Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

[Righttruth]

This is where a manifested messiah would want to do away with the cross and to continue old testament practice. Making humanity his subjects in place of the cross of Christ.

You know letter kills. Are you undermining the role of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Righttruth]

It would also be pertinent to note that it was not up to those mortal men as to how wide spread and internalized their writings would become, neither did they envisage that those inspired words of God would find themselves into the hearts of men, throughout the last 2000 years and in peoples of every nation and in every language.

The indication that this would happen is in the Revelation of Jesus, given to John to give to the 7 Churches in Asia Minor, within the 1st Century context.

10And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. 11And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
(Revelation 10)

This little book is the after the fact evidence for you, that it is authorized not by those mortal men who put ink to paper, that hadn't the slightest clue to how far and wide in future generations around the world it would spread. However, now you know that the authority is not of those mortal men and to associate the authority of the book with those mortal men is the mother of all fallacies!

Don't you know that Paul a rank outsider dominated with Gentile world with his own agenda?

 

[Righttruth]

The important part of that sentence is "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Yes they were humans - inspired and indwelt by the Spirit of truth.

The Holy Spirit should bring to our remembrance what all Jesus said, not some suppositions of a rank outsider.

 

[Righttruth]

When I asked for the sources for your statement, you gave Google - plus a footnote in one translation of the Bible. Yet you dismissed my statement that Paul's writings are in the NT, which was inspired by the Spirit and widely accepted by the church as the word of God. You didn't question, discuss or ask for proof of that statement; you responded by saying that you weren't concerned about the "wide gate". Which sounds like your way of saying that this may be a popular belief; not only is it wrong, but that we are all on the wrong path, while you alone have found the correct way.



Who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and had him living inside them.
Jesus said to his disciples that the Spirit would remind them of his words - that everything that Jesus had, would be given to the disciples, by the Spirit.
These disciples wrote the Gospels, quoting words from the OT and showing how they were fulfilled. Paul, who met Jesus on the road to Damascus, also quoted the OT, confirmed and explained Jesus' teaching and explained it and how to apply it.

You are also a mortal man.
If you don't accept parts of the Scriptures, how are we to, and why should we, believe anything you say?

Don't you know that Saint Paul was troubled by a messenger of Satan?

 

[Righttruth]

So you're happy to accept the writings of one book over the Bible.
You say that "mortal men" wrote the NT; who wrote this book that you are promoting?
Have we any evidence that he/she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so?
Where is your questioning of this source? None, as far as I can see - it's more like blind acceptance.

There is no question of accepting blindly any thing written .

 

[Strong in Him]

The Holy Spirit should bring to our remembrance what all Jesus said, not some suppositions of a rank outsider.

"Rank outsider" is your label and your judgement.
The apostles welcomed Paul and worked with him. They did not object to his using the title "apostle" - meaning, one who is sent - and accepted that he had been called, and sent, by Jesus.
Peter called Paul his brother.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't you know that Saint Paul was troubled by a messenger of Satan?

So?
Illness, persecution, suffering, temptations etc are all messengers of Satan - they're certainly not from God.
Are you suggesting that because Paul was troubled in this way that his witness, and writings, are unreliable? That's about as sensible as someone saying that they don't believe that Jesus heals, because the person who told them about his miracles had a headache at the time.

 

[Strong in Him]

There is no question of accepting blindly any thing written .

So why are you promoting this book, which I, for one, haven't read and cannot testify to, instead of questioning it?
Why is this book more important/trustworthy than the faith of the Christian church?

 

[The Times]

OK. But you want that book to be copy and pasted here?

No just a summary of issue on a point by point basis.

 

[The Times]

Don't you know that Paul a rank outsider dominated with Gentile world with his own agenda?

No, what would that agenda have been.

 

[The Times]

Jews were no better

Depending on who, when, where and why. We cannot generalise.

 

[The Times]

You know letter kills. Are you undermining the role of the Holy Spirit?

Letter in what sense, the law or the biography of Jesus?

The Holy Spirit came to reveal truth to people wanting to know more about Jesus.

His role is to mold us into the image of the Son, through a life long sanctification process, that always has scripture as the go to for the purpose of revealing deeper truths not seen on the first, second or third pass. The words are Spirit and the only way they could be understood deeper is through the spiritual lenses that the Holy Spirit gives us, through trials and tribulations.

Think of scripture as an iceberg and the depth of scripture, is what lies beneath the tip of the iceberg. You can't just read the word, you need to experience it and the Holy Spirit makes it possible to do so, otherwise reading would just be an intellectual exercise.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

Honestly, I think the life of Jesus and his teachings are FAR more important than anything Paul said, yet many churches seem to be based more upon Paul than the gospels. Since Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament, is there any real reason to study it, other than for historical background?

It seems to me that some of the books of the Bible were written to certain churches in certain places. I personally like the Gospels more too. I used to think that the other books were almost unnecessary, but I think they're good to see how issues were addressed in a particular place in time. The whole Bible is scripture. The Old Testament was written to the ancient Israelites, but it is for Christians to reference. The New Testament was written to Christians. All the books are the word, but they can be looked at differently according to what their original intent was. I'm not a Bible scholar, but I took an online class about it a few months ago.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. The Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose includes this:
​

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.​

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat on

This thread is Permanently closed for SOP violations; and flaming/goading others.

The Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose includes this:
​

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

Mod hat off.​