not many are called to leave the world, and die to self?" What do you expect me to reply here, other than "Get behind me?" with all due respect. The only reason i might equate this with "Christians" is that they are teaching their kids fertility rites to pagan gods, also, and have joined you in changing times and days. So go ye, and live your life of un-mortification of the flesh, and roll ye some eggs, and buy ye some bunnies ok. You can even pretend it is Scriptural, i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

Our leaders are divinely appointed to teach and guide. To "feed my sheep". Did that command from Jesus to Peter expire? Why was this command given exclusively to Peter?

well, it is for anyone who loves Christ, but you have just been indoctrinated to read that literally, and convinced somehow (tares) that it is not meant for you to apply to yourself, or something, i guess? This passage is known as "The Reinstatement" of Peter, who had denied Christ. If i was headed to church with Peter and another believer and needed to tie my shoes, i would be letting the other believer hold my Bible, with all due respect. I mean, just the next verse down,

18"I assure you: When you were young, you would tie your belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where you don't want to go."

Peter obviously dies quite unlike the popes you bow and kiss now, with all due respect. You lie when you say your leader is divinely appointed, or you would insist that the pope be chosen by casting lots, on national tv, or at least in a representative quorum. Your leaders were divinely appointed to institute the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, and Indulgences? See, you want your cake and eat it, too, with all due respect.

i think a much better use for the parable is to recognize that even those who have denied Christ with their mouths can go on to manifest Christ to people, which is what matters.