John 17.20-23

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
The letter of Jude is authentic because it was confirmed by miraculous power. Mark 16:17-20. I can know it because of the IMPLICATION OF THE HARMONIOUS EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE. The same way I know the church at Corinth had miraculous spiritual gifts through the laying on of the apostles hands. It is called in the english language IMPLICATION. Acts 8:18, I Cor. 12,13,14.

Furthermore, any student of the scripture, or anyone who studies any document of antiquity, knows what I previously posted is essential to prove the contents of a document are authentic.

Just because you are ignorant of them, does not make them "NEW." Rather, it simply shows you had no knowledge of them prior to them being posted.

If one claims he wrote for Abraham Lincoln, he would be subject to the same litmus. Is the writer contemporary with Lincoln? Is the document in harmony with other things documents by others on the same subject?( Incontrovertible evidence). Are the contents historically and geographically correct? Are the contents harmonious with other documents on the same subject?

These are very basic principles used in establishing the validity of any document of antiquity. What other rational way could be used to prove the authenticity of a document?

Then why do you not accept the other writings of the Apostles that are not currently in your Bible?

Putnam produced quite a lengthy list which you rejected. On what basis did you reject them? Did you compare them to the rest of Scripture? Did you check them for historical accuracy?

No. You simply dismissed them as not having miraculous confimration.

Why is this?

Ron

 

[Frank]

Ron:
I dismiss them because of the following:
1. They are not authoratative. Mat. 28:18-20. 2. They were not confirmed. Mark 16:17-20.
3. They must harmonize with those confirmed documents. They do not. James 1:25, John 17:17. 4. The writers of them were not promised the truth. John 14:26;15:26;16:13. They did not have the abiltiy to write by inspiration as they did not have hands placed on them by an apostle. They were not promised the miraculous ability associated with the Holy Spiirt. Acts 2:1-4,17.
5. They must be accurate historically, geographicaly, scientifically. In short, it must be free of all errors of fact revealed in the contents of the document.

If you are referring to a specific document, please identify it by name.

Yes, if anyone claims a document is from God, he must prove it. I Thes. 5:21. He must prove the document passes the litmus God has established. It must meet the divine standard set forth in the confirmed word of God.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
[QB] Ron:
I dismiss them because of the following:
1. They are not authoratative. Mat. 28:18-20. 2. They were not confirmed. Mark 16:17-20.
3. They must harmonize with those confirmed documents. They do not. James 1:25, John 17:17. 4. The writers of them were not promised the truth. John 14:26;15:26;16:13. They did not have the abiltiy to write by inspiration as they did not have hands placed on them by an apostle. They were not promised the miraculous ability associated with the Holy Spiirt. Acts 2:1-4,17.
5. They must be accurate historically, geographicaly, scientifically. In short, it must be free of all errors of fact revealed in the contents of the document.

If you are referring to a specific document, please identify it by name.

Yes, if anyone claims a document is from God, he must prove it. I Thes. 5:21. He must prove the document passes the litmus God has established. It must meet the divine standard set forth in the confirmed word of God.

Well, you accept the current Books of the New Testament, but you do not require the above proofs for them. You assume their inclusion in the Bible means that they met your proofs.

Why do you assume this? Why do you not put each Book to the test and see if it meets your proof?

Why do you accept the Bible as is?

Ron

 

[Frank]

Ron:

The miracles performed by the inspired writers are without dispute. They were performed in the presence of those who hated the Lord and his church. Acts 3-5. They were performed in the presence of religious leaders who could not deny them. See John 11 and the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

These things were established by verifiable, realiable witnesses. They are to this day indisputable. In other words, at the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

On the other hand, the documents you make reference to do not have this confirmation, Therefore, one must conclude they are not the same in origin. That is, they are not inspired.

A simple comparative study of evidence confirms that the new testament documents are inspired and those in question are not inspired.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
Ron:

The miracles performed by the inspired writers are without dispute. They were performed in the presence of those who hated the Lord and his church. Acts 3-5. They were performed in the presence of religious leaders who could not deny them. See John 11 and the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

These things were established by verifiable, realiable witnesses. They are to this day indisputable. In other words, at the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

On the other hand, the documents you make reference to do not have this confirmation, Therefore, one must conclude they are not the same in origin. That is, they are not inspired.

A simple comparative study of evidence confirms that the new testament documents are inspired and those in question are not inspired.

I don't get it.

You say that the miracles of the Apostles give confirmation to some of their writings (the ones in the Bible) but not other writings by the same Apostles?

How does this work?

 

[Frank]

Ron:
I know the new testament is true much the same way I know George Washington was our first president. It is evidence.

However, the type evidence that proves he was our first president is not by direct observation. In other words, I have never met him, talked to him, or shook his hand. Yet, I know unequivocally he was the first president of the U.S.A.

I know this because comtemporary historians of George Washington recorded his actions while in office. They wrote them down. This evidence has not been controverted by any other evidence. Finally, the evidence is accurate in the facts of his existence.

By the same criteria,I know the new testament is from God and other documents are excluded. It is evidence!!
The other documents do not have the realiable, authenticated miraculous record as do writings of the new testament.

In short, if I can know George Washington was our first president, I can, by the same type examination, know the new testament is complete and furnishes us to all good works. II Tim. 3;16,17. If one has all, he needs no additions.

 

[BobRyan]

Jude quotes John 17 - Christ's prayer that the people of God be one with Him - as He is One with the Father. (He does not pray that the people of God are to be one with EACH OTHER) although we may certainly agree that this should be a benefit of the prayer that we are to be one with HIM.

Jude --

Since 1054, the Church has been divided. It is not 'one'. Out witness is divided, confusing, and necessarily diminished. The 'Kingdom' is divided, as it was in the days following David's reign. Why has the Lord allowed this division to continue? Do you believe that the Church will be re-unified before the 2nd Coming of Christ? Are there signs of this re-unification today? What will be necessary for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants to do before this can occur? Do all of these groups need to repent, or, as Carson might suggest, is it only all the rest who need to repent and "return to the fold"?

Even Catholic historians admit that paganism was incorporated into the Christian church via the inclusion of paganism by the Catholic church in the 4th century. When the Catholic church evolved to the point of dominating the Christian church and then finally gained approval of the Roman Empire - they quickly brought the civilized world into "the dark ages".

The golden age for the Catholic church was the dark ages for the world.

The Protestant reformation was God's way of bringing the Christian church "back" to the truth from which it started. Releasing Christianity from many of the trappings of the traditions that had built up like a kind of Catholic "Mishnah".

There is no doubt that all these groups will unite at the 2nd coming of Christ - and see "truth" in "one way".

The question is - will the doctrinal confusion (babylon) that has been introduced into the system - ever be purged from it before the 2nd coming. (As Jude seems to ask).

Rev 17 and 18 appear to address that point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frank]

Ron: You say that the miracles of the Apostles give confirmation to some of their writings (the ones in the Bible) but not other writings by the same Apostles? If you will specifically identify the document, I will answer. It is difficult to address unidentifed assertions. Do these writings have titles. If so, please identify the document by it's title.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
You say that the miracles of the Apostles give confirmation to some of their writings (the ones in the Bible) but not other writings by the same Apostles?

Originally posted by Frank:
If you will specifically identify the document, I will answer. It is difficult to address unidentifed assertions. Do these writings have titles. If so, please identify the document by it's title.

Here are some to get you started. Notice the authors. Andrew, Matthew, James, John, Peter, Mark (ie. the Apostles).


The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

 

[Frank]

Ron:
The documents that are excluded from the pages of inspiration are not included in the pages of inspiration because of the following:

1. The authorship is dubious. The true origin of these documents is not known.

2. There are no reliable witnesses to testify of the confirmation of the document as inspired. In other words, these documents were not confirmed as the ones that are inspired.

3 The works of inspiration were not questioned by those contemporary with those writings. In other words, those who would have the most reliable information, and first hand knowledge did not reject them.Such is not the case for those outside the divine volume.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
Ron:
The documents that are excluded from the pages of inspiration are not included in the pages of inspiration because of the following:

1. The authorship is dubious. The true origin of these documents is not known.

2. There are no reliable witnesses to testify of the confirmation of the document as inspired. In other words, these documents were not confirmed as the ones that are inspired.

3 The works of inspiration were not questioned by those contemporary with those writings. In other words, those who would have the most reliable information, and first hand knowledge did not reject them.Such is not the case for those outside the divine volume.

Really, you researched all of that for each document so quickly?

Or are you just dismissing them out of hand?

You accept the Bible as is because that is what you have. That is what you were given when you got yourself saved.

You can't really show me how the current Books in the Bible meet your "proofs". You just assume that they do because they are in the Bible.

Your reasoning is circular.

Ron

 

[Frank]

Ron:
I dismiss them as inspired for the reasons posted. They simply do not meet the BIBLICAL standard for inspiration. The standard or criteria for inspiration does not change. Therefore, the reasons for the exclusions of extra-biblical documents does not change.

I can use the same standard to eliminate the Book of Mormon, the writings of Ellen G. White, The Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witness etc. from the pages of inspiration. This is not circular but rational consistent application of biblical hermeneutics and sound principles of literary criticism.

I do not have to read an entire document to know if it is inspired. For example, I know the BOM is not inspired because it is self contradictory and not in harmony with the Bible.

How? Jacob 2: 24 of the BOM teaches that the "polygamy of David and Solomon was abominable before me." However,in Doctrines and Cov. 132:39 the BOM teaches " polygamy is a commandment to be obeyed and if disobeyed, damnation is the penalty." These teachings contradict themselves and the Bible. Gen. 2;24, Mat. 19:1-9. I do not need any further study to know this is not of God. God's word is without one contradiction or falsehood.The BOM simply does not meet the criteria because of this example and thousands more. However, I do not have to know each one to know it is not inspired. The first example proves it fails the litmus of inspiration.

Finally, if any of the previous documents teach the same as the Bible, we don't need them as we have that which makes men complete unto every good work. II Tim. 3;16,17. Moreover, that which completes a man needs no additions. If those documents do not teach as much as the Bible, they teach too little. If they teach more than the Bible, they teach too much.

Can you prove to me why these documents should be accepted as inspired by biblical standards for inspiration?

 

[Carson Weber]

I dismiss them as inspired for the reasons posted. They simply do not meet the BIBLICAL standard for inspiration.

Which brings us to full circle: how do you know what the Biblical standard for inspiration is when the very texts that show you this Biblical standard are among those in the canon of the Bible?

The standard or criteria for inspiration does not change. Therefore, the reasons for the exclusions of extra-biblical documents does not change.

This begs the question: have you personally examined all of the documents?

You assume that they are extra-biblical; they might as well be biblical until proven guilty. Have you proven each document guilty?

Of course, you haven't. You rely upon the Catholic Church in this respect.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Frank:
I dismiss them as inspired for the reasons posted. They simply do not meet the BIBLICAL standard for inspiration. The standard or criteria for inspiration does not change. Therefore, the reasons for the exclusions of extra-biblical documents does not change.

Well, in as much as you have not actually read them, how exactly do you know that they are not historically accurate and not consistent with the rest of Scripture?

In that you have not researched their authorship, how do you know that they were not written by the Apostles?

You have set up some sort of standard in determining what is and is not Scripture. But then you don't even bother to apply it. You simply assume that anything that is not in the Bible currently doesn't meet your standard and that the Books in the Bible do meet your standard.

Finally, if any of the previous documents teach the same as the Bible, we don't need them as we have that which makes men complete unto every good work. II Tim. 3;16,17. Moreover, that which completes a man needs no additions. If those documents do not teach as much as the Bible, they teach too little. If they teach more than the Bible, they teach too much.

I see, even if they are Scripture you don't need them?

Can you prove to me why these documents should be accepted as inspired by biblical standards for inspiration?

Don't need to. I didn't say that they are.

I am trying to find out why it is that you accept Scripture in it's current form.

So far, all you have done is set up some stardards that you don't apply but merely assume are met.

Ron

 

[Frank]

Carson:
If I want truth , I go to the new testament. If I want an uninspired opinion, I read Calvin, Luther, John Paul II etc. Since I want to know the truth, I do not go to the Catholic church for it. They still have not got it right. I Tim. 3:1-11, Mat.23:8-10, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16.

Jesus said," and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32. Paul said, it is a divine imperative. Eph. 5:17. " Wherefore be ye not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is." And, there was no pope or magisterium around when any of these words were written. Imagine that!!!

Jesus and Paul both expected man to use his own rational thought and investigate evidence to know truth. I Thes. 5:21, Rev. 2:2, Acts 17:11, II Cor.13:5, I John 4:1. Men can abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good. Romans 12, Hebrews 5:12-14. They can do it based on the evidence. John 20:30,31, Mark 16:17-20. They can know the truth by reliable testimony of witnesses. At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Have a good one!

 

[Carson Weber]

If I want truth , I go to the new testament.

Yes, I understand that. But, that begs the question: what comprises the New Testament?

Today, there are Christians that hold to a 21 book New Testament.

How do you know that Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John are inspired whereas these Christians reject them as uninspired.

How do you know that you are right and they are wrong when the canon isn't inspired? Where do you turn next if your only authority is the Bible?

You see, your reasoning is circular. You explicitly admit no other authority, yet implicitly, your admission is as clear as the daylight.

I don't expect for you to openly acknowledge the obvious. I just expect for the others who are reading this post to see - with their own eyes - the internal contradiction in your reasoning.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
How do you know that you are right and they are wrong when the canon isn't inspired? Where do you turn next if your only authority is the Bible?

Thank God the only authority needed is the Bible.
Murph

 

[Singer]

Thank God the only authority needed is the Bible

And then some joker tries to say that it's got to be a certain bible;
that my KJV bible couldn't possibly lead one to heaven; that it's a lie
from the pit of hell; that my claim to salvation is presumptive; that
my feeling saved is nonsense; that my knowing that I
have eternal life is ''putting words in God's mouth; that my faith is a
"feel good" imagination; that my salvation is not complete until I die
and am judged according to my works.

How do we all know that there is any bible that is safe to read ??
Maybe the REAL one that the first churches and the subsequent
inspired writers produced is obscured and we're all deceived.

I say we accept what we have by faith that God would not allow us (his
church) to fall prey to a prevailing gate of hell. The Catholic Bible is nothing
more than a KJV plus a few books anyhow. I'm not offended by it.

From all the choices and the bickering we do on here, I'm not sure I could even
pick a church to join without having flashbacks from some of the accusations
I've read.

Is there not salvation for the simple man who might sit on a stump under God's
starry heavens and plead for mercy and forgiveness..?? (Without ever walking
through a church door) Our spirit does not get sidetracked when we seek of
God.

Rom 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

Boy there aren't many restrictions attached to that............are there ..?
I really don't think there's room for satan to intercept our intentions.

Singer

 

[Frank]

Carson:
I have already posted the evidence. You just dont accept it. If you believe the new testament is truth, why do you not practice what is taught? Why do you not follow the new testaemnt pattern for organization of the church. Titus 1:4,5. Why do you not require bishops to be the husband of one wife, I Tim. 3:1-3. Why do you not sing as directed by the new testament. Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Hebrews 2:12, Romans 15:9, I Cor. 14:15,. Acts 16:24,25, Mat. 26:30. It is evident you do not use the new testament as authority. Mat. 28:18-20.
As for your assertion about circular reasoning, you are making an attempt to "poison the waters" because you cannot refute the evidence.

The standard for inspiration has NOT CHANGED. Therefore, the failure of your magisterium and pope to meet them are still the same. The same can be said for those who claim the extra-biblical documents are inspired. Acts 8:18. Mark 16:17-20.

Furthemore, you have provided no evidence that warrants anyone to consider these extra-biblical documents as inspired. Remember, God requires PROOF, not assertion. I Thes, 5:21, John 20:30:31, II Cor. 12:12, II Cor. 13;5. I John 4:1.However, I would expect you to argue this way. Catholics use the same argument for the magisterium and the pope being inspired of the Holy Spirit. They use assertion without confirmed evidence. SEE Mark 16:17-20, Acts 8:18.


You question the completeness of new testament based on the LACK OF EVIDENCE! You assert other books are inspired based on the LACK OF EVIDENCE. You accuse me of not being able to make a simple comparison as to the content and veracity of the evidence. Again, LACK OF EVIDENCE! I will say this for you, at least you are consistent in your unsubstantiated assertions.

If you believe the new testament is not complete, provide the evidence that would support your assertion. In other words, apply the same static standard to these writings that prove the new testament writings are from God. Mark 16:17-20, John 20:30,31, Acts 8;18, II Cor. 12;12. " At the mouth of two or three witness shall every word be establihed."


It appears to me you are the one who circles the mind!! And, anyone who has actually looked up these references knows the truth. Have a good one.

 

[trying2understand]

In short, if you believe the new testament is truth, why do you not practice Frank's interpretation?


****I removed the quoted text as it was not necessary in order to make fun of Frank's post. No offense intended but to conserve bandwidth space let's all try not to quote more than is necessary to get our point across***

[ May 27, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]