Can the Church Survive Without God's Word?

Bible Highlighter · May 6, 2019

bekkilyn said:
So Revelation includes a specific cross reference to some poor guy walking down the street in the 21st century?

In this specific circumstance though, we didn't want the guy to find out about the additions you made to the Bible to include him as a cross reference since we can only add to the Bible if the poor guy walking down the street doesn't find out about it.

Again, your mocking answer only attempts to avoid the truth.
Each book of the Bible has cross references within them, and this means that the Bible is interconnected in a way that you do not like. The Bible is one book and it is not a collection of short stories that are unrelated. They are not separate but they are all connected to tell God's story (singular).

Philip_B · May 6, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Right, a library of books in one book called the Bible. Many of these different books in the Bible have cross references, fulfilled prophecies, typifications of Christ, NT teachings that all line up, etc. (As if it breathes as one book). In other words, the books were never meant to be separate for all time. They all fit together and hence, why we have the Bible today.

The Bible is not one book, but somewhere between 66 Books and 73 Books or 78 Books depending on how you account for the canon. The Bible in not a monograph with a single author. Whilst some authors may have written several books, and other books would appear to be compilations with several authors.

Indeed it was not till the advent of bound books that it was even possible for the books to be contained in a single cover, and for the most part that meant not until the advent of Mr Caxton's machine.

I am not denying the reliance of later authors on earlier works, it makes perfect sense in a tradition of common shared faith and history.

To return to the point that I made, Revelation is a single manuscript, and that it has been all but universally received into the canon of scripture is undisputed, but to blur the distinctiveness of the Apocalypse of St John the Divine with the History of Luke, and the wisdom of Proverbs, and the thinking of Baruch, just does not make sense to me.

bekkilyn · May 6, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Again, your mocking answer only attempts to avoid the truth.
Each book of the Bible has cross references within them, and this means that the Bible is interconnected in a way that you do not like. The Bible is one book and it is not a collection of short stories that are unrelated. They are not separate but they are all connected to tell God's story (singular).

I never said I did not like the way the books in the Bible reference each other, but that I don't see any such references that there is to be a compilation known as "the Bible" centuries into the future and that "this book" that very clearly refers to the book that John is writing, i.e. Revelation, is anything other than what he claimed it to be.

Just because someone decides the the locusts are referring to 20th century helicopters also doesn't make it true.

Philip_B · May 6, 2019

Jason0047 said:
So you can go to a local book store and get a copy of a book titled Revelation?
I think not.
It is generally not published like that.
Hence, why your claim that it is a separate book today is simply not true.
The Bible is not like a collection of stories on a related theme. The books within the Bible actually refers back and forth to each other many many times (cross references). They have the same characters, the same God, and a story that has a beginning, middle (Climax), and end.

Here you go, you can buy it here.

The Book of Revelation

bekkilyn · May 6, 2019

Philip_B said:
Here you go, you can buy it here.

The Book of Revelation

I found one on Amazon that included five different translations in it, but didn't post the link because he just would have said that five books isn't the same as one book.

Bible Highlighter · May 6, 2019

Philip_B said:
Here you go, you can buy it here.

The Book of Revelation

My point was not that couldn’t buy it if you look hard enough, but this is not how it is commonly sold in book stores. Go to your local bookstore and you can find the Bible, but chances are you will not find separate books of the Bible because it was never intended to remain separate. The Bible is one story (God’s Story).

Bible Highlighter · May 6, 2019

Philip_B said:
The Bible is not one book, but somewhere between 66 Books and 73 Books or 78 Books depending on how you account for the canon. The Bible in not a monograph with a single author. Whilst some authors may have written several books, and other books would appear to be compilations with several authors.

Indeed it was not till the advent of bound books that it was even possible for the books to be contained in a single cover, and for the most part that meant not until the advent of Mr Caxton's machine.

I am not denying the reliance of later authors on earlier works, it makes perfect sense in a tradition of common shared faith and history.

To return to the point that I made, Revelation is a single manuscript, and that it has been all but universally received into the canon of scripture is undisputed, but to blur the distinctiveness of the Apocalypse of St John the Divine with the History of Luke, and the wisdom of Proverbs, and the thinking of Baruch, just does not make sense to me.

No. The Bible is one book (with one overall story arch about God in relation to man). It has a beginning, middle, and an end. It may have been 66 individual books at one time, but even then it was telling one whole collective story. To miss this fact is not to understand the Bible.

Revelation is the end of the Bible. It brings everything to a conclusion in God’s story for mankind today.

Tone · May 6, 2019

Jason0047 said:
No. The Bible is one book (with one overall story arch about God in relation to man). It has a beginning, middle, and an end. It may have been 66 individual books at one time, but even then it was telling one whole collective story. To miss this fact is not to understand the Bible.

Revelation is the end of the Bible. It brings everything to a conclusion in God’s story for mankind today.

Hence, the reason why Messiah would say:

Chizayon (Revelation) 1:8

"I am the Aleph א and the Tav ת, the beginning and the ending, says YAHUAH ELOHIYM, who is, and who was, and who is to come, YAHUAH TSEVA’OT."

Chizayon (Revelation) 22:12-13

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the Aleph א and the Tav ת, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

What's that?

The first and last letters of the Aleph-Bet...because "It is Written".

Philip_B · May 6, 2019

Jason0047 said:
No. The Bible is one book (with one overall story arch about God in relation to man). It has a beginning, middle, and an end. It may have been 66 individual books at one time, but even then it was telling one whole collective story. To miss this fact is not to understand the Bible.

Revelation is the end of the Bible. It brings everything to a conclusion in God’s story for mankind today.

No. The Bible is 73 Books which have been collated to tell the story in many and divers ways.

W2L · May 6, 2019

Never have i heard a man that i would follow other than those who gave us scripture. Usually mans tradition ruins theology.

Bible Highlighter · May 6, 2019

Philip_B said:
No. The Bible is 73 Books which have been collated to tell the story in many and divers ways.

No. There is only 66. Maccabees talks about praying to the dead (which many Anglicans do not even believe in doing). They pick and choose what they want out of the Apocryphal books. This makes no sense. How do the bad things not apply? This is why the Anglican canon of the Bible doesn’t make any sense.

Philip_B · May 7, 2019

Jason0047 said:
No. There is only 66. Maccabees talks about praying to the dead (which many Anglicans do not even believe in doing). They pick and choose what they want out of the Apocryphal books. This makes no sense. How do the bad things not apply? This is why the Anglican canon of the Bible doesn’t make any sense.

On the contrary, the Anglican Canon makes perfect sense. There is the Proto Canon being the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, being the OT books of the Masoretic Canon and the 27 books of the New Testament received essentially universally in the whole church, and there is the Deutero Canon being the seven additional texts from the Septuagint, which we receive but which we do not use to prove doctrine or to establish things that must be believed. Given the evidence of scripture that the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint and it would seem likely that Jesus did as well based on the evidence of the New Testament, it seems as well that we do receive them, however recognising that in some sense these texts were not part of the Masoretic canon as established some time after the life of Jesus, and as you point out they do not always closely align with the texts of the proto canon it seems sensible to receive them, but not to accord them the same weight.

Please note that I have not called them apocryphal so as to to confuse them with the apocryphal writings of the new testament period.

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2019

Philip_B said:
On the contrary, the Anglican Canon makes perfect sense. There is the Proto Canon being the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, being the OT books of the Masoretic Canon and the 27 books of the New Testament received essentially universally in the whole church, and there is the Deutero Canon being the seven additional texts from the Septuagint, which we receive but which we do not use to prove doctrine or to establish things that must be believed. Given the evidence of scripture that the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint and it would seem likely that Jesus did as well based on the evidence of the New Testament, it seems as well that we do receive them, however recognising that in some sense these texts were not part of the Masoretic canon as established some time after the life of Jesus, and as you point out they do not always closely align with the texts of the proto canon it seems sensible to receive them, but not to accord them the same weight.

Please note that I have not called them apocryphal so as to to confuse them with the apocryphal writings of the new testament period.

Yes, I actually read an article on Anglican's beliefs on their 73 Bible canon before you replied. So I understand what you are saying, but it makes no sense whatsoever. That would be like drinking a little bit of rat poison in a healthy drink. The apocryphal additions should be on the same level or weight as the rest of Scripture or it is not really God's Word, but something that is not good for you. The Bible says evil communications corrupt good manners. When we put junk in, we get junk that comes back out. It is the basic law of sowing and reaping. If I eat junk, then my body will be in poor health. If I hang with people who are bad in behavior all the time, then their bad behavior can rub off on to me. Again, praying to the dead is not something some Anglicans believe, and yet they have a book that teaches that in their Bible. So Anglicans pick and choose what they want out of these books. Again, makes no sense. But you can believe in something that makes no sense if that is your cup of tea. For me: I know that God is not the author of confusion.

In other words, it is clear that there is not 73 books to the Bible because even Anglicans do not regard these Apocryphal books as being on the same weight and authority as Scripture. They do not even make sense in light of the rest of traditional true Scripture (i.e. the 66 books).

Side Note:

I read an article by an Anglican Pastor who says they don't pray to the dead, but they pray FOR the dead. This is no surprise why they would do this. Maccabees no doubt has influenced them to do so. There is no biblical grounds to pray for anyone after they have died (Unless of course someone is influenced by the apocryphal writings like Maccabees).

bekkilyn · May 7, 2019

66 is getting too close to being 666. Perhaps 73 is the safer option.

Jonathan Mathews · May 7, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Some in my other thread have begun to argue that the Bible is not strictly necessary. They said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed, the church would still survive. Could the church survive without God's word?

I think this question gets to the heart of the relationship between God's word and God's church. Catholics and EOs are wont to say: "Jesus didn't just leave us a Bible, he left us a church." They also want to say that the Bible and the church have an equal authority and even that the church wrote the Bible! In the Catholic and EO view, it sometimes seems to be the case that it's really the church that is most important, and the Bible is just a book that the church wrote.

But what would the church be without the word of God? Isn't it the word of God that creates and continually recreates the church? Isn't it the word of God that sustains the church? Isn't it the word of God that sanctifies the church and teaches the church?

Without the word of God, the church might still function in some traditional sense. It might go on to ordain bishops, sprinkle babies, lift up crackers to heaven and break them, etc. It might even have an unbroken line of ordination succession that can be traced back to the apostles! But without the word of God, the ministry of the church would not be able to help or save anybody. The church would become a dead institution that is utterly indistinguishable from the world.

Isn't this what happened to Israel in the time of Hosea? Though they were circumcised and had maintained certain Jewish traditions, they had become "Lo-Ammi" - not my people. Without God's word, we are not his people and he is not our God.

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not a book.
The Word of God is in Heaven, not the ink on a page in a book. The Holy Scriptures are the writings of the Word of God. Satan can speak Scriptures, but He does NOT have the WORD dwelling in Him. The Word is INSIDE those who have been Born of God. Heaven is within you, Jesus says (Luke 17:21). God spoke to Adam when there were no Scriptures. God spoke to Moses before he wrote the Scriptures. God spoke to the Apostles before they wrote the Scriptures. Jesus came into my heart and speaks with me when there is no Bible around. Jesus said "Ye search the Scriptures daily, thinking that in them you have eternal life, but they point to Me" (John 5:39-40) Can the Word of God still speak even if there are no Scriptures around? SURE! That's how we got the Scriptures to begin with. We do not serve MUTE idols (1 Corinthians 12:2) We serve God and obey His Word, Jesus Christ.

How do you define "survive"?
Satan, the AntiChrist, the False Prophet, and everyone whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of Life will "survive" in the Lake of Fire forever and ever. God's people will "survive" in Heaven forever. So ya gotta be more clear my dear.

Philip_B · May 7, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Yes, I actually read an article on Anglican's beliefs on their 73 Bible canon before you replied. So I understand what you are saying, but it makes no sense whatsoever. That would be like drinking a little bit of rat poison in a healthy drink. The apocryphal additions should be on the same level or weight as the rest of Scripture or it is not really God's Word, but something that is not good for you. The Bible says evil communications corrupt good manners. When we put junk in, we get junk that comes back out. It is the basic law of sowing and reaping. If I eat junk, then my body will be in poor health. If I hang with people who are bad in behavior all the time, then their bad behavior can rub off on to me. Again, praying to the dead is not something some Anglicans believe, and yet they have a book that teaches that in their Bible. So Anglicans pick and choose what they want out of these books. Again, makes no sense. But you can believe in something that makes no sense if that is your cup of tea. For me: I know that God is not the author of confusion.

In other words, it is clear that there is not 73 books to the Bible because even Anglicans do not regard these Apocryphal books as being on the same weight and authority as Scripture. They do not even make sense in light of the rest of traditional true Scripture (i.e. the 66 books).

Side Note:

I read an article by an Anglican Pastor who says they don't pray to the dead, but they pray FOR the dead. This is no surprise why they would do this. Maccabees no doubt has influenced them to do so. There is no biblical grounds to pray for anyone after they have died (Unless of course someone is influenced by the apocryphal writings like Maccabees).

Wisdom of Solomon 16:5-14
For when the terrible rage of wild animals came upon your people and they were being destroyed by the bites of writhing serpents, your wrath did not continue to the end; they were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind them of your law’s command.

For the one who turned towards it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Saviour of all. And by this also you convinced our enemies that it is you who deliver from every evil. For they were killed by the bites of locusts and flies, and no healing was found for them, because they deserved to be punished by such things. But your children were not conquered even by the fangs of venomous serpents, for your mercy came to their help and healed them. To remind them of your oracles they were bitten, and then were quickly delivered, so that they would not fall into deep forgetfulness and become unresponsive to your kindness. For neither herb nor poultice cured them, but it was your word, O Lord, that heals all people. For you have power over life and death; you lead mortals down to the gates of Hades and back again. A person in wickedness kills another, but cannot bring back the departed spirit, or set free the imprisoned soul.

If you say that you understand what I am saying but it makes no sense, I suggest to you that either you do not understand what I am saying, or that you choose to discount all views save your own. The Deutero Canonical texts cover more that the matter of prayers for the dead, but since you raise that subject specifically I will make a couple of observations from my perspective. (Anglicans embrace a wide range of opinion so I can not speak for all Anglicans, and so you know I tend to be an Eastward leaning Anglican).

I imagine that we would be in agreement on the matter of Jesus conquering the last enemy, which is death, and that in dying to sin he died once for all that we may walk in newness of life. If I may pray for my friend who is living, I think we would agree on that being important, and then my friend dies to this world, you are suggesting that I may no longer pray for them. I some small way that seems to diminish the victory that Christ has won for us, for Christ when he rose has led a host of captives. It worries me that when we disallow prayers for the departed, in some way we are denying part of the power of the resurrection message.

Kontakion
All we go down to the dust, and weeping o’er the grave we make our song.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

Give rest, O Christ, to your servant with your saints: where sorrow and pain are no more;
neither sighing but life everlasting.

You only are immortal, the creator and maker of all: and we are mortal formed of the dust of the earth, and to earth shall we return: for so you ordained, when you created me saying: “Dust you are and to dust you shall return.”

All we go down to the dust; and weeping o’er the grave we make our song:
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2019

bekkilyn said:
66 is getting too close to being 666. Perhaps 73 is the safer option.

In Biblical numerics, sometimes there is a bad version of a number, and other times there is a good version of that number. While "666" is a bad number (and never a good number), the number "66" is not exclusively a bad number.
The word "wise" appears 66 times in Proverbs.
All the variations of the word "know" appears 66 times in Proverbs.
On the sermon on the Mount: The number of words for the Lord's prayer is 66.
The Lord's spoken words that talk about the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is a count of 66 words (Genesis 1:27, counting with the word "Let" and Genesis 2:18, counting with the word "It"). In the 66th chapter of the King James Bible (Which is Exodus 16), we hear the Lord tell the Israelites to collect twice as much manna on the 6th day (66). The funny thing is that these words told by the Lord to the Israelites to do this is exactly 66 times (See Exodus 16:4-5, counting with the word "Behold"). Even the biblical Menorah has 66 flower parts.

The Structure of the Menorah

Note:

Normally a flower consists of three basic parts: (1) an outer covering, usually consisting of green leaves, the calyx or flower cup; (2) a capsule that contains the seed and collects pollen (the fertilizing agent) through the pistil (which eventually becomes the fruit), and (3) surrounding the filaments, a corolla, which is the blossoming flower.

These parts correspond precisely to the three shapes on our menorah: the flower cup, the knob, and the flower.

Source used:
THE MENORAH - S. R. Hirsch

Bible Highlighter · May 7, 2019

bekkilyn said:
66 is getting too close to being 666. Perhaps 73 is the safer option.

There are 6 things mentioned as a part of the mystery of Godliness mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:16. The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the focus here.

The Word (the Living Word) became flesh (6 = number of a man).

So we have our 1st number 6.

For the 2nd number 6, we know that the Holy Ghost inspired men to write the Bible. God worked through men to speak God's words.

There are 6 things components to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

All Scripture is:

1. Inspired by God.
2. Profitable for doctrine.
3. Profitable for reproof (conviction).
4. Profitable for correction.
5. Profitable for instruction in righteousness (living holy).
6. So that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works.

In Ephesians 6 (*Cough* chapter 6), we see that there are 6 things that make up the armor of God.

1. Loins girt about with truth,
2. Breastplate of righteousness;
3. Feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
4. Shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
5. Helmet of salvation,
6. Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Note: All of these things are derived from the Word of God. You get truth by hearing the Word of God (the Bible). You learn how to follow the commands of Jesus and His followers and live righteously by the Bible. You learn the gospel of peace from the Bible. You build your faith from the Bible. You get salvation from hearing the gospel message from the Bible. You can wield the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (i.e. the Bible).

So this would be 66.

6 = Son of God in the Incarnation (Living Word made flesh).
6 = Holy Ghost inspiring men to write the Bible (Communicated Word).

bekkilyn · May 7, 2019

Jason0047 said:
In Biblical numerics, sometimes there is a bad version of a number, and other times there is a good version of that number. While "666" is a bad number (and never a good number), the number "66" is not exclusively a bad number.
The word "wise" appears 66 times in Proverbs.
All the variations of the word "know" appears 66 times in Proverbs.
On the sermon on the Mount: The number of words for the Lord's prayer is 66.
The Lord's spoken words that talk about the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is a count of 66 words (Genesis 1:27, counting with the word "Let" and Genesis 2:18, counting with the word "It"). In the 66th chapter of the King James Bible (Which is Exodus 16), we hear the Lord tell the Israelites to collect twice as much manna on the 6th day (66). The funny thing is that these words told by the Lord to the Israelites to do this is exactly 66 times (See Exodus 16:4-5, counting with the word "Behold"). Even the biblical Menorah has 66 flower parts.

The Structure of the Menorah

Note:

Normally a flower consists of three basic parts: (1) an outer covering, usually consisting of green leaves, the calyx or flower cup; (2) a capsule that contains the seed and collects pollen (the fertilizing agent) through the pistil (which eventually becomes the fruit), and (3) surrounding the filaments, a corolla, which is the blossoming flower.

These parts correspond precisely to the three shapes on our menorah: the flower cup, the knob, and the flower.

Source used:
THE MENORAH - S. R. Hirsch

73 is a prime number though which still makes it safer than a number that might (even if not always) be mistaken for the devil.

FenderTL5 · May 7, 2019

bekkilyn said:
73 is a prime number though which still makes it safer than a number that might (even if not always) be mistaken for the devil.

Correct, God is NOT divided.

Can the Church Survive Without God's Word?

Can the church survive without God's word?

Yes.

No.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Contemplative Christian

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Contemplative Christian

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Contemplative Christian

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Contemplative Christian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Similar threads