Please challenge me--with Scriptures

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

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

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

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

I don't see how anyone can consider a Bible defiled, simply because books that were considered good for devotion and instruction (though not acceptable as Scripture) by the last unified church are added to a later church's official canon of Scripture. They valued them in the early church, they just didn't believe they were Scripture.

I choose the 66, because I side with what those in the last unified church decided unless someone presents earlier evidence that exposes politics as the reason for the decision of 66 books to be questionable.

 

[Mountainmike]

1/ The point I make is that without church decisions in council, you wouldn't have the bible you do. So in accepting the bible you accept that authority

2/ the authority Jesus gave them was the power to " bind and loose" - which in Jewish speak meant give definitive verdict on doctrine and by the same power they said what it meant. Eg a Eucharist of real flesh, and so they gave rulings on heresies eg Arianism. So in their decisions is the voice of God, just as Jesus acknowledged Moses seat.

3/ I quote paul accurately. And indeed paradosis - tradition- handing down by word of mouth or letter was the way ALL doctrine was passed. In the early church you see Iraneus speaking about it. It was centuries before the councils agreed a new testament, and when they did it was with a meaning. Tradition handing down still carries the meaning to this day.. including for example the Eucharist.

4/ So the power to bind and loose In council is why scripture says " the foundation of truth is the church" and why you are told to take disputes there.

It is because many have Separated scripture from tradition ( meaning) there are so many disputes on what scripture means. I urge you to study the early church to see what the first Christians were instructed, how scripture became what it did, and the relationship between scripture - tradition- authority.

Only in that way can you know eg was the Eucharist symbolic or real flesh? With only scripture all disagree.

Finishing with what we all agree - we all love and revere scripture!

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.

 

[Yarddog]

I don't see how anyone can consider a Bible defiled, simply because books that were considered good for devotion and instruction (though not acceptable as Scripture) by the last unified church are added to a later church's official canon of Scripture. They valued them in the early church, they just didn't believe they were Scripture.

Not sure exactly what that means. The early Church used the Septuagint as their canon for the Jewish scripture. This is what Peter, Paul and the other writers used to write their letters.

I choose the 66, because I side with what those in the last unified church decided

What do you consider the unified church is? Martin Luther didn't consider some of the books in the ancient Church as worthy of being scripture and removed some of them. His division changes nothing about what the Apostles used as their Jewish scriptures. The 66 is still scripture but no more than 73+ used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

unless someone presents earlier evidence that exposes politics as the reason for the decision of 66 books to be questionable.

Well, the 66 became that for the Protestants during the 16th century. Prior to that OT scripture included several other books depending on which which area of the Church one lived.

I don't want to get into a debate about what scripture is because we basically agree about what scripture is, though we have more of it.

 

[Francesco Santini]

I don't know, I think I have a more "polemical" view of the Scriptures, but somehow I think we share some points.
My thing is that I think the Old Testament is important mainly for social historical background in order to know who were the people who would live at the time of the messiah and for prophecies in order to identify the Messiah.
But I don't think we should look for "moral codes" in it. I know, of course, there are plenty of good examples of good moral choices (eg. When God assures Abraham that wouldn't destroy Sodom if there were at least one good man), but as long as there is questionable ones ( e.g. When Joshua, claiming to be Gods will, take the promised land by means of intensive war sometimes totally eradicating some nations, the women along with the kids) it puts the holiness of the account under scrutiny. However I do believe God thought it were important to keep those accounts in order to a Better understanding of the role of the Messiah.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

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"

David, so your opinion is that I don't have any authority. I disagree. My authority is the One who woke me up. I know Who I have to answer to and you think He isn't a more worthy authority than any man you answer to? I wonder if the Jews thought that in the Apostles' time, as well.

So, who is your authority? And who do they answer to? Are you protestant--which means that your authority source broke away from the roman catholic church about 500 years ago, right? And, who was their authority source after they broke away? And, the roman catholic church was one bishop who broke away from the four other bishops that he was trying to control. And don't get me started on all the political power games the church--after Roman support--played. Sadly, way too many!

I am not sure what you deem "apostolic churches", but you do realize that the roman catholic church didn't add the deuterocanonical books as "official Scripture" until the council of trent in the 1500's (in response to the protestant breakaway), right?

In re-investigating what I had been taught, I found, like today's politics, it depends who is writing the article and which side they are trying to support. Both sides on the topic cite some of the same people to support their defense of the 66 or 73 books and apparently the Orthodox church accepts even more in their Canon of Old Testament Scriptures.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Not sure exactly what that means. The early Church used the Septuagint as their canon for the Jewish scripture. This is what Peter, Paul and the other writers used to write their letters.

What do you consider the unified church is? Martin Luther didn't consider some of the books in the ancient Church as worthy of being scripture and removed some of them. His division changes nothing about what the Apostles used as their Jewish scriptures. The 66 is still scripture but no more than 73+ used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.


Well, the 66 became that for the Protestants during the 16th century. Prior to that OT scripture included several other books depending on which which area of the Church one lived.

I don't want to get into a debate about what scripture is because we basically agree about what scripture is, though we have more of it.

Fair enough. I am willing to re-examine the issue and let God show me if I have believed a lie.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

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

2. 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.

re: #1: Because I see Theo as opposed to solely Christo.
re: #2: I don't agree with you on this and we will just have to disagree on this.

 

[Yarddog]

Fair enough. I am willing to re-examine the issue and let God show me if I have believed a lie.

What lie?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

What lie?

The lie I was referring to was "If I have believed a lie about the limit to 66 Books," because if there are really 73 books or more God ordained to be included in Scripture and I limited them erroneously, then it would be because I believed a lie that was passed down to me by tradition. From the second hand accounts of Athanasius and Jerome that I have read, both believed the 66 were inspired and didn't believe that about the others, though they believed they were good for devotion/instruction.

 

[Pneuma3]

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

Ok so does that same rule apply to the Ethiopian bible which contains in their canon the 1 book of Enoch? or do you limit the inspiration only to the 73 book is your preferred bible?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

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.




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.

2 Cor 3:14

 

[Pneuma3]

2 Cor 3:14

Yup. Funny thing is I have used that scripture many time to show that the OT was written in shadow, but never put it together with the searching of the scriptures one before until I was typing out that reply.

See our conversation has already bore fruit, at least for me

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Yup. Funny thing is I have used that scripture many time to show that the OT was written in shadow, but never put it together with the searching of the scriptures one before until I was typing out that reply.

See our conversation has already bore fruit, at least for me

I agree. If I didn't feel conversation bore fruit, I wouldn't do it. I put my belief out there, because I believe God uses people for His purposes, too.

 

[Yarddog]

The lie I was referring to was "If I have believed a lie about the limit to 66 Books," because if there are really 73 books or more God ordained to be included in Scripture and I limited them erroneously, then it would be because I believed a lie that was passed down to me by tradition. From the second hand accounts of Athanasius and Jerome that I have read, both believed the 66 were inspired and didn't believe that about the others, though they believed they were good for devotion/instruction.

I would hate to designate anything a lie that may make you doubt your Bible. Those books are still inspired just as the OP states.

Here is a site which may help you understand how OT canon developed.
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

[Yarddog]

Ok so does that same rule apply to the Ethiopian bible which contains in their canon the 1 book of Enoch? or do you limit the inspiration only to the 73 book is your preferred bible?

As long as God accepts their faith, and there is no reason to doubt that he does, then it is inspired for them.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I would hate to designate anything a lie that may make you doubt your Bible. Those books are still inspired just as the OP states.

Here is a site which may help you understand how OT canon developed.
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

I think you misunderstand me, so allow me to clarify. God woke me up using New Testament Scripture. That validated, for me, that Scripture is of God. I extended that to the Old Testament, because Jesus quoted from the Old Testament as if it was True. I am not aware of any quotes of the "extra books" by Jesus. I am aware that Jude quoted Enoch, but apart from that, I am not aware of any Biblical proof that the writings in the extra book are to be taken as Scripture.

Since God used Scripture to wake me up, there is absolutely nothing that would make me doubt the inspiration of Scripture. The only issue at hand for me is whether the inspiration extends to other books I had previously not considered Scripture and then which ones.

Thank you for sharing the website. I will add it to the others I am gathering information from. I've got no agenda other than knowing Jesus' Doctrine.

 

[Yarddog]

I think you misunderstand me, so allow me to clarify. God woke me up using New Testament Scripture. That validated, for me, that Scripture is of God. I extended that to the Old Testament, because Jesus quoted from the Old Testament as if it was True. I am not aware of any quotes of the "extra books" by Jesus. I am aware that Jude quoted Enoch, but apart from that, I am not aware of any Biblical proof that the writings in the extra book are to be taken as Scripture.

Since God used Scripture to wake me up, there is absolutely nothing that would make me doubt the inspiration of Scripture. The only issue at hand for me is whether the inspiration extends to other books I had previously not considered Scripture and then which ones.

Thank you for sharing the website. I will add it to the others I am gathering information from. I've got no agenda other than knowing Jesus' Doctrine.

What I may ask you then, as a child of the most High God and as one that considers you my brother in Christ, do you only accept the OT books which Jesus quoted from as scripture? Because, there are several in your 66 which he didn't.

Most all of the NT quotes citing OT scripture comes from the Septuagint, which shows that the biblical NT writers relied on it heavily and viewed it as scripture.

 

[AFrazier]

I never said I did not want to share I said what sense was sharing if you did not want to discuss what is shared. You don't seem to want to discuss your view, just see who and who does not agree with your view.

That fine in and of itself I guess, so maybe I should just say I disagree.




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.



Fair enough here is what you said in #2




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.

God accomplished the salvation of the world before sending his Word into the world. That was the whole point of sending his Word in the first place. God took our sins upon himself, and in accordance with his own law was obligated to offer a lamb for a sin offering. Hence, Jesus was the Lamb of God, or more precisely, God's Lamb. God couldn't die, so his Word went forth from his mouth and became flesh, to taste death for every man.

There is plenty of scripture to support this if you need it.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

God accomplished the salvation of the world before sending his Word into the world. That was the whole point of sending his Word in the first place. God took our sins upon himself, and in accordance with his own law was obligated to offer a lamb for a sin offering. Hence, Jesus was the Lamb of God, or more precisely, God's Lamb. God couldn't die, so his Word went forth from his mouth and became flesh, to taste death for every man.

There is plenty of scripture to support this if you need it.

I would love to hear how you support what you shared with the plenty of Scripture you mentioned.

 

[Not David]

David, so your opinion is that I don't have any authority. I disagree. My authority is the One who woke me up. I know Who I have to answer to and you think He isn't a more worthy authority than any man you answer to? I wonder if the Jews thought that in the Apostles' time, as well.

So, who is your authority? And who do they answer to? Are you protestant--which means that your authority source broke away from the roman catholic church about 500 years ago, right? And, who was their authority source after they broke away? And, the roman catholic church was one bishop who broke away from the four other bishops that he was trying to control. And don't get me started on all the political power games the church--after Roman support--played. Sadly, way too many!

I am not sure what you deem "apostolic churches", but you do realize that the roman catholic church didn't add the deuterocanonical books as "official Scripture" until the council of trent in the 1500's (in response to the protestant breakaway), right?

In re-investigating what I had been taught, I found, like today's politics, it depends who is writing the article and which side they are trying to support. Both sides on the topic cite some of the same people to support their defense of the 66 or 73 books and apparently the Orthodox church accepts even more in their Canon of Old Testament Scriptures.

I go to an Orthodox Church so none of the things apply to me.
One think to consider is that you are not the only one who says is filled with the Holy Spirit and most of them will have ideas that would contract you, so is the Holy Spirit tricking all of us?
Be aware that the Bible you use was formed with Apostolic authority, otherwise you will be using the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas.