PDA

View Full Version : What is heresy?



LandShark
Oct 5th 2013, 07:10 AM
I wanted to share a thought about a word whose meaning has changed over time, heresy. Today, a heretic is somebody who does not agree with the mainstream. Yet, that isn’t the concept this word always carried. The Thayer Greek Lexicon (an all but abridged version of the time tested and well respected Liddell-Scott) has this as an entry for the Greek underlying word which comes into English as heresy:

G139
αἵρεσις

hairesis
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice


We can see that “choosing” (thus perhaps “not agreeing with”) is part of the concept of the word, but the main definition deals with force. A heretic was one who forced himself on another, stormed a city… and contextually we might conclude that one form of heresy, biblically speaking, is when we attempt to force or manipulate others into how we view scripture. In other words, when a person attempts to force another person to walk as he walks or see as he sees, he is acting like a heretic. I believe that is exactly how the word is being used here:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

False teachers bringing lies by deception, or, manipulation, which is a form of force.

Thoughts, complaints? :D

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 12:33 PM
I wanted to share a thought about a word whose meaning has changed over time, heresy. Today, a heretic is somebody who does not agree with the mainstream. Yet, that isn’t the concept this word always carried. The Thayer Greek Lexicon (an all but abridged version of the time tested and well respected Liddell-Scott) has this as an entry for the Greek underlying word which comes into English as heresy:

G139
αἵρεσις

hairesis
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice


We can see that “choosing” (thus perhaps “not agreeing with”) is part of the concept of the word, but the main definition deals with force. A heretic was one who forced himself on another, stormed a city… and contextually we might conclude that one form of heresy, biblically speaking, is when we attempt to force or manipulate others into how we view scripture. In other words, when a person attempts to force another person to walk as he walks or see as he sees, he is acting like a heretic. I believe that is exactly how the word is being used here:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

False teachers bringing lies by deception, or, manipulation, which is a form of force.

Thoughts, complaints? :D

Nobody can make anyone believe anything that the person does not want to believe. We can make people teach something that they don't believe. We can make them parrot something that we want them to say, but we cannot force anyone to believe something.

Heresy is defined by the person who uses the word, actually.

It really only means that someone chooses to believe something other than what the "rest of us" believe.

If that person who disagrees with us makes his views known, he becomes a heretic.

The user intends it most times as a pejorative. I was not originally so.

The person who uses this word must fully believe that his or her own beliefs are the correct ones. However, most of the time, I see that the person who uses the word cannot actually explain biblically why he or she really believes something. That is perhaps why the accusers resorts to name-calling. When it is the only weapon remaining in the arsenal, it gets dragged out.


I wanted to share a thought about a word whose meaning has changed over time, heresy. Today, a heretic is somebody who does not agree with the mainstream. Yet, that isn’t the concept this word always carried. The Thayer Greek Lexicon (an all but abridged version of the time tested and well respected Liddell-Scott) has this as an entry for the Greek underlying word which comes into English as heresy:

G139
αἵρεσις

hairesis
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice


We can see that “choosing” (thus perhaps “not agreeing with”) is part of the concept of the word, but the main definition deals with force. A heretic was one who forced himself on another, stormed a city… and contextually we might conclude that one form of heresy, biblically speaking, is when we attempt to force or manipulate others into how we view scripture. In other words, when a person attempts to force another person to walk as he walks or see as he sees, he is acting like a heretic. I believe that is exactly how the word is being used here:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

False teachers bringing lies by deception, or, manipulation, which is a form of force.

Thoughts, complaints? :D

Nobody can make anyone believe anything that the person does not want to believe. We can make people teach something that they don't believe. We can make them parrot something that we want them to say, but we cannot force anyone to believe something.

Heresy is defined by the person who uses the word, actually.

It really only means that someone chooses to believe something other than what the "rest of us" believe.

If that person who disagrees with us makes his views known, he becomes a heretic.

The user intends it most times as a pejorative. I was not originally so.

The person who uses this word must fully believe that his or her own beliefs are the correct ones. However, most of the time, I see that the person who uses the word cannot actually explain biblically why he or she really believes something. That is perhaps why the accusers resorts to name-calling. When it is the only weapon remaining in the arsenal, it gets dragged out.

Curtis
Oct 5th 2013, 01:36 PM
If you want to make someone believe a lie, you first have to feed them whole lot of truth, and then add the lie to it. People will eat anything you give them if they trust you.
It is interesting that as a Christian we are suppose to casting down every imagination that tries to exalt itself against the knowledge of God, and bring every thought into captivity to Christ. That is the same thing as storming a city, and tearing down its walls.

2Co 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
2Co 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

The Children of Israel destroyed the cities that were walled, and they were located in the promise land.
We fight back heresy by using our God given weapons that are not carnal. Spiritual warfare.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 02:08 PM
The word is used 9 times in the New Testament. Using the 2011 NIV, it's translated the following ways (and these uses are very similar to other recent versions like the ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV)

Acts 5:17 - party
Acts 15:5 - party
Acts 24:5 - sect
Acts 24:14 - sect
Acts 26:5 - sect
Acts 28:22 - sect
1 Cor 11:19 - differences
Galatians 5:20 - factions
2 Peter 2:1 - heresies

Landshark, it looks like your paragraph where you explain your thoughts combines the two definitions you provided from Thayer's into one idea. As I read the uses in the NT, I don't see the forcing concept being used. However, it does seem like the only time the word is used the way we think of the word today is in 2 Peter 2:1. Translators are sensitive to how the word is used in English so they translate it as heresy only in that verse and nowhere else. Most of the other times, it appears to just be a word to show a group of people with common views much like our word denomination.

I think Boo brings up a most important point when reading anything - how is the author using the word? This is important with any word.

Heresy is a word I try to discern how individual authors use the word. Hyper-Calvinism has different meanings depending on the author. Paradox has different meanings depending on the author. Those are just a couple more examples.

I would only use the word heresy to describe a view or doctrine that if held corrupts Christianity so much as to make someones view something that cannot be called Christianity. If someone teaches a different Jesus or a different way to be saved are two examples for me that I think heresy is an appropriate view.

In another thread a view Boo holds was called heresy. Boo thinks not everything Paul wrote is God's words. I disagree with Boo. I think Boo's view of Paul's writings is a low view, but I wouldn't call it heresy because I don't see that placing Boo outside of Christianity. His view of who Jesus is and how we are saved can still be intact.

Perhaps the person who calls Boo's view heresy uses heresy differently than I do. I don't know. I didn't ask. Or maybe he thinks it does place Boo outside the kingdom. If so, I'd be curious to hear the logic that results in that.

Heresy is a word we need to be careful when reading to make sure we understand what the author means by the word and it's a word to be especially careful when slinging around because who knows how the audience in range of your voice (or typed words in our cases) will take what you say.

LandShark
Oct 5th 2013, 03:14 PM
Boo, I agree and disagree. A word is defined by the time and culture it is being used. Gay once meant happy, now that same culture 50 years later uses it to refer to homosexuals. Words change, however, if the meaning of the Greek word when the NT letters were either written or translated meant "to take by force," then that is what the word means when we read it in Scripture. Since nothing is being taken "by force," then we have to apply the concept or spirit of the word and I THINK that a heretic becomes one who tries to force himself on others. We see it all the time Boo, on this forum, Facebook if your on it, everywhere... people who don't allow others to walk out their own walk and insist that THEY have the truth and we MUST side with them, they are the heretics, or are acting like heretics.

If you see it differently, so be it. I won't force my view on you! ;)

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 03:57 PM
I believe that one can hold to a view that is heresy without being a heretic. It's a very fine line to walk though. I would never say that someone who doesn't agree with my view is a heretic, although I've been accused of that. I don't consider any of the following as "my views":

Virgin Birth
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus is fully God and fully man
Redemption through the Cross
Salvation by Grace
Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture

These are not my views and I consider any belief that conflicts with them to be heresy.

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 04:25 PM
I believe that one can hold to a view that is heresy without being a heretic. It's a very fine line to walk though. I would never say that someone who doesn't agree with my view is a heretic, although I've been accused of that. I don't consider any of the following as "my views":

Virgin Birth
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus is fully God and fully man
Redemption through the Cross
Salvation by Grace
Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture

These are not my views and I consider any belief that conflicts with them to be heresy.

All except the last one can be shown in the Bible.

As to the last one, what proof do you have of the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture AND does that mean that there were no personal views expressed in scripture?

Was Paul lying when he said that his statements were his and not God's?

Please cite scripture to prove your point. I'll accept any statement from the Bible and not from man.

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 04:33 PM
All except the last one can be shown in the Bible.

As to the last one, what proof do you have of the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture AND does that mean that there were no personal views expressed in scripture?

Was Paul lying when he said that his statements were his and not God's?

Please cite scripture to prove your point. I'll accept any statement from the Bible and not from man.

How do you know that the first 5 are true without the 6th one?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

You have more problems with Paul's writings other than the very limited times he made that statement. I have read your posts in other threads. With regard to when he said that, it just means he didn't receive it by direct revelation from The Lord Jesus. He was still being inspired by the Holy Spirit as was every other writer of Scripture.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 04:44 PM
CBH, I hold to all six things you listed. Do you think a person can hold to the Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Jesus is fully God and fully man, Redemption through the Cross, Salvation by Grace and be saved therefore yet deny Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture?

Put in other words, can some one truly believe:


Virgin Birth
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus is fully God and fully man
Redemption through the Cross
Salvation by Grace



and go to Hell?

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 04:50 PM
CBH, I hold to all six things you listed. Do you think a person can hold to the Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Jesus is fully God and fully man, Redemption through the Cross, Salvation by Grace and be saved therefore yet deny Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture?

Put in other words, can some one truly believe:


Virgin Birth
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus is fully God and fully man
Redemption through the Cross
Salvation by Grace



and go to Hell?

That's where I said that one can believe a heresy without being a heretic, but it's a fine line. How does one believe those five things without believing that the Scriptures are inspired? Does he believe them because he likes them or because the Word of God says so? No doctrine has a foundation without believing that all Scripture is inspired.

Do you see rejecting portions of Scripture as uninspired as a minor thing?

Slug1
Oct 5th 2013, 05:16 PM
Looking through one of the Theological Terms dictionaries I had to purchase for a degree program, the defining of the term "heresy" is as follows:

heresy (Gr. hairresis, "choice") A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is thus regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for the faith. - Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms by Donald K. McKim

Which when we look at this definition leaves us at the mercy of church doctrine and adherence to what "a" church chooses to believe, even if a tenant is counter to the Bible.

Of six points listed so far, the 6th one which is "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture" is the focus of the term heresy. If a church's doctrine and or some tenants of the church's "beliefs" are counter to the Bible (heresy)... then the problem may be their acceptance of the "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture".

My question is, when a church doctrine or a tenant of the church or EVEN a personal tenant of belief IS counter to the Bible, is the reason because the scriptures are interpreted "wrong" or are/is the scriptures not accepted?

Actually, no matter the reason (misunderstanding or lack of acceptance of scripture)... WHEN IS the term "heresy" applied toward a church/doctrine/tenant/person for a belief that is held to, which is counter to the Word of God?

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 06:23 PM
How do you know that the first 5 are true without the 6th one?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

So, a verse in a letter written in 58 A.D. covers every letter included in the current Canon of Scripture?

If you check the dates of the other letters, some of them are known to have been written after 58 A.D. and most of the others were written at approximately the same time.

I would think that I can believe that Paul was referring only to the writing that we call the Old Testament. I do accept that those are what is inspired by God. For you to include the New Testament books in your personal preference.


You have more problems with Paul's writings other than the very limited times he made that statement. I have read your posts in other threads. With regard to when he said that, it just means he didn't receive it by direct revelation from The Lord Jesus. He was still being inspired by the Holy Spirit as was every other writer of Scripture.

And so far, nobody has shown me why I should believe any different in those issues that I have raised.

What you are really saying is that you don't know why your believe that every word is God breathed, and once again, you failed to answer my question.

How about you believe what you want to believe, and I'll keep growing in faith and my walk with the Lord using my bible the way God leads me to?

May God give you peace and understanding, brother.

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 06:31 PM
Looking through one of the Theological Terms dictionaries I had to purchase for a degree program, the defining of the term "heresy" is as follows:

heresy (Gr. hairresis, "choice") A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is thus regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for the faith. - Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms by Donald K. McKim

Which when we look at this definition leaves us at the mercy of church doctrine and adherence to what "a" church chooses to believe, even if a tenant is counter to the Bible.

Of six points listed so far, the 6th one which is "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture" is the focus of the term heresy. If a church's doctrine and or some tenants of the church's "beliefs" are counter to the Bible (heresy)... then the problem may be their acceptance of the "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture".

My question is, when a church doctrine or a tenant of the church or EVEN a personal tenant of belief IS counter to the Bible, is the reason because the scriptures are interpreted "wrong" or are/is the scriptures not accepted?

Actually, no matter the reason (misunderstanding or lack of acceptance of scripture)... WHEN IS the term "heresy" applied toward a church/doctrine/tenant/person for a belief that is held to, which is counter to the Word of God?

Given the history of how wrong the "churches" have been, I'd say that we are all heretics according to one church or the other.


Looking through one of the Theological Terms dictionaries I had to purchase for a degree program, the defining of the term "heresy" is as follows:

heresy (Gr. hairresis, "choice") A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is thus regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for the faith. - Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms by Donald K. McKim

Which when we look at this definition leaves us at the mercy of church doctrine and adherence to what "a" church chooses to believe, even if a tenant is counter to the Bible.

Of six points listed so far, the 6th one which is "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture" is the focus of the term heresy. If a church's doctrine and or some tenants of the church's "beliefs" are counter to the Bible (heresy)... then the problem may be their acceptance of the "Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture".

My question is, when a church doctrine or a tenant of the church or EVEN a personal tenant of belief IS counter to the Bible, is the reason because the scriptures are interpreted "wrong" or are/is the scriptures not accepted?

Actually, no matter the reason (misunderstanding or lack of acceptance of scripture)... WHEN IS the term "heresy" applied toward a church/doctrine/tenant/person for a belief that is held to, which is counter to the Word of God?

Given the history of how wrong the "churches" have been, I'd say that we are all heretics according to one church or the other.

divaD
Oct 5th 2013, 06:52 PM
Virgin Birth
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus is fully God and fully man
Redemption through the Cross
Salvation by Grace
Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture

These are not my views and I consider any belief that conflicts with them to be heresy.


Hey we're on the same page then. Anyone that denies or questions any of the above, I too would see it as heresy. While I'm thinking about it..Jesus is fully God and fully man..and the fact there are the oneness camp, and the trinitarian camp. Both can't be correct I don't think. Regardless of which might be correct, I would never see the other as heretics. The reason being, unless I'm missing something, both sides agree Jesus is fully God and fully man. JWs on the OTOH, they do not agree Jesus is fully God and fully man. I would then see this as heresy on their part.

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 06:55 PM
I would think that I can believe that Paul was referring only to the writing that we call the Old Testament. I do accept that those are what is inspired by God. For you to include the New Testament books in your personal preference

Another declaration from you that the books of the New Testament are not divinely inspired.

You may believe whatever you choose. As for posting public claims about it, I will call it what it is whether it's popular or not.

divaD
Oct 5th 2013, 07:08 PM
Given the history of how wrong the "churches" have been, I'd say that we are all heretics according to one church or the other.



IMO, this is not a good way to decide what is heresy and what isn't. It's pretty obvious the church is very divided about things in general. And just because something is the popular view, that doesn't automatically make it the correct view everytime.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 07:09 PM
That's where I said that one can believe a heresy without being a heretic, but it's a fine line. How does one believe those five things without believing that the Scriptures are inspired? Does he believe them because he likes them or because the Word of God says so? No doctrine has a foundation without believing that all Scripture is inspired.

How does one believe the five things without believing the Scriptures are inspired? It's not really that difficult. Look at the virgin birth. If a person takes the gospels as historically reliable, then they must believe the virgin birth. By historically reliable, I simply mean that if Luke says Jesus said X, then Jesus said X. If John says Jesus did Y, then Jesus did Y.

Well, these historically reliable documents inform us of the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the claims of him being truly God and truly man, redemption through the cross. If the apostles accurately record the teachings of Jesus, then salvation by grace is true.

Now all that being said, let me remind you that I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the 27 books of the NT. So you don't need to prove that to me. I'm simply explaining that it isn't a big step to believe the gospel yet hold a view less than yours or mine.


Do you see rejecting portions of Scripture as uninspired as a minor thing?

It's important. It's not definitional to being a Christian. A person may have a different view and still be saved. I look at it like the Trinity (which I would include in the list, but you did not). If I ask most Christians for a definition of the Trinity, frankly, most of the time I think what I'll get is somewhat or heavily understated or convoluted. I don't think their heretical necessarily. I think they are uninformed and/or haven't thought carefully enough about the subject.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 07:13 PM
Another declaration from you that the books of the New Testament are not divinely inspired.

You may believe whatever you choose. As for posting public claims about it, I will call it what it is whether it's popular or not.

I don't think this helps. I think this is just an example of pounding the pulpit a little harder with the fist. No reason to change Boo's mind is given here. It cements his position. Here you don't defend your view and prove his wrong. Thus, you actually solidify Boo in his stance because you are doing what he says people do --- he claims they don't prove their point. Just stating the view over and over again is circular reasoning, not linear.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 07:16 PM
Boo, I haven't perused all your posts. Can you present your view of NT writings and why you think what you think?

I know part of your reasoning is how you interpret phrases like, "I say, not the Lord" as part of your case. Do you have other reasons?

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 08:00 PM
I don't think this helps. I think this is just an example of pounding the pulpit a little harder with the fist. No reason to change Boo's mind is given here. It cements his position. Here you don't defend your view and prove his wrong. Thus, you actually solidify Boo in his stance because you are doing what he says people do --- he claims they don't prove their point. Just stating the view over and over again is circular reasoning, not linear.

It may not help him but I don't want a new and impressionable believer being deceived with this error. What proof do I need to present other than what the Word of God itself declares about the inspiration of Scripture?

Personally, I don't even think that these type of comments should be allowed in the Bible Chat forum.

TrustGzus
Oct 5th 2013, 08:06 PM
What proof do I need to present other than what the Word of God itself declares about the inspiration of Scripture?

Don't cults do that, Brother? Declaring oneself a word from God, a prophet from God, a book from God is just circular. Again, I hold inerrancy and inspiration. I'm just trying to dig a little deeper.

So just because something claims to be the word of God, that cannot be proof.


The Bible’s claim to be the Word of God does not make it the Word of God. Some spurious books make the same claim.

Sproul, R. C. (1992). The soul’s quest for God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 08:24 PM
Don't cults do that, Brother? Declaring oneself a word from God, a prophet from God, a book from God is just circular. Again, I hold inerrancy and inspiration. I'm just trying to dig a little deeper.

So just because something claims to be the word of God, that cannot be proof.
Hey bro, I really don't follow you. 2 Tim 3:16 declares the Word to be completely inspired. What does that have to do with cults?

Do you have other forms of proof regarding inspiration of Scripture?

LandShark
Oct 5th 2013, 08:27 PM
An interesting side note to 2 Tim 3, there was no NT when he made that claim. Only the Torah and Prophets had been canonized at that time. Yes I believe the Writings and the NT are inspired, but when Paul made that claim they were not considered part of the canon. His reference was to the Torah and Prophets....

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 08:31 PM
It may not help him but I don't want a new and impressionable believer being deceived with this error. What proof do I need to present other than what the Word of God itself declares about the inspiration of Scripture?

Personally, I don't even think that these type of comments should be allowed in the Bible Chat forum.

I see. No other view but yours should be permitted.

If there is a young impressionable person reading this thread, do you think your view was been presented in a convincing manner?

Have I written anywhere that the Word of God is not found in the Bible?

The difference is that I use discernment in what I read. I believe what Paul wrote. I do not believe that Paul was faultless.

If you ever come up with the reason for your beliefs, I'd sure like to see what they are.

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 08:32 PM
An interesting side note to 2 Tim 3, there was no NT when he made that claim. Only the Torah and Prophets had been canonized at that time. Yes I believe the Writings and the NT are inspired, but when Paul made that claim they were not considered part of the canon. His reference was to the Torah and Prophets....

I agree that this is an obvious point. However, it does not mean that it is not applicable to the NT.

Boo
Oct 5th 2013, 08:33 PM
I agree that this is an obvious point. However, it does not mean that it is not applicable to the NT.

Do you have evidence that it was meant to include future letters?

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 08:48 PM
Do you have evidence that it was meant to include future letters?

Your question speaks volumes.

Do I have evidence that the New Testament is inspired? Do I have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Do I have evidence that John actually saw the visions that he wrote about in Revelation? I receive them completely by FAITH.

LandShark
Oct 5th 2013, 09:01 PM
Your question speaks volumes.

Do I have evidence that the New Testament is inspired? Do I have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Do I have evidence that John actually saw the visions that he wrote about in Revelation? I receive them completely by FAITH.

That isn't what he asked brother. He said do you have evidence that Paul's words ("All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and can be used for doctrine, correction, etc.") was aimed ALSO at the NT? The answer is no... there is no evidence. In that day the "Scripture" was the Torah and Prophets. Ezra when he set the canon did not include his own book or the work of his friend Nehemiah. I don't think Paul sat down writing to a group of believers in Ephesus thinking, "this letter I am writing has as much weight as Deuteronomy!" Nope... it might have that much weight, but he didn't sit down thinking that! There would be nothing humble about that, just as there would have been nothing humble about Ezra including his own book in the canon. Blessings.

ChangedByHim
Oct 5th 2013, 09:03 PM
My point is that we don't have evidence that any book of the Bible is inspired. The answer fits the question. What "evidence" is there? We could cite proof that it is historically accurate, but what evidence is there that any of it is inspired? It must be received by faith.

LandShark
Oct 5th 2013, 09:26 PM
Good point pastor, good point. Any proof we have is based on certain prophetic events having come to pass, otherwise, we have nothing but faith. Which, :) is the point! Blessings!

Curtis
Oct 5th 2013, 09:41 PM
Let me add my 2 cents.....

The Bible tells us that we the Church are going to judge this world, and not only this world, but also Angels. God created man with the capacity that once he learned the precepts, and concepts of his Kingdom he (man) would be able to come to some conclusions that would be exactly the same as God's conclusions.

1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Everything we do as Christians is based on truth. These things we have learned came from the Spirit of God, and confirmed in the Word of God. There comes a time when these things become a part of us to were we know what truth is without thinking about it. It becomes natural, even though it is supernatural. The Apostle Paul had already been around the block many times in his life, and he knew what truth was, so much so he was able to give advice based on the truth he already had inside him. When he spoke by permission and not by commandment you better believe it was the same kind of commandment God would have given. He knew without a doubt it was true. Finally he says in 1 Cor 7:40....

1Co 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

I for one would not dare to disbelieve what Paul gave as permission. Anyone else who would believe what he said was wrong would be in great danger, and not smart.

Slug1
Oct 6th 2013, 02:10 AM
IMO, this is not a good way to decide what is heresy and what isn't. It's pretty obvious the church is very divided about things in general. And just because something is the popular view, that doesn't automatically make it the correct view everytime.This is exactly what I'm pointing toward. By the definition, heresy is based on a "churches" position but heresy is not defined on what the Bible is saying. So WHEN is a person teaching heresy... when they teach counter to what a "church" believes, or when they teach counter to the Bible?

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 02:26 AM
Heretics are minority members of a religion who hold beliefs which disagree with the orthodoxy. Simply because a position isn't officially sanctioned doesn't mean it is inherently wrong. Unfortunately, when a heretic movement gathers enough support to be considered a separate religion, it becomes it's own orthodoxy. Example: the Reformation.

Simply put, "heresy" is a vilifying term used to discredit alternative opinions on a religious subject, and also to thwart any discussion with the minority - thereby preventing its spread. The word actually serves no purpose beyond this.

Berean11
Oct 6th 2013, 02:32 AM
Heretics are minority members of a religion who hold beliefs which disagree with the orthodoxy. Simply because a position isn't officially sanctioned doesn't mean it is inherently wrong. Unfortunately, when a heretic movement gathers enough support to be considered a separate religion, it becomes it's own orthodoxy. Example: the Reformation.

Simply put, "heresy" is a derogatory term used to discredit alternative opinions on a religious subject and also to thwart any discussion with the minority.

The way you worded that sounds like the reformation was heretical. I don't think that is what you mean but could you clarify?

Peace, Berean11

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 02:36 AM
The way you worded that sounds like the reformation was heretical. I don't think that is what you mean but could you clarify?

Peace, Berean11

Protestantism began as a heretic movement within the Roman Catholic Church. Followers originally considered themselves catholic until the severe inquisitions lead to the creation of a separate religion. After enough support was garnered, Protestants began persecuting heretics within their own orthodoxy (such as catholic minorities in England). Eventually, they split into the major denominations as less violent heretic movements emerged with the Bible available to the average person.

LandShark
Oct 6th 2013, 02:40 AM
Heretics are minority members of a religion who hold beliefs which disagree with the orthodoxy. Simply because a position isn't officially sanctioned doesn't mean it is inherently wrong. Unfortunately, when a heretic movement gathers enough support to be considered a separate religion, it becomes it's own orthodoxy. Example: the Reformation.

Simply put, "heresy" is a vilifying term used to discredit alternative opinions on a religious subject, and also to thwart any discussion with the minority - thereby preventing its spread. The word actually serves no purpose beyond this.

That is my point, that is how it has been defined in English for, well, since we have had English. But the Greek word which underlies heresy in our bibles means "to storm a city, to take by force" as it's first definition. Since "heretics" aren't taking by force (though one could argue that the heretics were not those killed at the stake but rather those lighting the matches were) then we have to take that "concept" and apply it. Thus, I believe (and you are welcome to whatever conclusion you derive) that at least ONE FORM of heresy is when a person or people try to steer others toward their own belief system. If somebody is not allowed to hold their own views because they stand in contrast to yours, and you see fit to make sure they see Scripture as you do and attempt to steer them toward your system of thinking, you are using force, although more stealthily. And, that is a form of heresy. We can't force anyone to do anything... Father draws a man unto Himself (John 6:44) and when they begin to seek (ask questions) we are to teach. It we force our teachings on those not asking questions, we are both wasting our time AND acting like heretics.

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 02:45 AM
That is my point, that is how it has been defined in English for, well, since we have had English. But the Greek word which underlies heresy in our bibles means "to storm a city, to take by force" as it's first definition. Since "heretics" aren't taking by force (though one could argue that the heretics were not those killed at the stake but rather those lighting the matches were) then we have to take that "concept" and apply it. Thus, I believe (and you are welcome to whatever conclusion you derive) that at least ONE FORM of heresy is when a person or people try to steer others toward their own belief system. If somebody is not allowed to hold their own views because they stand in contrast to yours, and you see fit to make sure they see Scripture as you do and attempt to steer them toward your system of thinking, you are using force, although more stealthily.

True, I don't believe having an unorthodox belief alone makes one a heretic; but they would have to encourage others to have the same belief. Although I can't imagine many people passionate about their religion would keep silent about something they believe most of their brethren are deceived about. It really depends on the subject too, because some issues are more divisive than others and lead to more intense disagreements (even to the point of violence).

Berean11
Oct 6th 2013, 02:47 AM
Protestantism began as a heretic movement within the Roman Catholic Church. Followers originally considered themselves catholic until the severe inquisitions lead to the creation of a separate religion. After enough support was garnered, Protestants began persecuting heretics within their own orthodoxy (such as catholic minorities in England). Eventually, they split into the major denominations as less violent heretic movements emerged with the Bible available to the average person.

Yes, I know how the Reformation began and where. Just wanted to be sure you were meaning that according to the Catholic Church they were heretical, not that they were teaching real heresy in regards to scripture and Jesus.

Thank you, Berean11

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 02:51 AM
Yes, I know how the Reformation began and where. Just wanted to be sure you were meaning that according to the Catholic Church they were heretical, not that they were teaching real heresy in regards to scripture and Jesus.

Thank you, Berean11

I don't believe there is such a thing as heresy in relation to Scripture. Interpretations are always subjective no matter how passionate the followers are. A real heretic would have to be objectively incorrect, and God is the only objective authority with regards to the Bible.

ChangedByHim
Oct 6th 2013, 02:55 AM
I don't believe there is such a thing as heresy in relation to Scripture. Interpretations are always subjective no matter how passionate the followers are. A real heretic would have to be objectively incorrect, and God is the only objective authority with regards to the Bible.

How then are we to follow these words from Scripture?

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10 KJV)

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 03:11 AM
How then are we to follow these words from Scripture?

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10 KJV)

I don't understand the problem.

Scooby_Snacks
Oct 6th 2013, 03:46 AM
This is the ESV of the same verse ChangedByHim------

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Boo
Oct 6th 2013, 10:06 AM
This is the ESV of the same verse ChangedByHim------

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

This verse came about when there was no New Testament. Everyone who preached Jesus stirred up division. Jesus stirred up division. The Apostles did, too, and most of them were executed for it. When heresy was made illegal, many had their homes and possession taken from them and many were punished for disagreement with the "state religion."

Heresy was applied to Jesus.

Which was applied to Martin Luther.

Which was applied to English Separatist John Smyth.

Heresy was applied to the teachings of anyone who formulated any opinion that countered someone else's. Some here might be surprised at all that has been called heresy throughout history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies


They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Leviathan

May I suggest that anyone who chooses to use the term heresy prove that any belief is truly counter to the teachings of Jesus and not merely to the teachings of man?

Scooby_Snacks
Oct 6th 2013, 03:37 PM
This verse came about when there was no New Testament. Everyone who preached Jesus stirred up division. Jesus stirred up division. The Apostles did, too, and most of them were executed for it. When heresy was made illegal, many had their homes and possession taken from them and many were punished for disagreement with the "state religion."

Heresy was applied to Jesus.

Which was applied to Martin Luther.

Which was applied to English Separatist John Smyth.

Heresy was applied to the teachings of anyone who formulated any opinion that countered someone else's. Some here might be surprised at all that has been called heresy throughout history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies


Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Leviathan

May I suggest that anyone who chooses to use the term heresy prove that any belief is truly counter to the teachings of Jesus and not merely to the teachings of man?

***I don't really understand Boo's opening statement--- But I haven't studied a lot of Church history.

Yeah, it seems that the creation of sects by choosing sides is different than having a belief that is completely contrary to the mains stated by TrustGzus.
The use in Titus 3 has more (to me) to do with connection to Galatians 5:20, the behavior of a troublemaker bringing strife with the possibility of also holding to a doctrine contrary to the mains to the detriment and distraction of the Body from the focus of Jesus Christ and The Gospel.


Divisions are destructive and necessary at the same time. Perhaps taking a hard look at ourselves and what is distracting His actual will is in order?

Paul stated this in 1 Corinthians:

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
(1 Corinthians 11:17-19 ESV)

Boo
Oct 6th 2013, 06:11 PM
***I don't really understand Boo's opening statement--- But I haven't studied a lot of Church history.

Yeah, it seems that the creation of sects by choosing sides is different than having a belief that is completely contrary to the mains stated by TrustGzus.
The use in Titus 3 has more (to me) to do with connection to Galatians 5:20, the behavior of a troublemaker bringing strife with the possibility of also holding to a doctrine contrary to the mains to the detriment and distraction of the Body from the focus of Jesus Christ and The Gospel.


Divisions are destructive and necessary at the same time. Perhaps taking a hard look at ourselves and what is distracting His actual will is in order?

Paul stated this in 1 Corinthians:

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
(1 Corinthians 11:17-19 ESV)

Things are a lot different now than when the letters were written that became our epistles. The teachings of the Apostles fell by the way side eventually as the emperor created the official church of Rome.

When the canon of scripture was accepted, sill "the church" did not want the common people to have scripture. They were told that they were not spiritual enough to understand them. (Funny how we still get told that.)

In any case, the official church started doctrines and they did not want anyone pointing out how their doctrines didn't match scripture. Thus, the change in the nuance of the word heresy. The official church actually started executing those who spoke out loud about the illegitimate doctrines.

History repeats itself to some degree.

Boo
Oct 6th 2013, 07:14 PM
Your question speaks volumes.

Do I have evidence that the New Testament is inspired? Do I have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Do I have evidence that John actually saw the visions that he wrote about in Revelation? I receive them completely by FAITH.

I can see having faith in Jesus. I can see having faith in God. I can have faith in the truth being revealed in the bible. Those are all spiritual faith. However, your faith that every last word was given by God rather than believing that the message was given by God is only your version. I have faith as well, and I know the bible contains God's truth via His message to us.

I don't think your faith merits a higher rating than mine - nor mine over yours. We both still believe in the same Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I certainly am not in a position to make any rules about what kind of faith I must have in the bible in order to be saved. Faith in the every-word-came-from-God bible is not listed by God as a prerequisite.

The question is not whether or not the bible is true. The question is whether or not we believe it. If I see a verse that tells me something, using sound exegesis, I will believe it. No question to that. However, theories created by man don't merit belief that way.

Just this morning, I listened to a Pastor tell me that a "real bible scholar" knows that Luke said (Luke 23:46) that Jesus sent His spirit to God and his Ghost to Hell when he died. Because of the way churches are (the bully pulpit thing), I was not free to correct him. He was taught by man that the words of the KJV are correct and no other bible is true. If I told him what the original manuscript says, I would be called a heretic.

Sound familiar?

ChangedByHim
Oct 6th 2013, 10:07 PM
Boo, the Bible doesn't contain the truth. It is the truth.

This is not my version of Christianity. Others can chime in as they wish.

You always have those antidotal stories of pulpit bullying. I fail to see the relevance as it relates to the topic.

I do not believe that you are a heretic and have never said that you are. However, I have stated that you believe a heresy in that you reject the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 10:14 PM
the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Does inspired Scripture mean "God inspired the writer" or "every single word is inspired verbatim."

If the second one, which english translation is correct, as there are dozens? Is KJV more inspired than ESV?

ChangedByHim
Oct 6th 2013, 10:53 PM
Does inspired Scripture mean "God inspired the writer" or "every single word is inspired verbatim."

If the second one, which english translation is correct, as there are dozens? Is KJV more inspired than ESV?
Every word of the original text is inspired.

Aviyah
Oct 6th 2013, 10:55 PM
Every word of the original text is inspired.

If Paul wrote letters to other churches (not unlikely), would those letters also be inspired verbatim? Why/why not?

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 01:37 AM
If Paul wrote letters to other churches (not unlikely), would those letters also be inspired verbatim? Why/why not?

I trust that the same God who inspired the books of the Bible watched over the process to ensure that all the books were included that were inspired. Others may elect not to have this trust; I have full confidence that God gave us the 66 books that He wanted us to have.

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 01:40 AM
I trust that the same God who inspired the books of the Bible watched over the process to ensure that all the books were included that were inspired. Others may elect not to have this trust; I have full confidence that God gave us the 66 books that He wanted us to have.

That's fine, but I'd rather have some Biblical support for the NT being inspired verbatim in the same way as the OT.

Yes, I know about 2 Tim 3:16. Did Paul consider his own writings to be Scripture?

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 02:22 AM
That's fine, but I'd rather have some Biblical support for the NT being inspired verbatim in the same way as the OT.

Yes, I know about 2 Tim 3:16. Did Paul consider his own writings to be Scripture?

I'm fairly certain that you are aware of the five criteria used to determine if the book should be included in the canon of scripture. There is no verse that speaks directly to the whole of the NT being inspired. Again, it was a process that came much later. If a writing didn't pass the criteria, it was not included. I have full faith in the process. Even though it was a group of men leading the process, I believe that they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Personally, if I questioned the inspiration of the NT, I would walk away from Christianity today. It would be no better than other religions of the world if the Scriptures, old and new, were not inspired.

Slug1
Oct 7th 2013, 02:50 AM
Personally, if I questioned the inspiration of the NT, I would walk away from Christianity today. It would be no better than other religions of the world if the Scriptures, old and new, were not inspired.Ya know... this whole thread boils down to how or even IF people are wearing the Belt of Truth as a part of their Armor of God. If there is ONE verse in the Bible that is not trusted as God's inspired truth... then they are not properly wearing the Belt of Truth. Without that belt on properly... all the rest of the Armor will be unstable and unbalanced if not ALL scripture is believed/trusted to be the inspired truth of God.

Boo
Oct 7th 2013, 09:43 AM
Ya know... this whole thread boils down to how or even IF people are wearing the Belt of Truth as a part of their Armor of God. If there is ONE verse in the Bible that is not trusted as God's inspired truth... then they are not properly wearing the Belt of Truth. Without that belt on properly... all the rest of the Armor will be unstable and unbalanced if not ALL scripture is believed/trusted to be the inspired truth of God.

Nice phrase but has little actual application in this case.

Your view of all of the text in the bible flies in the face of the history of our printed bibles. There was a time when people said things like this but the Apocrypha was also part of that same bible. Man changed his mind and determined that the Apocrypha no longer qualified.

So, was the Holy Spirit in charge of that group that included the Apocrypha or we He in charge of that group that removed it?

Was the Holy Spirit in charge of those who translated the Textus Receptus and gave us the King James version -rendering all other translations a heresy? I have heard that more than once.

(Of course, those places where the actual words of the TR was changed when translated into the KJV are not to be counted, right?)

The truth is supposed to be that God gives us the discernment to understand and know. However, some people place much more faith into what man has told them than what God has shown them. Their "truth" comes from man more than from God.

However, they all believe that they have the truth.

If we open our hearts and don't leave our brains at the doorway when we read what the bible actually says, they "truth" may be different from what man has told us. Repeating what man has told you is not bad unless what the man told you was wrong. It is not wrong to ask that man to prove what he said.

I think it is sad when any man's pride will cause him to rise up and make an accusation against his brother when there is no proof to support a belief that he may not hold. It is preferable to instead see if that brother shows the fruit of the Spirit in his speech and actions to determine if he "knows and follows Jesus" rather than some man's "truth."

Romans 12:3
For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Boo
Oct 7th 2013, 09:56 AM
Boo, the Bible doesn't contain the truth. It is the truth.

This is not my version of Christianity. Others can chime in as they wish.

You always have those antidotal stories of pulpit bullying. I fail to see the relevance as it relates to the topic.

I do not believe that you are a heretic and have never said that you are. However, I have stated that you believe a heresy in that you reject the inspiration of the Scriptures.

If you will look back through your posts, you will see that you have provided me more anecdotal stories to use in the future.

This story is to illustrate a point. This same preacher says the same thing that you do about his KJV bible. He says that every word is true. He also gets angry if I show him that the English words in the KJV do not match the manuscript it was taken from. Why? Because he has no answer. He wears "the belt of truth."

The bible contains the truth. It is all true. It is inerrant.

However, Paul was not. Neither was Moses. Nor was David. Nor was Peter. Despite the errors of these people, God's truth is still there.

This is where we fail to grasp the truth of what is written. When we switch from the Old Testament to the New, in our minds, all of the characters now become some kind of deity incapable of being wrong or issuing guidance to others from their own personal decisions.

If anyone sees it any differently, we puff up and state that we, somehow, know the truth and all other statements are heresy. It is as if some would not have anyone use their God given faith and discernment to see the truth of God's will for us from the scriptures. We would prefer that they follow ours, right?

God gives us faith and discernment. However, there are those who wish us not to use them.

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 11:32 AM
If you will look back through your posts, you will see that you have provided me more anecdotal stories to use in the future.
Can you give me one example where I used one to prove Scripture?



The bible contains the truth. It is all true. It is inerrant.
This conflicts with everything you've said so far.



However, Paul was not. Neither was Moses. Nor was David. Nor was Peter. Despite the errors of these people, God's truth is still there.
Please find one post by anyone on this forum who said these men were perfect.

The problem is that you think their errors were also in their writings, which cancels your above statement about inerrancy.



This is where we fail to grasp the truth of what is written. When we switch from the Old Testament to the New, in our minds, all of the characters now become some kind of deity incapable of being wrong or issuing guidance to others from their own personal decisions.
That's a straw man. No one thinks they are deity. That has nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture. God used imperfect vessels. Still does.



If anyone sees it any differently, we puff up and state that we, somehow, know the truth and all other statements are heresy. It is as if some would not have anyone use their God given faith and discernment to see the truth of God's will for us from the scriptures. We would prefer that they follow ours, right?

God gives us faith and discernment. However, there are those who wish us not to use them.

You do see it differently. Some matters of the Christian faith are non-negotiable. This is one, IMO.

Eyelog
Oct 7th 2013, 01:42 PM
Nice phrase but has little actual application in this case.

Your view of all of the text in the bible flies in the face of the history of our printed bibles. There was a time when people said things like this but the Apocrypha was also part of that same bible. Man changed his mind and determined that the Apocrypha no longer qualified.

So, was the Holy Spirit in charge of that group that included the Apocrypha or we He in charge of that group that removed it?

Was the Holy Spirit in charge of those who translated the Textus Receptus and gave us the King James version -rendering all other translations a heresy? I have heard that more than once.

(Of course, those places where the actual words of the TR was changed when translated into the KJV are not to be counted, right?)

The truth is supposed to be that God gives us the discernment to understand and know. However, some people place much more faith into what man has told them than what God has shown them. Their "truth" comes from man more than from God.

However, they all believe that they have the truth.

If we open our hearts and don't leave our brains at the doorway when we read what the bible actually says, they "truth" may be different from what man has told us. Repeating what man has told you is not bad unless what the man told you was wrong. It is not wrong to ask that man to prove what he said.

I think it is sad when any man's pride will cause him to rise up and make an accusation against his brother when there is no proof to support a belief that he may not hold. It is preferable to instead see if that brother shows the fruit of the Spirit in his speech and actions to determine if he "knows and follows Jesus" rather than some man's "truth."

Romans 12:3


And then all shot to their feet, and thunderous applause filled the auditorium, because at last the liberating truth of the matter was eloquently and powerfully proclaimed.

Wow, Boo. You B on a roll.

Not that I agree with you, so much.

But I like your writing in this thread. Must be your passion forcing it out of you. Nice job, brother.

Eyelog
Oct 7th 2013, 01:49 PM
It is preferable to instead see if that brother shows the fruit of the Spirit in his speech and actions to determine if he "knows and follows Jesus" rather than some man's "truth."

Someone can have terrible character and still be correct in their belief that a proposition is true.

Someone can have wonderful character and still be incorrect in their belief that proposition is true.

Therefore, your conclusion is illogical relative to the truth, inspiration or reliability of the Scriptures, friend.

Eyelog
Oct 7th 2013, 02:11 PM
So, a verse in a letter written in 58 A.D. covers every letter included in the current Canon of Scripture?

If you check the dates of the other letters, some of them are known to have been written after 58 A.D. and most of the others were written at approximately the same time.

I would think that I can believe that Paul was referring only to the writing that we call the Old Testament. I do accept that those are what is inspired by God. For you to include the New Testament books in your personal preference.



And so far, nobody has shown me why I should believe any different in those issues that I have raised.

What you are really saying is that you don't know why your believe that every word is God breathed, and once again, you failed to answer my question.

How about you believe what you want to believe, and I'll keep growing in faith and my walk with the Lord using my bible the way God leads me to?

May God give you peace and understanding, brother.

Boo, you have thrown down the proverbial gauntlet. Let no man stand who will not do battle with Boo on this. Right here and now.

Truth is, this injection of pseudo-knowledge of when the epistles were written, and the Gospels for that matter, has derailed the entire tenor of this conversation.

Those who think they know what Paul subjectively meant when he said all "Scripture" is God-breathed, based on a dating of the text, need to realize they are comparing apples and oranges, for at least a couple of reasons:

1. Real Scripture is absolutely true, and cannot be fully tested for truth via empirical dating methodologies.

2. Empirical dating methodologies based on identification of the scribe are incredibly imprecise, subject to vast disagreement among scholars, and only provide evidence of how late a manuscript is, not how early (in terms of great precision, as people live 50-80+ years).

3. Historical references actually appearing in a text can help date the text, especially if there is a positive ID on the year a referenced event occurred, as in the date Jerusalem was sacked as per Roman records, insignias, etc.

4. Even if one could accurately date the text, and it showed it was not the last 'book' of the Bible written, but was even the first, and if the text said "all Scripture is God-breathed", it could still be correct in relation to every 'book' of the Bible written thereafter.

5. The problem with this debate is that the focus on what Paul meant based on dating ignores the fact that the statement is truth regardless of what Paul thought and when he thought it. Since when is the truth of the Bible based on the mind of man? Rather, the question is whether you and I and the Canonizers are able to accurately identify a text which is truly "
God-breathed" and one which is truly not. I will say it again, you can't draw that inspiration conclusion based on the date Paul said ANYTHING. Got it?

6. So, ChangedByHim is right to look to the standards set up by humans to determine what is inspired or not. Boo is right to be skeptical. Both are right to take it by faith, but to keep their eyes and ears open to sense if an error in so identifying a text is there. But it is a very difficult business. I personally have found that there is a certain flavor and theme to true Scripture, and I dare say it is difficult to state it in objective terms, with the exception of certain canonical principles.

7. But I do take issue with this concept of reading all the Scripture with skepticism, treating some as authentically God-breathed and some as not. For one thing, if Paul admits that the word he is writing on this one subtopic, in this narrow space, is not a word from the Lord, ISN'T THAT VERY STATEMENT INSPIRED? AND SHOULDN'T THE STATEMENT BE TAKEN AS TRUE, AND SHOULDN'T THE SKEPTICISM MELT BC OF THE FULL DISCLOSURE, AND SHOULDN'T THE REST OF THE TEXT BE TRUSTED, SINCE OUR GOD DID NOT SEE FIT TO QUALIFY IT AS NOT OF HIMSELF? I think ChangedByHim at least alluded to this point.

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 04:17 PM
If you do not believe that the NT is inspired then you cannot use 2 Tim 3:16 to claim that the OT is inspired... Right???

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 04:20 PM
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. - 2 Chr. 36:9 KJV

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. - 2 Ki. 24:8 KJV

And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. - 2 Sam. 8:4 KJV

And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots. - 1 Chr. 18:4 KJV

These are just some of the minor discrepancies. It doesn't change the meaning of Scripture, but certainly word-for-word integrity is impossible?

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 04:35 PM
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. - 2 Chr. 36:9 KJV

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. - 2 Ki. 24:8 KJV

There is the possibility of copyist errors. This does not discredit inspiration.

One person I read, posed the following solution:


When Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.



And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. - 2 Sam. 8:4 KJV

And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots. - 1 Chr. 18:4 KJV

Could be the same copyist error problem or could be that the designation of horsemen was used differently in the two passages.



These are just some of the minor discrepancies. It doesn't change the meaning of Scripture, but certainly word-for-word integrity is impossible?

Again, minor copyists errors do not discredit inspiration.

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 04:58 PM
There is the possibility of copyist errors. This does not discredit inspiration.

No one here is saying the Bible is not inspired (I don't think). We simply disagree on what "inspired" means. I do not believe "inspired" means every single word is intentional and perfect - a copy error is STILL an error in the original text. Instead, inspired means that the message intended to be conveyed remains intact. A numerical error doesn't change the message. The Bible can still be inspired when written by flawed men. God Himself did not write Scripture other than the 10 Commandments and the law (?). Other than direct quotations and dreams/prophecy, I find no reason to believe a manmade collection of manuscripts are free of any error whatsoever.

Berean11
Oct 7th 2013, 05:01 PM
From the JFB commentary-

1Ch 18:4-8
And David took from him a thousand chariots — (See on 2Sa_8:3-14). In 2Sa_8:4 David is said to have taken seven hundred horsemen, whereas here it is said that he took seven thousand. This great discrepancy in the text of the two narratives seems to have originated with a transcriber in confounding the two Hebrew letters which indicate the numbers, and in neglecting to mark or obscure the points over one of them. We have no means of ascertaining whether seven hundred or seven thousand be the more correct. Probably the former should be adopted [Davidson’s Hermenutics].

2Ki 24:8
2Ki_24:8, 2Ki_24:9. Jehoachin succeeds him.
Jehoiachin — that is, “God-appointed,” contracted into Jeconiah and Coniah (Jer_22:24).
eighteen years old when he began to reign — At the age of eight his father took him into partnership in the government (2Ch_36:9). He began to reign alone at eighteen.


From the Carm website-

2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8

Eight years old 2 Chron. 36:9, "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord."
Eighteen years old 2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."

The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility.

The discrepancy in ages is probably due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years.

Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.

Another possible explanation is that the difference of 10 years from the two different texts could be that he began to rule with his father at the age of eight but did not take complete control until the age of 18, a 10-year difference.

Jehoiachin
Also known as:

Jechonias (Matt. 1:11-12)
Jeconiah (1 Chr. 3:16; Jer. 24:1; 27:20)
Coniah (an abbreviation of Jeconiah) (Jer. 22:24; 37:1)
Jechoniah (in New Revised Standard Version)
Jekonjah

Jehoiachin was a young Israelite king who succeeded his father Jehoiakim (B.C. 599) when only eighteen (or eight) years of age. His age is reported in two verses, 2 Chr. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8. Most Hebrew manuscripts for 2 Chr. 36:9 say “eight,” and it thus says “eight” in most English translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, GWT). However, the NIV and NLT say “eighteen,” based on one Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint (Greek) manuscripts and Syriac, and based on the fact that according to 2 Kings 24:8, in all translations, Jehoiachin was “eighteen.”

King Jehoiachin reigned for one hundred days (2 Chr. 36:9). He was succeeded by his uncle, Mattaniah = Zedekiah (q.v.).

He was the last direct heir to the Jewish crown. He was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, along with the flower of the nobility, all the leading men in Jerusalem, and a great body of the general population, some thirteen thousand in all (2 Kings 24:12-16; Jer. 52:28).

After an imprisonment of thirty-seven years (Jer. 52:31, 33), he was liberated by Evil-merodach, and permitted to occupy a place in the king's household and sit at his table, receiving “every day a portion until the day of his death, all the days of his life” (52:32-34).

From the Web Bible-(Christian Answers)-

WebBible Encyclopedia
Home

The WebBible Online from Christian Answers
Encyclopedia Indexes
WebBible—Copyrighted © image.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Study Tools & Versions

Jehoiachin
Also known as:

Jechonias (Matt. 1:11-12)
Jeconiah (1 Chr. 3:16; Jer. 24:1; 27:20)
Coniah (an abbreviation of Jeconiah) (Jer. 22:24; 37:1)
Jechoniah (in New Revised Standard Version)
Jekonjah

Jehoiachin was a young Israelite king who succeeded his father Jehoiakim (B.C. 599) when only eighteen (or eight) years of age. His age is reported in two verses, 2 Chr. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8. Most Hebrew manuscripts for 2 Chr. 36:9 say “eight,” and it thus says “eight” in most English translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, GWT). However, the NIV and NLT say “eighteen,” based on one Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint (Greek) manuscripts and Syriac, and based on the fact that according to 2 Kings 24:8, in all translations, Jehoiachin was “eighteen.”

LandShark
Oct 7th 2013, 05:02 PM
This thread went a path I hadn't intended, which is why I left it alone. I will say only this.... most of the division between brethren occurs over definitions. I have counseled people who for hours seemed at complete odds only to find out that one word being used by both carried a different meaning for each person. It would help your discussion guys, if you all would define "inspiration" so that when you use it, the others understand how you see the word. Not everyone defines words the same way, I can give examples, but I think you all have this one! ;)

Berean11
Oct 7th 2013, 05:02 PM
From the JFB commentary-

1Ch 18:4-8
And David took from him a thousand chariots — (See on 2Sa_8:3-14). In 2Sa_8:4 David is said to have taken seven hundred horsemen, whereas here it is said that he took seven thousand. This great discrepancy in the text of the two narratives seems to have originated with a transcriber in confounding the two Hebrew letters which indicate the numbers, and in neglecting to mark or obscure the points over one of them. We have no means of ascertaining whether seven hundred or seven thousand be the more correct. Probably the former should be adopted [Davidson’s Hermenutics].

2Ki 24:8
2Ki_24:8, 2Ki_24:9. Jehoachin succeeds him.
Jehoiachin — that is, “God-appointed,” contracted into Jeconiah and Coniah (Jer_22:24).
eighteen years old when he began to reign — At the age of eight his father took him into partnership in the government (2Ch_36:9). He began to reign alone at eighteen.


From the Carm website-

2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8

Eight years old 2 Chron. 36:9, "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord."
Eighteen years old 2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."

The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility.

The discrepancy in ages is probably due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years.

Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.

Another possible explanation is that the difference of 10 years from the two different texts could be that he began to rule with his father at the age of eight but did not take complete control until the age of 18, a 10-year difference.

Jehoiachin
Also known as:

Jechonias (Matt. 1:11-12)
Jeconiah (1 Chr. 3:16; Jer. 24:1; 27:20)
Coniah (an abbreviation of Jeconiah) (Jer. 22:24; 37:1)
Jechoniah (in New Revised Standard Version)
Jekonjah

Jehoiachin was a young Israelite king who succeeded his father Jehoiakim (B.C. 599) when only eighteen (or eight) years of age. His age is reported in two verses, 2 Chr. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8. Most Hebrew manuscripts for 2 Chr. 36:9 say “eight,” and it thus says “eight” in most English translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, GWT). However, the NIV and NLT say “eighteen,” based on one Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint (Greek) manuscripts and Syriac, and based on the fact that according to 2 Kings 24:8, in all translations, Jehoiachin was “eighteen.”

King Jehoiachin reigned for one hundred days (2 Chr. 36:9). He was succeeded by his uncle, Mattaniah = Zedekiah (q.v.).

He was the last direct heir to the Jewish crown. He was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, along with the flower of the nobility, all the leading men in Jerusalem, and a great body of the general population, some thirteen thousand in all (2 Kings 24:12-16; Jer. 52:28).

After an imprisonment of thirty-seven years (Jer. 52:31, 33), he was liberated by Evil-merodach, and permitted to occupy a place in the king's household and sit at his table, receiving “every day a portion until the day of his death, all the days of his life” (52:32-34).

From the Web Bible-(Christian Answers)-

WebBible Encyclopedia
Home

The WebBible Online from Christian Answers
Encyclopedia Indexes
WebBible—Copyrighted © image.


Study Tools & Versions

Jehoiachin
Also known as:

Jechonias (Matt. 1:11-12)
Jeconiah (1 Chr. 3:16; Jer. 24:1; 27:20)
Coniah (an abbreviation of Jeconiah) (Jer. 22:24; 37:1)
Jechoniah (in New Revised Standard Version)
Jekonjah

Jehoiachin was a young Israelite king who succeeded his father Jehoiakim (B.C. 599) when only eighteen (or eight) years of age. His age is reported in two verses, 2 Chr. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8. Most Hebrew manuscripts for 2 Chr. 36:9 say “eight,” and it thus says “eight” in most English translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, GWT). However, the NIV and NLT say “eighteen,” based on one Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint (Greek) manuscripts and Syriac, and based on the fact that according to 2 Kings 24:8, in all translations, Jehoiachin was “eighteen.”

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 05:04 PM
The discrepancy in ages is probably due to a copyist error.

A copyist error is still an error. The number is different in two separate books. If the argument is that "the very first time it was written was perfect" then what good is this information to 21st century English-speakers? The meaning is not changed, but to claim Scripture is 100% perfect word-for-word ignores the possibility of these minor "copyist errors."

Berean11
Oct 7th 2013, 05:20 PM
So, what is heresy to the Christian? Leave all the philosophical and general definitions out. I have a list but I would like to see others responses to what it is to the Christian. And there is a list of core beliefs essential to be considered a Christian held by most denominations across the board.

Peace, Berean11

M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh
Oct 7th 2013, 08:20 PM
Judeo-Christian history indicates a heretic is anyone who doesn't tick like you (rhetorical) tick, so s/he must be a heretic.

Similarly, heresy is a way of thinking different than your (rhetorical) way of thinking, so it must be heretical.

Something like that:saint:

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 08:34 PM
Judeo-Christian history indicates a heretic is anyone who doesn't tick like you

Basically, lol :yes:

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 09:07 PM
No one here is saying the Bible is not inspired (I don't think).
There is at least one person who thinks that some of Paul's writings were not inspired.


a copy error is STILL an error in the original text.
^^^ This doesn't make sense. There error is in the copy not the original text. :confused:

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 09:41 PM
There is at least one person who thinks that some of Paul's writings were not inspired.

It doesn't sound to me that he believes Paul wasn't inspired, just that Paul was fallible and could not have written perfection. Seems reasonable when you consider that he often separates what he heard God say and his personal opinion in the same letter. Just because the early church decided to keep some of his letters doesn't mean what they included became inspired and what they excluded was never inspired.

I'm sure God has inspired people to write all throughout history - but their writings may not have been pertinent to the major theme of the Bible.


^^^ This doesn't make sense.

My point is, we don't have the originals... so claiming that each word is perfect really isn't relevant if each word of what we read isn't perfect. I use ESV for casual reading, and KJV for critical reading - neither of these are the originals, so cannot be word-for-word perfect. But the message and subjects remain intact even though minor errors can be found. The closer to the original, the less errors. I think it's most important that any serious study of Scripture include more than one translation to be compared.

Slug1
Oct 7th 2013, 09:45 PM
So, what is heresy to the Christian? Leave all the philosophical and general definitions out. I have a list but I would like to see others responses to what it is to the Christian. And there is a list of core beliefs essential to be considered a Christian held by most denominations across the board.

Peace, Berean11Forgoing any philosophical and general definitions and leaving them out... heresy is teaching anything that is not aligned/supported by the Word of God.

Berean11
Oct 7th 2013, 09:57 PM
Forgoing any philosophical and general definitions and leaving them out... heresy is teaching anything that is not aligned/supported by the Word of God.

Finally.....Thank you Slug. There are some basic doctrines that can't be disputed. Like Jesus' deity. There are some issues that can be disputed. For instance head coverings.

ChangedByHim
Oct 7th 2013, 10:06 PM
I hear what you are saying Aviyah, but I personally believe that EVERY SINGLE WORD of the original text was inspired by the Holy Spirit. There's no doubt in my mind.

Slug1
Oct 7th 2013, 10:08 PM
Finally.....Thank you Slug. There are some basic doctrines that can't be disputed. Like Jesus' deity. There are some issues that can be disputed. For instance head coverings.Hahaha, I was trying to get this point to be drawn out in that very first post I made in this thread. Heresy can't be based on the doctrine of a "church" because churches are about control in many cases and as you raised, if a church wants to suppress the females, they write up tenants that put all females in skirts, long hair, no makeup/jewelry, sit in the back (quietly) while the men sit (lead) at the front and... oh, if you don't agree with our church... YOU'RE a heretic. Some churches do this simply by Bible translation types and if you don't use the Bible their church uses... you are reading the works of the devil AND you are a heretic :rolleyes:

No... teach/follow anything that is not aligned/supported with the Bible... this is where the test begins on what is heresy.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 7th 2013, 10:09 PM
It doesn't sound to me that he believes Paul wasn't inspired, just that Paul was fallible and could not have written perfection. Seems reasonable when you consider that he often separates what he heard God say and his personal opinion in the same letter. Just because the early church decided to keep some of his letters doesn't mean what they included became inspired and what they excluded was never inspired.

I'm sure God has inspired people to write all throughout history - but their writings may not have been pertinent to the major theme of the Bible.



My point is, we don't have the originals... so claiming that each word is perfect really isn't relevant if each word of what we read isn't perfect. I use ESV for casual reading, and KJV for critical reading - neither of these are the originals, so cannot be word-for-word perfect. But the message and subjects remain intact even though minor errors can be found. The closer to the original, the less errors. I think it's most important that any serious study of Scripture include more than one translation to be compared.

Actually, the newest ESV and the NASB translations go back to earlier manuscripts than the KJV, for the KJV uses the Byzantine Greek and the other use the Alexandrian. For example - if you look to Mark 16, some versions will * the text and state that the following are not within earlier manuscripts, which the ESV and NASB show the * and the KJV does not. All in all, they are to be trusted for salvation and are really close and is the best we have today.

Slug1
Oct 7th 2013, 10:11 PM
Actually, the newest ESV and the NASB translations go back to earlier manuscripts than the KJV, for the KJV uses the Byzantine Greek and the other use the Alexandrian. For example - if you look to Mark 16, some versions will * the text and state that the following are not within earlier manuscripts, which the ESV and NASB show the * and the KJV does not. All in all, they are to be trusted for salvation and are really close and is the best we have today.AMEN! I've found that purchasing an ESV Study Bible has been one of the best choices I've ever made!!

Aviyah
Oct 7th 2013, 10:24 PM
Actually, the newest ESV and the NASB translations go back to earlier manuscripts than the KJV, for the KJV uses the Byzantine Greek and the other use the Alexandrian. For example - if you look to Mark 16, some versions will * the text and state that the following are not within earlier manuscripts, which the ESV and NASB show the * and the KJV does not. All in all, they are to be trusted for salvation and are really close and is the best we have today.

True, I suppose I find text which was written closer to the time period to be more trustworthy. But still the best thing to do is read multiple translations on a tough chapter/verse.

TrustGzus
Oct 7th 2013, 11:56 PM
True, I suppose I find text which was written closer to the time period to be more trustworthy.

Generally true.


But still the best thing to do is read multiple translations on a tough chapter/verse.

Definitely true.

Curtis
Oct 8th 2013, 12:32 AM
2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NASB)

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

No Apostle, or man of God ever sat down and thought...humm. what word could I use here so that the people years down when they read would understand what I writing. Never happened. Man was only the mouth piece in which the Holy Spirit spoke through. Man had no say so in what was spoken. He was only and instrument in the hands of God. There are no untruths in the Word, there are no lies, or deceptions anywhere found in God's Holy Word. Any man who thinks there are untruths in the Word would be calling the Holy Spirit a lair!! The Bible does not contain truth it is truth in its entirety. If any man thinks there are false hoods in the Bible then he will cheery pick what he thinks is truth, and discount those he thinks is untruth, and what happens when you do that, is you come up with a new Gospel. When you have a new Gospel then you have a new Jesus that is not of God. In fact he could not save anyone, and he would not care about you in any way. This new Jesus would show you were there are untruths in the bible. He would call you to show this to the world for all to see. You would be known to all as great man of God because of your diligent study in finding these things. The only problem with this is you are believing the lie perpetrated by the Devil. The Devil gets a real thrill when people think there are falsehoods in scripture. Now he has caused doubt in the minds of a few unlearned students. This is a lie from the pit of Hell.
Make sure that the light that is in you be not darkness. Do not even let this kind of thought come across your mind. Cast it down because it is devilish and not from God.

PS: in fact this kind of thinking would be called "Heresy"

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 12:36 AM
Amen Curtis! :)

TrustGzus
Oct 8th 2013, 01:28 AM
I would like to point out that Boo doesn't think there are falsehoods in the Bible as I've understood what he has posted. He's not teaching a different Jesus nor a different gospel. He may think not even thing Paul said was God breathed, but that is not the same as saying it's not true. My phone book isn't God-breathed, but what it says is true.

Don't knock down a straw man.

And as for the issues like differences in age between a king in one book verses another, I agree with what CBH said, copyists errors would explain that. Nothing wrong with admitting errors in copies. One can't deny errors in copies since every copy has errors.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 01:54 AM
True, I suppose I find text which was written closer to the time period to be more trustworthy. But still the best thing to do is read multiple translations on a tough chapter/verse.

That's a fair approach Aviyah... Most translations from one language to another has a hint of the translator's understandings in it. Greek has so many tenses, that it's sometime hard to express it in English. Most do a good job, but unless one is a ancient bible language scholar, we have to settle for what we have as best.

Boo
Oct 8th 2013, 09:03 AM
That's a fair approach Aviyah... Most translations from one language to another has a hint of the translator's understandings in it. Greek has so many tenses, that it's sometime hard to express it in English. Most do a good job, but unless one is a ancient bible language scholar, we have to settle for what we have as best.

And even then, we do not have the original letters and scrolls.

The best we have is several copies with slight differences.

Boo
Oct 8th 2013, 09:07 AM
Yes, Joe, and I have stated that many times. Some just don't want to read what I have written.

Those cases where Paul deviated from what Jesus taught are never addressed by those who would attack me and claim that I do not know the truth. I am left with believing that they don't either, or they would have explained my errors to me.

Thanks for helping to clarify my words. I am not free to address these posts when I am at work or at the church.


I would like to point out that Boo doesn't think there are falsehoods in the Bible as I've understood what he has posted. He's not teaching a different Jesus nor a different gospel. He may think not even thing Paul said was God breathed, but that is not the same as saying it's not true. My phone book isn't God-breathed, but what it says is true.

Don't knock down a straw man.

And as for the issues like differences in age between a king in one book verses another, I agree with what CBH said, copyists errors would explain that. Nothing wrong with admitting errors in copies. One can't deny errors in copies since every copy has errors.

Boo
Oct 8th 2013, 09:08 AM
2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NASB)

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

No Apostle, or man of God ever sat down and thought...humm. what word could I use here so that the people years down when they read would understand what I writing. Never happened. Man was only the mouth piece in which the Holy Spirit spoke through. Man had no say so in what was spoken. He was only and instrument in the hands of God. There are no untruths in the Word, there are no lies, or deceptions anywhere found in God's Holy Word. Any man who thinks there are untruths in the Word would be calling the Holy Spirit a lair!! The Bible does not contain truth it is truth in its entirety. If any man thinks there are false hoods in the Bible then he will cheery pick what he thinks is truth, and discount those he thinks is untruth, and what happens when you do that, is you come up with a new Gospel. When you have a new Gospel then you have a new Jesus that is not of God. In fact he could not save anyone, and he would not care about you in any way. This new Jesus would show you were there are untruths in the bible. He would call you to show this to the world for all to see. You would be known to all as great man of God because of your diligent study in finding these things. The only problem with this is you are believing the lie perpetrated by the Devil. The Devil gets a real thrill when people think there are falsehoods in scripture. Now he has caused doubt in the minds of a few unlearned students. This is a lie from the pit of Hell.
Make sure that the light that is in you be not darkness. Do not even let this kind of thought come across your mind. Cast it down because it is devilish and not from God.

PS: in fact this kind of thinking would be called "Heresy"

So, Curtis, who said there were falsehoods in the Bible?

I never did, nor did anyone in this forum.

Boo
Oct 8th 2013, 09:11 AM
If you do not believe that the NT is inspired then you cannot use 2 Tim 3:16 to claim that the OT is inspired... Right???

Nobody ever said that the NT was not inspired by God. I said that you have no proof of it.

Very early on, I wrote that my belief in the Bible comes from my faith and not from a proof-text. I also do not stretch any verse to cover my desired beliefs. I take each verse as it is written. I actually believe each verse in my bibles. The thing is, I seem to believe them more than some others here who claim that I don't believe them.

Curtis
Oct 8th 2013, 11:19 AM
Nobody ever said that the NT was not inspired by God. I said that you have no proof of it.

Very early on, I wrote that my belief in the Bible comes from my faith and not from a proof-text. I also do not stretch any verse to cover my desired beliefs. I take each verse as it is written. I actually believe each verse in my bibles. The thing is, I seem to believe them more than some others here who claim that I don't believe them.

Boo. You can not have faith without the word first. There is no such a thing as faith alone. Not each verse, but all the verses in the bible are God breathed. With out that your belief system will be in error.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You can not have any more proof than this that the NT is all God breathed. It is unwise to believe anything without proof.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 01:14 PM
And even then, we do not have the original letters and scrolls.

The best we have is several copies with slight differences.

Very true Boo. God is a just God and how we weld His Word in what we have of it is to His purpose and counsel. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls circa 1947 really opened the flood gates to use the earliest of manuscripts to translate today's bibles. So most of our bibles have been heavily researched based on the best manuscripts available and thus our Bible of today is better preserved than say the copies of the Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.

So it's safe to use for salvation, trusted for knowing who Jesus is, honored as representing the Word and will of God, and even used as Paul stated to Timothy 3:16,17

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 01:43 PM
I hear what you are saying Aviyah, but I personally believe that EVERY SINGLE WORD of the original text was inspired by the Holy Spirit. There's no doubt in my mind.

The key is the word "original", isn't it? Yet, none of us has the original text. So I have to stick with what I know, and that when I read my Bible, I am trusting in that God will use it within my heart to grow me in grace, truth and knowledge, and am left to defend it to myself that what I have within my hands is what God has given me to use. I do not defend a translation, but what the word is declaring.

Curtis
Oct 8th 2013, 06:03 PM
Boo, Do you consider the Word of God as "text proof"?

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 07:24 PM
The key is the word "original", isn't it?

Not really. Maybe if I was hung up on the idea that the Bible was full of errors. I'm not. Therefore, it's not the key for me.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 07:56 PM
Not really. Maybe if I was hung up on the idea that the Bible was full of errors. I'm not. Therefore, it's not the key for me.

Nor I - but as you also have shown, there are transcription errors and thus those errors are there, and thus translations are trustworthy, but also have some points that need to be clarified or enhanced.

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 08:29 PM
Nor I - but as you also have shown, there are transcription errors and thus those errors are there, and thus translations are trustworthy, but also have some points that need to be clarified or enhanced.

Good.... We agree.... Agreement is rare around here (maybe it's just me) :)

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 08:44 PM
Good.... We agree.... Agreement is rare around here (maybe it's just me) :)

:) You would think it be more common with His Spirit within each of us, huh?

TrustGzus
Oct 8th 2013, 09:11 PM
Yes, Joe, and I have stated that many times. Some just don't want to read what I have written.

No problem, Boo.


Those cases where Paul deviated from what Jesus taught are never addressed by those who would attack me and claim that I do not know the truth. I am left with believing that they don't either, or they would have explained my errors to me.

What do you mean by Paul "deviating" from what Jesus taught? Contrary to what Jesus taught? Teaching on an issue in which Jesus was silent? Something else?

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 11:44 PM
Yes, Joe, and I have stated that many times. Some just don't want to read what I have written.

Those cases where Paul deviated from what Jesus taught are never addressed by those who would attack me and claim that I do not know the truth. I am left with believing that they don't either, or they would have explained my errors to me.

Thanks for helping to clarify my words. I am not free to address these posts when I am at work or at the church.

I've never used the word falsehoods with regard to my responses to your position. It's my understanding that you think some of Paul's writings were just his opinion (more than when Paul says he didn't receive it directly from The Lord). You have also stated that Paul contradicted Jesus and that he was wrong at times - specific to his writings.

If I'm wrong in my understanding, please correct me boo. I have apologized many times on this forum in just a few months. I will be happy to do it again if I am wrong in my understanding.

God bless.

Obfuscate
Oct 9th 2013, 12:10 AM
I’m not so sure Paul didn’t think his own Epistles, and the other writings of the Apostles to be Scripture. I’m not so sure why people think he didn’t? He was specifically picked out by Christ to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul consistently says they are speaking the Word of God while writing to the Churches:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

1 Corinthians 14:37 - If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

Peter said Paul’s letters were Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 - And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

The few times Paul says he’s not speaking for God we should just take those verses as is, also understanding they did end up where they did.

Isaiah 55:11 - so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Boo
Oct 9th 2013, 09:08 AM
Boo. You can not have faith without the word first. There is no such a thing as faith alone. Not each verse, but all the verses in the bible are God breathed. With out that your belief system will be in error.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You can not have any more proof than this that the NT is all God breathed. It is unwise to believe anything without proof.

What faith are you speaking of in your first sentence? We can have faith in God without getting the Word first. Did not Paul tell us that nobody in the world has any excuse for rejecting God because the world proclaims Him to all?

Rom 1:19-22
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

The proof that the bible contains God's Word is in me. I have that proof. I have no proof that every word came from God, nor do I need it.

Thanks for indicating that my belief is in error because it is not the same as yours. Do you really mean to say that? How do you know that is true?

Boo
Oct 9th 2013, 09:26 AM
No problem, Boo.

What do you mean by Paul "deviating" from what Jesus taught? Contrary to what Jesus taught? Teaching on an issue in which Jesus was silent? Something else?

Well, I thought I had repeatedly already shown all that in hopes that someone can show me something that I have missed.

Moses permitted divorce among the children of Israel. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. He went on to say that God hates divorce and further went on to say that the only acceptable reason for divorce was sexual immorality. Jesus said that, if we divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, remarriage constitutes adultery.

Mat 19:8-9
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Paul said that if we divorce because the spouse wants to leave, remarriage is OK. He or she is no longer enslaved.

1Co 7:10-15
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Paul said that there is not problem eating meat sacrificed to idols because those gods don't really exist. The only reason Paul gives us for feeling guilty if we eat this meat is that our conscience is weak. He then goes on to illustrate that there is no effect from eating or abstaining.

1Co 8:4-8
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

Jesus told us that eating meat sacrificed to idols in immoral and condemns the church at Pergamum for it.

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

This does not even address how Paul taught one thing and practiced another in Jerusalem. Paul was not inerrant, but the Bible is. I claim no errors to exist in the bible. The error is in the assumptions we make about it. Perhaps that is too heard to bear. However, I am open to someone showing me any second witness in the bible that made the same statements that Paul did in order to confirm that he was accurate. I do not mind learning new things.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 02:04 PM
I’m not so sure Paul didn’t think his own Epistles, and the other writings of the Apostles to be Scripture.

I fully believe Paul was speaking from God, but I do not believe he knew a few of his letters would be compiled together into an OT accessory. But this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible. As far as I am aware, the only writers who knew their works would be revered in such a critical way were Moses and the prophets.


I’m not so sure Paul didn’t think his own Epistles, and the other writings of the Apostles to be Scripture.

I fully believe Paul was speaking from God, but I do not believe he knew a few of his letters would be compiled together into an OT accessory. But this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible. As far as I am aware, the only writers who knew their works would be revered in such a critical way were Moses and the prophets.

Eyelog
Oct 9th 2013, 03:23 PM
I fully believe Paul was speaking from God, but I do not believe he knew a few of his letters would be compiled together into an OT accessory. But this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible. As far as I am aware, the only writers who knew their works would be revered in such a critical way were Moses and the prophets.

Avivah, I am glad you qualified your statement, by saying "As far as I am aware."

You might be right there are not that many places where a NT writer SAYS what he is writing is the very Word of God, but there are several, especially with Paul. I'm sure I could find some if that were my central point here. (and will if you request them).

I wanted to point to the issue Obfuscate mentioned, which I raised below in response to Boo: Why does it matter if a NT writer "knew their works would be revered in such a critical way"? Please see my post #60.

So far as your viewpoint, maybe I missed your posts, but where you say Paul lacked the expectation that his letters would be seen as on par with OT Scripture, or an "accessory" thereto, and then say, "this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible," what is the basis for this conclusion, or the conclusion that "Paul was speaking from God"?

After all, any suggestion that the current canon is not the Word of God would be considered heretical from the viewpoint of most scholars and certainly most of the Body.

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 05:37 PM
What faith are you speaking of in your first sentence? We can have faith in God without getting the Word first. Did not Paul tell us that nobody in the world has any excuse for rejecting God because the world proclaims Him to all?

Rom 1:19-22

The proof that the bible contains God's Word is in me. I have that proof. I have no proof that every word came from God, nor do I need it.

Thanks for indicating that my belief is in error because it is not the same as yours. Do you really mean to say that? How do you know that is true?

I ask because faith comes by no other means than the Bible. You can not have a belief, or faith without first knowing the Word of God. We go to the Word of God to get faith, and our beliefs, not the other way around. If I come up with some kind of faith, and belief system apart from God's Holy Word then it will be in error.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 05:56 PM
I wanted to point to the issue Obfuscate mentioned, which I raised below in response to Boo: Why does it matter if a NT writer "knew their works would be revered in such a critical way"?

Well, my point is that I'm sure many other people have been inspired to write and have spoken directly from God. I also believe Paul wrote more than the letters in the NT and that they certainly contained other commands from God. It seems to me that Paul's writings are only considered inspired because they appear in the Bible - and this is the wrong way of looking at it. They should be inspired because God spoke through Him to the recipients, which is not exclusive to the books we have.

Certainly the epistles do not carry the same weight as the Tenakh for the simple reason that Paul frequently distinguishes his opinion from God's command. This isn't to say Paul was misinformed, just that what he suggests does not always apply universally as the Law and prophecies do.


So far as your viewpoint, maybe I missed your posts, but where you say Paul lacked the expectation that his letters would be seen as on par with OT Scripture, or an "accessory" thereto, and then say, "this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible," what is the basis for this conclusion, or the conclusion that "Paul was speaking from God"?

I believe Paul was a determined servant of God, and also that he heard from God frequently. So his writings should be seriously considered by any Christian. However, we are not servants of Paul - we are servants of Christ. Because Paul does not speak from God 100% of the time (by his own admission), we absolutely cannot place his writings on the level of the OT. But there are enough places where he does speak from God for his words to be useful for any reader.


After all, any suggestion that the current canon is not the Word of God would be considered heretical from the viewpoint of most scholars and certainly most of the Body.

The OT is the word of God, the NT is a revelation of the OT with God's word in it.


I wanted to point to the issue Obfuscate mentioned, which I raised below in response to Boo: Why does it matter if a NT writer "knew their works would be revered in such a critical way"?

Well, my point is that I'm sure many other people have been inspired to write and have spoken directly from God. I also believe Paul wrote more than the letters in the NT and that they certainly contained other commands from God. It seems to me that Paul's writings are only considered inspired because they appear in the Bible - and this is the wrong way of looking at it. They should be inspired because God spoke through Him to the recipients, which is not exclusive to the books we have.

Certainly the epistles do not carry the same weight as the Tenakh for the simple reason that Paul frequently distinguishes his opinion from God's command. This isn't to say Paul was misinformed, just that what he suggests does not always apply universally as the Law and prophecies do.


So far as your viewpoint, maybe I missed your posts, but where you say Paul lacked the expectation that his letters would be seen as on par with OT Scripture, or an "accessory" thereto, and then say, "this isn't to say his letters do not belong in the Bible," what is the basis for this conclusion, or the conclusion that "Paul was speaking from God"?

I believe Paul was a determined servant of God, and also that he heard from God frequently. So his writings should be seriously considered by any Christian. However, we are not servants of Paul - we are servants of Christ. Because Paul does not speak from God 100% of the time (by his own admission), we absolutely cannot place his writings on the level of the OT. But there are enough places where he does speak from God for his words to be useful for any reader.


After all, any suggestion that the current canon is not the Word of God would be considered heretical from the viewpoint of most scholars and certainly most of the Body.

The OT is the word of God, the NT is a revelation of the OT with God's word in it.

TrustGzus
Oct 9th 2013, 06:30 PM
Well, I thought I had repeatedly already shown all that in hopes that someone can show me something that I have missed.

Moses permitted divorce among the children of Israel. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. He went on to say that God hates divorce and further went on to say that the only acceptable reason for divorce was sexual immorality. Jesus said that, if we divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, remarriage constitutes adultery.

Mat 19:8-9

Paul said that if we divorce because the spouse wants to leave, remarriage is OK. He or she is no longer enslaved.

1Co 7:10-15

Hey Boo, thanks. I'm sorry for having you repeat what you've already posted. You have a lot of posts, Brother! I haven't read all of them and it's easier to have you restate than for me to track down what you've said somewhere else amongst thousands of posts.

In regard to what Paul said in Corinthians, Paul was personally trained by Jesus. Jesus apparently had post-resurrection appearances in which he spent time with Paul and trained him. I've never gotten that. I am sure Paul would not want to teach contrary to Jesus.

Having said that, let's say that when Paul says, "I say, not the LORD," that he could be claiming that what he is about to say isn't theopneustos or God-breathed.

Would you see it as possible, as many interpreters do take it, that what Paul is saying when he says, "I say, not I, but the LORD," that he means this is something Jesus addressed in his earthly ministry and when Paul says, "I say, not the LORD," that he is now addressing something that Jesus did not address in his earthly ministry? It seems to me that is a legitimate option also. This would line up with other strong statements Paul makes about his own writing in this same epistle. See 1 Corinthians 7:40 and 14:37 as examples of that.j

Obviously, Jesus didn't address every circumstance possible in his earthly ministry on a variety of subjects.


Paul said that there is not problem eating meat sacrificed to idols because those gods don't really exist. The only reason Paul gives us for feeling guilty if we eat this meat is that our conscience is weak. He then goes on to illustrate that there is no effect from eating or abstaining.

1Co 8:4-8

Jesus told us that eating meat sacrificed to idols in immoral and condemns the church at Pergamum for it.

Rev 2:14

The gospels also tell us that Jesus said it's not what goes in the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out of it, thus he declared all foods clean.


Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14*And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15*There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17*And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18*And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19*since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20*And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21*For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22*coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23*All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”


If we take Revelation 2:14 the way you take, then Jesus not only contradicts Paul, Jesus contradicts Jesus.

It seems to me that the point of Revelation 2:14 is that in eating the meat sacrificed to idols, the Jews swallowed up whole the entire religion that Balaam had introduced them to. Go back to the OT and look at the eating of meat in that context . . .


Numbers 25:1–3 (NIV)

25*While Israel was staying in ****tim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2*who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3*So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them.



This does not even address how Paul taught one thing and practiced another in Jerusalem. Paul was not inerrant, but the Bible is. I claim no errors to exist in the bible. The error is in the assumptions we make about it. Perhaps that is too heard to bear. However, I am open to someone showing me any second witness in the bible that made the same statements that Paul did in order to confirm that he was accurate. I do not mind learning new things.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but just as I think people must be careful not to straw man your case and fight against something you are not saying, you might be doing the same with them.

I don't know of anyone that teaches Paul was inerrant in everything in his life. The common view for an orthodox Evangelical is that Paul's 13 epistles (14 for those who think he wrote Hebrews) in the NT are inerrant, but not that everything Paul ever said or did was inerrant.

What do you think? Ball's back in your court.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 06:51 PM
Well, I thought I had repeatedly already shown all that in hopes that someone can show me something that I have missed.

Moses permitted divorce among the children of Israel. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. He went on to say that God hates divorce and further went on to say that the only acceptable reason for divorce was sexual immorality. Jesus said that, if we divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, remarriage constitutes adultery.

Mat 19:8-9

Paul said that if we divorce because the spouse wants to leave, remarriage is OK. He or she is no longer enslaved.



In the first case, Jesus is speaking of the one doing the divorcing. In the second case, Paul is speaking of the innocent party. There's a big difference.




1Co 7:10-15

Paul said that there is not problem eating meat sacrificed to idols because those gods don't really exist. The only reason Paul gives us for feeling guilty if we eat this meat is that our conscience is weak. He then goes on to illustrate that there is no effect from eating or abstaining.

1Co 8:4-8

Jesus told us that eating meat sacrificed to idols in immoral and condemns the church at Pergamum for it.

Rev 2:14



The believers at Pergamos were holding to the doctrine of balaam as part of their eating of meat offered to idols. It clearly is not the same case as the believers at Corinth, who were not under such idolatry. At Pergamos, idolatry is the issue not the meat.



These are simple answers. Probably way too simple to satisfy your questions. But that's how I see everything - simple.

God bless.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 06:53 PM
The OT is the word of God, the NT is a revelation of the OT with God's word in it.

??? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 07:18 PM
I see. No other view but yours should be permitted.

If there is a young impressionable person reading this thread, do you think your view was been presented in a convincing manner?

Have I written anywhere that the Word of God is not found in the Bible?

The difference is that I use discernment in what I read. I believe what Paul wrote. I do not believe that Paul was faultless.

If you ever come up with the reason for your beliefs, I'd sure like to see what they are.

Do you mean that you believe Paul made mistakes in what he wrote, or had written for him? I think Timothy did some of Paul's writing for him, I could be wrong. I'm just asking if you believe that all of the bible is written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

denise, a sister in Christ

TrustGzus
Oct 9th 2013, 07:35 PM
Do you mean that you believe Paul made mistakes in what he wrote, or had written for him? I think Timothy did some of Paul's writing for him, I could be wrong. I'm just asking if you believe that all of the bible is written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

denise, a sister in Christ

Hey OG, here is a link (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/250695-What-is-heresy?p=3056727#post3056727) to a post by Boo where he answered questions I had of his view. Hope this helps. Boo, trying to help you from having to repeat yourself.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 07:38 PM
??? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I don't know of any places in the Law which has a "suggestion" such as the ones in 1 Corinthians 7:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord) (v10)
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) (v12)

This is because the Law was written verbatim from God. Paul's letters were not, else half of 1 Corinthians would not exist. The epistles may have God's Word in them, but the epistles themselves are not God's Word. Paul specifically says so in verse 12.

TrustGzus
Oct 9th 2013, 07:47 PM
I don't know of any places in the Law which has a "suggestion" such as the ones in 1 Corinthians 7:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord) (v10)
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) (v12)

This is because the Law was written verbatim from God. Paul's letters were not, else half of 1 Corinthians would not exist. The epistles may have God's Word in them, but the epistles themselves are not God's Word. Paul specifically says so in verse 12.

Hey Aviyah, I can ask you the same thing I asked Boo. Here's what I said to Boo. Curious what you'd think.


Would you see it as possible, as many interpreters do take it, that what Paul is saying when he says, "I say, not I, but the LORD," that he means this is something Jesus addressed in his earthly ministry and when Paul says, "I say, not the LORD," that he is now addressing something that Jesus did not address in his earthly ministry? It seems to me that is a legitimate option also. This would line up with other strong statements Paul makes about his own writing in this same epistle. See 1 Corinthians 7:40 and 14:37 as examples of that.

Obviously, Jesus didn't address every circumstance possible in his earthly ministry on a variety of subjects.

Also, what do you think of Peter's comment where he calls Paul's writings Scripture?


2 Peter 3:14–16 (ESV)

14*Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15*And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16*as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.


Some people will claim Peter didn't call Paul's writing Scripture. I don't know how else to interpret that in light of the phrase "other Scirptures." Seems he thinks Paul's writings were Scripture.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 08:09 PM
The NT contains the express words of Jesus. It also contains the better covenant. I'm not sure how anyone could feel that the NT was inferior to the OT.

"The epistles are not God's Word." This statement leaves me speechless.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 08:22 PM
Hey Aviyah, I can ask you the same thing I asked Boo. Here's what I said to Boo. Curious what you'd think.

It's a valid opinion, but I disagree for the simple reason that he says "I give this command" prior to specifying who the origin of the command is. This means what he is about to say will be relayed from him personally, or God through him, to the recipient. Whether or not he based the command on Jesus's actual words doesn't actually matter because he later says "I, not the Lord" which means he is giving a command which did not originate from God but him personally. Either way, there shouldn't need to be a distinction if both commands were from God directly. Part one comes from God, part two comes from Paul as an experienced Christian.


Also, what do you think of Peter's comment where he calls Paul's writings Scripture?

I don't have a problem with it, I still consider the epistles inspired. But I have not seen evidence that they are to be taken in the same critical scrutiny as Law and prophecy - mainly due to the several verses of his "recommendations."

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 08:35 PM
There are no contradictions in the Word of God, or non truths. Every single word was God breathed, no exceptions! If you can not understand something in the Bible it's not the Words fault. You are the problem.
Anyone who thinks part of Holy scriptures is from man is listening to a deceiving spirit. That is a very bad road to be on, and it will only get worse. With out believing the entire Bible as being God's Word you can not even begin to gain Wisdom. Light always exposes darkness and it's ugly ways. Basic Christianity 101, the Bible in it's entirety is the Word of God. If someone does not believe this than there is nothing to talk about. It will be just an endless circle with no ending.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 08:42 PM
There are no contradictions in the Word of God, or non truths.

I never said there are contradictions or non truths.


Anyone who thinks part of Holy scriptures is from man is listening to a deceiving spirit.

The Bible was written and compiled by man. This does not make them inherently wrong. Many entires were excluded - the RCC still has a few of them, but there are several others. How do you know these weren't also inspired if it was man that excluded them?

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 08:54 PM
I never said there are contradictions or non truths.



The Bible was written and compiled by man. This does not make them inherently wrong. Many entires were excluded - the RCC still has a few of them, but there are several others. How do you know these weren't also inspired if it was man that excluded them?

This is where the error is. Man did not write the Bible. It was the Holy Spirit. Man was only a tool in God's hands. If God sets up one Kingdom and takes another down is he not able to get His truth into our hands? He puts no confidence in the flesh of man. The only sure foundation we have for discussing truth is the complete Bible with all verses spoken by the Spirit of God. With out that belief there is no purpose to discussing truth. It leads no where.

Boo
Oct 10th 2013, 07:05 AM
This is where the error is. Man did not write the Bible. It was the Holy Spirit. Man was only a tool in God's hands. If God sets up one Kingdom and takes another down is he not able to get His truth into our hands? He puts no confidence in the flesh of man. The only sure foundation we have for discussing truth is the complete Bible with all verses spoken by the Spirit of God. With out that belief there is no purpose to discussing truth. It leads no where.

Issuing platitudes and thumping a pulpit does not make you correct. You cannot say that it is true because you say it is true.

There is too much history of how man decided what is scripture and then decided it was not after all. The Apocrypha was God-breathed (and still is for some folks) and it was not God-breathed for others. Just who is watching God's breath here?

Believing in the contents of the bible is not an established fact based on physical evidence. It is a fact based on God revealing things to us.

You cannot seriously accuse anyone of error unless you are first considering yourself without error. Since you consider your position error free, the fact that I don't hold your position makes me wrong? Is that what you are doing?

As you implied earlier, my faith is faulty because it in not just like yours?

Boo
Oct 10th 2013, 07:07 AM
The NT contains the express words of Jesus. It also contains the better covenant. I'm not sure how anyone could feel that the NT was inferior to the OT.

"The epistles are not God's Word." This statement leaves me speechless.

And that is because of what? Because you know the truth and others do not?

The Epistles contain God's word. They also contain the words of the men who wrote them. God-breathed does not mean that every word came from God. Believe what you choose, as you will, but your beliefs do not make anyone else wrong.

Boo
Oct 10th 2013, 07:20 AM
In the first case, Jesus is speaking of the one doing the divorcing. In the second case, Paul is speaking of the innocent party. There's a big difference.

I do not see any difference at all. God made them one flesh. The one who did not commit the sexual immorality is free to divorce according to Jesus and can then remarry. If the case was not one of sexual immorality, then any remarriage is a case of adultery.

According to Paul, if someone just wants to leave, it is OK, and the subsequent marriage is not adultery.

No difference. Same situation. Are we free to remarry without committing adultery if someone just gets tired of us? According to Jesus, no. According to Paul, yes.



The believers at Pergamos were holding to the doctrine of balaam as part of their eating of meat offered to idols. It clearly is not the same case as the believers at Corinth, who were not under such idolatry. At Pergamos, idolatry is the issue not the meat.

This issue is that Jesus stated that "to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality." So, your understanding is that Jesus indicated here that there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols? So, then, Paul teaching that there was nothing wrong with it either is not a problem?

I fail to see that this sentence can be taken that way. Let's take the extra modifiers out of the basic sentence.

'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

Or this way: 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam. Balaam kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. That is that they taught the sons of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

It seems Jesus is against the practice as He listed the eating of that meat in the same category as acts of immorality.


These are simple answers. Probably way too simple to satisfy your questions. But that's how I see everything - simple.

God bless.

Simple, yes. Accurately, I don't think so. Thank you for addressing my issues.

Boo
Oct 10th 2013, 07:53 AM
Hey Boo, thanks. I'm sorry for having you repeat what you've already posted. You have a lot of posts, Brother! I haven't read all of them and it's easier to have you restate than for me to track down what you've said somewhere else amongst thousands of posts.

In regard to what Paul said in Corinthians, Paul was personally trained by Jesus. Jesus apparently had post-resurrection appearances in which he spent time with Paul and trained him. I've never gotten that. I am sure Paul would not want to teach contrary to Jesus.

Having said that, let's say that when Paul says, "I say, not the LORD," that he could be claiming that what he is about to say isn't theopneustos or God-breathed.

Perhaps you can help me with this. Your view that Paul was personally trained by Jesus comes from where?

I see it is exactly the case that when Paul made claims that his words were his own, he meant that those words were his own. I believe him.


Would you see it as possible, as many interpreters do take it, that what Paul is saying when he says, "I say, not I, but the LORD," that he means this is something Jesus addressed in his earthly ministry and when Paul says, "I say, not the LORD," that he is now addressing something that Jesus did not address in his earthly ministry? It seems to me that is a legitimate option also. This would line up with other strong statements Paul makes about his own writing in this same epistle. See 1 Corinthians 7:40 and 14:37 as examples of that.

I am sure, as the bible says, that Jesus did many things that are not in the letters that were written by the people who made that claim. However, since we know that Jesus is God, and that God knows all things for all time, should we also not believe that God gave us all the instructions we require? The Epistles are not written to give new commandments from God.


Obviously, Jesus didn't address every circumstance possible in his earthly ministry on a variety of subjects.

Yes, actually He did. We are to search the scriptures and apply what God has given us.. Everything that we cannot find a detailed set of instructions for, we apply the teachings of Jesus when He gave us the two greatest commandments. We may find that it requires that we accept answers that we don't like or answers that require great effort from us, but we were told by God and Jesus everything that we need to know.
Neither Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, or anyone else was put into position to lay out new laws for God. Their letters were to explain the background behind what God has already given us. However, in the case of Paul, he went beyond what Jesus had given.


The gospels also tell us that Jesus said it's not what goes in the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out of it, thus he declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14*And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15*There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17*And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18*And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19*since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20*And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21*For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22*coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23*All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

If we take Revelation 2:14 the way you take, then Jesus not only contradicts Paul, Jesus contradicts Jesus.

It seems to me that the point of Revelation 2:14 is that in eating the meat sacrificed to idols, the Jews swallowed up whole the entire religion that Balaam had introduced them to. Go back to the OT and look at the eating of meat in that context . .


This reference was speaking of an accusation about worrying about dirt going into the mouth and defiling a man. Jesus said that dirt going into the mouth does not affect the soul. It is what comes out of the man. This did not even address what goes into a man through the eyes - which can lead to sin.

Next is the issue of why is Jesus concerned about the children of Israel eating meat sacrificed to idols? Clearly - to me - He equates it on the same level of other immorality. Perhaps He considers it to be "unclean" after being used with that intent. Perhaps even spiritually unclean - not as if it were dirt.

Since one case refers to the effect of dirty hands, I don't think it refers to the idea of a dirty spirit..


I might be misunderstanding you here, but just as I think people must be careful not to straw man your case and fight against something you are not saying, you might be doing the same with them.

My point is that Paul was capable of error - even in his writing. Those who believe that he was some kind of god-second-class will not be allowing themselves to see anything that he wrote being not applicable to us today. They will not given due consideration to his words as from a man and not from God.
I was not attempting to beat up any straw man. I am attempting to remove some of the reverence displayed to the words of Paul. He was just a man.


I don't know of anyone that teaches Paul was inerrant in everything in his life. The common view for an orthodox Evangelical is that Paul's 13 epistles (14 for those who think he wrote Hebrews) in the NT are inerrant, but not that everything Paul ever said or did was inerrant.
What do you think? Ball's back in your court.

People do think that everything Paul wrote came from God. How many arguments take place here purely over things that Paul said.

I do believe that God has given me a method to understand what the bible has to tell me. I have also posted that in other posts and received no responses, so I figure that nobody read it.

All throughout the Old Testament and again in the New, the children of Israel were told to take no permanent action on any statements that came from only one witness. Permanent actions and decisions come from two or more witnesses.

That is how I accept the Epistles as well. Nothing that comes from only one Apostle is worthy of being doctrine until it has a second witness. That was the way God told His people to deal with the words that came from man. That is how I do it as well.

I hold onto no doctrines that come from only one Apostle - because that instruction comes from God.

I know that it will not be acceptable to anyone who believes that "every word in the bible" came from God. The problem is that this instruction DID come from God - with several witnesses.

Paul was solving problems. Paul is a man. Paul was obedient to God. Perhaps we can accept that the things Paul wrote to Corinth and Ephesus were things that came from God - for those at Corinth and Ephesus. I don't know. In any case, those things Paul told the people at Corinth and Ephesus that are in question have no second witness.

Because of the method that I have been given to understand the bible, I do indeed have the ability to read and understand God's instructions for my life. I lack nothing in my faith or understanding.

Thank you so much for your time, brother.

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 11:25 AM
I see it is exactly the case that when Paul made claims that his words were his own, he meant that those words were his own. I believe him.



When Paul gives his advice he's not getting it from the readers digest.

But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God. (I Corinthians 7:40 NKJV)

Scooby_Snacks
Oct 10th 2013, 01:51 PM
I wonder, if these issues could be related to the Body of Christ that each part of the Body carries the Spirit of God within them in some way-- maybe to help with sorting out the particulars.

In other words, I have been corrected, encouraged, brought to insight, blessed, and loved by others in the Body of Christ through The Spirit of God.

Paul has the Spirit of God-- I have the Spirit of God, my dear brothers and sisters have the Spirit of God.
Some might say they are always walking in the Spirit of God, I for One have yet to meet another person of this nature, but getting back--

Wisdom is what it is and is given by God. I can accept what others in the Body have to offer through Him, or I can reject it.
I can discern whether it is from themselves or from Him or I can get mislead when they are actually being self willed rather than God willed.
I can believe God loves me enough to help me know the difference between His Wisdom and Spirit speaking through others, or their own wisdom or flesh.

Does that make anything different or is it still the same?

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 01:58 PM
I can see having faith in Jesus. I can see having faith in God. I can have faith in the truth being revealed in the bible. Those are all spiritual faith. However, your faith that every last word was given by God rather than believing that the message was given by God is only your version. I have faith as well, and I know the bible contains God's truth via His message to us.

I don't think your faith merits a higher rating than mine - nor mine over yours. We both still believe in the same Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I certainly am not in a position to make any rules about what kind of faith I must have in the bible in order to be saved. Faith in the every-word-came-from-God bible is not listed by God as a prerequisite.

The question is not whether or not the bible is true. The question is whether or not we believe it. If I see a verse that tells me something, using sound exegesis, I will believe it. No question to that. However, theories created by man don't merit belief that way.

Just this morning, I listened to a Pastor tell me that a "real bible scholar" knows that Luke said (Luke 23:46) that Jesus sent His spirit to God and his Ghost to Hell when he died. Because of the way churches are (the bully pulpit thing), I was not free to correct him. He was taught by man that the words of the KJV are correct and no other bible is true. If I told him what the original manuscript says, I would be called a heretic.

Sound familiar?

Hi Boo,

I think we tread on dangerous ground when we start believing that man used their own words in the bible. I believe that the Holy Spirit directed the words, and I have faith that He did. If I started to believe that men picked out the wording, I start losing faith that it is indeed God's Word. Plus the fact that it opens the door for anyone, to write anything they want, and claim it is from God as well. Now that may not make logical sense to man/woman. Like, how can that be? I believe that God is big enough that yes, He can guide every, single letter, every comma, every period, and cross every t. I hope you understand what I am fumbling along trying to say:) I am fairly new at reading the bible, word for word, for myself, but I have believed in God, and ALL He has written for us, for a much longer time. By faith, yes, blind faith. Some think that foolish, but I don't care, because not another thing comes close to giving me any hope.

God bless, denise, a sister in Christ

Curtis
Oct 10th 2013, 02:05 PM
Boo, some of your understanding about Jesus's teaching will be skewed, because even though the life and teaching of Jesus are in the New Testament, he lived under the Old Covenant. If it was not for all the Epistles of Paul and others we would not have a clue about the New Covenant, and what it gives us. If we the Church are going to judge this world, and angels we had better be able to make sound judgement about any type of situations in this life. The ability to do just that comes from the precepts that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church. Once these are learned our judgement calls, and advice would be the same as what God would have said.

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 02:49 PM
I love this verse,
King James Bible1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.


funny how me being of limited education by the the world's standards can understand and except that I am to become a fool for Christ. Some bristle at that, like, what about my big, ole ego that's so impressive, and I've worked so hard to maintain? What about all the respect I get from folks that "admire" and flatter me for such intelligence, what about the 1000's of times I've got to have the last word, how great I am, don't they know how much I know, look what I have proven before men:pp

If I am to be honest with myself, other's, I have to say I have been the person in the previous paragraph. I want to learn God's Word, but I do choose to believe it "is" His Word for us, I will not consider, worry, or think that even Paul by his own admission entered some words of his own, I believe they were still "from" God, period. I pray I never feel the need to dissect God's Word because once I start on that path, comes nothing but confusion or strife with my brother's and sister's that believe by faith that the Word is God's Word. His instructions to us on how to live in a fallen world. His instruction on how He will guide our steps, His encouragement to trust Him, let Him show His miighty strenghth, His encouragement to give Him a chance to catch us in His arms when we finally let go of all the "world's" big ideas, and so-called smarts.

denise, a sister in Christ

Mark 10:15
15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

CaptKirk1
Oct 10th 2013, 04:23 PM
No one here is saying the Bible is not inspired (I don't think). We simply disagree on what "inspired" means. I do not believe "inspired" means every single word is intentional and perfect - a copy error is STILL an error in the original text. Instead, inspired means that the message intended to be conveyed remains intact. A numerical error doesn't change the message. The Bible can still be inspired when written by flawed men. God Himself did not write Scripture other than the 10 Commandments and the law (?). Other than direct quotations and dreams/prophecy, I find no reason to believe a manmade collection of manuscripts are free of any error whatsoever.

two doctrines in play here!

One is inerrancy/inspiration
did God inspire thru Apsotles and prophets and others to have a perfect revelation from himself to us in written form?


YES! In the original documents there were NO errors/mistakes, were Inerrant

second doctrine is that of preservation, did God preseve for us the word of god?

Yes! For he made sure that we had enough manuscripts/documents available for us in order to reconstruct what is essentially the original manuscripts/books, so the original language texts in use today are infallible copies of those original, so englsish versions made off them still have authority and are infallible to us for doctrines and practices!

Copiest mistakes and all, still God word to us for doctrimes/practices, infallible word,

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 05:40 PM
Copiest mistakes and all, still God word to us for doctrimes/practices, infallible word,

I suppose still I consider copyist errors to be errors. The tangible books of the Bible are not inerrant - but the Spirit behind them is. This is why we cannot trust only one translation. If the physical Bible was inerrant, we would not need multiple translations nor would there be copyist errors.

The Word of God - to me - is not a book, it just happens to be reflected most often in book form.

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 05:57 PM
I suppose still I consider copyist errors to be errors. The tangible books of the Bible are not inerrant - but the Spirit behind them is. This is why we cannot trust only one translation. If the physical Bible was inerrant, we would not need multiple translations nor would there be copyist errors.

The Word of God - to me - is not a book, it just happens to be reflected most often in book form.

If translations are a problem, just learn to read the original languages. :)

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 06:06 PM
If translations are a problem, just learn to read the original languages. :)

I can only understand the romantics :no:

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 06:14 PM
I can only understand the romantics :no:

Oh Lord, did the word Romantic come from the Romans? How weird if it did, I never knew that, learned something new again, maybe?? denise, ysic

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 06:39 PM
Oh Lord, did the word Romantic come from the Romans? How weird if it did, I never knew that, learned something new again, maybe?? denise, ysic

Yep! The Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian languages are the romances (they originated from Roman Latin). English actually has a lot of these in it - especially French because of England's crazy relationships with France over the middle ages! During that era, French was basically the language of the aristocrats and English was the language of the peasantry. This is why a lot of our big fancy words sound french.

You could probably understand many french nouns without taking a single class :D. I think it's somewhere around 30% of English words came directly from France!

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 06:42 PM
Yep! The Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian languages are the romances (they originated from Roman Latin). English actually has a lot of these in it - especially French because of England's crazy relationships with France over the middle ages!

You could probably understand many french nouns without taking a single class :D. I think it's somewhere around 30% of English words came directly from France!

Interesting for sure, also I am French on my mom's side, and Welsh on my dad's, geesh no wonder I am such a mess:lol:

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 06:46 PM
Interesting for sure, also I am French on my mom's side, and Welsh on my dad's, geesh no wonder I am such a mess:lol:

I'm half French half German... if you want to imagine our family reunions, just think about WWII. :crazy:

Banislam
Oct 11th 2013, 12:51 AM
In Paul's teachings, an undamnable heretic gets a second chance. In Philippians Paul is joyful that Christ is being preached even though He is preached in contention, in error, or with wrong motives. People who deny Christ are anti-Christ but people who don't deny Christ but teach undamnable heresies are given a second chance.
False teachers and false prophets that crept into the church who denied Christ were easily identified and excommunicated. For one to be 'anti-christ' they would have to deny the father and the Son and deny that Jesus is the Christ. They come either against Christ or instead of Christ. In 1 John 2:19 the people that left the church were in denial that Jesus was the Christ. Their falseness was easily exposed because John said,

1 John 2:22  Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23  Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

At the time there were several false prophets and teachers outside of the church who had a following of their own and some even claimed that they were the Messiah. I think they were called druids. There were also some teachers with non damnable heresies that got in the church. In one passage they are given a second chance. In another they are not excommunicated but people were told to avoid them. These are examples of non damnable heresy.

2 Peter 2:1  ¶But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

There are damnable heresies and un-damnable heresies. An undamnable heretic is someone within the church that doesn't deny Christ. A damnable heretic is one who chooses to deny Jesus is the Christ.

They are a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets (a sect or party) (Thayer's) http://www.bluelette...ongs=G139&t=KJV (http://www.bluelette...ongs%3Dg139%26t%3Dkjv/)

In other words. False teachers and prophets who teach 'damnable heresies' are typically separated from the church and have their own sects and cults. They were more interested in gaining popularity and making money than teaching the truth. They told people what they wanted to hear. People with damnable heresies didn't remain in the church.

1 John 2:19  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

By their fruits we would know them. The heretics in 2 Peter denied Christ had bought them. That denial was the fruit that exposes them as a false prophet. We have to keep all of this in the context of Titus 3:10 and Philippians 1. The cause of these false teachings was evil ambition. (2 Peter 2:2-3). The word ambition means to 'have more'. It's ok to have more of some things, but the word ambition implies covetousness i.e. the desire to posses something which a person has no right to desire or take. So it can mean to put money or goods ahead of Christ. It only brought upon them immorality and destruction.(damnable heresy)

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 10:06 AM
Hi Boo,

I think we tread on dangerous ground when we start believing that man used their own words in the bible. I believe that the Holy Spirit directed the words, and I have faith that He did. If I started to believe that men picked out the wording, I start losing faith that it is indeed God's Word. Plus the fact that it opens the door for anyone, to write anything they want, and claim it is from God as well. Now that may not make logical sense to man/woman. Like, how can that be? I believe that God is big enough that yes, He can guide every, single letter, every comma, every period, and cross every t. I hope you understand what I am fumbling along trying to say:) I am fairly new at reading the bible, word for word, for myself, but I have believed in God, and ALL He has written for us, for a much longer time. By faith, yes, blind faith. Some think that foolish, but I don't care, because not another thing comes close to giving me any hope.

God bless, denise, a sister in Christ

There probably are many people who find themselves incapable of reading and understanding what God wants us to know about Him without creating a rule about bible interpretation that causes us to deny what the writers said. The strange thing is that, when I believe what the writers said, those who don't believe it then accuse me of not believing it. How weird is that?

Especially for those who are new to bible reading and interpretation, allowing themselves to think that it is not as simple as "God said, I believe it, and that settles it" is scary. God did not tell us to browse the scriptures. He told us to study them. It would have been easier if translators would have been true to God in the past when translating manuscripts, but they were not.

God is not the one translating the bible into English for us. Man is. There were no commas in the original text, and man had to decide where to place them. There were no capital letters, either, and sometimes those are used to reflect the translator's view of the verse. Those placements actually change the meanings of some sentences, and man chose where he wanted them.

In the King James version of the bible, the translators actually chose to use words that were not in the original manuscripts. When Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be registered, the KJV says they went to be taxed. They didn't and the word for tax was not even in the source document. Taxes came later. When the verse that Jesus said that there were many rooms in His fathers house, the King James said there are many mansions. Now people expect to have 10,000 square foot houses to live in. The source document word is not "mansions." It actually meant "abode."

In the story of the Magi going to see the baby Jesus, they came from the East (according to historians). They followed a star situated over Bethlehem which was west of them. However, the bibles say that they saw the star in the east. It is impossible to follow a star in the east while heading west. The word that is translated "east" actually means "rising." It would make sense for the translators to say they saw a star rising rather than to say they saw a star in the east. When the Magi were in Jerusalem which is north of Bethlehem, they again told Herod they were following a star they saw rising, but the bibles say that it is again in the east.

I've heard preachers imply that, because of the KJV translators, God's trinity must be God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Holy Ghost. Of course, they won't come right out and say that directly, (that would be heresy, right?) but they preach that from the pulpit.

And all of this has yet to mention the use of the words like Cockatrice to replace the actual manuscript phrase of "flying serpent" and others. It goes on and on.

To deny man's influence on the bible is to allow ourselves to be led into deception, misunderstanding, and arguments. Can you imagine people going to war over a translation choice by man? Happens all the time. People have been executed for their understanding of scripture.

In order to avoid that, we should do what God told man to do for thousands of years:

To deny that God told us to never rely on only one man's testimony but rely on that of at least two people, I believe he was serious. That instruction is all throughout the bible, and I believe the bible. But I do not believe any one translation by itself. Too many man-made errors.

Unless the words come from God himself, I look for a second witness. Everything that is for us today - applicable to all of us and for all of time - was told by at least two witnesses in the bible. That means that I look for a second letter (book) where another writer claims the same thing to be true. No second witness, no doctrine. At that point, the thing said is merely history and not a prescription for us today.

I have found that this method of understanding scripture settles many issues in my mind. However, there are denominations that hold as the major portion of their creed the teachings that come from only one man. They can never agree to this belief that I hold.

So, sometimes, I get called a heretic.

My God is real, loving, and He wants worship and obedience. I can do all of that AND understand what the bible says. I don't think I am on dangerous ground at all.

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 10:16 AM
Boo, some of your understanding about Jesus's teaching will be skewed, because even though the life and teaching of Jesus are in the New Testament, he lived under the Old Covenant. If it was not for all the Epistles of Paul and others we would not have a clue about the New Covenant, and what it gives us. If we the Church are going to judge this world, and angels we had better be able to make sound judgement about any type of situations in this life. The ability to do just that comes from the precepts that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church. Once these are learned our judgement calls, and advice would be the same as what God would have said.
I see. My understanding is skewed and your understanding is not.

I have zero problem with my judgment, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. I don't know everything about what God has given us to know, but I am learning. One things I do not do is assign deity to any man other than Jesus. His word is the bottom line.

How many do you think really come too this forum with understanding that came from the study of scripture and how many actually come with the understanding that came from a denominational text book and their favorite preacher? I think it is safe to say that most people do.

Keep in mind, my brother, that the beliefs held by mainstream protestants today were not the same beliefs held by their forefathers a few hundred years ago. To think that everyone up until a few hundred years ago did not understand the bible, but now we do, is a flaw in our thinking. If we want to know the truth, dump your commentaries and actually study scripture with all the resources available.

If you can honestly do that and still hold to your views, then at least you properly own your beliefs.

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 10:19 AM
When Paul gives his advice he's not getting it from the readers digest.

But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God. (I Corinthians 7:40 NKJV)

Do you have the Spirit of God? If so, is your Spirit of God weaker than Paul's? Can you make errors in judgment even though you have the Spirit of God?


When Paul gives his advice he's not getting it from the readers digest.

But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God. (I Corinthians 7:40 NKJV)

Do you have the Spirit of God? If so, is your Spirit of God weaker than Paul's? Can you make errors in judgment even though you have the Spirit of God?

ChangedByHim
Oct 11th 2013, 11:31 AM
Do you have the Spirit of God? If so, is your Spirit of God weaker than Paul's? Can you make errors in judgment even though you have the Spirit of God?



Do you have the Spirit of God? If so, is your Spirit of God weaker than Paul's? Can you make errors in judgment even though you have the Spirit of God?

It's a matter of purpose and function. Every believer has the same Holy Spirit, but we each have different functions. God chose certain men to bring His holy Scriptures through. But you have rejected this. You reduce everything down to the level of your finite mind. Through your reasonings you strip God's Word down to that of mere men. Or it seems that Paul is the only one you have a problem with.

ChangedByHim
Oct 11th 2013, 11:36 AM
I've heard preachers imply that, because of the KJV translators, God's trinity must be God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Holy Ghost. Of course, they won't come right out and say that directly, (that would be heresy, right?) but they preach that from the pulpit.



You seriously need to quit making up these ridiculous stories about you heard a preacher say. They don't aid your position at all and it just looks foolish. This time you didn't even hear them, but they were implied.

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 02:09 PM
You seriously need to quit making up these ridiculous stories about you heard a preacher say. They don't aid your position at all and it just looks foolish. This time you didn't even hear them, but they were implied.

Ridiculous stories? As in "not true?" Is that what you are saying?

Giving examples of the error that men who are given to be Pastors make is not acceptable to you?

There are many errors committed by men who claim to know the truth. Sometimes, we really need to be aware that the man making the error can be one of us. Sometimes, your dogma sticks out and we refuse to see it. I guess it might depend on how it is presented.

Your view of the bible definitely puts the Apostles on the same level as Jesus. Mine doesn't.

ChangedByHim
Oct 11th 2013, 03:11 PM
Ridiculous stories? As in "not true?" Is that what you are saying?

Giving examples of the error that men who are given to be Pastors make is not acceptable to you?

There are many errors committed by men who claim to know the truth. Sometimes, we really need to be aware that the man making the error can be one of us. Sometimes, your dogma sticks out and we refuse to see it. I guess it might depend on how it is presented.

Your view of the bible definitely puts the Apostles on the same level as Jesus. Mine doesn't.

You repeat "my view" and by doing so demonstrate that you know nothing of it. Your version of God's Word are the words in red. Mine is from cover to cover - every word. Peter was a man who cursed and denied that he knew Jesus, but God later used him under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to pen Holy Scripture. That doesn't put the man on equal level with Jesus. In fact, you know that no one here is saying that, but you keep throwing out that straw man argument to defend your erroneous position.

And yeah, claiming that you've heard preachers imply that there are four members in the trinity is a complete untruth... a fabrication.

Curtis
Oct 11th 2013, 04:26 PM
I see. My understanding is skewed and your understanding is not.

I have zero problem with my judgment, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. I don't know everything about what God has given us to know, but I am learning. One things I do not do is assign deity to any man other than Jesus. His word is the bottom line.

How many do you think really come too this forum with understanding that came from the study of scripture and how many actually come with the understanding that came from a denominational text book and their favorite preacher? I think it is safe to say that most people do.

Keep in mind, my brother, that the beliefs held by mainstream protestants today were not the same beliefs held by their forefathers a few hundred years ago. To think that everyone up until a few hundred years ago did not understand the bible, but now we do, is a flaw in our thinking. If we want to know the truth, dump your commentaries and actually study scripture with all the resources available.

If you can honestly do that and still hold to your views, then at least you properly own your beliefs.

Boo, I am not protestant, nor am I Catholic. I do not belong to any man made Church. I do not read or study any made doctrines or Christian novels. I am totally at the mercy of God for what I know, and understand given by the Holy Spirit. There is no such a thing as understanding God's Word apart from what the Holy Spirit as spoken through his Apostles. Anyone who thinks these scriptures can not be trusted is only fooling him self and missing the truth completely. No man can find faith apart from God's Word. You can not have faith and belief first and than come to Holy scripture, and try and make it fit your thinking processes. Jesus spoke well of people like that.....

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Mat 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 05:29 PM
You repeat "my view" and by doing so demonstrate that you know nothing of it. Your version of God's Word are the words in red. Mine is from cover to cover - every word. Peter was a man who cursed and denied that he knew Jesus, but God later used him under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to pen Holy Scripture. That doesn't put the man on equal level with Jesus. In fact, you know that no one here is saying that, but you keep throwing out that straw man argument to defend your erroneous position.

And yeah, claiming that you've heard preachers imply that there are four members in the trinity is a complete untruth... a fabrication.

So, you are calling me a liar. In this thread, you accuse me of lying to you?

Is there a reason you think I am not being honest, or are you just letting your pride and anger overshadow your spirit?

I believe it is time for you to take a breath and think about what you are doing.

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 05:31 PM
Boo, I am not protestant, nor am I Catholic. I do not belong to any man made Church. I do not read or study any made doctrines or Christian novels. I am totally at the mercy of God for what I know, and understand given by the Holy Spirit. There is no such a thing as understanding God's Word apart from what the Holy Spirit as spoken through his Apostles. Anyone who thinks these scriptures can not be trusted is only fooling him self and missing the truth completely. No man can find faith apart from God's Word. You can not have faith and belief first and than come to Holy scripture, and try and make it fit your thinking processes. Jesus spoke well of people like that.....

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Mat 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

So, now you claim to know my heart and my mind. You can evaluate the depth of my faith from my methods of understanding scripture?

Someone told you that I cannot know and trust my God unless I read the bible the same way that you do? Really?

ChangedByHim
Oct 11th 2013, 05:35 PM
So, you are calling me a liar. In this thread, you accuse me of lying to you?

Is there a reason you think I am not being honest, or are you just letting your pride and anger overshadow your spirit?

I believe it is time for you to take a breath and think about what you are doing.

I have taken a breath. I do not believe that you listen to preachers who say that there are 4 members of the trinity. I think you hear what you want to hear, which I don't consider lying. Because one interchanges Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost does not mean that they think they are two separate entities. I would challenge you to find a sermon or article online that claims this.

Curtis
Oct 11th 2013, 05:50 PM
So, now you claim to know my heart and my mind. You can evaluate the depth of my faith from my methods of understanding scripture?

Someone told you that I cannot know and trust my God unless I read the bible the same way that you do? Really?

You can evaluate the depth of my faith from my methods of understanding scripture?

Absolutely right! It is your method that is causing you to error. You can not build a belief system based only on the Words of Jesus. He works through his Church, he is the head, and we are his body.
There are lots of non Christian beliefs that use most of the Bible as their source, but do not believe all the Bible. This is were error comes from. All Christians believe that All scripture is God breathed, not just some of them.

Boo
Oct 11th 2013, 07:34 PM
I have taken a breath. I do not believe that you listen to preachers who say that there are 4 members of the trinity. I think you hear what you want to hear, which I don't consider lying. Because one interchanges Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost does not mean that they think they are two separate entities. I would challenge you to find a sermon or article online that claims this.

It is amazing that you have the power to know what was said by this individual when you were not there. I went up to his head Deacon after the service and asked him to explain it to me. As I put in another post, this person said that Jesus sent His spirit to God and His ghost went to hell. None of this had to do with the Holy Spirit. He specifically told me that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two separate entities.

I am not here to aggravate you or to lie to you. I am here to share ideas, beliefs, and methods. I have no need to lie, nor do I win money or fame for convincing anyone of my correctness.

You said I told a ridiculous story, my brother, and told me that I fabricated it. I would not do that, nor do I make up stories to prove any points. If you really don't trust me too tell you the truth, perhaps you should not waste your time communicating with me.

Obviously I can say nothing right from your point of view.

ChangedByHim
Oct 11th 2013, 08:39 PM
It is amazing that you have the power to know what was said by this individual when you were not there. I went up to his head Deacon after the service and asked him to explain it to me. As I put in another post, this person said that Jesus sent His spirit to God and His ghost went to hell. None of this had to do with the Holy Spirit. He specifically told me that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two separate entities.

I am not here to aggravate you or to lie to you. I am here to share ideas, beliefs, and methods. I have no need to lie, nor do I win money or fame for convincing anyone of my correctness.

You said I told a ridiculous story, my brother, and told me that I fabricated it. I would not do that, nor do I make up stories to prove any points. If you really don't trust me too tell you the truth, perhaps you should not waste your time communicating with me.

Obviously I can say nothing right from your point of view.

In your previous post you only said that it was implied not said. You also said that it was preachers, plural. If one man explicitly told you, fine, but that wasn't your claim. I still think you misunderstood as there are some who believe that the spirit of Jesus went to God and the soul to hades.

Either way, I apologize for offending you.

Boo
Oct 12th 2013, 12:58 PM
In your previous post you only said that it was implied not said. You also said that it was preachers, plural. If one man explicitly told you, fine, but that wasn't your claim. I still think you misunderstood as there are some who believe that the spirit of Jesus went to God and the soul to hades.

Either way, I apologize for offending you.

I don't wish to go naming names, as it is not acceptable here, but some of these events that you find so unbelievable have been done by preachers (plural). If you have never run across them, then perhaps you don't live in the same area that I do. Some of them are very controversial and one of them has a show on TV.

The preacher in the pulpit made the statement, but the alteration of the Trinity was implied by the statement. Perhaps the problem is in my wording and let you to understand something that was not meant.

I was not concerned by the offense. I was concerned by my causing you to feel that I was lying. I was not; I am not.

Thank you for the apology, brother. I hope my future posts are more clear for you.

Boo
Oct 12th 2013, 01:02 PM
The long post I did covered quite a bit of ground, but the responses to it deal with only a small portion. Shall I accept that the rest of my post is either too trivial or too difficult to discuss?

I find this happens a lot in threads. Quite often ideas and methods are given, yet the responses address only one phrase out of the entire content. All other ideas and verses are blown off. That sure creates a waste of time for those who wish to present a big picture when the readers want to see only one corner of it.

Banislam
Oct 12th 2013, 01:14 PM
two doctrines in play here!
One is inerrancy/inspiration
did God inspire thru Apostles and prophets and others to have a perfect revelation from himself to us in written form
YES! In the original documents there were NO errors/mistakes, were Inerrant

I've read many of the replies from the last 3 pages.

Studying the Word of God in the English translation is OK most of the time. But to get the true intended meaning of any passage we must look at it in the language they spoke and wrote it in.

The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants and prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So the most important part of anyone's hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...and accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what we already believe.

Most people who study God's Word do so in the light of what they already believe. Mainstream Christianity often has the incorrect interpretation of God's Word because they approach the scriptures with their already pre-conceived ideas and are often unwilling to reconsider their beliefs because too often they think they already have the truth.
______________

second doctrine is that of preservation, did God preserve for us the Word of God?
Yes! For he made sure that we had enough manuscripts/documents available for us in order to reconstruct what is essentially the original manuscripts/books, so the original language texts in use today are infallible copies of those original, so Englsish versions made off them still have authority and are infallible to us for doctrines and practices!
Copiest mistakes and all, still God word to us for doctrines/practices, infallible word,

There are several mistakes in the English translation of the KJV (over 100) because it was translated by fallable men. What I too often see is even when Christians try to obtain "truth," they continue to hold onto their preconceived ideas. They often approach the scriptures believing they already have the truth and hold onto that bias throughout their studies. Too often they refuse to change their mind and disregard the scriptural and historical evidence.

The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining truth is when they believe they already have it.

Boo
Oct 12th 2013, 03:14 PM
I've read many of the replies from the last 3 pages.

Studying the Word of God in the English translation is OK most of the time. But to get the true intended meaning of any passage we must look at it in the language they spoke and wrote it in.

The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants and prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So the most important part of anyone's hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...and accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what we already believe.

Most people who study God's Word do so in the light of what they already believe. Mainstream Christianity often has the incorrect interpretation of God's Word because they approach the scriptures with their already pre-conceived ideas and are often unwilling to reconsider their beliefs because too often they think they already have the truth.
______________


There are several mistakes in the English translation of the KJV (over 100) because it was translated by fallable men. What I too often see is even when Christians try to obtain "truth," they continue to hold onto their preconceived ideas. They often approach the scriptures believing they already have the truth and hold onto that bias throughout their studies. Too often they refuse to change their mind and disregard the scriptural and historical evidence.

The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining truth is when they believe they already have it.

Bingo!

And, when so many others have been taught like us and agree with our traditional belief, we know that we cannot be wrong.

Anyone who does not think like us is a heretic.

TrustGzus
Oct 12th 2013, 05:26 PM
I've read many of the replies from the last 3 pages.

Studying the Word of God in the English translation is OK most of the time. But to get the true intended meaning of any passage we must look at it in the language they spoke and wrote it in.

If in order to get the true intended meaning of any passage, we must look at it in the language they spoke, then that means if we aren't reading the language we spoke, we aren't getting the true intended meaning, which sounds like we shouldn't read English then. Sounds overstated.

The most important thing to getting the intended meaning is context. Christians say context, context, context, but abuse it a lot. They read single verses and interpret them when reading whole paragraphs and even chapters shows a different meaning.

Original language can help. A good example is if the author is doing a play on words. These type of things don't usually translate well no matter what language including English into a foreign language. However, English translations are well done and a person with good interpretative skills won't miss the true intended meaning. They might miss a little nuance that gets lost in translation. If they miss the true intended meaning then there is no point in translating and now our position would be tougher on this issue than that of Islam.


The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants and prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So the most important part of anyone's hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...and accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what we already believe.

Again, I think context is more important than where it is used elsewhere. Elsewhere might help, but that individual author in his own context is most important. For example, John has a different way of using logos in chapter 1 than even the way he uses the word elsewhere in his own gospel.


Most people who study God's Word do so in the light of what they already believe. Mainstream Christianity often has the incorrect interpretation of God's Word because they approach the scriptures with their already pre-conceived ideas and are often unwilling to reconsider their beliefs because too often they think they already have the truth.
______________


I agree with you here. I think not only mainstream Christianity, but most people of all stripes make this mistake. One must approach with the realization that he/she is fallible. If one has studied carefully, read differing views and thought about them, it's more likely to have come to a solid understanding.


There are several mistakes in the English translation of the KJV (over 100) because it was translated by fallable men. What I too often see is even when Christians try to obtain "truth," they continue to hold onto their preconceived ideas. They often approach the scriptures believing they already have the truth and hold onto that bias throughout their studies. Too often they refuse to change their mind and disregard the scriptural and historical evidence.

The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining truth is when they believe they already have it.

I agree with you here too. Mostly you're reiterating the same but you've added comments about the KJV that is true about all translations. All of them were done by fallible men. None is perfect, though most are reliable if a person uses proper methods of interpreting.

Grace & peace to you.

TrustGzus
Oct 12th 2013, 06:25 PM
Perhaps you can help me with this. Your view that Paul was personally trained by Jesus comes from where?

I see it is exactly the case that when Paul made claims that his words were his own, he meant that those words were his own. I believe him.


Galatians 1:11–12 (NASB95)

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Another example . . .


1 Corinthians 11:23 (NASB95)

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;



I am sure, as the bible says, that Jesus did many things that are not in the letters that were written by the people who made that claim. However, since we know that Jesus is God, and that God knows all things for all time, should we also not believe that God gave us all the instructions we require? The Epistles are not written to give new commandments from God.

Boo, you often point out that people come to the Bible with their own ideas and force them upon the Bible. As a fallible human, not only am I able to do that, but so are you. I think you are arguing in a complete circle here.

Yes, God knows all things from all time. Yes, we should believe that God gave us all the instruction we require. It does not follow that he didn't give some of that through apostles anymore than to assume that God didn't give any through Old Testament prophets. Are the red letters all that matter in the Bible? The only time God in human flesh spoke was in Jesus. God spoke via prophets in the OT. I see no reason to assume he didn't do the same in the NT. In fact, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. This was the night before he died. When was this guidance going to happen? I'm pretty sure it didn't all happen before he died on the cross less than 24 hours later.


John 16:12–13 (NASB95)
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.


Based on that alone, is it not reasonable to accept apostolic writing as being guided from the Holy Spirit? And if the Holy Spirit says it via an apostle, it's just as important as red letters it seems to me.


Yes, actually He did. We are to search the scriptures and apply what God has given us.. Everything that we cannot find a detailed set of instructions for, we apply the teachings of Jesus when He gave us the two greatest commandments. We may find that it requires that we accept answers that we don't like or answers that require great effort from us, but we were told by God and Jesus everything that we need to know.
Neither Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, or anyone else was put into position to lay out new laws for God. Their letters were to explain the background behind what God has already given us. However, in the case of Paul, he went beyond what Jesus had given.

This paragraph from you was in response to me asking if you thought Jesus addressed every single issue in his earthly ministry. I cannot agree with what you say here based on the verses I posted above that Jesus stated in John 16. It seems that while the apostles elected Matthias to replace Judas, it seems God might have had a different idea, since based on verses at the beginning of this thread, Paul was getting taught directly by the LORD. Seems Paul was that new apostle.

Jesus appears to be saying in John 16 that he didn't address everything. More was coming. Not only that Boo, let's say you're correct and Jesus addressed it all. I can take an audio Bible of mine and see that all four gospels add up to 8 hours of time. All Jesus said in three years can be stated in 8 hours? Making it even worse, cut out the historical narrative where he isn't talking but the writers describe things ("there was a well . . . etc.). In other words, cut it down to the red letters where he's talking. Now what's left. Even worse, a lot of the gospels repeat what other gospels wrote. Cut those down to one read. Now what are we left with? Do you think that's the entirety of what God wanted to say to you? Between cutting out the historical narrative and duplicate reports, what are left with? An hour or two of things Jesus said? Surely, that doesn't cover everything.


This reference was speaking of an accusation about worrying about dirt going into the mouth and defiling a man. Jesus said that dirt going into the mouth does not affect the soul. It is what comes out of the man. This did not even address what goes into a man through the eyes - which can lead to sin.

Next is the issue of why is Jesus concerned about the children of Israel eating meat sacrificed to idols? Clearly - to me - He equates it on the same level of other immorality. Perhaps He considers it to be "unclean" after being used with that intent. Perhaps even spiritually unclean - not as if it were dirt.

Since one case refers to the effect of dirty hands, I don't think it refers to the idea of a dirty spirit..


Boo, I think again, you are doing what you accuse others of. Do you really think God dedicated three paragraphs of a gospel to just say we can eat dirt? You have formed a view, and rather than let a text correct your misunderstanding of a single verse (Revelation 2:14), you have missed the point of three entire paragraphs from Mark. Let me post those verses again. And let three paragraphs inform your understanding of one phrase from one verse rather than vice versa.


Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”


Dirt isn't the point. The point is answering the question, "what defiles a man?" The last verses 20-23 answer that. It's what comes out of one's mouth that defiles a person, not what goes in the mouth. Jesus even gives a mini-science lesson before saying that. What goes in the mouth, goes in the stomach, and then gets pooped out. And then note Mark's commentary about what Jesus said, "Thus he declared all foods clean." All foods are clean. Meat offered to an idol. It goes in the mouth, to the stomach, and gets pooped out. It cannot defile a man in reality.

Note verse 15 . . . there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him. Boo, define nothing. Nothing going into a man can defile him.

Meat sacrificed to an idol is something.
Nothing going into a man can defile him.
Therefore, eating meat sacrificed to an idol cannot defile a man.

When Jesus speaks of Balaam teaching the Israelites about eating meat sacrificed to idols, he was saying in short hand that the Jews learned the entire worship system. Go back to the event in Numbers 25 . . .


Numbers 25:1–3 (ESV)
While Israel lived in ****tim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.


They swallowed the whole program, that was the problem. Not merely eating the meat.


My point is that Paul was capable of error - even in his writing. Those who believe that he was some kind of god-second-class will not be allowing themselves to see anything that he wrote being not applicable to us today. They will not given due consideration to his words as from a man and not from God.
I was not attempting to beat up any straw man. I am attempting to remove some of the reverence displayed to the words of Paul. He was just a man.

People do think that everything Paul wrote came from God. How many arguments take place here purely over things that Paul said.


Paul was just a man. Paul was fallible. However, Peter calls Paul's writing Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.


2 Peter 3:14–16 (NASB95)
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Peter calls Paul's writing Scripture.
All Scripture is God-breathed.
Therefore, Paul's writing is God-breathed.

Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. One of those men, Peter, says Paul's writing is Scripture.


I do believe that God has given me a method to understand what the bible has to tell me. I have also posted that in other posts and received no responses, so I figure that nobody read it.

God gave you a method? What do you mean by that? Have you gotten revelations from Jesus? What does "God gave" you mean?


All throughout the Old Testament and again in the New, the children of Israel were told to take no permanent action on any statements that came from only one witness. Permanent actions and decisions come from two or more witnesses.

Boo, in context, it seems to me the more than one witness command to the Jews was in regard to criminal accusations. I don't see those verses being a guideline for handling NT revelation.


Numbers 35:30 (NASB95)
30 ‘If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.



Deuteronomy 17:6 (NASB95)
6 “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.


The Jews received the entire Law by one witness. No one was on that mountain but Moses. The one witness rule was for punishing crimes.


That is how I accept the Epistles as well. Nothing that comes from only one Apostle is worthy of being doctrine until it has a second witness. That was the way God told His people to deal with the words that came from man. That is how I do it as well.

I hold onto no doctrines that come from only one Apostle - because that instruction comes from God.

I know that it will not be acceptable to anyone who believes that "every word in the bible" came from God. The problem is that this instruction DID come from God - with several witnesses.

Boo, seems like your method is based on a misuse of a couple of verses out of Numbers and Deuteronomy.


Paul was solving problems. Paul is a man. Paul was obedient to God. Perhaps we can accept that the things Paul wrote to Corinth and Ephesus were things that came from God - for those at Corinth and Ephesus. I don't know. In any case, those things Paul told the people at Corinth and Ephesus that are in question have no second witness.

Because of the method that I have been given to understand the bible, I do indeed have the ability to read and understand God's instructions for my life. I lack nothing in my faith or understanding.

Thank you so much for your time, brother.

Boo, a lot of what I said is countering you. And I don't want any implied tone to cause a rift between us. I hope you read what I said as simply a line of reasoning on why I think your approach on this issue is mistaken. I agree with you on so many things you write about. I disagree occasionally. This is just one of those.

Weigh what I said. Read the verses in context. Look at John 16. Look at Peter's comments about Paul's writings. Look at three paragraphs from Mark 7 and compare that to Numbers 25 and Rev 2:14. Look at the verses about one witness.

Look at all of that in context. If you agree, then great. If you think I've misinterpreted those, then show me from their context how I've done so.

Grace & peace to you, Brother.

Joe

Boo
Oct 13th 2013, 09:38 AM
Boo, you often point out that people come to the Bible with their own ideas and force them upon the Bible. As a fallible human, not only am I able to do that, but so are you. I think you are arguing in a complete circle here.

Do you really see me arguing in a complete circle?

I'm afraid that it difficult for me to come to the bible with my own ideas. I had a few ideas when I started from my early childhood, but I had no doctrines ingrained in me. I am not like those who came up those several years in youth groups and were taught doctrines.

What happened is that I heard people say things, and they told me "the bible says." Well, I wanted to see it for myself, so I started digging into the bible. What I found was that, while one could say that the bible said that thing, there were other things written in there than altered what was being taught.

I came to a few forums to see what people thought about certain issues, and I got an eyeful of the things that supposedly spirit-filled Christians argue about. I saw more arguments than I did Christian speech.

Let's see if I can straighten out the curve for you - perhaps even for me.


Yes, God knows all things from all time. Yes, we should believe that God gave us all the instruction we require. It does not follow that he didn't give some of that through apostles anymore than to assume that God didn't give any through Old Testament prophets. Are the red letters all that matter in the Bible? The only time God in human flesh spoke was in Jesus. God spoke via prophets in the OT. I see no reason to assume he didn't do the same in the NT. In fact, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. This was the night before he died. When was this guidance going to happen? I'm pretty sure it didn't all happen before he died on the cross less than 24 hours later.

Don't stop reading when you get to the next statement. There will be more to add to it.

No, it is not only the red letters that matter. It is the amplification of what Jesus taught that is done by two or more witnesses. If more than one writer of a letter in the New Testament spoke the same truth, then it is reliable. If only one person spoke, it is not worthy of being a doctrine.


Based on that alone, is it not reasonable to accept apostolic writing as being guided from the Holy Spirit? And if the Holy Spirit says it via an apostle, it's just as important as red letters it seems to me.

None of that means that everything contained in a letter came from God. We might choose to believe that, but it might not be the case. When any one of them wrote to someone at a church, it is possible that he had things to say that were not an instruction from God.

Do you think that they would send separate letters with one marked "from God" and one marked "from me?" Paul did not, but at least once he delineated his words.


This paragraph from you was in response to me asking if you thought Jesus addressed every single issue in his earthly ministry. I cannot agree with what you say here based on the verses I posted above that Jesus stated in John 16. It seems that while the apostles elected Matthias to replace Judas, it seems God might have had a different idea, since based on verses at the beginning of this thread, Paul was getting taught directly by the LORD. Seems Paul was that new apostle.

What "seems" and what was are not confirmation of each other. People can choose to believe things because things seem that way. I do as well. That cannot be used for a basis for telling anyone else that they are wrong, however.

Your verse does seem to say that there will be instruction coming later. We see that instruction being given when Peter was told that God had made the Gentiles clean and worthy of salvation. Note that the instruction still came from God. It did not come from the Apostles until God revealed it. To assume that everything Paul said came from God is a dangerous assumption.

There is a difference also between "the Gospel" and "instructions to the church at ………" It is better if we don't jumble all of Paul's letters into being the Gospel message. Sometimes, they were corrections, other times they were instructions, and sometimes exhortations.


Jesus appears to be saying in John 16 that he didn't address everything. More was coming. Not only that Boo, let's say you're correct and Jesus addressed it all. I can take an audio Bible of mine and see that all four gospels add up to 8 hours of time. All Jesus said in three years can be stated in 8 hours? Making it even worse, cut out the historical narrative where he isn't talking but the writers describe things ("there was a well . . . etc.). In other words, cut it down to the red letters where he's talking. Now what's left. Even worse, a lot of the gospels repeat what other gospels wrote. Cut those down to one read. Now what are we left with? Do you think that's the entirety of what God wanted to say to you? Between cutting out the historical narrative and duplicate reports, what are left with? An hour or two of things Jesus said? Surely, that doesn't cover everything.

We are given the basis from which to make decisions. How many truths of God do you need to understand in order to guide your actions and heart? If you are looking for assembly instructions for a rocket ship, you need a much bigger book. That is not what we were given in the Bible, not even with the Apocrypha thrown in.

We need no more commands from God. We don't follow the ones we have been given.

If there had been no Paul to write letters, how many arguments would take place and how many divisions of the church would there be? The arguments that swirl around on this forum normally start and end with "Paul said."

Should they not all end with "Jesus said?" They should at least say something like "Paul and John said" or "Paul and Peter said." If only Paul said, we need to go back to the bible and search for the second witness.

If we use the Apostles to teach a truth from God, then we should use God's method to determine which is from God and which is from the man.


Boo, I think again, you are doing what you accuse others of. Do you really think God dedicated three paragraphs of a gospel to just say we can eat dirt? You have formed a view, and rather than let a text correct your misunderstanding of a single verse (Revelation 2:14), you have missed the point of three entire paragraphs from Mark. Let me post those verses again. And let three paragraphs inform your understanding of one phrase from one verse rather than vice versa.

Dirt isn't the point. The point is answering the question, "what defiles a man?" The last verses 20-23 answer that. It's what comes out of one's mouth that defiles a person, not what goes in the mouth. Jesus even gives a mini-science lesson before saying that. What goes in the mouth, goes in the stomach, and then gets pooped out. And then note Mark's commentary about what Jesus said, "Thus he declared all foods clean." All foods are clean. Meat offered to an idol. It goes in the mouth, to the stomach, and gets pooped out. It cannot defile a man in reality.

Yet, Jesus saw fit to include the actions of eating the meat sacrificed to idols in his statement. If Jesus felt that there is nothing wrong with that, I dare say He would not have specifically mentioned it in His statement.

Do you really think that Jesus was just rambling words without a reason? I think that He saw it as an immoral behavior - included with the sexual immorality - so He said so. To me, removing it from our thoughts is not the correct way to accept that verse.

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

If Jesus accusation against them was just sexual immorality, then I believe he would have just said that. As I mentioned before, he must have had a specific reason for including it in his statement. Just from this statement, I would not eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Would you?


Note verse 15 . . . there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him. Boo, define nothing. Nothing going into a man can defile him.

Meat sacrificed to an idol is something.

Nothing going into a man can defile him.

Therefore, eating meat sacrificed to an idol cannot defile a man.

When Jesus speaks of Balaam teaching the Israelites about eating meat sacrificed to idols, he was saying in short hand that the Jews learned the entire worship system. Go back to the event in Numbers 25 . . .

They swallowed the whole program, that was the problem. Not merely eating the meat.

So, the problem with eating the meat was not a stomach thing. The problem must be something else, but that something else starts with them eating it.

Is the problem here my understanding or is the problem that we want to apply one statement of Jesus to be countered by another. Perhaps the problem is not in the sacrificed meat. Perhaps the problem is merely in the source of the sacrificed meat. The problem is not a physical problem, but a moral one.


Paul was just a man. Paul was fallible. However, Peter calls Paul's writing Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

Peter calls Paul's writing Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed.

Therefore, Paul's writing is God-breathed.

Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. One of those men, Peter, says Paul's writing is Scripture.

I see you missed all this from before.

Peter's writing has two major problems. First is that Peter's writing came about before half of Paul's letters were even written. We don't even know if we have all of Paul's letters today, do we?

The second problem is that there is no way to know which of Paul's letters that Peter had even seen. Maybe Peter saw a letter that we don't even have. Taking this blanket statement as proof of the validity of whatever Paul writes sets us up for major errors in our understanding.

Then, before we take Peter's words as having that authority, foresight, and prophetical power; lets see the verses that say that Peter's writing are scripture. We need also to see that all of John's, Matthew's, James', Luke's, and Marks are scripture as well.

I have no evidence that this referenced verse applies to anything except the letter or letters that Peter read.


God gave you a method? What do you mean by that? Have you gotten revelations from Jesus? What does "God gave" you mean?

Boo, in context, it seems to me the more than one witness command to the Jews was in regard to criminal accusations. I don't see those verses being a guideline for handling NT revelation.

The Jews received the entire Law by one witness. No one was on that mountain but Moses. The one witness rule was for punishing crimes.

Boo, seems like your method is based on a misuse of a couple of verses out of Numbers and Deuteronomy.

It sounds like you are setting me up for ridicule here. I would have thought that you would understand what people mean when they say such a thing.

These arguments and these very unchristian posts that we see in this forum and others caused me a lot of stress in my life. They also caused me to have severe doubts as to anyone's ability to read the bible. I was fit to be tied because I was leaning toward unbelief and not wanting to accept anything that I read. I dropped into fervent prayer that I find a way to know the truth. I prayed for a truth that would set me free from all of that.

I then "stumbled" onto the writings of a man on the topic of understanding what God gave us in the bible. I searched out the truth of what I saw written. This is what I found:

(I shall not include the Old Testament verses since they would not be accepted as valid by anyone reading this.)

All from HCSB:


So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself. Your testimony is not valid.” “Even if I testify about Myself,” Jesus replied, “My testimony is valid, because I know where I came from and where I’m going. But you don’t know where I come from or where I’m going. You judge by human standards. I judge no one. And if I do judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me ⌊judge together⌋. Even in your law it is written that the witness of two men is valid. I am the One who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”
John 8:13-18


This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
2 Cor 13:1


Don’t accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.
1 Tim 5:19


You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what My Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high.”
Luke 24:48-49


We must, therefore, pay even more attention to what we have heard, so that we will not drift away. For if the message spoken through angels was legally binding and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment, how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.
Heb 2:1-3


For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood —and these three are in agreement. If we accept the testimony of men, God’s testimony is greater, because it is God’s testimony that He has given about His Son.
1 John 5:7-9

John even saw the importance of explaining to the readers how God was not alone in telling His truth. Should we not require that of man as well?

Note that the bible never speaks as though there is only one preacher or elder. There are always two or more, and thus we get:


In the same way, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.
1 Peter 5:5

When I began reading the Epistles with this in mind, and looking at arguments between people in these threads, I see that many arguments would come to zero of they had to be based on two or three witnesses. Most of the fights take place because only one man made the statement and nobody backs it up anywhere in scriptures.

(That, however, is different when people are shown three witnesses but they argue against it anyway.)

Since I hold to what comes from two or three, my life has settled down considerably. My faith has come back to me in full force.


Boo, a lot of what I said is countering you. And I don't want any implied tone to cause a rift between us. I hope you read what I said as simply a line of reasoning on why I think your approach on this issue is mistaken. I agree with you on so many things you write about. I disagree occasionally. This is just one of those.

Weigh what I said. Read the verses in context. Look at John 16. Look at Peter's comments about Paul's writings. Look at three paragraphs from Mark 7 and compare that to Numbers 25 and Rev 2:14. Look at the verses about one witness.

I did that, and I thank you for your time and effort. I, too, can see how you are looking at things. I can see how my view would seem incorrect to you.

Let's say that I am wrong about Paul countering the words of Jesus in Revelation. What does that change for me?

Well, nothing actually, because Paul's status with God does not affect the help that he rendered in his writings. The problem is not so much what he wrote, but how man applies what he wrote. We are to view all testimony from man with discernment. The problem is not Paul. It is us.

When I was given to read my bible and look for all truth to be brought by more than one witness, I felt more alive in the scriptures than I ever did before. I was able to see more clearly what I needed to know and accept.

People won't like my view, because I do not place importance on anything Paul wrote that is not corroborated by a second writer. I take all singular statements as being Paul's instructions to the person who was addressed in the letter only. I don't need to worry about why Paul wrote it. I know he had his reason, and perhaps the Holy Spirit gave him the guidance for that person to whom it was addressed. I don't accept it as being addressed to the rest of the world and for all time.


Look at all of that in context. If you agree, then great. If you think I've misinterpreted those, then show me from their context how I've done so.

Grace & peace to you, Brother.

Joe

It is great that you took the time to express your view. I do appreciate it. My understanding of people is enhanced when they share their views in kinder, gentler terms. It is easier if their words don't tend to put me on the defensive to begin with.

I hold no reason for there to be a rift between us. You may think I am talking in circles, and that can be either because I am or because I am not able to explain my views very well. I don't feel like it is circular reasoning, but I don't seem to myself the way I seem to be to others. Also, the belief of others will color their eyes when looking at me.

For people who have always heard that "every word came from God" rather than "God's truth is contained in the Bible," it is tough to think that anything between those covers does not apply to themselves personally. I find it even harder for those who tend to see Paul as infallible.

Please explore what the New Testament says about witnesses and how we are to rely on the statements of only two or three as validating what they say. It is not just an Old Testament principle. As I have shown, it was valid to the Apostles as well.

TrustGzus
Oct 13th 2013, 04:18 PM
Boo,

I have to figure out how to continue. I'd like to talk about the subject more, but as I'm replying, the reply is simply way too lengthy. It would work great over lunch for a couple hours with you. It wouldn't work well in this format.

Boo
Oct 13th 2013, 08:17 PM
Boo,

I have to figure out how to continue. I'd like to talk about the subject more, but as I'm replying, the reply is simply way too lengthy. It would work great over lunch for a couple hours with you. It wouldn't work well in this format.

I can meet you for lunch when it is convenient for you. No noisy cafeterias though, my hearing aids don't like them.

Have a blessed day, brother.

TrustGzus
Oct 13th 2013, 09:44 PM
I can meet you for lunch when it is convenient for you. No noisy cafeterias though, my hearing aids don't like them.

Have a blessed day, brother.

Lol. It would be nice. A bit of a drive for either of us though.

Boo
Oct 14th 2013, 11:36 AM
I'll let you know if I ever get to Illinois again. Let me know if you show up in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, or Mississippi.