Luke and Acts are not inspired

Philip · Jul 23, 2003

Debi said:
Which proves my point. People want to believe that "mystically and magically" God is revealing His word. It has been revealed.

It also proves the point that we can not expect to be able to correctly interpret Scripture by our own means. Many scholars, using exactly the same tools as you do, have come to many different and mutually exclusive interpretations of Scripture. Some of them claim to have a separate revelation. Others claim that their interpretation comes only from diligent study. Yet, they still disagree.

Debi said:
You did not answer, Did God intent to have countless denmonations and doctrines to be taught? Would he allow so many of "His people to be mislead."

Nope.

The Word of God does say to "study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God."

You do realize that "study" is not the best translation of spoudazo, don't you? It is better translated as "be careful to show..."

( Standfast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, ( by Paul) whether by word ( his speaking) or by epistle ( letters written to the church) .....................

St Paul emphasizes staying with what was taught, not trying to figure things out on our own by only studying the Scriptures. We are to keep all of Tradition, not just those portions which were written down.

No further revelation given there. It does not state anything about further revelation of God's written word.

Why does Paul refer to the spoken word if all of God's revelation is contained in the written word?

Debi · Jul 23, 2003

Philip said:
It also proves the point that we can not expect to be able to correctly interpret Scripture by our own means. Many scholars, using exactly the same tools as you do, have come to many different and mutually exclusive interpretations of Scripture. Some of them claim to have a separate revelation. Others claim that their interpretation comes only from diligent study. Yet, they still disagree.

I did not say to follow the scholars, and yes some did, as many translators today, did so to prove a doctrine they wanted to teach and others to follow. However, that has nothing to do with YOU studing and using the study tools and examining God's word for yourself. God does not want you following man, He wants us to follow him.

Nope.

You do realize that "study" is not the best translation of spoudazo, don't you? It is better translated as "be careful to show..."

St Paul emphasizes staying with what was taught, not trying to figure things out on our own by only studying the Scriptures. We are to keep all of Tradition, not just those portions which were written down.

Why does Paul refer to the spoken word if all of God's revelation is contained in the written word?

Debi · Jul 23, 2003

Philip said:
It also proves the point that we can not expect to be able to correctly interpret Scripture by our own means. Many scholars, using exactly the same tools as you do, have come to many different and mutually exclusive interpretations of Scripture. Some of them claim to have a separate revelation. Others claim that their interpretation comes only from diligent study. Yet, they still disagree.

Nope.

You do realize that "study" is not the best translation of spoudazo, don't you? It is better translated as "be careful to show..."

It is not the best translation for whom? Amazing, now we are better to translate "The written word" than the men that whom were selected by God?!! Sorry, that is so unbelievable to me. Ok. Lets go with "better to show:" thyself approved unto God a workman (laborer) that needeth not to be ashamed, rightyly dividingorthhostomeo [cut straight] (correctly analyzing, and accurately dividing),(skillyfully teaching) the Word of Truth.
[treaching scriptures accurately]

You would agree God wants us "accurately" teaching scriptures? Correct?
And this can be done without "studying?".

To be accurate and skillfully at what we want to do or teach, does it take training, studying? not just reading what is before us and taking others saying they have had a "revelation" from God? I am not being sassy, I am just asking. When you desire to be skillful in any area of your life? What steps do you take? You would not just trust someone to tell you it is true and never investigate, correct?

St Paul emphasizes staying with what was taught, not trying to figure things out on our own by only studying the Scriptures. We are to keep all of Tradition, not just those portions which were written down.

I am sorry, lol , I think you just threw me a curve ball? What traditions are you speaking of?

Why does Paul refer to the spoken word if all of God's revelation is contained in the written word?

Let's look at the time the Written Word was being taught, at those times, were not the Word being recorded also? Are there new Prophets, as in OT days, revealing God's message to us? Oh, many have claimed to be, but honestly, how many of them do your spirit tell you were "special messengers of God". How many of these "Anointed Prophets" are truly touched by God and given relevaltion knowledge and adding to written Scripture?

What do you think?

Debi · Jul 23, 2003

Debi said:
Let's look at the time the Written Word was being taught, at those times, were not the Word being recorded also? Are there new Prophets, as in OT days, revealing God's message to us? Oh, many have claimed to be, but honestly, how many of them do your spirit tell you were "special messengers of God". How many of these "Anointed Prophets" are truly touched by God and given relevaltion knowledge and adding to written Scripture?

What do you think?

Philip · Jul 23, 2003

I did not say to follow the scholars, and yes some did, as many translators today, did so to prove a doctrine they wanted to teach and others to follow.

I am not suggesting one follow scholars. I am stating that honest Christians study the Scriptures and come to complete contradictory conclusions.

Amazing, now we are better to translate "The written word" than the men that whom were selected by God?!! Sorry, that is so unbelievable to me.

Are you suggesting that God selected some men to translate spoudazo as "study"?

Debi said:
Let's look at the time the Written Word was being taught, at those times, were not the Word being recorded also? Are there new Prophets, as in OT days, revealing God's message to us?

I am not claiming that there are new prophets. I am stating that the Apostles did not write down everything in Scripture. Some of God's revelation has been passed down orally.

You would agree God wants us "accurately" teaching scriptures? Correct? And this can be done without "studying?".

As I said before, Paul tells us not to rely on only the written word. We must also understand the rest of Tradition. All of it was handed down to the saints. We can not rely on only the written portion of it.

Debi · Jul 23, 2003

Philip said:
I am not suggesting one follow scholars. I am stating that honest Christians study the Scriptures and come to complete contradictory conclusions.

Are you suggesting that God selected some men to translate spoudazo as "study"? let me guess..................you are suggesting that the translation is incorrect?

I am not claiming that there are new prophets. I am stating that the Apostles did not write down everything in Scripture. Some of God's revelation has been passed down orally.Can I ask where you are getting this information from? I would further ask.................are you stating there has been error made in translating and constructing the bible? Please tell me what "revelation" has been passed down orally?

As I said before, Paul tells us not to rely on only the written word. We must also understand the rest of Tradition. All of it was handed down to the saints. We can not rely on only the written portion of it.

And I would ask......................what traditions are you referring too?

Aaron11 · Jul 23, 2003

Debi,

Many people who have studied more than you and I have, still disagree on many issues. The only way you can accept this reality is to say that some people haven't studied it hard enough or don't have good hearts. I am not willing to accept these facts. The fact is, God doesn't require us to be lawyers. We can understand His gospel and how to respond to it by knowing Christ's life and loving Him and one another. All of the rest of the stuff hangs on that love for God and for one another. Technicalities and perfect interpretation is not what it is about. If it was, don't you think the bible would be a little clearer on the rules and regulations?

Philip · Jul 23, 2003

Debi said:
And I would ask......................what traditions are you referring too?

To exaclty the same ones to which St Paul referred.

Debi · Jul 24, 2003

Aaron11 said:
Debi,

Many people who have studied more than you and I have, still disagree on many issues. The only way you can accept this reality is to say that some people haven't studied it hard enough or don't have good hearts. I am not willing to accept these facts.

I would agree that the motives of some scholars hearts was to "promote" a doctrine, but you can not blame the messenger for the message if you don't bother to check the messege. It is a poor excuse not to open a book and define terms, even if you do not "read" the history. If you do not understand terms, you have no comprehension of what you read.

The fact is, God doesn't require us to be lawyers. I never stated that He requires us to be "lawyers" but then this does explain why so many follow a false gospel, because they do not study. I believe scriptures even makes the statement of the "blind following the blind and both falling into the ditch".

We can understand His gospel and how to respond to it by knowing Christ's life and loving Him and one another. All of the rest of the stuff hangs on that love for God and for one another. I do disagree a little with this comment, the bible tells us there is one way to be saved. I think the bible is clear on the rules and regulations. God is not an author of confusion rather He is a God of order.

Technicalities and perfect interpretation is not what it is about. If it was, don't you think the bible would be a little clearer on the rules and regulations?I think interpretation is what it is about because once again, false gospel = no salvation.

Aaron,

I would say this is a fact. Many Christian today don't "study" their bible. They rely on the message from the pulpit and other religious leaders instead of spending some alone time with God and seeking out the message for themselves.

Yes, there are some things that "man" will disagree on because they have their own program, but the responsiblity is ours to search the scriptures and prove all things...... ALL scripture is given for correction, reproof, rebuke and for instruction in righteous living. That is my only point.

Debi · Jul 24, 2003

Philip said:
To exaclty the same ones to which St Paul referred.

Phillip, without any evidence, this appears to be grasping at straws. This leaves much room for error and bad doctrine. Paul is referring to the tradtions that "he" taught. Which can be founded in his epsitles. There are no other "lost" or "unwritten" traditions.

As for your comment about the translation of "study" yes, I do believe every word and the usage of the words were guided by God's spirit. I have heard many times that a better word could have been used or this word is translated as another word. But if the scriptures are examined, the same word is used in many scriptures and the translation was changed. A good example would be the word Grace, which also translates as favor. In many of the scriptures the word is used as favor and in many others sccriptures as grace. Same word.

.

Philip · Jul 24, 2003

Debi said:
Phillip, without any evidence, this appears to be grasping at straws.

There is plenty of evidence throughout history as to the unwritten Tradition of the Apostles. If you like, I'd be happy to post them for you.

This leaves much room for error and bad doctrine.

It only leaves such room if you ignore Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail. You would also have to ignore Paul's teaching on the Pillar and Support of the Truth.

Paul is referring to the tradtions that "he" taught. Which can be founded in his epsitles.

Since you brought up the idea of evidence, can you offer any evidence that all of Paul's teachings appear in his epistles?

There are no other "lost" or "unwritten" traditions.

I never claimed that there were "lost" Tradition. However, Scripture clearly states that some of the teachings were delivered orally. Paul explicitly states that we are to keep all of Tradition, not just what was written down.

As for your comment about the translation of "study" yes, I do believe every word and the usage of the words were guided by God's spirit.

So, you believe that the Holy Spirit guided the translation, but deny that He might guide someone's study. Interesting contradiction. Do you have any evidence to support this belief that the Spirit guided the translation? Perhaps some Scripture?

I have heard many times that a better word could have been used or this word is translated as another word. But if the scriptures are examined, the same word is used in many scriptures and the translation was changed. A good example would be the word Grace, which also translates as favor. In many of the scriptures the word is used as favor and in many others sccriptures as grace. Same word.

The Greek word spoudazo occurs 11 times in the New Testament. In the KJV, it is translated as "endeavor" three times, "be diligent" (or a variation of that) five times, "be forward" once, "labor" once, and "study" once. (Let me know if you want the exact verses. I'll be happy to list them for you.) The translation of spoudazo as "study", or at least as the modern meaning of "study", is not correct. It does not agree with any other Greek usage of the spoudazo, in or out of Scripture. Further, if you compare how spoudazo is translated into languages other than English, you will see more support for my statement. For example, the Spanish translation is Procura con diligencia (strive with diligence).

Even so, let us suppose the "study" is a valid translation of spoudazo. Does Paul ever state that we need only study Scripture?

Aaron11 · Jul 24, 2003

Debi said:
Phillip, without any evidence, this appears to be grasping at straws. This leaves much room for error and bad doctrine. Paul is referring to the tradtions that "he" taught. Which can be founded in his epsitles. There are no other "lost" or "unwritten" traditions.

Why do you believe that Paul was only talking about traditions he wrote about? This seems like a blind assumption.

Since Paul had visited the people he wrote to, it seems that he could have taught them more than just what he would write to them in a relatively short letter.

I have a question for you. What about Corinthians A or Laodocians? There is good evidence that Paul wrote other letters. Aren't you worried that you are missing some scripture?

Philip · Jul 24, 2003

Aaron11 said:
I have a question for you. What about Corinthians A or Laodocians? There is good evidence that Paul wrote other letters. Aren't you worried that you are missing some scripture?

It would not be a great leap to think that Paul wrote countless other letters such as Philemon.

St Jude probably wrote at least one other letter as well.

Debi · Jul 24, 2003

Philip said:
There is plenty of evidence throughout history as to the unwritten Tradition of the Apostles. If you like, I'd be happy to post them for you.

Philip

This is rather lengthy.

It only leaves such room if you ignore Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail. You would also have to ignore Paul's teaching on the Pillar and Support of the Truth.This refers to "sound doctrine" the doctrine that Paul taught. The Gospel of our salvation............. What message do you think he is speaking of? !!

Since you brought up the idea of evidence, can you offer any evidence that all of Paul's teachings appear in his epistles?

Excuse me, But you are the one to bring up that there were oral scriptures that we should be observing. I am not sure how you stand on the bible. But it is being apparent that you are getting a little irate. Your type is large If you believe that "the Bible" is not the Written Word for us to follow as from God, that is surely your choice. If you want to show me where Paul was speaking of other traditions and orally teaching that were given to us to follow, do so by the written word. If it is not in the written word, I don't want to see it. Man comes up with "bible rejection" all the time. What was given to us by Paul is what God intended for us. Simple. If you don't accept that, search on. That is your option. Paul said beware of those that stray from the which you were taught. His epistles. He further stated to be sound in the doctrine so that you will not be tossed to and fro of any type of strange doctrine (phraphaised). Come on, God is a God of order, not confusion. Why would he leave us a puzzle to put together.

Now, to answer your question about the Gates of hell will not prevail.....

I believe in a Soveriegn God. He is able to perserve His scriptures and Direct those who translated it to carry out HIS plan. No matter how much knowledge or power man beleives that he has, He CANNOT THRAWT THE WILL OR POWER OF GOD.

I never claimed that there were "lost" Tradition. However, Scripture clearly states that some of the teachings were delivered orally. Paul explicitly states that we are to keep all of Tradition, not just what was written down.
So, you believe that the Holy Spirit guided the translation, but deny that He might guide someone's study. Interesting contradiction. Do you have any evidence to support this belief that the Spirit guided the translation? Perhaps some Scripture?

I gave scripture for this in an early post.

Let me also direct you to a scripture concerning Paul and his assignment from God.........

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is GIVEN TO ME for YOU to FULFIL THE WORD OF GOD. v 26 even the mystery WHICH HAD BEEN HID from ages and from generations, BUT NOW IS MADE MANIFEST TO HIS SAINTS. --------- THOSE IN CHIRST.

If the direction of the study is to question whether "the lost books" which are not lost, should have been added to the bible and/or the translations are not correct, yes, I would doubt that God is directing them to study outside and into scriptures he did not ordarin for us.

God has the right and power to exercise SUPREME and FINAL authority over ALL THINGS. He IS supremely in CONTROL and He does not stop being God because Man believes he is uncapable of doing as he said. God is not a man that he should lie!! To say that Paul forgot to give us his teaching, which I remind you HE was APPOINTED by GOD to deliver the gospel to us, and example the Gospel to the other apostles because it had not been fully revealed to them, is beyond me when Paul stated his assignment.

Other scriptures that state God is capable of perserving that knowledge He ordains for His Saints.

Ish 46:10 Declaring the end and the result from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, MY COUNSEL SHALL STAND AND I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE AND PURPOSE.

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of HIS WILL, according to HIS GOOD PLEASURE which he HATH PURPOSED in HIMSELF.

Eph 1:11......According to the PURPOSE of HIM WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL.

Prv 22:12 The eyes of the Lord keep guard over Knowledge and him who has it, but HE overthrows the words of the treacherous.

Ps 12:6 The words and promises of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnance, purified even times over
v7 You will keep them and preserve them, O Lord; You will guard and keep us from this evil generation forever

Ps 119:33 Order my steps in thy word: and let not my iniquity have dominion over me.

Ps 119:137 Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful.

Ps 119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concering all things to be right; and I hate ever false way.

Ish 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing wherto I sent it.

Ish 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The scriptures I have given should answer any further question regarding the words used, why God wanted the translators to use them etc etc etc. Any question of why the others books were not used, Lost books, wrongly translateds words, further revelation knowledge of Gods words merely states that man is more powerful than God and God is not sovereign to do that which He promises He would.

Now, before any one ask, No, I am not calvanist.

God Bless.

Debi · Jul 24, 2003

Philip said:
It would not be a great leap to think that Paul wrote countless other letters such as Philemon.

St Jude probably wrote at least one other letter as well.

Paul wrote all the books from Romans thru Philemon. And I do believe he is also the author of Hebrews. Paul was not like in Jerusalem which would account for him not putting his name on the letter.

Aaron11 · Jul 24, 2003

Debi said:
Paul wrote all the books from Romans thru Philemon. And I do believe he is also the author of Hebrews. Paul was not like in Jerusalem which would account for him not putting his name on the letter.

I think he is talking about letters that didn't end up in the bible.

Aaron11 · Jul 24, 2003

So, what about other letters that Paul wrote that didn't end up in the Bible?

Debi · Jul 24, 2003

Aaron11 said:
So, what about other letters that Paul wrote that didn't end up in the Bible?

What other letters? Aaron. Please read my reply to Philip. the lengthy one.

Thanks

Aaron11 · Jul 25, 2003

Corinthians A, Laodocians (two for example). You surely don't have reason to believe that the Bible contains all of Paul's writings, and there is good reason to believe it doesn't.

Debi · Jul 25, 2003

Aaron11 said:
Corinthians A, Laodocians (two for example). You surely don't have reason to believe that the Bible contains all of Paul's writings, and there is good reason to believe it doesn't.

I believe the Bible contains all that God has ordained for us.

I might add, you are aware that many of these "books" that you question that should have been added or "they" forget/decided not to add were forgeries, written in Paul and other disciples names and truly was not written by their hands . I see no problem as to why they were eliminated by God. God is Sovereign is He not!!!

Did you read my comments to Philip?

Luke and Acts are not inspired

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Active Member

Active Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency