The Inspiration of Scripture

Mountainmike said:

The doctrine of bible alone is responsible for all the disagreements and incompatible with Christian history.
Not my worldview , just fact.

The fact that all the essential teaching is just the same now as it was in the earliest fathers, gives credence to the idea that Jesus kept his promise. " MY church will be one" " the gates of hell will not prevail"

Take a Eucharist of the real flesh, valid only if performed by bishop in succession or his appointee, is just as true now as it was in John the apostles time, which he clearly taught his disciples. Where do you stand on that? Or is it your understanding as non denoms - ships without a compass - that has drifted?

Click to expand...

Undermining the authority of Scripture is a primary source of division. For instance, the doctrine of transubstatiation, didn't come from Scripture. Had clerics from the dark ages had not been given absolute control over, and interpretation if the Scriptures the doctrine wouldn't exist.

Mountainmike said:

It seems you need to study paradosis and Christian history, also the history of the canon.

What you say is a creative invention that bares little resemblance to actual history. But then you could not be a non denom and still be compatible with the early church that Jesus founded because of the reliance of paradosis on apostolic succession, and their authority, as any number of church father writings prove. Who is your succession bishop?

I can only suggest you study such as ignatius and iraneus, see how church teaching was actually passed. Your concept of tradition is hopelessly flawed. Also the power to bind and loose, the authority by which heresies and canons were rejected, and the authority by which the creed and true canon was selected from many other competing writings,

You also have disregard for the power of our Lord , in believing he allowed his church to go off the rails when he said his church would be one, and the gates would not prevail. So you either think him not omnipotent or a breaker of promises.so I urge you to study those whose doctrine has changed little in 2000 yerars, complete with apostolic succession, appointed bishops , only they have power to perform or delegate valid sacraments, just as it was in the first generations, e.g. see ignatius to smyrneans, disciple of john, who clearly knew what John 6 meant - he wrote it!

All those who say apostasy are obliged to choose a date. Many pick Constantine, trouble is as study shows doctrine did not change one end of his reign to the other as Contemporary writings prove. E.g. Anasthasius. The apostasy that never was is an interesting book. Read it.


But I come back to where I started: the phrase " what the bible says" is meaningless without tradition and authority to give correct interpretation, without which all you have is words. So the title of the thread is a non sequitur.

Click to expand...

My succession bishop is Jesus Christ, there is nothing about apostolic succession in the apostles doctrine. As far ad I can tell, Rome just made it up.

The myriad of different interpretations of eucharist not exist till the reformation.
So from such as Ignatius taught by John, or such as Justin Martyr - "real flesh of jesus" Said it in the first generations of christians, nothing to do with dark ages.

Or those who wrote your creed and decided your new testament take Anasthasius ( who helped defeat arianism in council) says it well in 4th century

"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

That is what was handed down. What was bread is now flesh. That is what the doctrine of transubstantiation says. Nothing more or less, than the words of anasthasius.. It is what the church believed. It is what the authority of the church pronounces As evidenced by one of the most important church fathers! It is what the church has stated for 1500 years before the reformation and for all 500 since.

Orthodox and Catholic disagree on a point of fine philosophy over matter and substance in describing the process, : but they still agree after blessing it is the "real flesh" of jesus and Justin Martyrs words form part of their liturgy!

If you trust anasthasius on the creed (vociferous in defeating arianism) and these fathers on the canon, why dont you listen to what he said it all meant? The problem with denouncing their authority is you lose the creed and new testament too.

Most christians need to read their own history!
It is nothing to do with the dark ages.

ONLY SOLA SCRIPTURA...the latter day man made tradition of the reformation, and rallying cry to all to make up their interpretations has caused 1000 schisms on every point doctrine including this.
You say it did not come from scripture. You mean it did not come from your interpretation of scripture. Neither does the trinity as aword come from scripture. But(most of us) believe it so. And scripture is only one leg of the three that form the word of God. Scripture, tradition, authority.

So are you all telling us Anasthasius was wrong, the entire church was wrong, and as one man denominations choosing your own meaning for scripture: despite 2000 years and millions of theologians who disagree with you.

You alone are right? All of them were wrong. It is a bold place to be. I will give it that....

As a scientist I almost always find when my results differ from all others, i have to look for my mistake not theirs.

mark kennedy said:

Undermining the authority of Scripture is a primary source of division. For instance, the doctrine of transubstatiation, didn't come from Scripture. Had clerics from the dark ages had not been given absolute control over, and interpretation if the Scriptures the doctrine wouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

Starting to read about it would help you. Begin with Ignatius, Iraneus and Justin Martyr. See what Iraneus (the man who outed heresies, says about tradtion and the authority of Rome!)

Thing is. You rely on rome, you just dont know it. The first canon ( long before the new testament) was deemed heretical by Rome - Iraneus refers to it, which was Marcions canon. So if you disavow the fathers and Rome, why dont you use Marcions first canon instead of your new testament? But for authority of councils under primacy of Rome you would not have a creed or new testament! So you must assume the fathers were inspired, or you would not have them. Why do you disregard other books of alleged apostolic descent. Take the protoevangelium? Answer: the fathers decided, which means they were inspired, if you think the canon is inspired.

I can only repeat to all of you ,the new testament did not drop out of the sky and the prime means of doctrine passage for centuries was "word of mouth and letter" AKA tradition. It is only in the last 200 years people could own and read a bible, suddenly all became bible christians in which differences of opinion on what it meant became rampant. Even Luther despaired of Sola scriptura christians - because they didnt accept his word for it! He didnt want to abolish the pope, he wanted to be the pope. But scripture was never the early means of passage of faith.

Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" Jesus said "teach this" and "do this" (baptism and eucharist) so that is what people did. The new testament was much later. Nearly two millenium before average Joe could own one. Which could be why Jesus said "teach this" not "read this"

mark kennedy said:

My succession bishop is Jesus Christ, there is nothing about apostolic succession in the apostles doctrine. As far ad I can tell, Rome just made it up.

Click to expand...

GingerBeer said:

Paul's disavowal of the thing he was saying as his own saying and not from God; is that what you wanted?

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
​

Click to expand...

Do you think that God would approve or disapprove? Whether he thought it was his words or not... It was God's will that it is in the canon. It's biblically sound. If it was not God's will, it would not be recorded in the text of His word.

Jason0047 said:

Then this conversation is coming to a close end, my friend. If your worldview does not allow to entertain your opponent's idea of reading of the Bible alone to support the truth, and truth must also be determined by also looking to church tradition and or history to be included as your added authority, then you will never see where I am coming from. For me: It is illogical to believe in a church tradition or some historical document that is not on the level of the holy nature of Scripture. For what if these traditions and historical documents are corrupted in some way and they are not entirely true? Can you prove that they are divine on the level as God's Word? Surely not.

Click to expand...

That's not Sola Scriptura: That's Solo Scriptura.

Mountainmike said:

The myriad of different interpretations of eucharist not exist till the reformation.
So from such as Ignatius taught by John, or such as Justin Martyr - "real flesh of jesus" Said it in the first generations of christians, nothing to do with dark ages.

Or those who wrote your creed and decided your new testament take Anasthasius ( who helped defeat arianism in council) says it well in 4th century

"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

That is what was handed down. What was bread is now flesh. That is what the doctrine of transubstantiation says. Nothing more or less, than the words of anasthasius.. It is what the church believed. It is what the authority of the church pronounces As evidenced by one of the most important church fathers! It is what the church has stated for 1500 years before the reformation and for all 500 since.

Orthodox and Catholic disagree on a point of fine philosophy over matter and substance in describing the process, : but they still agree after blessing it is the "real flesh" of jesus and Justin Martyrs words form part of their liturgy!

If you trust anasthasius on the creed (vociferous in defeating arianism) and these fathers on the canon, why dont you listen to what he said it all meant? The problem with denouncing their authority is you lose the creed and new testament too.

Most christians need to read their own history!
It is nothing to do with the dark ages.

ONLY SOLA SCRIPTURA...the latter day man made tradition of the reformation, and rallying cry to all to make up their interpretations has caused 1000 schisms on every point doctrine including this.
You say it did not come from scripture. You mean it did not come from your interpretation of scripture. Neither does the trinity as aword come from scripture. But(most of us) believe it so. And scripture is only one leg of the three that form the word of God. Scripture, tradition, authority.

So are you all telling us Anasthasius was wrong, the entire church was wrong, and as one man denominations choosing your own meaning for scripture: despite 2000 years and millions of theologians who disagree with you.

You alone are right? All of them were wrong. It is a bold place to be. I will give it that....

As a scientist I almost always find when my results differ from all others, i have to look for my mistake not theirs.

Click to expand...

First of all, who died and made the ECFs Apostles, if they believed the bread is ever anything other then bread they did so based on their opinions, nothing more. What's more my interpretation is called the historic narrative method, which is based on the intended meaning of the original text. The last time I checked Christ and the Apostles were the foundation of the church, not the ECF and not some random writings by church leaders. Sola Scriptura is a simple affirmation that the Scriptures are the basis of doctrine in the church, the church has never been autonomous in that regard. Division in the church has long been the result of a struggle for ecclesiastical authority, money in the form of tithes and the occasional cult of personality approach to church authority.

Finally, why would I have to accept everything Anasthasius said or reject all of it? If Anasthasius has some special revelation that supplements Moses, the Levitical witness or the writings prophets lets see how that was confirmed by signs, wonders and mighty deeds. Because aside from that they affirm the Apostle's doctrine or they wander from God breathed authority in the form of their collective testimony.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mountainmike said:

Starting to read about it would help you. Begin with Ignatius, Iraneus and Justin Martyr. See what Iraneus (the man who outed heresies, says about tradtion and the authority of Rome!)

Thing is. You rely on rome, you just dont know it. The first canon ( long before the new testament) was deemed heretical by Rome - Iraneus refers to it, which was Marcions canon. So if you disavow the fathers and Rome, why dont you use Marcions first canon instead of your new testament? But for authority of councils under primacy of Rome you would not have a creed or new testament! So you must assume the fathers were inspired, or you would not have them. Why do you disregard other books of alleged apostolic descent. Take the protoevangelium? Answer: the fathers decided, which means they were inspired, if you think the canon is inspired.

I can only repeat to all of you ,the new testament did not drop out of the sky and the prime means of doctrine passage for centuries was "word of mouth and letter" AKA tradition. It is only in the last 200 years people could own and read a bible, suddenly all became bible christians in which differences of opinion on what it meant became rampant. Even Luther despaired of Sola scriptura christians - because they didnt accept his word for it! He didnt want to abolish the pope, he wanted to be the pope. But scripture was never the early means of passage of faith.

Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" Jesus said "teach this" and "do this" (baptism and eucharist) so that is what people did. The new testament was much later. Nearly two millenium before average Joe could own one. Which could be why Jesus said "teach this" not "read this"

Click to expand...

I don't think you really understand the history of the Scriptures or the authority they represent. Those writings were in the possession of the church, the rightful custodians of the Apostolic witness, their entire history. They were not complied by ecclesiastical priest craft, they did and do represent the witness of the Apostles regarding Jesus Christ. All other ecclesiastical is subordinate to them and none supersede it.

bekkilyn said:

In the beginning was the Word is talking about a *person* (and guess who that was?). Not the bible. The bible was compiled a few centuries after the resurrection. Christ was never compiled or even created. He just is and was and always will be. He is God.

Click to expand...

It was compiled between 60 and 70 AD.

Mountainmike said:

"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Click to expand...

I can't find the source to this quote anywhere and I challenge you to do the same. And don't hand me that cop out saying I should do the research because I have. This quote just pops up some time ago on Catholic Slanders and is never sourced or footnoted. I have just about everything Athanasius wrote and this isn't anywhere to be found. I'm gonna take a stab at this and say this is a forgery (of which there are many) or its a different Athanasius.

Tree of Life said:

The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean?

Simply put - "What the Bible says, God says."

Some say that the Bible is inspired, but they are not comfortable saying that the Bible is the very words of God. They have some looser, stranger view of inspiration.

What the Bible says, God says. Can we give this a hearty "Amen"?

Click to expand...

I don't think this can be easily understood without understanding the big picture first. In the end it boils down whether you believe an almighty God being behind the Canon, or you believe that no God or an incompetent God standing behind.

So the OP poll should actually be who is possibly behind the Bible Canon?

1) an Almighty God
2) an incompetent God
3) no God

The big picture,
God can't show up in front of humans due to the final covenant between God and men specifies that humans need to be saved by faith. If He shows Himself up, humans as a whole will thus be deemed unsaved.

However if He doesn't show up at all, humans don't even know that such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up in front of His chosen eyewitnesses, and for their testimonies to be written down for the rest of humankind across history to believe with faith.

The crafting of OT involves multiple accounts of witnessing based of God's chosen prophets in the different period of time throughout the Jews' history in testifying and portraying God with the same characteristics, and in reflecting the updating of the Jewish covenants. As a matter of fact, the Jews as God's chosen people are the chosen witnesses for all to be conveyed.

The corresponding canonization took long to complete due to the need for witnessing from different period of time. The process of canonization is supposed to start with King Hezekiah till after Jesus, even though John the Baptist actually marks the end of the proclaiming of OT, legally/lawfully speaking.

The same process for NT is relatively short, because it is about the testifying of Jesus with a final covenant between God and men.

Inspiration is basically about how a book is written with God standing behind. Testimonies are about the gathering of information from eyewitnesses accounts. It is similar to how human history being written. Historians are not necessarily eyewitnesses in all the situations recorded down. They are supposed to be gatherers of information from eyewitnesses accounts. It's similarly to today's news reporters and journalists.

Within the same process, Satan won't stop working either. That drives the need of canonization. God is behind the canonization such the valid books are defined.

In the end, the writings are about a whole theology of who God is, who His covenants and Law are. Even when this theology can be written through inspiration, the next question is how should this theology be conveyed throughout the history of humanity. The only way is by means of a religion, such as Judaism and Christianity. This is already the best capability of what humans can do!

God is doing the job through the best capability level of humans in terms of how things are witnessed, recorded down, kept and conveyed with a theological (not necessarily contextual) accuracy, such that even the most stupid human can understand the salvation message correctly, and for every single human to be judged in accordance to what is said and conveyed.

Hawkins said:

I don't think this can be easily understood without understanding the big picture first. In the end it boils down whether you believe an almighty God being behind the Canon, or you believe that no God or an incompetent God standing behind.

So the OP poll should actually be who is possibly behind the Bible Canon?

1) an Almighty God
2) an incompetent God
3) no God

Click to expand...

Since different churches (western, eastern, oriental, etc.) accept/have different canons, I'll take door number 3. God had nothing to do with forming the canon. That was purely the decision of men.

mark kennedy said:

It was compiled between 60 and 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Complied? or written? Are you saying all churches had the complete set by AD70?
That means an early date for the Apocalypse. I'm OK with that, I tend to favor a pre-AD70 view myself. However most timelines I've seen would then place John's Gospel and epistles in the next decade, latter 70s-85~
That seems to often coincide with an earlier date for James/Galatians as well, 55-61.
It's not much variance but some.

FenderTL5 said:

Complied? or written? Are you saying all churches had the complete set by AD70?
That means an early date for the Apocalypse. I'm OK with that, I tend to favor a pre-AD70 view myself. However most timelines I've seen would then place John's Gospel and epistles in the next decade, latter 70s-85~
That seems to often coincide with an earlier date for James/Galatians as well, 55-61.
It's not much variance but some.

Click to expand...

I've seen arguments for the early date of the Revelation, that I found compelling. One of the things that make this most appealing, is between 60 and 70 AD they started losing Apostles. You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to realize that the authority of the Scriptures is based on a direct Apostolic witness or one of their close associates. While I find elements of that difficult to defend, even in my own mind, it makes no sense to me that it was compiled some 200 years later. That goes against everything we know about church tradition and I've never liked the fact that secular sources like to ignore tradition with regards to authorship and date and assert moving the timeline without substantive reason.

Let me ask you this just for the sake of conversation. Let's say a 1st century Orthodox congregation gets a letter from Paul, Ephesians, Colosians...it doesn't really matter. What do you think their response would be? Obviously they are going to want to read it to the church regularly, but don't you think they would take careful steps to preserve it.

Not trying to get out of the dating scheme I mentioned, just don't want to chase that one through the weeds until a few basics are established.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Ken Rank said:

Name one... somebody from 150? 175? There are no church father quotes of Galatians before 100AD!

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Considering that was still the Apostolic age, you may be correct.

Click to expand...

Thus, the point stands.... nobody was quoting Galatians, or Corinthians, or any other NT "letter" prior to 100AD. There is >>NO<< evidence that suggests otherwise. And thus... my original point stands. When the NT quotes the written word of God or references the written word of God (i.e. 2 Tim 3:16) it is a reference to the OT whether that sits with or against our personal bias.
@mark kennedy

Ken Rank said:

Thus, the point stands.... nobody was quoting Galatians, or Corinthians, or any other NT "letter" prior to 100AD. There is >>NO<< evidence that suggests otherwise. And thus... my original point stands. When the NT quotes the written word of God or references the written word of God (i.e. 2 Tim 3:16) it is a reference to the OT whether that sits with or against our personal bias.
@mark kennedy

Click to expand...

You won't possibly know. There were on an off Roman persecutions including the burning and destroying of church documents. The lack of evidence says nothing. Or otherwise our churches should be able to keep the original manuscripts of all the books.

mark kennedy said:

It's not the same word for plant, what Gen. 2:5 is describing is the garden. Whats more it repeats three time in Genesis 1 that God created Adam and Eve, that doesn't mean three times. It says God created Adam in Genesis 5, what is that, 5 times? What gets me avout this argument is you guys never know where it comes from. That's the old JEPD argument based on the use of the covenant name of God rather then the more generic Elohim or patriarchal El Shaddai.

You realyy misreading the text and misrepresenting the argument you managed to rehash.

Click to expand...

The two chapters very clearly describe two different orderings. That's not misreading the text. That's reading the text as it very clearly states vs. having to creatively pretend that it's not actually saying what it's saying. That's really a huge issue for those who insist that it is a created thing (the bible) that is central to their faith and that it is completely inerrant in every way. They have to come up with all sorts of creative and irrational ways to explain away all of the contradictions so that their faith doesn't completely fall apart. Doesn't happen when the *person* of Jesus Christ is central.

mark kennedy said:

It was compiled between 60 and 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Try the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

bekkilyn said:

Genesis 1 states the order and Genesis 2 also states the order, and they are astoundingly different. I wonder which one is correct?

Click to expand...

@Tree of Life

Your poll seems to indicate what was sort of obvious for me, being here for years and watching things, most people here are conservative or fundamentalist evangelicals. But there's a substantial number here that represent other viewpoints.