Thoughts about the confusing word: "Law"

KevinT said:

I agree with your point, but I will mention that your argument is a bit circular. Its inspired by God because it's scripture, and its scripture because of God too. As I am sure you know, there are apocryphal and deuterocanonical books that are included in Catholic Bibles that are excluded from Jewish and Protestant Bibles. Believers from those faiths can also use 2 Tim 3:16 to support the books in their Bibles.

I have not read all those other books, but the times I have looked at a few of them, they just didn't stand muster to me. I think there were good reasons for them being rejected. So there is a role for respecting the authority of "scriptures", but the is also a role for using our God-given reason to check if things make sense.

So my belief is that God has shepherded the Bible all through time. I think that it may contain a few errors here and there, but it has all the necessary ingredients needed for our salvation.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Click to expand...

I believe there is no errors in God's Word, only misunderstandings. I believe the 66 books of the bible is God-breathed and God is control of His Word, and why it is always the top seller every year. So much access to God's Word, yet most people do not use it at their path to guide their life Psa 119:105 We are to change our life around God's Word, sadly many use the scripture to accommodate their own lifestyle. It's a matter of God's will or our will. But everything gets sorted out soon enough.

SabbathBlessings said:

Here's a copy of the book, I googled it out of curiosity

https://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/Truth_Triumphant.pdf

I disagree that God did not play a part of the canon.. I also disagree the way some "historians" claim the reason why we have the canon and they take credit for it, which is a dead giveaway of falsehood, because all Glory on God's Word goes to God.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness,

Click to expand...

I already have a hard copy of the book.

2 Tim 3:16, I am sure Paul was talking about the OT+, not his own epistles. The canon came three hundred years later; I don't expect Rome (Not referring to the Catholic Church or its Priests) had anything to do what was in the Canon, but it was Rome at Nicaea who required the regimentation resulting in exclusions and inclusions off books. Had the Christians at Nicaea had been disciples of Jesus, and two or more gathered in his name for a purpose of Judgement, then Jesus would have been there. The involvement of the Roman governor prevents conviction on my part.

sparow said:

Jesus said Satan can change himself into an angel of light.

Click to expand...

Where? Are you sure you're not thinking of Paul's words in 2 Cor? And if so, is it not hypocritical to cite Paul as authoritative as an attempt to deny Paul's authority?

KevinT said:

What is your understanding of the role God plays in the lives of people today in the world?



Isn't the world an interesting place! I have a well-meaning friend who assures me that the ONLY books I should read in the Bible are the works of Paul. His justification for this was that neither he nor I are Jewish, and are therefore gentiles. And Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, and everything else was written for the Jews. I don't agree, but it is an interesting theory -- and a complete 180 degrees opposite from your view.

Ultimately, I think that belief from claim-of-authority might be a starting point. But what is really needed is for the advice to make sense. When Paul writes of love, I don't accept it as true because Paul says so, but because it rings true with the universe I see around me.

What appeals to you about this book. Why are you recommending it, esp if you haven't read it yourself? And what is a "Moderator" of a church?

Best wishes,

Kevin

Click to expand...

My understanding of the role God plays in the lives of people begins with people breathing, breath is God in them. In a way that which comes from God and returns to God in part defines God. The law and the Prophets define God for our purpose, yet not exclusively. To talk about God we need to have a definition in mind.

To one group God said, you will not see me again until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. To another group he said, I will be with you always. God of course keeps his algorithm running, prophesy becoming history.

My understanding of the Gospel is that Paul did not require conversion he was only required to repent, gentiles required conversion after which they would no longer be gentiles.

I would not use anything Paul said as proof of his authenticity; I look to see which prophesy Paul fulfils, Putting the onus on God, like he would say Jesus was the Christ and deceive many. I have to careful lest I be accused of flaming.

When I went to school Moderator meant, Arbitrator; mediator; presiding officer. I offered that book as evidence that Paul was not as important as he claimed.

Fervent said:

Where? Are you sure you're not thinking of Paul's words in 2 Cor? And if so, is it not hypocritical to cite Paul as authoritative as an attempt to deny Paul's authority?

Click to expand...

I rely on memory and make mistakes; I do not think Paul is a hypocrite when he says he met an angel of light on the road to Damascus and then said Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, I believe Paul thought he was speaking to someone of lesser intelligence.

sparow said:

I rely on memory and make mistakes; I do not think Paul is a hypocrite when he says he met an angel of light on the road to Damascus and then said Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, I believe Paul thought he was speaking to someone of lesser intelligence.

Click to expand...

No one said Paul was a hypocrite, what would be hypocritical is to cite Paul's words as authoritative Scripture and then attempt to use those words to discredit Paul as Scripture. Which is essentially what you seem to be attempting in that post. Either Paul is untrustworthy, and so cannot be relied on when he says that Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, or Paul is trustworthy and should be heeded.

Fervent said:

No one said Paul was a hypocrite, what would be hypocritical is to cite Paul's words as authoritative Scripture and then attempt to use those words to discredit Paul as Scripture. Which is essentially what you seem to be attempting in that post. Either Paul is untrustworthy, and so cannot be relied on when he says that Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, or Paul is trustworthy and should be heeded.

Click to expand...

Maybe I have unintentionally accused Paul of hypocrisy, but you seem to be misusing the word. I would not accuse the person Paul who lived two thousand years ago, I accuse the epistle that Paul may or may not have written. I may accuse them, who make Paul more important than Peter, or more important than Christ. If my suspicions of Paul are correct, the charge against Paul (not by me) won't be hypocrisy or untrustworthiness it will be Blasphemy.

sparow said:

Maybe I have unintentionally accused Paul of hypocrisy, but you seem to be misusing the word. I would not accuse the person Paul who lived two thousand years ago, I accuse the epistle that Paul may or may not have written. I may accuse them, who make Paul more important than Peter, or more important than Christ. If my suspicions of Paul are correct, the charge against Paul (not by me) won't be hypocrisy or untrustworthiness it will be Blasphemy.

Click to expand...

Again, the charge of hypocrasy is not against Paul but against you for relying on Paul's words to claim that Paul was misled by Satan. As for making Paul more important, I know of none who do so. Paul does not contradict anything Jesus or Peter have said, and so is not in a competition with them for importance. He does, however, contradict certain modern interpreter's understanding of Jesus just as he contradicted certain men of his day. The error is with them, though. If one has to dice up the Bible and abolish major portions of it to persist in their interpretation, their interpretation is what is out of line with God's revelation and not what is written in the Bible.

Fervent said:

Again, the charge of hypocrasy is not against Paul but against you for relying on Paul's words to claim that Paul was misled by Satan. As for making Paul more important, I know of none who do so. Paul does not contradict anything Jesus or Peter have said, and so is not in a competition with them for importance. He does, however, contradict certain modern interpreter's understanding of Jesus just as he contradicted certain men of his day. The error is with them, though. If one has to dice up the Bible and abolish major portions of it to persist in their interpretation, their interpretation is what is out of line with God's revelation and not what is written in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Again, there was no deception in my error.

sparow said:

Again, there was no deception in my error.

Click to expand...

No one said there was deception in your error. The issue of hypocrasy comes up when the actual source for the foundation of your accusation comes out, because it is founded on Paul's words about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light being authoritative Scripture. Which if Paul is a victim of Satan's deception, then those words(and any other by Paul) become suspect. But in relying on Paul's words, which must be suspect if your accusation is true, renders you hypocritical when you level the accusation because you simultaneously attempt to discredit Paul while first treating his words as having authority(even elevating them to be mistaken for Jesus' own words). So either your accusation is completely baseless, or you are being hypocritical.

Fervent said:

No one said there was deception in your error. The issue of hypocrasy comes up when the actual source for the foundation of your accusation comes out, because it is founded on Paul's words about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light being authoritative Scripture. Which if Paul is a victim of Satan's deception, then those words(and any other by Paul) become suspect. But in relying on Paul's words, which must be suspect if your accusation is true, renders you hypocritical when you level the accusation because you simultaneously attempt to discredit Paul while first treating his words as having authority(even elevating them to be mistaken for Jesus' own words). So either your accusation is completely baseless, or you are being hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Maybe you use the word hypocrisy differently than me, possibly to change the subject. I find it interesting that Paul meet the angel of light on the road, who called itself Jesus, then later Paul says, Satan can change himself into an angel of light; Is Paul calling Jesus Satan?

I am late getting back to you because my computer has been malfunctioning, I was locked out of youtube for a couple of days.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. You accuse me who no-one relies on, nor should they, I accuse Paul who everyone relies on, yet I do not really accuse Paul but those who call Paul teacher in place of Jesus.

While watching the Sunday religious programs last Sunday I learned a few things; sometimes Paul's verses are quoted, sometimes they say, Paul said. Then it occurred to me that even when Paul is not quoted most of the preaching is still flavoured by Paul.

One was talking about the Kingdom of God and quoting Paul describing what the Kingdom was like, so I wondered, Jesus always spoke in parables when describing the Kingdom. Another program stated that parables could not be used as doctrine, which is strange because Jesus always spoke in parables; no wonder they use Paul.

sparow said:

Maybe you use the word hypocrisy differently than me, possibly to change the subject. I find it interesting that Paul meet the angel of light on the road, who called itself Jesus, then later Paul says, Satan can change himself into an angel of light; Is Paul calling Jesus Satan?

I am late getting back to you because my computer has been malfunctioning, I was locked out of youtube for a couple of days.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. You accuse me who no-one relies on, nor should they, I accuse Paul who everyone relies on, yet I do not really accuse Paul but those who call Paul teacher in place of Jesus.

While watching the Sunday religious programs last Sunday I learned a few things; sometimes Paul's verses are quoted, sometimes they say, Paul said. Then it occurred to me that even when Paul is not quoted most of the preaching is still flavoured by Paul.

Click to expand...

Yes, because he was sent to teach the Church.

sparow said:

One was talking about the Kingdom of God and quoting Paul describing what the Kingdom was like, so I wondered, Jesus always spoke in parables when describing the Kingdom. Another program stated that parables could not be used as doctrine, which is strange because Jesus always spoke in parables; no wonder they use Paul.

Click to expand...

Paul was sent to preach the gospel.