Is Word of God equal to scripture?

We have what we have, Carson, and I am grateful for it. Our God promised us that His Word would endure, but he did not promise a particular means for doing that. I trust Him that His Word has, indeed, endured.

The Jews carefully guarded the holy Scriptures, cananonizing it themselves. That Scripture was the only one to which the writers of the Apostolic Scriptures referred, except for one time when one of the apostles called Paul's writings "Scripture." What was added later as Scripture was written by those who also guarded the words of our Lord.

I know that the RCC enjoys taking credit for compling it, and they do so in honesty, but this fact does not diminish or enlarge the Bible in my thought.

 

Oh Carson! Don't you know????????????!!!!!!!

(Frivolous mode on here)

God wrote the bible on beaten sheets of gold, (Authorized 1611 King James version, of course) bound in the finest of Corinthian leathers, borne on the gossimar wings of cheribim, and came down and went plop into the arms of the early church that is a bible-only Church, separate and hidden from the false church that Constantine established in Rome.

(Frivolous mode off and back to sanity...)</font>[/QUOTE]Since you partially quote me and mixed that quotation with the idea of KJVOnlyism, I assume you think I am KJVO. NOT! Nor am I under any false idea regarding where we got our Scriptures. However, the Tanakh was not first canonized by the RCC; it was first canonized by Jews.

 

In my post on page 1 here, I said, "I do think that it is a mistake to assume that all the writings in the Book are directly pointed to us and about us, when originally, they were telling of specific incidents involving specific people in a specific time. I believe that too often, people would like to think that all the Scripturs are directly all about them and all about their belief systems, but that is, in my opinion, in error." Ignoring the spelling in this statement , this is one of the cases I intended. Too often, people will err and assume that what Paul said here is all about themselves and/or their belief system. It is not. When Paul wrote (NIV -- I am at my daughter's house), "hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word or mouth or by letter," what traditions and letters do you suppose he was talking about? Jewish traditions and his (and other apostles') letters. The traditions were from the Tanakh -- traditions regarding the Torah. I do not believe that what Paul said is applicable to anything other than what Paul was talking about.

Trinity? Let's not go there.

I have learned to question everything anyone says about the Bible. I take no one to be an absolute expert in such a way that I would trust them to tell me, or write to me, what the Bible says. If I cannot read and understand it for myself, I take it all with the proverbial "grain of salt."

Well, it has been a luxurious few minutes on a real computer. Back to my crummy one. :-(

 

thessalonian,

I will try to respond to your questions.

You said, 'Perhaps you could expound a bit. When did sola scriptura beomce the complete word of God?'

Ray is saying, 'In my last church I had four apostles in stained glass behind the altar; the youngest apostle was the Apostle John. Merrill C. Tenney, Ph.D. He thinks that the Book of Revelation was written in A.D. 95 in the reign of Domitian. He says the Western church accepted it as cononical; the Eastern Church did not receive it until about the year 500 A.D. The information was taken from the back of the reference section of the KJV----A.J. Holman Company, Philadelphia. The conclusion of Revelation would lend itself to being the last book of the canonical Word of God. The reading starts at Revelation 22:17-21.'

Ed said, 'When John finished his last writing?'

Ray is saying, 'My evaluation in this matter concludes that it probably was the last book of the Bible as we have come to know it. I don't think it really matters, but someone will probably find an objection to my suggesting this.'

What do you think was the last inspired book of His Word?

 

Oh Carson! Don't you know????????????!!!!!!!

(Frivolous mode on here)

God wrote the bible on beaten sheets of gold, (Authorized 1611 King James version, of course) bound in the finest of Corinthian leathers, borne on the gossimar wings of cheribim, and came down and went plop into the arms of the early church that is a bible-only Church, separate and hidden from the false church that Constantine established in Rome.

(Frivolous mode off and back to sanity...)</font>[/QUOTE]Since you partially quote me and mixed that quotation with the idea of KJVOnlyism, I assume you think I am KJVO. NOT! Nor am I under any false idea regarding where we got our Scriptures. However, the Tanakh was not first canonized by the RCC; it was first canonized by Jews. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops, sorry, I was just making a general statement, which was not intended for you specifically but to see the reaction I would get.

Your reply tells me that you are NOT KJVO, which is fine, but I now recall your Messianic beliefs. Insofar as the Tanakh, you are right about the original authority of the Jews in canonizing that vererable part of the Old Testament.

But here is the problem: When Christ came, He and His apostles favored the Septuagint Greek translation, which included the deuterocanonicals which are not extant in the oldest surving fragments if the Hebrew original, as I understand it, from whiich sprang the Septuagint, translated for Greek speaking Jews in Alexandra, Egypt.

Now, when Christ ascended, the apostles continued to use the Septuagint, but interestingly, The Jews got together in Jamnia circa AD 70 and decided to exclude all versions that was not in the original Hebrew. Therefore, out went the Septuagint as well as any subsiquent New Testament writings in Greek!

Therefore, they rejected what was to become the New Testament!

But now comes the question: With the close of the Old Covenant with the new Covenant of Christ, did not the authority then pass from the Jews to the new Christian Church establised by Christ? If so, since the Jews rejected Christ (other then those who followed Him, of course) they also reject the new covenant, and ironacally, lost also the authority over the management of ALL scripture, Old Testament as well as the New Testament (which the Jews reject anyway.)

Bless the hearts of the Jews who brought the Old Testament to us! They were the "mother religion" of what us now Christianity whom I hold in high regard!

Finally, I apologize if it seems that I have attacked you here, Abiyah, but it was not my intention to do so, therefore, please excuse an indiscretsion by this old man!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Is the word of God = scripture?

Questions in return:

DO we have the spoken Word of God coming to us today in an audible form that any human ears can hear?

Is God speaking today through prophets as he did in the Old Testament?

Do we have the words spoken by God to the early Church? All of them?

Is there anyone alive today who converses with God in two way conversation where both God and man are heard by those near enough to hear?

What traditions exist, that are the direct teachings out of the mouth of God, that are being handed down generation to generation orally, that are reliable enough to be trusted to be "the spoken word of God"? How do you know that you can trust them if they were not written down and accurately transcribed from first utterance or by the first "hearer"?

Why are those "mystical" traditions not widely held by every believer in God?

Why do you "trust" them, if you have no assuring evidence that you can share with the whole world that they are in truth the "word of God"?

I certainly do not trust what you say, when you claim Mary, a mere mortal like yourself, to be the co-redemptrix of mankind, I need more substantial evidence than your testimony.

 

Mr. Putnam --

Since you partially quote me and mixed that quotation with the idea of KJVOnlyism, I assume you think I am KJVO. NOT! Nor am I under any false idea regarding where we got our Scriptures. However, the Tanakh was not first canonized by the RCC; it was first canonized by Jews. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops, sorry, I was just making a general statement, which was not intended for you specifically but to see the reaction I would get.

Your reply tells me that you are NOT KJVO, which is fine, but I now recall your Messianic beliefs. Insofar as the Tanakh, you are right about the original authority of the Jews in canonizing that vererable part of the Old Testament. </font>[/QUOTE][/qb]

No, I did not feel attacked. I just thought you
believed me to be KJVO.

How can you assume this?!? They had the
Septuagint, and certainly they use it, because it
is quoted in the Bible, but they also had the Hebrew Scriptures, which are also quoted in the Bible --
indeed, the are quoted more than is the Septuagint!

Your definitions of the old covenant and new
covenant are not the definitions the Bible uses, so
your question is confusing to me. I am not sure
what you are asking. (???)

 

Was not the covenant of Moses the covenant if the Jews? That is what most Christians call the "old covenant." The new covenant is, of course, what Jesus brings anew while He is also a fulfillment of the old covenant.

But am I now suddenly thinking that you are thinking Jesus did no such thing?

Are you a practicing Jew, or a Messianic Christian Jew?

The anwer to that last question will say a lot for me...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Mr. Putnam --

In order to answer you completely, then, in your
previous post, you asked, "With the close of the
Old Covenant with the new Covenant of Christ,
did not the authority then pass from the Jews to
the new Christian Church established by Christ?"

He was not a Christian; He was a practicing Jew
who attended the Temple and synagogues. Not
once, while He was in the flesh, did He attend or
establish any churches.

Also, according to the biblical definition, the new
covenant did not suddenly begin with either His
earthly birth or death or resurrection. The new
covenant was available for any who desired to
take hold of it long before any of those times.

Was not the covenant of Moses the covenant if the Jews? That is what most Christians call the "old covenant." The new covenant is, of course, what Jesus brings anew while He is also a fulfillment of the old covenant.

But am I now suddenly thinking that you are thinking Jesus did no such thing?

Are you a practicing Jew, or a Messianic Christian Jew?

The anwer to that last question will say a lot for me...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+?+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis! </font>[/QUOTE]HaShem's covenant with Moses was not just for
Jews; it was for any and all who desired to call
Him their God. This is stated clearly in the
Scriptures.

I do not see the Lord as a fulfillment of the old
covenant; He is the one and only, the absolutely
clear purpose of all the Torah and the Prophets. He
also clearly stated that He did not come to abolish
or end the Torah but to interpret it and to live it as
an example for us. He is the purpose of it; it is of
absolutely no use, of no purpose, without Him.

You asked me if I am a practicing Jew or a Messianic
Christian Jew. None of the above. I am a Torah-
observant believer in the Living Messiah.

P.S. I have some Putnams in my birth-family's
ancestry on my Mother's side.

 

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

Anything beyond Scripture was to be ignored even though it might have been delivered (hypothetically) from a bright angel from above. [Galatians 1:6-8] Anyone offering new material or add-on theology or another Gospel was to be considered from a false source. That person should be {Gr. anathema} accursed by Almighty God.

Your statement "assumes" that Paul taught "another Gospel orally" than had already been given in scripture. No basis for that exists in the text.

As we see Luke affirming the practice "checking out what Paul said by the scriptures" (and yes that meant the OT) - in Acts 17:11 SO we continue in that model (using the context already set by NT authors) when understanding Paul's statement about "NOT" accepting any "other gospel". The Gospel that Paul taught was fully verified by the OT text. IT could be "test" EVEN by non-Christians "to see whether those things were SO" Acts 17:11.


That means that when we see Paul giving his Gospel summaries (like those in 1 Cor 15:1-11) we can know that it is "that Gospel" that can be "tested" by the OT text and it is "that Gospel" that is the "ONE Gospel" of Gal 1:6-11.

There is no need to imagine "Paul taught praying to the dead. Paul taught purgatory and indulgences. Paul taught Mary was queen of heaven" etc. None of that can be found in either OT or NT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The new Covenant is spelled out clearly in Hebrews 8 as it "quotes" the OT.

The view that the OT does not contain the New Covenant is denied in that chapter.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Abiyah said --
"I put no stock in Christian traditions
(someone's gonna shoot me for that, for sure!)
or in Jewish traditions if they cannot be
completely shown in, and supported by, the Bible."

"Completely shown" in scripture. And "yes" the fact that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all members of the one Godhead can be "completely shown" in scripture.

There is no "appeal to Catholic tradition" when making that doctrinal case - and non-Catholics do it all the time in their doctrinal classes with unbelievers. They demonstrate the doctrine "sola scriptura".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Anyone who has read the Early Church Fathers knows that not all of them agree. So that makes their tradition contradictory. Any Catholic or Protestant who has read them knows this. Their is not one bit of evidence to show that any church tradition has agreed with itself over a period of time. Traditions change but scripture does not.

Even what I have read posted by a few Catholics on this board regarding salvation does not agree with what I was taught when I was a Catholic not too many years ago.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

That statement is quite narrow but as wide as it needs to be for someone to come to Jesus.

 

The O.T. prophets--Major and Minor new nothing about a dispensation of grace called the church. Check your translations by reading Ephesians 3:2-6. Verse five says, 'Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men.' This age of grace, the church age, in our times is an interpolation between the Old Covenant era and the coming Millennial Kingdom of God on this earth headquartered in Jerusalem. [Micah 5:2; Zechariah 14:4; Revelation 21:2]

Not many Christians understand this relatively deep truth as to the interpolation of the church age between O.T. times and the Lord's future eschatological plans for His "New Jerusalem" which will come down out of Heaven and will rest in Jerusalem, Israel for 1,000 years. Read and re-read Ephesians 3:2-6 until you understand it.

 

In 2Cor 3 we are told that the Old Covenant is the "ministry of death" and can only kill the member of that covenant.

In Gal 1:6-11 we are told that there is not a two gospel system - but a one gospel system. The ministry of death was never "the gospel" nor was it intended to save anyone.

The OT saints were fully saved as we see in Hebrews 11 - some of them even going to heaven without dying.

Christ stated repeatedly to His people before dying on the cross "your sins ARE forgiven".

The gospel of grace was the only solution for the saints of Hebrew 11 as they LIVED changed lives in the OT.

Israel is given forever promises of God's Holy Spirit in Isaiah 59. In fact Isaiah is known as the "Gospel prophet".

The Entire New Covenant text that we find in Hebrews 8 is Old Testament.

The Gospel message of Paul in Acts 17 is fully verified "sola scriptura" according to Acts 17:11 and that means "OT" in that context.

Christ Himself states in John 8 that Abraham was shown the life and ministry of Christ.

Galations 3 states that the Gospel was "preached beforehand to Abraham".

Hebrews 4 states that the "Gospel was preached to us JUST as it was to them also".

Bottom line.

ONE problem - the Sin Problem and it starts with Adam and Eve.

ONE solution - the Gospel and IT too started with Adam and Eve. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in BOTH OT and NT. Only the New Covenent is the "ONE Gospel" and it is fully spelled out in the OT as we see from Hebrews 8 quoting it.

The fullness of our understanding of the Gospel expands greatly with the coming of Christ - but God was engaged in providing that ONE Gospel solution from day 1.

Mankind was too depraved from the very start of the fall of Adam to be benefitted by anything less than the full spirit-filled life-changing Gospel of grace.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Silver bullet time ---

Mark 7
7
'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Bullseye!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry, Bob, no cigar.

"Commandment of God" refers to the Ten Commandments, not all of Scripture, even though the Ten Commandments are found within the Scriptures.

 

Missed.

I said up above scriptures are the Word of God. Giving me a scripture and saying it is the word of God so the Word of God is equal to scripture just doesn't cut it.
Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]Sad - how you "must pretend" not to notice that Christ is calling the Exodus 20 statment that He quotes "the Word of God". (And Clearly Exodus 20 IS scripture).

How many ways are there to pretend that Exodus 20 "is not scripture"?? I think we will be treated to your efforts to show us - so please do.

Until then - Christ's calling the Exodus 20 statement written by Moses "The Word of God" - sinks your boat.

Why don't you just stick with the text - it is CHRIST that says that the WORD OF GOD is being violated BECAUSE Moses SAID "Honor your Father and Mother" (Hence - the words WRITTEN by Moses are in that case - the WORD of GOD) and the Jews were contradicting that clear WORD of God - with their "tradition".

Obviously - the rest of scripture is ALSO the Word of God. So we can all see that Christ is not saying that the Exodus 20 snippet of scripture is the ONLY scripture that is The Word of God.


The nice thing about this duckie is that it is so neat and tidy - all right there - contradicting your view in one little chapter. I think you will be very "challenged" to ignore the "obvious" with this one.

Keep trying.

In Christ,

Bob