Please challenge me--with Scriptures

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The holy writ can never save us from any of our ills brother, but they will lead us to the one who will.

Jesus said ye search the scriptures thinking to find life but they are they which testify of me and you won't come to me to find life.

In other words there is NO life in the scriptures, the life can only be found in Jesus Christ.

You referenced two things Jesus said. Jesus never said there is no life in the Scriptures. Here are His actual (translated) quotes:

“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” (John 5:37-9)

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

If there is no life in the Scriptures, why would Jesus say "My Words are spirit and they are life"?

Over and over in the New Testament Gospels we are told "that Scripture be fulfilled". If the Scriptures don't have life in themselves, they certainly attract the attention of God who chooses to "watch over His Word to fulfill it" (Jer 1:12) to ensure that His "Word be that goes forth from His mouth: The Word shall not return unto Him void, but The Word shall accomplish that which He pleases, and The Word shall prosper in the thing whereto He sent The Word." (Isa 55:11)

Paul said: "Faith comes by/through hearing, and hearing by/through The Word of God." (Rom 10:17)

Even if we forget about what Jesus Himself said in John 6:63, at minimum we have to agree that God is ready to back up what He said if He is watching over His Word to perform it and declaring that His Word will never return void, don't we? So, at a minimum, the Life-Giver is prepared to honor His Word in an instant.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

There are different understanding of the scriptures so that is not really helpful.

Example: you state all scripture in the bible is inspired by God. I also say all scripture in the bible is inspired by God but not everything in the bible is scripture.

Thus we are in agreement concerning scripture, but not in agreement that the bible =scripture.

When you say "all Scripture in the Bible is inspired by God, but not everything in the Bible is Scripture" what do you mean? Do you eliminate whole books OR are you eliminating words that are not "of God" within books or something else? Please clarify.

For me, all the Books/Scrolls that make up what we call The Bible are Scriptures. Here is why I believe that:

Jesus held up scrolls and said: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39) Peter then referenced Paul's writings: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3:16) Jesus was also concerned that "the Scriptures be fulfilled" and "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18)

In my understanding, "The Scriptures" simply refers to the "Testimony of God about any and all matters He chose to testify about." But, the "Testimony of God" is not equal to the "Word of God" for three reasons: (1) The Word of God is a living person, and like John said, there wouldn't be enough books to do Him justice, and because (2) the Testimony of God includes things that ungodly people said about God (as I've shared before) and other things that were simply intended to be part of God's Testimony, as matters of fact. (3) Jesus never referred to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

So, I believe all Scripture is (1) The "Testimony of God" about any and all matters He chose to testify about and (2) that not all contained within the "Testimony of God" is God's Words nor does it always accurately reflect God, because He is simply sharing what they said which isn't always accurate.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Did God sent His WORD into the world to save the world?
Will God WORD accomplish all it set out (the salvation of the world) or return void?
Can you trust God to bring His WORD to pass?

Now in past conversation with you, you believe God sent His WORD (JESUS) to save the world, but for some reason (the will of man?)God cannot accomplish the salvation of the world, thus we cannot trust God to bring his WORD to pass.

I concede your point here. I certainly appear to be contradicting myself in this regard, especially since the words "might" or "should" aren't really in the original Scriptures. I do so because of the wealth of other things Jesus also said. Had He not said those things, I would certainly be a universalist. But, He did.

So, for now, I continue to maintain all that I said I believe and will appear to be contradicting myself in my understanding of John 3:17 within the full context of the Scriptures.

Thank you for the challenge and know that I will continue to investigate that.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

What denomination doesn't believe Jesus when He said we must be born again? Is it Christian?

The latter question is a loaded question. I guess it depends who gets to decide what "Christian" is. People and places claiming to follow the same Bible are all over the place today!

But, even in a virtually dead "church"/social club, it didn't stop God from moving me into position where I would diligently seek Him (without really knowing that I was or what was going to happen as a result). I certainly believe He can do the same for others who are trapped in dead religion. God knows there is a lot of dead religion that has a form of godliness without the power; but God loves true religion and worship in spirit and truth!

 

[Pneuma3]

You referenced two things Jesus said. Jesus never said there is no life in the Scriptures. Here are His actual (translated) quotes:

“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” (John 5:37-9)

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

If there is no life in the Scriptures, why would Jesus say "My Words are spirit and they are life"?

Couple of things here Johnny.
First when Jesus said they search the scriptures he was referring to the OT as nothing of the NT existed, Thus Jesus had not yet spoken.
Second the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.

Over and over in the New Testament Gospels we are told "that Scripture be fulfilled". If the Scriptures don't have life in themselves, they certainly attract the attention of God who chooses to "watch over His Word to fulfill it" (Jer 1:12) to ensure that His "Word be that goes forth from His mouth: The Word shall not return unto Him void, but The Word shall accomplish that which He pleases, and The Word shall prosper in the thing whereto He sent The Word." (Isa 55:11)

Paul said: "Faith comes by/through hearing, and hearing by/through The Word of God." (Rom 10:17)

Even if we forget about what Jesus Himself said in John 6:63, at minimum we have to agree that God is ready to back up what He said if He is watching over His Word to perform it and declaring that His Word will never return void, don't we? So, at a minimum, the Life-Giver is prepared to honor His Word in an instant.

I agree here, for the scriptures are those that testify of Christ, however we must come to Christ in order to have life.

Just had a thought well typing this.
Maybe what Jesus meant was until we come to him we cannot find the life that is in the scriptures.
Something to think about anyway.

 

[salt-n-light]

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

Mahbe this post is better suited in the Christian Apologetics forum.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The latter question is a loaded question. I guess it depends who gets to decide what "Christian" is. People and places claiming to follow the same Bible are all over the place today!

But, even in a virtually dead "church"/social club, it didn't stop God from moving me into position where I would diligently seek Him (without really knowing that I was or what was going to happen as a result). I certainly believe He can do the same for others who are trapped in dead religion. God knows there is a lot of dead religion that has a form of godliness without the power; but God loves true religion and worship in spirit and truth!

I just meant that there are some sects that don't call themselves, "Christian," but have set themselves outside everyone else as the "true" "remnant" Church. Just wondered if it was one of those. Just didn't want to specify...

What is keeping you there? Are you the light in a dark place? Has God called you to stay? Is there no other churches in your area? Or is it just because of social ties you stay there in hopes to help? Unfortunately, there ARE some types of denominations that even Jesus calls dead, like Sardis. And another that He says will have to go through the Great Tribulation. That to me means they will have to make a stand, for or against Christ, even to being martyred, whereas the Philadelphia type Christian will be protected through it.

 

[truefiction1]

I agree with you and I believe the Scriptures support what you said. I think of what Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 5:39 for instance. This is why I believe that genuine surrender to the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for a person to have a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

"So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. 'Do you understand what you are reading?' Philip asked.

'How can I,' he said, 'unless someone guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:30-31)

Philip is an Apostle of the Church, the Church itself is referred to by the Apostle Paul as the "pillar and foundation of truth". Many who have reasoned that the only way for a person to have a correct understanding of the Scriptures it through a complete, personal surrender to the Holy Spirit. They reason thus, because they believe that the Holy Spirit will completely overcome their own personal flaws and faults so that these spiritual defects of theirs won't skew their interpretations.

Very few believers come near to or achieve spiritual perfection in this life, and so more often than not, the private interpretations of Scriptural passages are seen through the lens of sullied souls and minds, leading to many errors of judgment. Is it any mystery that there are endless variations of belief among those who read and interpret Scripture? Especially among those who believe that they can "understand what (they) are reading?" not admitting, like the Ethiopian eunuch did to the Apostle Philip, that they cannot really understand "unless someone guides (them)?"

 

[Pneuma3]

When you say "all Scripture in the Bible is inspired by God, but not everything in the Bible is Scripture" what do you mean? Do you eliminate whole books OR are you eliminating words that are not "of God" within books or something else? Please clarify.

Oh boy you asked for more then you realize here brother. This took me about 3 hrs. to put together so hope you take the time to read it as it will be in 3 posts.


A little of both, let me explain.



first I have to ask which bible is the undefiled word of God?



Is it the bibles based on the Karaites/Masoretic Text (90% of the bibles today are based on this text)

Is it the Septuagint

Is it the RCC bible with the apocryphal

Is it the Ethiopian bible with the 1book of Enoch



Just which bible is suppose to be the 100% undefiled word of God?



It is obvious that not all of them can be, as some contain whole books that others do not contain.



So again I ask which bible is the undefiled word of God?



So lets look at some history of how the scriptures came to be what they are.



According to the Jewish study Bible pages 1835 & 1838



The Jews interpreted scripture by using scripture, thus they turned the scripture over and over to find new truths from examining the scriptures and reordering the old scriptures. Thus when they came upon problem scriptures they would translate those scripture according to their own interpretation and took sides in theological and legal controversies, expanded the narrative and legal material all the while purporting to merely convey the meaning of the text they translated.



Thus in ancient times it was the responsibility of the translator not to only translate the text, but to render it comprehensible to those who could not read the sacred writing themselves. Thus many of their interpretation of the scripture became a part of the scriptures.





Thus we can see here, however many will not accept it, that the ones responsible for keeping the scriptures actually tell us they added to the scriptures their own interpretations.



This is exactly what Jeremiah said in 8:8 about the lying pen of the scribes adding to the law of Moses.



These additions by the lying pen of the scribes is also spoken of by Adam Clarke



Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.



In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:



"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."



Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

 

[Pneuma3]

Now if these things be true then we should be able to see these additions and subtractions in scripture.



1Jn.5:7 and Mk.16:9-20 are interpolations neither of which are found in the oldest and best manuscripts.





the Septuagint version of Jeremiah is shorter than the Hebrew/Masoretic by about one eighth









Among the Qumran texts was a scroll of Jeremiah. This is very significant because the LXX version of Jeremiah is seven chapters shorter than the Masoretic, and what remains is in a different order!

The Dead Sea Scrolls backs up the LXX version, not our Masoretic Bibles.



The Dead Sea Scrolls Version of Isaiah (and Jeremiah)





Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem. That means that each line of the Psalm starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet in the Karaites/Masoretic Text this does not happen, one verse (or line) is completely missing.



That verse which has been deleted reads



"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."







Now because the Karaites/Masoretic Text has deleted this scripture all translations made on the Karaites/Masoretic Text do not have this scripture either, which includes the KJV of the bible.



So how can those bible translated from the Karaites/Masoretic Text be the undefiled Word of God if one whole verse is missing from it?



But how do we know that this verse





"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."







Has really been deleted from the scriptures of the Karaites/Masoretic Text?



We know because of the discovery of the dead sea scrolls which has this verse



"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."





In it. Thus making complete the acrostic poem.







Now if the Karaites/Masoretic Text bibles have deleted a whole line of scripture how many other scriptures have been deleted or added or changed?





Thus my point has been made that the lying pen of the scribes have added to and deleted from the scriptures.



Psalms 22:16



The Karaites/Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible originally read, "like a lion, my hands and my feet." and it was not until the dead sea scrolls were discovered that this verse was changed to "They pierced my hands and my feet." which the Septuagint had correctly translated it.



Scholars put this down as a scribal error, however Justin Martyr in his day said the scribes were deleting scripture that clearly showed Jesus was the Messiah.



Now after seeing what the Karaites/Masoretic Text did to Psalms 145 is it really so hard to believe Justin Martyr?



I have read 16 different translations of Deuteronomy 8:6 which reads





"And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways and by fearing him."





And every one of them (the 16 translations) is in ERROR.



According to the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy 8:6 should read



"And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways and by loving him"







To quote another



These variants refer to two powerful but different emotions—fear and love. The variants also set forth a difference in how one understands Old Testament doctrines; in particular, the variants introduce the question of whether one should keep the commandments through fear or through love. The reading of love also provides us with an important view of the God of the Old Testament, who is sometimes portrayed as a strict Deity when compared with Jesus Christ and his teachings of love in the New Testament.





Is the picture becoming clear that no bible is the undefiled word of God because they have either had additions or subtractions from them.



Heck even one so great as Moses added/changed what God had said.



The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[Pneuma3]

Satan has always corrupted or tried to corrupt the words of God, he did so in the garden, he tried again with Jesus, but failed because Jesus Christ is the WORD OF GOD and could not be corrupted.



Balaam taught that the best way to undo Gods people was to infiltrate and destroy them from within; what better way to try and destroy God people then adding, deleting or changing the scriptures.







So the question then become how do we know what is a tare and what is a wheat as they look the same.



Well Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, so anything written that is not of the Spirit or by love (for God is love and when we walk in love we walk with God and God with us. ) then we know it comes from the musings of man, their thoughts on God.



Gal.5:22-23



But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.



1Co.13 speaks all about what Love is and how it works, thus anything written or spoken that does not follow the Spirit via Love is nothing more then the musings of men, their thought on who God is and what God does.



There are tares among the wheat of God’s word written in the bibles, and as we listen to Christ the vail of ignorance is lifted and the tares are removed and we have the pure undefiled word of God written in the bible.



God bless

 

[Pneuma3]

I concede your point here. I certainly appear to be contradicting myself in this regard, especially since the words "might" or "should" aren't really in the original Scriptures. I do so because of the wealth of other things Jesus also said. Had He not said those things, I would certainly be a universalist. But, He did.

So, for now, I continue to maintain all that I said I believe and will appear to be contradicting myself in my understanding of John 3:17 within the full context of the Scriptures.

Thank you for the challenge and know that I will continue to investigate that.

well maybe I can help you with that Johnny, what scriptures are you referring to that Jesus spoke that is contrary to Jn.3:17

 

[Not David]

How do you there are 66 books? Why not 73 like the Early Church believed?

 

[Yarddog]

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

I would say the same about the 73 books in the Catholic Bible.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have several questions for you

Which are about what you dont say, not what you do.

1/ Why do you trust the table of contents? Why these books, not others, and why no more or less? By what authority do you disregard other early books that claim to be apostolic (eg the protoevangelium of James) and disregard others that are in early bibles?

2/ Most of the arguments between christians are fought over meaning not content. We read the same words,but we have different conclusions on what it means.
That is why there are disagreements on every aspect of doctrine, from baptism to eucharist - indeed mutually exclusive alternatives are argued as deriving from the very same words. So what is (and is not ) divinely inspired is a question about meaning. So to my question - what authority do you use to settle disputes on meaning?

3/ Do you believe it entirely complete? And that all doctrine is included in it?
Early fathers are adamant (those taught by John the apostle - that bishops in succession are needed for a valid eucharist of the real presence. You wont find that in the bible. So was John wrong or apostate , or his followers?

4/ St Paul says "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth (etc)" and the bible also says "the foundation of truth is the church which is the household of God" - which from OT we know means physical church. How does that fit in to your framework?

A lot of what you say in your post is what we all share and love about scripture.

My points 1 to 4 are what divide us (indeed divide protestants) - so how do you complete the puzzle?

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

 

[Pneuma3]

How do you there are 66 books? Why not 73 like the Early Church believed?

I would say the same about the 73 books in the Catholic Bible.

And that is exactly one of my points, which bible is suppose to be the 100% undefiled word of God.

 

[Yarddog]

And that is exactly one of my points, which bible is suppose to be the 100% undefiled word of God.

Just because his Bible only has 66 books and ours has 73 doesn't mean either are defiled. We just have more inspired scripture.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I have several questions for you

Which are about what you dont say, not what you do.

1/ Why do you trust the table of contents? Why these books, not others, and why no more or less? By what authority do you disregard other early books that claim to be apostolic (eg the protoevangelium of James) and disregard others that are in early bibles?

2/ Most of the arguments between christians are fought over meaning not content. We read the same words, have different conclusions.
Which is why there are disagreements on every aspect of doctrine, from baptism to eucharist - indeed mutually exclusive alternatives are argued as deriving from the same words. So what is and is not divinely inspired is about meaning. So the question - what authority do you use to settle disputes on meaning?

3/ Do you believe it entirely complete? Or that all doctrine is included in it. Early fathers are adamant (each those taught by John the apostle that bishops in succession are needed for a valid eucharist of the real presence. you wont find that in the bible. So was John wrong or apostate or his followers?

4/ St Paul says "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth (etc)" and the bible also says "the foundation of truth is the church which is the household of God" - which from OT we know means physical church. How does that fit in to your framework?

A lot of what you say in your post are what we all share and love about scripture.

My points 1 to 4 are what divide us (indeed divide protestants) - so how do you complete the puzzle?

Thank you so much for taking the time to ask those questions and challenge me to think beyond what I shared. I appreciate your time.

Regarding your questions by the numbers:

(1) God woke me up using a NIV New Testament on CD, so in all honesty that earned my trust of the value of what I had (New Testament-wise). I will wholeheartedly admit that beyond that, I just inherited the "protestant"-version of the whole Bible. In being exposed to church history, I learned that the last unified church decided that 66 Books were Scripture and the other books were good for devotion, but not considered Scripture. As I have had no reason to question that, I just stuck with that decision. Is there a reason I should re-evaluate?

(2) How God leads me. He woke me up, largely in spite of the church I went to at the time. I trust Him to lead me to the Truth. I have no church tradition to support and no doctrine that I have to have my way on, and no loyalties to back other than God, so I feel I am well-positioned to hear the true doctrine that Jesus talked about.

(3) I don't recognize authority other than God, because I don't see any authority willing to be under authority themselves. I don't recognize succession of bishops. Maybe at one point that was valid. I also don't throw around apostate or heretic like others like to. Bodies that don't recognize me have no authority over me and I have no authority over them, apart from what God would give me.

(4) If that were true then Paul himself would have violated that.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

This is pretty much standard believe among Roman Catholics, Protestants, and the pre-Reformation Eastern Churches.

Let me make a few

Since our Savior is God Incarnate, I don't know why you are opposing Theocentricity against Christocentricity.

I do believe that God worked through (or in spite of) the vocabulary, style, and understanding of the authors of the various books. The writers themselves may not have been aware of the significance of what they were writing.

But let us also remember that the Bible was never intended to be an historical or scientific textbook as we understand those academic disciplines today. Rather, it shows the SPIRITUAL significance of what happened.

For example, the Plagues of Egypt might have been the natural result of one after the other (red polluted Nile would kill fish and drive out the frogs; insects would then eat their bodies, and thus spread disease, etc.). But this was still working through natural laws that God Himself set up, and Moses (or whoever) saw God's hand in them.

 

[Not David]

Thank you so much for taking the time to ask those questions and challenge me to think beyond what I shared. I appreciate your time.

Regarding your questions by the numbers:

(1) God woke me up using a NIV New Testament on CD, so in all honesty that earned my trust of the value of what I had (New Testament-wise). I will wholeheartedly admit that beyond that, I just inherited the "protestant"-version of the whole Bible. In being exposed to church history, I learned that the last unified church decided that 66 Books were Scripture and the other books were good for devotion, but not considered Scripture. As I have had no reason to question that, I just stuck with that decision. Is there a reason I should re-evaluate?

(2) How God leads me. He woke me up, largely in spite of the church I went to at the time. I trust Him to lead me to the Truth. I have no church tradition to support and no doctrine that I have to have my way on, and no loyalties to back other than God, so I feel I am well-positioned to hear the true doctrine that Jesus talked about.

(3) I don't recognize authority other than God, because I don't see any authority willing to be under authority themselves. I don't recognize succession of bishops. Maybe at one point that was valid. I also don't throw around apostate or heretic like others like to. Bodies that don't recognize me have no authority over me and I have no authority over them, apart from what God would give me.

(4) If that were true then Paul himself would have violated that.

Can you show me when the "Unified Church" rejected the Deuterocanon since all of the Apostolic Churches have them?
Also, the root of the problem is that you don't have any authority so anything the Bible says become a possible interpretation, opinion, etc. Which contradicts what Paul said about "The Church being the Pillar and Foundation of Truth"