Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

[The Times]

The words of Jesus are final and authoritative. All other writings should complement that.

Jesus is the final authority. Paul's writings completely complements the authority of Jesus. You may not agree, but it is how you interpret the authority of Jesus, which may differ from me.

For example sake, what if I were to tell you that Jesus will never reign from earthly Jerusalem or from earth for that matter, will you agree within my interpretation, because I believe in the authority of Jesus when he said that he cannot stay, in order for the Holy Spirit to come and if he doesn't go, then the Spirit cannot come. The Holy Spirit remains with the faithful as the seal of guareentee onto death. The Cross of Christ cannot be removed ever, until all of humanity are made subjects to the Cross and by doing so, Jesus is reigning through his Cross and delivering all that are written in the book of life to the Kingdom of the Father. That is why Jesus will not reign from an earthly Kingdom, but it is us as witnesses, who are passing from this temporal life and will be judged to put on immortality, so that we may be privileged to come into his Holy, Holy, Holy presence.

Do you see how I have testified to the authority of Jesus above and according to what he said, I truly believe that no mortal person can be made subject to an earthly Messiah, by bypassing the Cross.

That was just one example of what I believe to be the authority of Jesus by application.

My question to you, is that from the above, do you believe Jesus as the final authority through his Cross and onto salvation? Or are you waiting for an earthly manifestation of a person outside of the cross, for you to be a subject of. You see Muslims believe that when Jesus comes to reign from earth, he will kill the pigs (Christians) who do not become his subjects, and to break their Cross, to which they are subjects of. Does this ring a bell somewhat to what really you are contending, as far as why we ought to only consider the four gospels or am I totally wrong and need to bring myself to be on the same wavelength as you?

Either way I think for the above example this is a good read.....1 Corinthians 15:22-28.

Please let me know.

 

[Radagast]

Where is the verse that says Mark got that information from Peter?

It's from the early Christian Papias of Hierapolis, a student of the Apostle John, writing in about the year 140:

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter..."

That's not Scripture, of course, although other early Christians say similar things.

 

[Radagast]

The words of Jesus are final and authoritative. All other writings should complement that.

The words of God are final and authoritative. That includes the entire Scriptures.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's from the early Christian Papias of Hierapolis, a student of the Apostle John, writing in about the year 140:

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter..."

That's not Scripture, of course, although other early Christians say similar things.

Ok, so it's not the Bible and you are talking about an extra-Biblical writing.

That makes sense as it is not a Biblical fact and is someone's opinion.

 

[Radagast]

Ok, so it's not the Bible and you are talking about an extra-Biblical writing.

That makes sense as it is not a Biblical fact and is someone's opinion.

Yes, it's not Scripture. But I think we can still take the opinions of early Christians seriously. Especially that "second generation" that knew the Apostles.

Still, that's probably off-topic.

 

[Radagast]

That is good enough to show its doubtful source.

Words are missing in two unimportant translations of the Bible, and that makes you doubt the Bible?

 

[Radagast]

Scripture ended with the OT.

No. The entire New Testament is also Scripture.

 

[The Times]

The scripture is not meant for private interpretation. Only disciples of Christ are qualified to do that. Jesus is the way, life and the truth.

I don't see in Koran, Mohammed saying Christians are pigs and deserve to be killed. On the contrary he held monks of Christianity in high esteem.

You obviously have not lived under Islamic Shiria Law and how Islam has treated Christians over the last 2000 years.

The Qur'an is an oppressive theocratic system, based on a religious court system, much like how the Senhedrin was to the Jews during Jesus time.

The Qur'an states that if Christians do not choose to embrace Islam, then they are to pay a regular Jizzia, which means a fine/tax.

If monks were held in high regard, they would not have built caves in mountains, to hide from Islamic religious courts. These caves are scattered everywhere in the middle East.

Some are depicted below.....

 

[The Times]

No, I question everything and all sources. God's finger has written only on couple occasions. The rest is written by mortal men. Scripture ended with the OT. Now our helper is the Holy Spirit.

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.

 

[The Times]

No. The entire New Testament is also Scripture.

I agree with your statement and in addition the revelation of Jesus is the word given to John to tie up everything.

 

[The Times]

It would be fallacy if we did not consider the fact that it was mortal men who wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit.

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!

 

[The Times]

As is gravity to earth and humanity cannot live without gravity, so too is the Word of God to humanity, as witnessed after the fact evidencing, that it is authorised consistently, concisely and completely by God.

To argue against the prevailing historic and current facts, is to spit in the wind. Those mortal men are not the authors of the Holy Bible, because these words that are copied in every language of the world, have a life of their own, because once read, the Holy Spirit and without fail always points to the authority of his own authorship of the Holy Bible, like so.....

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: (Acts 8)

Remembering that the Holy Spirit job is to instruct from scripture.

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14)

Past tense of reminding believers everything that has already been said by Jesus and these things point to the written Word.

People today think that they are inspired to write knew things, but Revelation of Jesus is the closure of prophesy as he is the Prophet prophesied to come in place of Moses, to end all prophesies and to seal up the Chapter of his own authored book, the scriptures, that testify of him and what he taught.

In other words we are not authored to teach new things, outside of what Jesus taught and this thread seems to imply, that the authorship continues or has stopped at the Old Testament, because of the premise of fallible men writing scripture, hence generations current and future can rewrite or add to scripture and also claim authoritative inspiration. Some may revert to Old Covenant ways, which today would be considered an abomination to the Lord.

This is the real agenda we face brothers and sisters, against those trying to sideline tge Holy Bible. That is why the strategy is to disect scripture and to give higher criticism of it, claiming fallibility of mortal men and then reconstituting it with another flavour and another gospel.

We Christians must therefore reject any claims that attack the authority of scripture and to dismiss claims that the authority of scripture is open ended, after Jesus had given to John his final prophetic revelation.

Any prophesy or teachings after Jesus must therefore be dismissed without a blink of the eye lid.

 

[Strong in Him]

It would be fallacy if we did not consider the fact that it was mortal men who wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit.

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

 

[Strong in Him]

No, I question everything and all sources.

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.

God's finger has written only on couple occasions. The rest is written by mortal men.

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?

 

[faroukfarouk]

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

Yes, both Divine and human in origin; infallibility guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, but human personality features retained in the different books.

 

[Strong in Him]

One source is the book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

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.

 

[Righttruth]

You have to bring up issue by issue and allow us to look at the facts and only then could we attempt to address what the contentions are about.

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

 

[Righttruth]

Words are missing in two unimportant translations of the Bible, and that makes you doubt the Bible?

I don't doubt the Holy Spirit. Thinking Bible is perfect is some kind of book idolatry.

 

[Righttruth]

No. The entire New Testament is also Scripture.

Bible doesn't support that assumption.

 

[Righttruth]

You obviously have not lived under Islamic Shiria Law and how Islam has treated Christians over the last 2000 years.

The Qur'an is an oppressive theocratic system, based on a religious court system, much like how the Senhedrin was to the Jews during Jesus time.

The Qur'an states that if Christians do not choose to embrace Islam, then they are to pay a regular Jizzia, which means a fine/tax.

If monks were held in high regard, they would not have built caves in mountains, to hide from Islamic religious courts. These caves are scattered everywhere in the middle East.

Some are depicted below.....

View attachment 222248 View attachment 222249 View attachment 222250

Jews were no better