The Inspiration of Scripture

[Bible Highlighter]

I've told you; he said "Jesus loves you", and my life changed.
From depression to joy.

God so loved the world, but that does not mean the whole world is saved.
I mean, sure; I get it. Hearing such words is going to give you joy.
It gives you an easy way out (Which is what you wanted to hear).

But the Jesus of the Bible says "if you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

"I love those who love me. Those who seek me diligently will find me." (Proverbs 8:17).

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10).

"If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed." (1 Corinthians 16:22).

2 Timothy 3:1-9 talks about how in the last days perilous times will come, men will be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. They will have a form of godliness, but they will deny the power thereof. Loving God is obeying Him. But we see the opposite of that being taught today.

 

[Strong in Him]

God so loved the world, but that does not mean the whole world is saved.
I mean, sure; I get it. Hearing such words is going to give you joy.
It gives you an easy way out (Which is what you wanted to hear).

But the Jesus of the Bible says "if you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

"I love those who love me. Those who seek me diligently will find me." (Proverbs 8:17).

I know what the Bible says. I'm telling you that one one occasion the Lord spoke to me audibly - and it changed my life.
It wasn't "what I wanted to hear". Many Christians had said "Jesus loves you" and pointed to Scripture - I didn't believe them.

You don't have to believe me; you don't know me and such a testimony may have no impact at all on your life. But it did on mine.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well in my case God said, "Jesus loves you"; the miracle was that I believed it and it changed me.

Jesus said "My sheep know my voice".
If we believe we have heard God speak to us, we need to test his message against Scripture - since he will not contradict it. But if we are his sheep and know his voice, we shouldn't need a dramatic miracle to persuade us that it was God who spoke.

Now that's actually pretty common. In Bible college we would get an occasional retired preacher, if there is such a thing. They were not into elaborate expositions, detailed theology, invariably they would talk about their prayer life. The whole point of the gospel is to enter into a relationship with God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. I've heard the voice of God to, that's not what this is about. There are three main periods of revelation, Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Christ and the Apostles. Sometimes called the age of miracles, the signs, wonders and mighty deeds if God prevailed in epic fashion. Most of what we have in Scripture is founded in those times and the authority of prophets, priests, Apostels and the Lord himself. The doctrines expressed are meant to establish a relationship with God, not to be a substitute for it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know what the Bible says. I'm telling you that one one occasion the Lord spoke to me audibly - and it changed my life.
It wasn't "what I wanted to hear". Many Christians had said "Jesus loves you" and pointed to Scripture - I didn't believe them.

You don't have to believe me; you don't know me and such a testimony may have no impact at all on your life. But it did on mine.

You believe in Once Saved Always Saved. No doubt it impacted your life in what you wanted to hear. But the verses I gave you refutes the OSAS doctrine.

A child had claimed to see Jesus, and he no doubt was impacted by such an event. But was his experience biblical? Surely not. That's the point I am getting at here. Most of all these extra biblical encounters of people hearing or seeing Jesus are not biblical. Why? Jesus said there will be false Christ's. He essentially says do not trust them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know what the Bible says. I'm telling you that one one occasion the Lord spoke to me audibly - and it changed my life.
It wasn't "what I wanted to hear". Many Christians had said "Jesus loves you" and pointed to Scripture - I didn't believe them.

You don't have to believe me; you don't know me and such a testimony may have no impact at all on your life. But it did on mine.

Again, the problem with that statement you heard is that it is not biblical. The message you heard no doubt gave you an impression that you were accepted by him no matter what. But John 14:15 says that if you love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 says that if you will abide in his love, keep the commandments.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Yet you used it to “prove” contradictions in the Bible. This is shameful.

Why not just contract out Satan to teach apologetics to Sunday school teens?

Why do we always resort to this?

Of course they won’t. The cross is foolishness to those not in Christ.

You really seem to be missing this individuals point. Do you think at times we who are followers of Christ come across as very arrogant?

 

[Strong in Him]

You believe in Once Saved Always Saved. No doubt it impacted your life in what you wanted to hear. But the verses I gave you refutes the OSAS

How do you get to that conclusion from what I wrote?

No doubt it impacted your life in what you wanted to hear.

I didn't want to hear it. I didn't believe the Christians who said "Jesus loves you". If anything, I was convinced that he could never love me.

A child had claimed to see Jesus, and he no doubt was impacted by such an event. But was his experience biblical? Surely not. That's the point I am getting at here.

The point I'm making is that we can't say that God can never reach someone/work in a particular way. Earlier, I wasn't addressing Scripture but the image you put up which said that in the New Covenant God will ONLY speak through his word, not audibly as in the OT.

Even throughout Scripture, God worked in new and different ways to different people.

Most of all these extra biblical encounters of people hearing or seeing Jesus are not biblical.

The Bible does not say that God may never, or will never, do something in the 21st century.

Look at what happened when Jesus came to earth: he declared himself to be the Messiah, and the Pharisees said, "not Scriptural."
God was on earth, working in a new way, and they didn't believe it because it hadn't happened before.

Jesus said there will be false Christ's. He essentially says do not trust them.

You can believe, if you like, that when God spoke to me it was false; I know differently.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

And we only have your word for that.
Again, was the words (you heard) confirmed by signs following?

Why are you so quick to dismiss this individual but trust that every word you read in the Bible is 100% from God? What your asking this individual is the same thing others ask about people adding their own opinions to scripture by telling others “this is what God actually meant”

 

[devin553344]

Umm who is Jesus contradicting? He can't contradict God since he is God. And what Law did he change? He himself said he had not come to abolish the law and that anyone who changes the Law will be the least in the Kingdom, Mathew 5.

We already proved Paul put his words, not Lords in the bible. Not that he contradicts Jesus in this instance? 1 Corinthians 7:12

But it leaves the door open I think.

 

[JacksBratt]

But the bible contains no text that claims that "what the bible says God says" and when you consider that Satan speaks in a few places and that men speak in many places and women in many places in the bible it is obvious that the idea that "what the bible says God says" is seriously flawed.

Except... maybe....this one?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you don't believe that "what the bible says, God says" .....what is your Christianity based on?

 

[Ken Rank]

I invite you to read the verses again. As with the Prophets of old, the apostles were proclaiming the Word of God when they were preaching the Gospel.

I've read it, thank you. We don't agree... that's ok. If you think "be of one mind and one accord" means we have to look, think, and act alike WHILE we are still not perfected, you would be wrong. It means that despite our differences, we are to work together to the glory of God and the coming Kingdom. I do not believe that the authors of the NT had a clue that they were really programmed robots that didn't have any control over what they said. And I do not believe that they had any clue in the world that the stuff they were writing would be included in a bible. Therefore, any time they reference the written word of God, they are referencing what was accepted as the bible in their time. And that did not include the NT at that time.

 

[Ken Rank]

I appreciate your point, but isn't it likely that some of the NT was written directly in koine Greek? I'm asking, not arguing.

This is generally a point that causes people to go batty. I don't seek to argue about it at all, it doesn't matter. But I will answer... I once believed that all of the NT was written in Greek, this was over 20 years ago. And then over time, as I began to learn and grow in some areas that changed my mind. The language of the day for Jews in Judea was Aramaic. The Temple language was Hebrew. The vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are from around that time and are in Aramaic and Hebrew, there is some Greek. The Targums (paraphrase/commentaries of the Torah and Prophets) were written in Aramaic and they come from 30BC. Even Josephus said he had to learn Greek in order to write in Greek. And so I believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew because it was written to Jews specifically and Jerome, when he translated the NT into Latin claimed to use an original copy of Matthew in Hebrew to translate from. I think John was in Aramaic (for reasons I can share) as well as Revelation. Hebrews, of course, would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic. And it is possible that pretty much everything else was in Greek. However, I don't believe that. I think Acts was written in Greek, and MAYBE Mark and Luke. The rest in Aramaic or Hebrew. Interestingly, Eusebius, who was an early 4th century church historian and a Roman who would have had a Greek bias... wrote that Paul wrote all his letters in Hebrew and Luke translated them and Peter wrote in Hebrew and Mark translated them. While not conclusive proof... that is weighty considering that would go outside of Eusebius' personal bias.

Now... I also said it doesn't matter. Regardless of what LANGUAGE the NT was written in, the MINDSET is Semitic. Paul, closer to his death date and in his defense still called himself a Jew and even (in Acts 23:6) said, "I AM a Pharisee." We see Paul as virtually Greek when he was a Jewish rabbi from the School of Hillel where everything that came out of that School in written form was Aramaic. Anyway... the mindset behind the words is Hebrew... inspired by God yes, of course... but still Hebrew. And so we should try to look at Scripture, all of it, through Hebraic eyes rather than our 21st century Greek influenced Western eyes. We can still find God and His desire for our lives reading through modern Western eyes... but we leave food on the table He desires us to eat because we miss some context that would come if we read from the shoes of the authors, so to speak.

In the famous Ankerberg debate on the KJV, Dr. Dan Wallace shared his classroom experience. He'll take a random section of ancient Greek and given it to a class of students, with instructions to copy it. But each student is given a different personality - "you're tired", "you're sloppy", "you think part of the text is offensive and should be cleaned up", "you always mix up these commonly misspelled words", etc. But when they take all the versions and begin textual criticism, they are able to recover the original text 100% of the time. And he's done this in dozens of classes over the years.

And I would support that idea. This is what I generally would teach... if you want to lay down in bed and read the bible, find a version that blesses you that you enjoy reading, and read. But if you want to STUDY.... then get them all and the Greek and Aramaic (Peshitta) and work through it word by word taking nothing for granted. That would mean bringing in the LXX when studying the Tanach (OT) because it is likely translated from a manuscript that we no longer have or, at least, us little people don't have access to. And, I would compare the LXX with the Masoretic texts.... even weighing in the Targums and Samaritan Torah.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you get to that conclusion from what I wrote?



I didn't want to hear it. I didn't believe the Christians who said "Jesus loves you". If anything, I was convinced that he could never love me.



The point I'm making is that we can't say that God can never reach someone/work in a particular way. Earlier, I wasn't addressing Scripture but the image you put up which said that in the New Covenant God will ONLY speak through his word, not audibly as in the OT.

Even throughout Scripture, God worked in new and different ways to different people.



The Bible does not say that God may never, or will never, do something in the 21st century.

Look at what happened when Jesus came to earth: he declared himself to be the Messiah, and the Pharisees said, "not Scriptural."
God was on earth, working in a new way, and they didn't believe it because it hadn't happened before.



You can believe, if you like, that when God spoke to me it was false; I know differently.

Most Christians have a story like that, I prayed the sinners prayer lots of times, I didn't know Christ till God finally responded to one. Basically the Bible is prophecy in written form, Paul tells us:

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part,but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. (1 Cor. 13:8-10)​

The Bible is meant to bring you to a relationship with God, to declare the wonderful works of God in redemptive history, it's a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. What we are talking about is the inspiration of the Scriptures as a formal doctrine, big difference.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I've read it, thank you. We don't agree... that's ok. If you think "be of one mind and one accord" means we have to look, think, and act alike WHILE we are still not perfected, you would be wrong. It means that despite our differences, we are to work together to the glory of God and the coming Kingdom. I do not believe that the authors of the NT had a clue that they were really programmed robots that didn't have any control over what they said. And I do not believe that they had any clue in the world that the stuff they were writing would be included in a bible. Therefore, any time they reference the written word of God, they are referencing what was accepted as the bible in their time. And that did not include the NT at that time.

You seem oblivious to the fact that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, called the Apostles to be his messengers. What do you think they were doing for three years. The Sermon on the Mount, the Upper Room Discourse, the Kingdom parables, the Great Commission. What do you think Jesus was preparing them for, a book tour? Like the priesthood of Moses day, the prophets starting with Elijah at the start of the prophetic age, Jesus was preparing messengers to take his message to Jerusalem, Samaria and the utter most part of the world and they did. Jesus performs miracles like the healing of the leapers, heals the man born blind, raises Lazarus from the dead and following the resurrection of Jesus they were told to wait until they were endowed with power from on high at the coming of the Holy Spirit.

You still think they didn't have a clue when they were prepared to take the Word of God to the world? We have Paul's letter to the Corinthians, but we don't have the Corinthians letter to Paul, you know why? Because Paul was an Apostle. There are some pretty fundamental issues here that appear to have eluded you entirely.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Ken Rank]

You seem oblivious to the fact that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, called the Apostles to be his messengers. What do you think they were doing for three years. The Sermon on the Mount, the Upper Room Discourse, the Kingdom parables, the Great Commission. What do you think Jesus was preparing them for, a book tour? Like the priesthood of Moses day, the prophets starting with Elijah at the start of the prophetic age, Jesus was preparing messengers to take his message to Jerusalem, Samaria and the utter most part of the world and they did. Jesus performs miracles like the healing of the leapers, heals the man born blind, raises Lazarus from the dead and following the resurrection of Jesus they were told to wait until they were endowed with power from on high at the coming of the Holy Spirit.

You still think they didn't have a clue when they were prepared to take the Word of God to the world? We have Paul's letter to the Corinthians, but we don't have the Corinthians letter to Paul, you know why? Because Paul was an Apostle. There are some pretty fundamental issues here that appear to have eluded you entirely.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I didn't even read what you wrote. We said we were done, remember? Please let it go. And I do have a clue, Mark. I didn't say they weren't taking their instructions and the message to the world. I said when they reference the written word of God in the NT, it isn't the NT they were referencing because there was no NT at that time.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't even read what you wrote. We said we were done, remember? Please let it go. And I do have a clue, Mark. I didn't say they weren't taking their instructions and the message to the world. I said when they reference the written word of God in the NT, it isn't the NT they were referencing because there was no NT at that time.

I was done last night when I was getting ready for bed, I work nights. But then again I shouldn't be surprised you didn't read what I wrote since I got little indication you were reading my other posts.

 

[Ken Rank]

I was done last night when I was getting ready for bed, I work nights. But then again I shouldn't be surprised you didn't read what I wrote since I got little indication you were reading my other posts.

I read every word of your posts, every word. You think I am clueless, brainless apparently... and you are not getting a very simple and straight forward historical fact... the NT was not compiled and canonized until 200 AD. That means until 200 AD there was no NT and those letters were not considered part of the bible. Yes the Apostles spread the Word of God throughout the world... but that message was a combination of God's will for our daily walk coupled with the work Yeshua did to bring us back to the Father. They were not hiking to Greece and reading the letter sent to Ephesus, they just weren't. Paul sent a letter to Corinth... they didn't intercept the letter and make 100 copies and put them in the Messianic synagogues to be read with Deuteronomy. There was no NT until 200AD, therefore, ANY reference to the bible (i.e. the written word of God) at THAT TIME was a reference to what we call the OT. Only our dispensational modern culture keeps us from seeing this very plain fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

I read every word of your posts, every word. You think I am clueless, brainless apparently... and you are not getting a very simple and straight forward historical fact... the NT was not compiled and canonized until 200 AD. That means until 200 AD there was no NT and those letters were not considered part of the bible. Yes the Apostles spread the Word of God throughout the world... but that message was a combination of God's will for our daily walk coupled with the work Yeshua did to bring us back to the Father. They were not hiking to Greece and reading the letter sent to Ephesus, they just weren't. Paul sent a letter to Corinth... they didn't intercept the letter and make 100 copies and put them in the Messianic synagogues to be read with Deuteronomy. There was no NT until 200AD, therefore, ANY reference to the bible (i.e. the written word of God) at THAT TIME was a reference to what we call the OT. Only our dispensational modern culture keeps us from seeing this very plain fact.

Jesus didn't say anything about writing everything down and waiting to have it canonized in some council. The reason we have the New Testament is because it was either written by the Apostles or close associates. The church did have these scrolls and did make meticulous copies a lot the same way Jews kept their sacred writings. I don't think your clueless...etc, I think you are missing the obvious and I'm just wondering if it's on purpose. Like why we have a New Testament in the first place. You mention Ephesus, in case you didn't know that was the mother church of the churches in Asia Minor, founding at least 7 other churches. If Smyrna wanted the letter to the Ephesians or the letter to the Colosians read in their churches they had to make a copy. One of the things churches did regularly was to make meticulous copies of those scrolls. They were read regularly in the churches and that, by the way, is a tradition still practiced among the Orthodox. The complete canon wasn't officially recognized unanimously by the churches because the churches knew what they were for hundreds of years. It's when gnostic writings started to creep in that the church had to decide what represented the Apostolic witness.

Oh and by the way, the idea that the New Testament was compiled sometime in the second century is grist from a propaganda mill known as liberal theology. Once in a while I wish people would at least have the presence of mind to recognize that the church knows it's own sacred writings. They knew them because they had been read in the churches for hundreds of years before the actual canon of Scripture was actually recognized formally.

 

[bekkilyn]

God is spirit. But we revere His Word (the Bible) because it conveys the thoughts and mind of God in what He desires us to do. He speaks to us through His stories, psalms, proverbs, commands, and teachings via His Word (the Bible). But to say that the Bible is not a part of God (in that it does not convey His thoughts, etc.) in any way is to make an attempt so as to eliminate the mind of God.

I have never claimed that God does not speak through scripture, but God did not write scripture himself and God is not limited to scripture as a communication tool. "God's mind" would still be 100% intact if the bible were to vanish in every possible way tomorrow. Christ (the Word) would still 100% exist if the bible were to vanish in very possible way tomorrow. Christ alone is the foundation and center of faith, not a book or collection of writings.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why are you so quick to dismiss this individual but trust that every word you read in the Bible is 100% from God? What your asking this individual is the same thing others ask about people adding their own opinions to scripture by telling others “this is what God actually meant”

Because the Bible is confirmed to be the very words of God ten times over with many evidences.

You can check to see the many evidences that back up God's Word here:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

The poster who thought they heard Jesus actually is receiving a message that conflicts with God's Word. They heard what they believed to be God saying, "Jesus loves you" confirming their unbiblical view of Once Saved Always Saved. Yet, nowhere does the Bible teach this doctrine, and nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus unconditionally loves us. Actually, Jesus says, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10). Granted, I am sure Jesus does love all people to some degree, but it is not the kind of love that will abide in a person and neither save them. A person needs to keep His commandments to abide in His love; Also, 1 Corinthians 16:22 says that "if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed."