Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[Righttruth]

Indeed. And spirituality and be just as deviate without proper understanding that leads to a 'specific' spirituality.

Many that profess to be the 'greatest' followers often appear to be utterly 'sensual' in the nature of their spirituality. What does this tell us?

Right. The problem lies in understanding the implications of following Christ. Only disciples are His followers. Practically all of us are believers.

Without proper understanding of what we 'worship' we are liable to worship 'anything'.

One classic example for this is the communion instituted by Paul.

Yes, the words of Jesus are paramount to those that would 'follow'. But 'how' are we to follow? I would be 'hard pressed' to heal the blind or raise the dead. So I certainly can't consider those words in the Gospel to be my guide.

Healing and raising the dead are not necessary parts of a believer. It is the cultivating the fruit of the Spirit that ensures salvation.

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

You see, the letters Paul wrote weren't merely a matter of communication. They were 'instruction'. Specific instruction offered to 'different churches' he had established. And we see ourselves struggling with many of the same issues today.

Unfortunately, some of his instructions were deviations from the essence of the teaching of Jesus. It is further complicated by compromises he offered to his churches. No wonder, there is more struggle with people who cling to Paul leading to thousands of denominations.

But we 'have' Paul's words that when rightly interpreted offer 'answers' to many of these 'problems'. Things that Christ 'never mentioned'. That is 'why' Paul was 'chosen' on the road to Damascus to 'go out' and establish Christ's Churches. And that is why he was 'inspired' by the Spirit of Christ to 'know' the things that he shared.Once again, it's all a matter of 'context'. We can't simply 'read words' and have them 'lead us to Christ'. It is the 'Holy Spirit' that is burdened with this task.

Paul used all possible craftiness to solve specific problems sitting at a distance in a Gentile environment with newly established churches. Those solutions cannot be applied now in the present context.

But we can 'read and learn' a 'deeper' understanding if we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in conviction.

Yes, when you allow the Holy Spirit to remind of Jesus' words.

Which comes 'first', the desire to 'know' God through His Son? Or reading the Bible? That too is a matter of 'context'. I would offer that unless you are just 'bored' and have nothing else to read, it would be the 'seeking' that would lead one to read the Bible in the first place. And that 'seeking' is paramount to 'finding' or 'learning' anything about God or His Son. Seek, ask, knock. These are the methods that we have been given to 'find' what we are looking for. Everyone 'starts' somewhere.

But the majority of church goers have employed professional preachers to do that on their behalf. Who knows people may expect someone to eat on their behalf too in future.

But what about that which goes 'beyond' the words contained within the 'four gospels'? What about 'questions' that aren't answered in the 'four gospels'? Is it possible that everyone that has a question can find the answer through the Holy Spirit 'alone'? Possible. But what is much more convenient is to have 'most' of these most important questioned 'answered' in the Bible. That way we have a 'guide' so that we can 'test' the 'spirits'. In other words, without the information offered in the Bible, what assurance do you or anyone else have that the 'spirits' that you seek and follow are 'The Holy Spirit'? For there are 'spirits' many. And only 'one' Holy Spirit.So we 'need' the Bible, (word of God), to have something to 'test' these 'spirits' that would guide us if we allow. Some means of 'proving' the 'truth' versus everything else.And in my opinion, God determined that the 'words of Christ alone' were 'not enough. Too many 'questions' left unanswered.

Do you expect the tail to wag the dog? Should appendix decide on the function of the main parts?

So it was determined that 'twelve' would be chosen and then ONE more special than all the rest. To guide those that would follow when trying to determine the answer to the question left unanswered by Christ.

Jesus chose special twelve out of many disciples. In that He had an inner circle of three apostles. Apostle John was loved dearly. A rank outsider cannot become a special with self-claims.

Christ was the sacrifice and He revealed that to those that followed Him. But there is much more to being 'followers' that needs to be answered.

Is it possible to 'rightly follow' Christ through the 'four gospels'? Anything is possible. But what about having to 'live' in this world separate from this world? What about 'all those questions'? What if God rightly understanding our 'future' realized that it would be much 'easier' to deal with these issues with 'written answers'? And it was 'this purpose', (along with the establishment of the churches themselves), that He chose 'thirteen' and some of their writings to give us a basic 'guide' to the most common problems we would encounter.

Yes, Paul succeeded in offering goodies and compromise formulas to ignorant Gentiles when he failed to do the same thing with Jews.

Problems concerning the understanding of 'faith' itself. The order to be followed in the 'gathering'. Who uses the 'funds' of the 'gathering' to support widows and orphans. Who organizes missionaries to spread the Word. Many things that Christ didn't offer have been supplied through the books of the NT that go 'beyond' the Gospels.

And even these do not fulfill 'all questions'. But the basics. But where would we be without them?

All these are dealt subtly in a profound manner in Jesus' teaching. Paul as a Pharisee brought in a religion with his suppositions.

Be blessed.

 

[Righttruth]

There are several definitions of cannon, which are you talking about?

There are different canons too, right?

 

[Righttruth]

God doesn't say that His Bible contains 'infinite' wisdom. That is a fallicy thought by some. God tells us what we need to know to be equiped to be His servant on earth to walk in Christ's love and be like Christ. There are many things that we do not know about God and God tells us that all mysteries will be revealed to us in heaven. All things ever done will become known.

Is that what you think? That God says that all infinite wisdom is in the Bible? Umm. No. But Jesus told His disciples that He did not reveal the mysteries of heaven to them because they did not have the spiritual insight to understand the mysteries of God. And these disciples were taught by Jesus Himself. So God does not need us to know. Jesus told us there is much that is unknown.

No dispute with that.

 

[Righttruth]

Of course.

Please be specific. Which book of the Bible is translated directly from Aramaic?

 

[Righttruth]

It isn't. Scripture itself makes that clear. However, it contains all that is necessary for God's purposes in giving us his revelation.

What if verses conflict within the books, in particular, with the preaching of Jesus?

 

[Albion]

Please be specific. Which book of the Bible is translated directly from Aramaic?

You can get a copy of the New Testament that's translated from the Aramaic and, I believe, the entire Bible as well.

 

[Albion]

What if verses conflict within the books, in particular, with the preaching of Jesus?

Are you switching to a different objection to Scripture now?

Most of the time, when people say that they've found a conflict, it turns out that there actually isn't one.

 

[Anguspure]

Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

The writings of the Apostles, the Prophets and the Law only serve one purpose and that is to point us towards Christ Jesus.
These are recognised as being the best at it, the most authoritive, because the authors demonstrated that they were close to our Lord in mind, body and soul and so their writings, inspired by the Spirit of G-d as they are, are regarded as Scripture.
However the only value of any writing that may be called Scripture or otherwise lies in its ability to reveal the person of Christ Jesus.
Writings and traditions other than those already recognised as Scripture may have some value (and indeed we have lost alot from denying the value of the early traditions of the Church and the Jewish traditions) but these should be in turn appraised in the light of the solid foundation that we are given first in Christ Jesus and then secondly in the light of those who are closest to Him.
In this respect the central truth of all authority and all teaching is Christ Jesus, and so we should not proclaim Sola Scriptura but rather Sola Dios.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It isn't. Scripture itself makes that clear. However, it contains all that is necessary for God's purposes in giving us his revelation.

Very concisely put.

 

[ToBeLoved]

What if verses conflict within the books, in particular, with the preaching of Jesus?

This 'what if' scenario is every atheist 'ace' or so they think.

What you need to do is give us the specific verses that you think conflict. That is how one learns and there is much each of us can learn from each other. The Holy Spirit brings people into our lives this way.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Please be specific. Which book of the Bible is translated directly from Aramaic?

You need to think about who wrote each book of the Bible and what the language they would use to 'WRITE' not necessarily speak (although language is important to the Bible).

For instance, Paul wrote in Greek.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Were there Pentecostal Churches in the early church? Which churches are those at the time of the Corinthians?

I would like RightTruth to answer this.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Isn't this a contridiction?

Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter's main ministry was with the Hebrews/Jewish peoples. So when did Peter take over all the Gentile churches from Paul who was lounging in a far off place?

I'm sure you have a source for that claim.

I would like this question answered also.

People that bash on Paul need to explain themselves and how there opinion is true, which it is not. So please explain how this all happened Biblically.

 

[Albion]

It only means how biased translations deviate one from the truth. Furthermore, no version is precise. The question is how these biased translations are trying to uphold the disputed Trinity concept.

The Trinity is, in fact, one of the least controversial or disputed of Christian teachings, being accepted by all Catholic churches and all the leading Protestant churches alike.

It's the cults of recent times that are best known for having questioned it, along with a number of other Christian doctrines that have been believed for many centuries.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Trinity is, in fact, one of the least controversial or disputed of Christian teachings, being accepted by all Catholic churches and all the leading Protestant churches alike.

It's the cults of recent times that are best known for having questioned it, along with a number of other Christian doctrines that have been believed for many centuries.

Very true. The Trinity is obvious in scripture. No way around it. Clear as day.

 

[SolomonVII]

It only means how biased translations deviate one from the truth. Furthermore, no version is precise. The question is how these biased translations are trying to uphold the disputed Trinity concept.

Your criticism of the texts is very post-modern. Hyper-critical parsing of any and all texts make any truth an impossibility.

And yet in the real world, for the past two thousand years, people have been able to come to basic understandings of Christianity and real communication through the Bible has been functionally possible, in spite of what Post-Modernism cynically describes as an impossibility.

Schisms and controversies have abounded, but they have for the main been based in extra-bibical contentions.

The Bible is not a simple document, and translation is not a simple task. Translators have gone beyond the original wording of the documents for good reason, in order to try to convey the nuances and idioms of the age that do not necessarily translate word for word into modern languages, or other languages in general.

There have been some great and worthy discussions on the precise meaning of even individual words, such as happened in a Stenbeck novel, for example over whether the better translation would be Cain shalt triumph over evil, or he mayest, or several other possible nuances.
This too is part of how the Bible is to be read, and to be understood. The Living Word invites discussion, and argument, and analysis. This is not a limitation of language, but language's greatest strength. Those who desire such an unrealistic precision will opt for the sword which harbors no argument or opposition.

The most devout of the faithful do not dismiss translations as invalid outright, but scholarship seeks out different understandings for themselves to come to the best understanding of the text as is possible. And most certainly the most discerning and educated minds will gravitate less to heavily paraphrased texts towards ones in which the text deviates less from the original source material, since such minds are already well enough aware of many of the nuances and cultural meanings that would have been more obvious to native Koine Greek speakers, or whatever the text source may be.
I personally don't find Post-Modernists textual criticisms all that compelling. Cynicism is the antithesis to a live well-lived, imho.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes, but when a concept looks comfortable to one, one needs to be very careful

What do you do when BOTH interpretations make people comfortable? For example, Once Save Always Saved gives people the sense of security that they crave, even though it does away with free will. On the other hand, Free Will give some measure of control, which is nice, even though it does away with security.

 

[Meowzltov]

Very true. The Trinity is obvious in scripture. No way around it. Clear as day.

I disagree. The Father, Son, and HS are in Scripture. But One God, Three persons as outlined at Nicea and beyond? Nope.

 

[Albion]

I disagree. The Father, Son, and HS are in Scripture. But One God, Three persons as outlined at Nicea and beyond? Nope.

That's the fuller explanation of the nature of the Trinity, but the fact that there IS a Holy Trinity is quite definitely laid out for us in Scripture.

 

[Meowzltov]

How is it you don't understand Jesus was speaking of all being accomplished based on the Law, when the Law is the subject? The passage is Matthew 5:17, 18:

Simple. He didn't say that. He said until ALL was accomplish. You are the one trying to get him to say something he didn't.