Bible: by whose authority?

[PetraFan007]

Ok, so I am a bible believing "christian", believer, messianic, God-follower, whatever you want to label me. I follow the God of the bible and His son the messiah Jesus (Yeshua). I grew up in the assemblies of God and now attend a messianic jewish congregation where I believe I have come pretty close to understanding the bible in it's best context I can by understanding it from a jewish perspective (not rabbinic or anything like that). Basically just as the bible teaches but with the understanding those people would have who were there at that time...Jews.

Anyways, that being said...why is the bible we have now (which contains 66 books) considered mostly to be the only "word" of God. I almost cringe when people say the bible is "thee" word of God, not because it isn't, but the word of God as actually Yeshua, the word made flesh. Sure, the words of God/Yeshua and His prophets are in the bible, but seriously. Come on. By whose authority can we be told that after the book of revelation, we can shut God's mouth? OK, maybe not totally, but no more scripture? No more revelation. In almost 2,000 years. Are you serious? All because a group of people decided that "this is it" or "this is all we need". I don't buy it for a second. Please, give me good reasons to why God is not allowed to use prophets to convey the word of God and put it in the form of scripture anymore?

I am so lost in all the doctrine and denominations and different varying beliefs of believers that sometimes I don't know who/what to believe anymore. My faith would be a lot more solid though if I knew the answer to this question. And don't parrot what your pastor told me. Give me something real and tangible. Please.
Thanks!!!

 

[Zstar]

I never understood why there has to be so many prophets in the Bible to begin with let alone to add more! As a Zoroastrian I have only one prophet, Zoroaster, I like it that way. As a follower of Jesus Christ I wish there was only one Gospel, there are 4 - I think what I'm trying to say is quality is not quantity.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I never understood why there has to be so many prophets in the Bible to begin with let alone to add more! As a Zoroastrian I have only one prophet, Zoroaster, I like it that way. As a follower of Jesus Christ I wish there was only one Gospel, there are 4 - I think what I'm trying to say is quality is not quantity.

I tend to agree. What about all the Epistles of Paul? I myself would be content with just Romans and Galatians myself, and just haronize the rest of them in to just one epistle.

A few years back I read thru the fourfold Gospel and if I ever get time I may do the same with Paul's Epistles also

http://www.ccel.org/m/mcgarvey/ffg/FFG000D.HTM
FOURFOLD GOSPEL

Acts 3:22 For Moses indeed [toward the fathers] saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up, Lord the GOD/YHWH of ye, out of the brothers of ye as Me. Of Him ye shall be hearing according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye'. [Deut 18:18,19]

Revelation 2:18 And to the messenger of the out-called in Thyatira, write! Now this is saying the Son of the GOD/YHWH, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to burnish-bronze.

 

[Benoni]

Ok, so I am a bible believing "christian", believer, messianic, God-follower, whatever you want to label me. I follow the God of the bible and His son the messiah Jesus (Yeshua). I grew up in the assemblies of God and now attend a messianic jewish congregation where I believe I have come pretty close to understanding the bible in it's best context I can by understanding it from a jewish perspective (not rabbinic or anything like that). Basically just as the bible teaches but with the understanding those people would have who were there at that time...Jews.

Anyways, that being said...why is the bible we have now (which contains 66 books) considered mostly to be the only "word" of God. I almost cringe when people say the bible is "thee" word of God, not because it isn't, but the word of God as actually Yeshua, the word made flesh. Sure, the words of God/Yeshua and His prophets are in the bible, but seriously. Come on. By whose authority can we be told that after the book of revelation, we can shut God's mouth? OK, maybe not totally, but no more scripture? No more revelation. In almost 2,000 years. Are you serious? All because a group of people decided that "this is it" or "this is all we need". I don't buy it for a second. Please, give me good reasons to why God is not allowed to use prophets to convey the word of God and put it in the form of scripture anymore?

I am so lost in all the doctrine and denominations and different varying beliefs of believers that sometimes I don't know who/what to believe anymore. My faith would be a lot more solid though if I knew the answer to this question. And don't parrot what your pastor told me. Give me something real and tangible. Please.
Thanks!!!

Don't believe anyone or anything; believe the Christ with in you. You want to hear man or you want to hear God? The Spirit of Truth a Devine part of God with in each one of us capable of speaking, loving, reproving, teaching, convicting and transforming.

The only one that will lead and guide us into all truth. There are men out there like David, but mostly what we have are Saul’s.

I believe there is a real spiritual Church; I also believe there are also carnal churches, intercultural churches, and intellectual churches and the list goes on. God is a spirit not a brain. BUT what does the Bible say how God choices his anointed?

David was king; He was God’s anointed King; not like Saul who was also anointed by God; but chosen by the people; like many ministries in the church (little c) realm today. David was one of those special people God called, anointed and was anointed as child. Today’s ministry is chosen by men. I have found men of God that I know anointed by the deepness of their understanding not because they have been voted in or out by some church committee. David walked for many years and knew He had an anointing; but he kept it to himself and understood that Saul was God’s anointed; that is until the appointed time. I think we are better off to wait for God to anoint God’s chosen vessel then to anoint our own. Also let us not forget Solomon who was also anointed of God; but because of his marring and turning his heart to false idols he became corrupt. Reminds me of all the different religions out there that man has married into; there is only one way; Christ with in.

God anoints men today just like He has done in all ages. Check out Ray Prinzing he also came out of the Assemble of God…

 

[TimRout]

Well then, here's a peep from the conservative evangelical corner:

The 66 books of the biblical canon are the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given. In saying that the Bible is the Word of God, we in no way disclaim the fact that Jesus Christ, the unique Son of God, is the Word Incarnate. Rather, when evangelicals speak of the Bible as God's exclusive Word, we are often seeking to distinguish these writings from other unscriptural documents. The Bible is God's only written Word -- His complete special revelation to mankind.

Now let me be clear: In stipulating that the Bible is God's only written Word, I am in no way endorsing so called "Tradition" which some believe to be God's unwritten Word. As a conservative evangelical, I stand with all faithful, authentic disciples of the Most High God in affirming the Bible as our only and all sufficient standard for faith and practice.

 

[Benoni]

The Bible is full of errors, only the Word of God "Logos" is inerrant. With out the leading of God's Spirit with in you; all you have is the letter that killeth or religion.

 

[icy_crusader]

Personally, I am a bit weak intellectually on this issue. I pride my self on living out a practical Christianity as I know it from the Bible. Intellectually, how can I trust a document that says it is inerrant simply because it says so? Also, how can I believe that these various documents throughout the ages stayed together as a single canon without important letters or gospels being left out of it? Am I to understand that through the course of over a 1,000 years that this Bible I hold in my hand is the descendant of the only perfect representation of the Word of God/Jesus? And what of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Were the Bibles we had before then NOT the word of God? I do understand, though, why the Apocrypha were excluded and the gnostic gospels not accepted into the canon.

Part II this is, it scares me to think the Bible is errant. That if I am to believe something like Jesus as my savior from and of God to save my soul from Hell how can I do it without an absolute? Without an absolute to a belief system, how can it be verifiable? If the Bible is errant, than anything in it could be wrong, including Christ's resurrection or even his existence. And that scares me. That means Christianity enters into a sort of postmodern boiling pot with no absolutes. I could be an absurdest and have just as many absolutes.

The fact is, it comes down to faith on my part. I have experienced and known the Holy Spirit. I know it works in my life by allowing and I know he works in the world with men unknowingly. With this experience, I can trust that the same Holy Spirit guiding my life guided the path of this Book, revealing it's pieces as God saw necessary, guiding the decisions of Church leaders, and protecting it's contents from those that would do it harm intentionally and unintentionally. No, there's not much intellectual proof of the Bible being inerrant. It's faith on my part.

 

[calluna]

By whose authority can we be told that after the book of revelation, we can shut God's mouth? OK, maybe not totally, but no more scripture? No more revelation. In almost 2,000 years. Are you serious? All because a group of people decided that "this is it" or "this is all we need".

Maybe they are right. No-one is telling you that you must obey. They can't make you, anyway, so I really can't see where the beef is. Unless you have some Stalinist objection to people determining their own beliefs.

I don't buy it for a second. Please, give me good reasons to why God is not allowed to use prophets to convey the word of God and put it in the form of scripture anymore?

Anyone can propose any other writing as Scripture, but no-one does, in practice. Do you have any suggestions?

Anyone can refuse to recognise any of the 66 as Scripture. Anyone can use any other writing as Scripture, and many do. They use the Qur'an as Scripture, calling it Scripture; they use Ignatius as Scripture- though not calling it Scripture! I know a guy who excludes Paul's writings, another who excludes the 'gory bits' of the OT. I expect we all do.

The point is, do we treat such people as Christians? And if we do, do we do so with sincerity?

 

[Benoni]

Personally, I am a bit weak intellectually on this issue. I pride my self on living out a practical Christianity as I know it from the Bible. Intellectually, how can I trust a document that says it is inerrant simply because it says so? Also, how can I believe that these various documents throughout the ages stayed together as a single canon without important letters or gospels being left out of it? Am I to understand that through the course of over a 1,000 years that this Bible I hold in my hand is the descendant of the only perfect representation of the Word of God/Jesus? And what of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Were the Bibles we had before then NOT the word of God? I do understand, though, why the Apocrypha were excluded and the gnostic gospels not accepted into the canon.

Part II this is, it scares me to think the Bible is errant. That if I am to believe something like Jesus as my savior from and of God to save my soul from Hell how can I do it without an absolute? Without an absolute to a belief system, how can it be verifiable? If the Bible is errant, than anything in it could be wrong, including Christ's resurrection or even his existence. And that scares me. That means Christianity enters into a sort of postmodern boiling pot with no absolutes. I could be an absurdest and have just as many absolutes.

The fact is, it comes down to faith on my part. I have experienced and known the Holy Spirit. I know it works in my life by allowing and I know he works in the world with men unknowingly. With this experience, I can trust that the same Holy Spirit guiding my life guided the path of this Book, revealing it's pieces as God saw necessary, guiding the decisions of Church leaders, and protecting it's contents from those that would do it harm intentionally and unintentionally. No, there's not much intellectual proof of the Bible being inerrant. It's faith on my part.

1 Corinthians 13:9 (HCSB) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part 10 But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.


We know in part and we see in part, I am not really too interested in the canon even thought I totally agree with you about the other books not included.


It is so strange in real life we seek out our lives with passion and zeal; pertaining to our job, family hobbies; but when it comes to our faith in God so often we listen to some dead church member or religious system blindly. God's Word is deep, and it is hidden and awesome just like the Jesus I know and love; He made it that way unpurpose.


I see the World even today wrapped in darkness spiritually speaking, the middle ages was a time of human ignorance and isolation; but spiritually speaking so many hang on to basic principles and do not reach out beyond some religious taboo or creed establish long ago by who knows who.

Why I have so much faith in scripture is not what I hear in a church pew, but God’s deepness in His awesome Word. God has never, I mean never called a system of man; He always calls people be it NT or OT, that is what I call a spiritual pattern and the Bible is full of them. Take the number 12, the word fire have spiritual/patterns with a deep and awesome hidden message (mystery (Gk) Sacred secret; mentioned 27 times in NT) seek out what God's Word is showing; not man and His religion.


I am looking for the amazing; not the religious; the hidden not the letter; the spiritual not the natural. That is why I believe in Jesus and His deep and awesome Word. God’s Word is a progressive word and when dead church members try to make it a tradition they totally miss the message.

You mentioned the pagan word hell; have you ever searched it out beyond what some dead church member has told you. Here is a word that supposable will torture billions with no mercy forever. Why would Jesus do such a terrible thing? I know it is in the Bible; but is it in the original language of the Bible? (no) There are four words they mistranslate in to hell; what do they mean; where are they in the scripture?

The word eternal; did you know it also is not in the original language of the Bible; it comes from the Latin the language of the Catholic Church. How about the word’s damnation, punishment, trinity, freewill, wrath there is a Hugh list beyond what I mentioned; seek ask, and knock the Bible declares.

 

[Chickapee]

God anoints men today just like He has done in all ages.

Amen Benoni ,


Its the message , not the messenger we are to focus upon
the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony/Witness of Jesus Christ

and that is the message of the gospel [good news] the chosen vessels

who Honor the Father and the Son
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,

which he had afore prepared unto glory,

2Cr 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels,

that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

God bless C

 

[TimRout]

Personally, I am a bit weak intellectually on this issue. I pride my self on living out a practical Christianity as I know it from the Bible. Intellectually, how can I trust a document that says it is inerrant simply because it says so? Also, how can I believe that these various documents throughout the ages stayed together as a single canon without important letters or gospels being left out of it? Am I to understand that through the course of over a 1,000 years that this Bible I hold in my hand is the descendant of the only perfect representation of the Word of God/Jesus? And what of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Were the Bibles we had before then NOT the word of God? I do understand, though, why the Apocrypha were excluded and the gnostic gospels not accepted into the canon.

Part II this is, it scares me to think the Bible is errant. That if I am to believe something like Jesus as my savior from and of God to save my soul from Hell how can I do it without an absolute? Without an absolute to a belief system, how can it be verifiable? If the Bible is errant, than anything in it could be wrong, including Christ's resurrection or even his existence. And that scares me. That means Christianity enters into a sort of postmodern boiling pot with no absolutes. I could be an absurdest and have just as many absolutes.

The fact is, it comes down to faith on my part. I have experienced and known the Holy Spirit. I know it works in my life by allowing and I know he works in the world with men unknowingly. With this experience, I can trust that the same Holy Spirit guiding my life guided the path of this Book, revealing it's pieces as God saw necessary, guiding the decisions of Church leaders, and protecting it's contents from those that would do it harm intentionally and unintentionally. No, there's not much intellectual proof of the Bible being inerrant. It's faith on my part.

I dealt with this issue thoroughly, here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6821653&page=3

 

[TimRout]

The Bible is full of errors,

An interesting assertion. If only it were true, your position might hold more water.

only the Word of God "Logos" is inerrant.

Perhaps you could explain this statement a bit further. Have you been doing lunch with Karl Barth again? :o

With out the leading of God's Spirit with in you; all you have is the letter that killeth or religion.

Indeed. The believer does need the help of the Holy Spirit to rightly understand the Scriptures. Nevertheless, this does not negate the inherent authority and perfection of the autographa.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I remember in 1972, I asked Christ to accept me and cleanse me of my sin. Within a few days I sensed the Holy Spirit in my heart and voraciously read the New Testament a few times. I was not in a church and did not have much input from folks. I had been raised RC.

As I read John, I specifically remember the passages about living water and the Holy Spirit coming alive to me and a sense that "this is that now".

Hence, since then, though there have been a lot of hard times and mucho failures and disobedience on my part, I've never been troubled by problems with the biblical text. For I am conviced, though there are "errors" of report, such as a blind man being healed upon entering Jericho and another witness says it was after, I believe I can rely upon the promises of God contained therein... I really don't care when Bartimeaus got healed, only that he did! Praise God!

So, my advice to one who is troubled is to seek God with all your heart and the rest will fall into place. Please don't think I'm claiming to be the rock of Gibralter in regards to my faith, only that I have proved Him true over and over.

 

[Chickapee]

wow Gojira69
I find your confession/witness wonderful and encouraging ,

and have much the same confessions ...
many faliures in my firey trails but Jesus never fails !
Praise God for His longsuffering towards us all
God bless and keep you C

 

[Benoni]

An interesting assertion. If only it were true, your position might hold more water.

Originally Posted by Benoni http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47117379#post47117379
The Bible is full of errors,
An interesting assertion. If only it were true, your position might hold more water.
Originally Posted by Benoni http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47117379#post47117379
only the Word of God "Logos" is inerrant.
Perhaps you could explain this statement a bit further. Have you been doing lunch with Karl Barth again?
Originally Posted by Benoni http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47117379#post47117379
With out the leading of God's Spirit with in you; all you have is the letter that killeth or religion.
Indeed. The believer does need the help of the Holy Spirit to rightly understand the Scriptures. Nevertheless, this does not negate the inherent authority and perfection of the autographa.


Sorry I have debating in another area.

Lets start with the pagan word hell which; but a Teutonic pagan word that is not in the original language of the Bible. Most new translations do not even put the word in the Bible.

Easter: Easter, another pagan word: Acts 12:4

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
KJV

3957 pascha (pas'-khah); of Aramaic origin [compare 6453]; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):

EASTER

pascha ^3957^, mistranslated "Easter" in <Acts 12:4>, KJV, denotes the Passover (RV). The phrase "after the Passover" signifies after the whole festival was at an end. The term "Easter" is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent. From this Pasch the pagan festival of "Easter" was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity. See PASSOVER. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)

Eternal: A careful study of the Greek word “aionios” (translated as “eternal,” “everlasting,” and “forever and ever” in our English translations) shows that it comes from the Greek noun “aion” which always means “an indeterminate period of time.” It is a most unfortunate thing that the translators of old chose to translate “aionios” from the Latin language (from the Language of Rome not the Bible) rather than the Greek from which the word is derived. God’s punishment will not last forever as is commonly taught, but will only last for the ages and only UNTIL God’s purpose for it is complete.

Eternal, eternity, etc. is not actually found in Scripture though in some aspects applied through inference of propositions. The problem is that the Greek words which were translated to "eternal" actually do not translate properly in English because there is no word in English which translates it properly. In this case, the word is "AIONIOS" and it is a descriptive adjective which just means "of, or in, or belonging to, or coming from, or resmbling, or befitting the AION.

Do you need more, there are plenty?

 

[Benoni]

sorry double posting

 

[horatio]

I never understood why there has to be so many prophets in the Bible to begin with let alone to add more! As a Zoroastrian I have only one prophet, Zoroaster, I like it that way. As a follower of Jesus Christ I wish there was only one Gospel, there are 4 - I think what I'm trying to say is quality is not quantity.

True, there would have been less contradictions if they stopped writing gospels after Mark.

 

[horatio]

Well then, here's a peep from the conservative evangelical corner:

The 66 books of the biblical canon are the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given. In saying that the Bible is the Word of God, we in no way disclaim the fact that Jesus Christ, the unique Son of God, is the Word Incarnate. Rather, when evangelicals speak of the Bible as God's exclusive Word, we are often seeking to distinguish these writings from other unscriptural documents. The Bible is God's only written Word -- His complete special revelation to mankind.

Now let me be clear: In stipulating that the Bible is God's only written Word, I am in no way endorsing so called "Tradition" which some believe to be God's unwritten Word. As a conservative evangelical, I stand with all faithful, authentic disciples of the Most High God in affirming the Bible as our only and all sufficient standard for faith and practice.

When Paul writes a letter and enquirers how some of his friends are going, is that the word of God or is it the word of Paul? There are some parts of Paul's writing where he specifically says that it's either God or Paul speaking. Are the parts that say Paul is speaking the word of God?

 

[SummaScriptura]

True, there would have been less contradictions if they stopped writing gospels after Mark.

Heck, if they hadn't written any gospels at all the contradictions would all go away! Is that what you want?

Honestly, I know this is going to sound weird at first, but the contradictions in scripture, and the kinds of contradictions there are, make me believe it more.

If 40+ men writing over 1500 years were all in absolute accord down to the last detail, I think I'd smell a rat!

C'mon! Gimme them gospels! All four of 'em!

 

[horatio]

An interesting assertion. If only it were true, your position might hold more water.

The bible is full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Hence it is not inerrant.