# Scripture vs the written Gospel?



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

Discussion in the AAA forum has me asking what is the Scripture that Jesus often quotes and makes comments about vs the gospel. 

Jesus talks about the scripture a lot. It is the Word of his Father. The Gospel accounts were not written when Jesus did this. Foretold but not written. Well at least by the authors of the four gospels.

Could the scripture be the lesson or story leading up to the need of the gospel?

The scripture is pretty much cut and dry. We know it is the Word. Jesus comes, dies, resurrects, and ascends. This account is recorded by four men. The first three a bit different from the other and the fourth an account of a smaller time frame of Jesus. John being more of his death and resurrection. His story not being a repeat as Matthew, Mark, and Luke's account.

The Gospel being just as important as the scripture. The Word was scripture and the Word was the Gospel. 

Then came Paul and his revelation was revealed to the world.

Eventually man decided it was necessary to compile it all together. Scripture, the Gospel, and those spreading the Gospel. They had a council and voted on what to include and what to toss away. Men did this. 

So when Jesus said how important scripture was or his Father's Word, what was he referring to? The Gospel had not been recorded yet. Paul's letters had not been written yet. 
But we do know the Gospel was the plot. The Word was with God before time. The plan of Jesus coming, ie the Gospel was the plan from the get go.

We can't ignore the importance of the gospel. It is the core of Christianity but is it Scripture? Is it the literal writings of the Father? The four humans writing about his Son? 

Next up is Paul. He had a calling from God. He wasn't even seeking God. Yet God elected him to reveal the Gospel to the world. He wrote a bunch a letters to the many new believers. Stuff about faith and not returning to past beliefs. 
His story is also important. Important as God's Word? Important as the Gospel accounts? I guess so but is his letters the literal word of God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

I think it's all important and it's great that we have all of this recorded but when I read Jesus quoting scripture, it makes me wonder about what was written past his quotes. 

I'm trying to see that God doens't change. If God doesn't then why did his Word? Why was it added to include the written account of the gospel and Paul's revelation and letters?

I'm not saying the gospel was added or the revelation of it being offered to the Gentiles but the recording of these events which came later in time.

When the men sit around the table in Nicea, were they trying to figure out what to consider what to add to Scripture? What can we add to Scripture? What can be added to God's Word? The Gospel accounts? Paul's letters? 
Were they tasked with adding the writing's of man to the literal Words of God? I do realize they were also compiling Old Testament authors as well.
I sure would hate to have had that responsibility.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

The Early Church had to spread the gospel for 325 years before the First Council of Nicaea. 
Were they using Scripture and the Gospel? Imagine trying to spread the Gospel before it was officially added to the Word of God.
Not the concept which would be easy but trying to quote scripture to prove it or show it as we do today. It wasn't the written or approved  Word of God at that time.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 6, 2018)

Does the Christian make a distinction between God and Scripture?

Of course not.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2018)

When the council of Nicea, 325 AD, decided which would be considered inspired and which would not, the world was divided almost in half. So much similar to today Republican and democrat controversy. The votes being like 52% to 48%. It was a nasty battle between the Arians and the Bitarians. Constantine was not interested in truth, he only wanted to settle the fight because it was hurting peace, economy, etc. So the council was called. It was a stacked deck, Arius against the Bitarians. I say Bitarians because the idea of the Holy Spirit as a co equal third person had not yet hatched. These men, sat around arguing over "truth", Arius even being physically slapped. Arius fought for the belief that Jesus was lesser than the Father, using such verses as the father is greater than I, that the son did not know the hour or day, etc. Arius was not alone, half the believing world was with him on this.... but not at the council. Constantine ruled in favor of the bitarian view, and let them chose what was to be considered "scripture". He commissioned 1 man to write 50 bibles to be distributed to the churches as a standard. He approved and disproved of secondary writings, making illegal any writing that contradicted the bitarians. All opposing writings were burned. And anyone caught with an unauthorized writing would be considered a capital punishment. Realize that the men were ruthless, fighting to win, with no regard for truth, only to win. Just exactly like we see these day between the demos and repubs. We have so much documentation from this council. They would try to win against each other just like we see, by means of making the other look bad by means of association. If they could think of someone whom had been looked down on, they used it, trying to imply that person, in the others camp. It then became as you would expect, if you can't win, you insult the opposing side. It was nasty. Nothing Godly went on during the council of Nicea. And this is exactly where our scriptures came from. Who knows what all we may have lost in secondary writings. As with any creed, it's a circle drawn, stating orthodox belief as someone has defined it. An attempt to stamp out opposing ideas, considered "once in for all" that the matter is settled, that any belief that does not fit within that circle, is heresy. Much thought goes into it. It wholly reveals what they believe worded as such to shut the door on any other beliefs present or future. Who knew then that it would be written over 100 years later to add the Holy Spirit as a coequal third person of a trinity. While I believe we have sufficient scriptures to know the gospel, don't be fooled into thinking that Godly men whom were inspired were the one's whom chose which books. And we can also assume that this standardized 50 bibles sent out, also reflected their interpretation of the questionable verses. These are facts, varified by first hand writings, amounting to more 1st hand sources than the books of the NT. It's available to anyone whom wants to study it, and early church history. You can read the arguments of all these "players" as they tried to make their case for right belief. Volumes and volumes from each player adding up to tons of writings..... But sorry, you will not find but one side of this, because the opposing writings were burned. But you can however clearly see both sides view by simply reading 1 side by realizing the argument.


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Does the Christian make a distinction between God and Scripture?
> 
> Of course not.



Kinda?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 6, 2018)

All Scripture is *inspired* by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness . . . 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul says an interesting thing regards to what he says and does, " I think that I too have the Spirit of God." So if he had the Spirit of God and was called to be an original apostle.... hum....

http://magazine.biola.edu/article/08-summer/gods-word-or-pauls-personal-opinion/

 Souced from above link.... The three sources of authority for the earliest Christians were: (1) the teachings of Jesus passed on orally by the apostles; (2) the instructions of the apostles (cf. Acts 2:42); and (3) the words of the prophets, that is, the Old Testament Scriptures. These three streams of authority were different from each other stream, but each of the three was binding on early Christians.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> All Scripture is *inspired* by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness . . . 2 Timothy 3:16
> 
> Paul says an interesting thing regards to what he says and does.



I think that is my question. What scripture was Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy? Paul's teachings were not yet scripture when he told Timothy this.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Does the Christian make a distinction between God and Scripture?
> 
> Of course not.



No, my question is define Scripture? What was the Scripture Jesus referred to? What Scripture was Paul referring to?

The Logos of God. Something thought, something said, the mind of God. This written down into Scripture. 

Does God still speak today? Is this scripture? Are their no present day saints who write the Word of God? I'm not saying there is or isn't. Just trying to see a definition for Scripture. Maybe God's Scripture is part of his Word but not all of his Word is Scripture. He still speaks to us today, we just don't call it scripture. 
Come to think of it, we don't even call it his Word. We just say God spoke to me and said or God lead me to give this sermon. 

But when God spoke to Saul, there was already written scripture. Maybe the four Gospels were already a part of the written scripture by then. I'm not sure. Still though the revelation Paul was spreading concerning the Gospel was a part of God's Word.

I can see where the dispensations are seen as one reads the Bible and see where the Scripture changed as the books were added. The Gospels added probably brought about a change. The revelation of Paul and his letters probably brought about a change. 

Some Churches added even more books that brought about even more changes.

But what was the scripture Jesus and Paul referred to?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think that is my question. What scripture was Paul referring to in his letter to Timothy? Paul's teachings were not yet scripture when he told Timothy this.




Well they ( apostles) used the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Christ, much as Jesus did. They used the prophets...  to instruct when and where it was profitable to do so.

Timothy's calling was as a teacher, not an apostle... so Paul as an apostle who had authority was instructing him where to go for sources. So Tim's sources at this point were the apostles ( evangelists and leaders)  and the prophets or what we call the Old Testament today.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> Well they ( apostles) used the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Christ, much as Jesus did.



What about Paul, I don't think the Gospels were written yet when he was preaching? Not to say that the gospel wasn't the Word but was it scripture during that time?

Maybe I'm just having a weird wondering. I'm just thinking that the Word of God is bigger than scripture yet scripture is a part of God's Word. 

Then seeing God's written Word increase as things changed and the written Word changed with it.

Prophesies revealed and then recorded, maybe. The Gospel revealed and then recorded. Paul's revelation revealed and then recorded. Is that the end?
If so, why?

When Jesus returns, will men still record those events and add them to Scripture?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about Paul, I don't think the Gospels were written yet when he was preaching? Not to say that the gospel wasn't the Word but was it scripture during that time?
> 
> Maybe I'm just having a weird wondering. I'm just thinking that the Word of God is bigger than scripture yet scripture is a part of God's Word.
> 
> ...





Paul knew the witness of the of the very first Christians  from the get go... was presumably baptized in Damascus and he was familiar with Peter at least, he rubbed elbows with Luke for example... So Paul did not need the New Testament. 

He most likely used the Old Testament when it was to his advantage to do so...

At the final redemption that some will write its events?... I don't know... but when all is in all... it might just include a no need to book existence... I really don't know. Where to go and being there might just end up as  one and same venue.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2018)

Pauls writings are the earliest writing of the NT. We consider them scripture, but for sure, at that time, he had no idea that one day, these letters would also be called scripture. In his mind, the OT was scripture.........and so was the book of Enoch


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2018)

I don't know how to see it except as Jesus said. The scripture is unbreakable, and likewise that which testifies of Him.

We know further by His statement after declaring both His ability to ask for, and His declaration of His Father's response to 12 legions of angels:

But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Isn't that an interesting _seeming_ fork?

I could do this...but I don't...even though I know the Father would respond with "yes". 

Is it because there's a greater motive at work in Jesus than escape of...well (am I confident to say this?) what _we yet see_ of His enduring in a thing is of less consequence to Him than faithfully fulfilling the word of God? (And I am persuaded 12 legions of angels sufficient to a deliverance, an escape)

I suppose the closest in mind I can achieve to any comparison is this.
A POW is given a prepared statement by "the" enemy to recite on camera, and if done, the beatings will stop. Food will be provided, torture will cease. Does he do it? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Who will judge the one who does it? He may even have some sense of knowing "my people will understand...they will know I have endured much and I have found...little choice." (Some have even signaled while doing it...to sort of  relay the "truer" message that they don't agree with what they are doing.)

The other, who perhaps resists (even with the probable same knowledge "my people would forgive me") but may be finding a thing within...that even were he "excused";...to himself...it is just not _right._ And so a different...or (as perhaps could be said) stronger thing is at work within him. At least as compared to the other man who_ seemed _to fold.

But this is what I find inescapably captivating. I don't find Jesus occupying either "place" in the above.

He could easily do a thing to His own deliverance...but...also with, and in, (as He has said) _complete assent _of His Father. "He would presently give me 12 legions" 

He owes no secret message to _excuse_ or show a thing. He does nothing wrong against himself...or his conscience or His God who would be in assent. Who it could be said...is already "ready" in assent. This I know...Jesus speaking truth...always maintains an undefiled conscience.

To me He is plainly saying "Even if_ I_ were to do this (which I do not)...I remain wholly in the Father's will".

And that's what remains captivating, that relationship. 

_That_ place where nothing is done except by the constraint of love, and such that even _no betrayal_ could be found in even the seeking of relief...yet something else prevails, quite plainly. 

And manifest.

A devotion to Word. And His integrity. His manifest...integrity.

O! To know this...to know Him!

(I cannot help but add...as all around Him was swirling and churning to a single voice "look at what WE do to you...look at WHAT WE DO! As a sheep before it's shearers is dumb He maintained His testimony "This is the Father's work")


----------



## gordon 2 (May 6, 2018)

---------------------Someone thought that this was genuine...and the truth.

 Acts 20-27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.* 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.*


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> ---------------------Someone thought that this was genuine...and the truth.
> 
> Acts 20-27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.* 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.*


*

Yes.*


----------



## tell sackett (May 9, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Early Church had to spread the gospel for 325 years before the First Council of Nicaea.
> Were they using Scripture and the Gospel? Imagine trying to spread the Gospel before it was officially added to the Word of God.
> Not the concept which would be easy but trying to quote scripture to prove it or show it as we do today. It wasn't the written or approved  Word of God at that time.



The gospel wasn't added to scripture. Scripture is the gospel, you will find it in Genesis 3.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

tell sackett said:


> The gospel wasn't added to scripture. Scripture is the gospel, you will find it in Genesis 3.



I agree, the concept was there before Creation. The Word was with God. I meant the Gospel story as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Gospel of the Grace of God that had been given in precise details to Paul which he was to proclaim to the Gentiles. To the Jews first and then the Gentiles. 

Also referred to by Paul as a mystery or secret revelation.

Romans 16:25-26
Now to Him who is able to strengthen you by my gospel and by the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery concealed for ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith--


Again the concept was always there. Before the fall. Even before time. Concealed for ages past but now revealed. It was made known years ago by Scripture, the writings of the prophets by God's command.

It would be harder to spread the Gospel with just the Old Testament accounts. We can see it now after the Cross but even though it was there it was hidden from the masses, the World, the Gentiles. God's plan to bless the world, the Gentiles.
With the Gospels written and Paul's revelation written, the Great Commission and God's grace would now be easier to present.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

The way I see the Gospel is, it has always been there. The Cross has always been there. The plan, concept, image, or Word has always been there.
In the Old Testament the prophets told of it. It was hidden until it finally happened. Maybe hidden from some and revealed to others. 

Then at some point Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote of this revelation or prophesy while it was happening. Thus adding to Scripture already written. Their accounts of the gospel were added, not the gospel itself. It was already there.
Then a bit later Paul had a revelation from God, a mystery, a secret concealed from the people for ages. Paul writes his revelation and it is added to Scripture.

Ephesians 1:9
he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Ephesians 2:12-13
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2018)

Israel said:


> Kinda?



Yep.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2018)

> The Scripture vs the Gospel?



About as wise a statement as “Mona Lisa, The Smile vs the hair.”

One artist.  One painting.  Only the pretentious, incapable of seeing the beauty of the whole, seek to foist their egos by discussing the purported idiosyncrasies of the parts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes.



And Yes!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> When the council of Nicea, 325 AD, decided which would be considered inspired and which would not, the world was divided almost in half. So much similar to today Republican and democrat controversy. The votes being like 52% to 48%. It was a nasty battle between the Arians and the Bitarians. Constantine was not interested in truth, he only wanted to settle the fight because it was hurting peace, economy, etc. So the council was called. It was a stacked deck, Arius against the Bitarians. I say Bitarians because the idea of the Holy Spirit as a co equal third person had not yet hatched. These men, sat around arguing over "truth", Arius even being physically slapped. Arius fought for the belief that Jesus was lesser than the Father, using such verses as the father is greater than I, that the son did not know the hour or day, etc. Arius was not alone, half the believing world was with him on this.... but not at the council. Constantine ruled in favor of the bitarian view, and let them chose what was to be considered "scripture". He commissioned 1 man to write 50 bibles to be distributed to the churches as a standard. He approved and disproved of secondary writings, making illegal any writing that contradicted the bitarians. All opposing writings were burned. And anyone caught with an unauthorized writing would be considered a capital punishment. Realize that the men were ruthless, fighting to win, with no regard for truth, only to win. Just exactly like we see these day between the demos and repubs. We have so much documentation from this council. They would try to win against each other just like we see, by means of making the other look bad by means of association. If they could think of someone whom had been looked down on, they used it, trying to imply that person, in the others camp. It then became as you would expect, if you can't win, you insult the opposing side. It was nasty. Nothing Godly went on during the council of Nicea. And this is exactly where our scriptures came from. Who knows what all we may have lost in secondary writings. As with any creed, it's a circle drawn, stating orthodox belief as someone has defined it. An attempt to stamp out opposing ideas, considered "once in for all" that the matter is settled, that any belief that does not fit within that circle, is heresy. Much thought goes into it. It wholly reveals what they believe worded as such to shut the door on any other beliefs present or future. Who knew then that it would be written over 100 years later to add the Holy Spirit as a coequal third person of a trinity. While I believe we have sufficient scriptures to know the gospel, don't be fooled into thinking that Godly men whom were inspired were the one's whom chose which books. And we can also assume that this standardized 50 bibles sent out, also reflected their interpretation of the questionable verses. These are facts, varified by first hand writings, amounting to more 1st hand sources than the books of the NT. It's available to anyone whom wants to study it, and early church history. You can read the arguments of all these "players" as they tried to make their case for right belief. Volumes and volumes from each player adding up to tons of writings..... But sorry, you will not find but one side of this, because the opposing writings were burned. But you can however clearly see both sides view by simply reading 1 side by realizing the argument.



Maybe you should ask the REAL questions like “Who stacked the BIG deck?” or “Who appointed Constantine?”   Surely if you’re looking for the Truth, and not just trying to deconstruct our belief in the inspired and infallible Word of God those are pertinent questions that need to be answered, but what’s the point right?  After all,  I think you have already concluded as Mr Ehrman has, that there is no God so everything else is moot.  You’re here just to show us the err of our ways.  Well you have found ripe ears with Artfuldodger.  He’s a reed blown by any wind.  Just glad to see some of the others have already smelled a polecat too.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2018)

tell sackett said:


> The gospel wasn't added to scripture. Scripture is the gospel, you will find it in Genesis 3.



Don’t bother.  He’s looking only to be heard, not for the truth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Pauls writings are the earliest writing of the NT. We consider them scripture, but for sure, at that time, he had no idea that one day, these letters would also be called scripture. In his mind, the OT was scripture.........and so was the book of Enoch



Thanks, that's kinda what I was trying to convey although rather badly with the gospel. My thread title should have been something like "Scripture vs the Gospel before it was written" or "Scripture vs the written Gospel and Epistles before it was written or "Scripture vs the written Gospel that was added later."
The Gospel "message" has always been. It was the Word before Creation. That was not what I was trying to convey. I'm not presenting God vs the Gospel. I was tying to convey God's written Word vs God's written Word after the Gospel accounts were written. Hard to explain I guess. I never intended it to read "God against his Gospel message." Just his written message before the Gospels were added in writing to his written message already in existance.

I was just putting some things out there for discussion. To see what was Scripture according to Jesus when He quoted Scripture. He wasn't quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John when he quoted Scripture. The Gospel had not been written yet. It doesn't mean it wasn't happening or that it wasn't foretold. 

I would also agree that Paul's epistles are Scripture and that he probably didn't consider them as such when he was writing them.

Maybe I got too far out of the river on this discussion and it made some uncomfortable with even discussing it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

Maybe a better title would have been "The Scripture as quoted by Jesus and the Apostles vs what would one day be added to the scripture Jesus quoted and referred to as the "the word of God" in the form of the written Gospel.

"Then at some point Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote of this revelation or prophesy while it was happening. Thus adding to Scripture already written. Their accounts of the gospel were added, not the gospel itself. It was already there."
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ie the Gospels were added to already existing scripture that contained the gospel message. Paul's revelation and letters were also added to already existing scripture as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Gospel being just as important as the scripture. THE WORD WAS SCRIPTURE AND THE WORD WAS THE GOSPEL.
> 
> "Thank you Art for pointing this out in your very first post."
> 
> ...



The Word was the Gospel. Even before any scripture was ever written.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Pauls writings are the earliest writing of the NT. We consider them scripture, but for sure, at that time, he had no idea that one day, these letters would also be called scripture. In his mind, the OT was scripture.........and so was the book of Enoch



What would Jesus consider to have been scripture when he was walking the earth as a Jewish man? Again, I'm not trying to take away from the four gospel accounts that became scripture later.

The Torah, Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, the Septuagint, the Pentateuch?

Also related and touched on in many discussions is Jesus teaching more about God's Kingdom and Paul not so much. The written gospel accounts teach of the accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Did Jesus dwell on this aspect as much as he did the Kingdom? I guess the way to get to the Kingdom was the Gospel. To Jesus, the Kingdom was also a part of the Gospel.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 10, 2018)

I do not know which books he would have drawn from. Jesus taught the coming Kingdom of God. Which was saying to the Jews that the reign of the Messiah, their most anticipated time, was near. Paul's task was to show that although they thought that death excluded him, that the resurrection actually gave him "all" authority in heaven and earth. Thus the Father had given him everything. And that the Kingdom of God, the reign of the messiah, was within.


----------



## Israel (May 11, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I do not know which books he would have drawn from. Jesus taught the coming Kingdom of God. Which was saying to the Jews that the reign of the Messiah, their most anticipated time, was near. Paul's task was to show that although they thought that death excluded him, that the resurrection actually gave him "all" authority in heaven and earth. Thus the Father had given him everything. And that the Kingdom of God, the reign of the messiah, was within.



That's really interesting.



> Paul's task was to show that although they thought that death excluded him, that the resurrection actually gave him "all" authority in heaven and earth.



Especially since Paul understood, maybe far in excess of the gentiles to whom he was sent and labored among...even the specific nature of that death. Testified in:

"Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree," (in the Law)

Common death (so to speak) would surely _appear_ as excluder, no? 

But _that particular_ sort...I can't help but believe Paul was led _to much_ in seeking understanding.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2018)

On the atonement:

Zech 13:1

"On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

On the kingdom:

Ezekiel 39:29
I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.

On the Messiah,

Isaiah 11:2

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD--


Isaiah 11:12  (KJV)
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 11, 2018)

I'm going to try and keep my discussions a bit more mainstream instead of "out there somewhere." Maybe the Spirit can lead me in this fashion.

OK, Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. Old Scripture repeating itself in New Scripture. Must be important. Not that the non-quoted Scripture isn't. I hope no one thought  I thought it was.
Presented for discussion of an example is Isaiah 6:9-10. Quoted  five times in the New Testament in connection with national Israel’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 
Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40 and in Acts 28:26-27.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 11, 2018)

The Old Testament is confirmed in the New. It's authority is never questioned. One can use the Old to explain the New and the New to explain the Old. The Old to explain Jesus and Jesus to explain the Old. 
This must have been a challenge for Paul to explain the New in relation to the Old.
I've read there are 342 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. 

Paul was pretty educated in the Old Testament. He used it to show a lot more than the fulfillment of the Cross. Romans 9 comes to mind.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 11, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's really interesting.
> 
> Especially since Paul understood, maybe far in excess of the gentiles to whom he was sent and labored among...even the specific nature of that death. Testified in:
> 
> ...



Paul is sent and labored among the Gentiles. Yet he quotes Old Testament scripture to them in his letters. 
How  much  did  those  Gentile  Christians  know  about  the  Old  Testament?  Where  did  they get their knowledge of it? What authority did they give to the Old Testament?  
Interesting. We call it the Old Testament. I wonder what Paul called it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 11, 2018)

This might be a bit out there somewhere but I'm feeling compelled to write. Concerning Paul and Romans 9-11. Paul sees three different groups. Jewish Christians like himself, Gentile Christians to whom he was sent as an apostle, and Jews who had not accepted the gospel. 
Was reading a bit by Krister Stendahl. He wrote "Final Account: Paul's Letter to the Romans." He may be a nut, I don't know. I didn't read his book.
Anyway Paul's looking at how God looks at these three groups. Paul  frequently  appeals  to  Old  Testament  texts to look for answers.

Just another example of Paul quoting Old Testament scripture in his letters.
 Isaiah 10:22-23, Isaiah 1:9, and a few others. Jacob and Esau,  Isaac and Ishmael  are referenced in Romans 9 from the Old Testament as well.


----------



## Israel (May 13, 2018)

I don't dismiss (at all) miracles, the miraculous, and those things that surely cause us to stop in wonder to what is the manifestation of all power stepping into a place of previous assumptions formed by routine.

God..."showing up".

We believe Paul experienced and wrote of these things. And others wrote of things done "through Paul" by God, that testify of this. 

Paul even wrote:

My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. 

There is something Paul learned about being set in order and place to God, from which Paul saw clear manifestations of God being with him. Not for the sake of "wowwing" Paul...or even others for that matter, simply...But to the end of establishing.

But...who isn't "wowed", standing in awesome wonder (and great joy) when God does indeed manifest "I am among you"? I do not believe for a moment...God despises such joy and awe. 

But it is never the result of merely seeking that (we are even told what kind of generation...seeks only that...signs)...but they are to expected (though who can ever "expect" their effects on us?) by the obedience of faith.

What do we know of Paul? To whom was he sent? To whom did he go? And who do we know, even by his own words, that would have been, and always remained "his own" preference?

This is not a case of loving the gentiles less, but such a testimony of a deep and abiding desire toward a brethren so close to his heart...he knew that to in any way to diminish this true longing that was burning in his heart, and (perhaps) even fail to confess to it...might leave him a liar before men. For, of it surely...God already knew.

It is not Paul whining "God made me go here...when I wanted to go there"...for how often he wrote of his delight in the faith he found delivered to his gentile children. Yet...he couldn't, and would not deny a first love, so to speak, and felt need to mention it more than once. Might _this even be_...for our...establishing?

This is not the recommendation of a religious formula...out from which have grown so many bizarre and distorted practices and manifestations. It is not reduced to "do what you don't want to do, don't do what you want to do"...but..."Obey God". 

From the first "do what you don't want...etc" comes all sorts of asceticisms,  a corruptible self engagement, and odd and bizarre awkwardness. In the other however "obey God"...comes a something else. 

And to ourselves it may even at first...appear somewhat like the first. "God is asking (or commanding)" of me something I "don't want to do"...in matter of preference. But formulas, and the formulaic must...and can be resisted through Christ. 

To even say it is a chess game with the Master finds me trying to put into words...what cannot be contained. But in the sense that we might see, or barely yet be able to comprehend...wills are always to some extent "in contest", and God is not ignorant. He knows our frame. Nevertheless I believe, and am confident enough to say (though even with great fear) we are "always being maneuvered...to the greatest of joys". His moves with us...are never to our harm, no matter "our feeling". We are drawn to places of seeming desert and wilderness, only to find a so much greater than we could have ever imagined of His presence.

There could be said...(dare I?) much enduring of "check...and mate" in our being through whatever experiences ordained...to our learning. God does not grow weary of "playing" (but not toying) with His children...ever...but we also learn (Do we?) that He who _is all _of truth, _even in our being his children_ never throws a game. Though this may be the poorest of seeing...and relating, it is all this child can express, for now. And we may learn, even...chess...which seems so very very appropriate to the wise of this world...is not a game we are "good at" when playing the Master. We may even find a _version_ of hide and seek, which _seems_ to the wise of this world, so very infantile...is even more suited to us. Yet...with our Lord it becomes (not a hiding)  but seek and find...and seek...and find...more! A child's delight! Daddy...I see you!


"When you were young" Jesus said to one of His own, "you gird yourself and went where you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch forth you arms and another will gird you, and carry you...where you would not". (How much a picture of a child, lifting his arms to his Father for all "doing"!)

There is a fight that must be "taken out of us" yet...we are never unaware...of our own will. It is taken out (not our will, but the mindless, and hapless flailing against another...will) through the work of Christ, and never any less, or other. 

Another will, through time, practice, and experience in faith...of which we are...even at the _very first_ made aware...but which through attentiveness and honest appraisals (through the O! so many tearing downs of a propensity to lie...even and especially to ourselves!) that takes a better form that we _dare not_ deny it. 

We begin to see God's will in some better light, and begin to understand His sovereignty is not only irresistible...but _most_ laudable, for were He to surrender it to "another will"  EVEN our own in resistance, no matter how informed it may appear (to us) we would be lost.

And we may begin to see (as is also my fervent hope...even _in myself_) that what remains of one will, present assuredly, and undeniable, is so far eclipsed by the goodness and majesty and grace in that other, as is also, undeniable.

The will of man...to live..to have, to abide in what might appear as his greatest imagination of all pleasure that might be, that even he _might see_ as such, must have its poverty revealed. Not to a shaming, not to a crushing despair of having an "I was wrong" tortured from it...but, something very else. A stretching past, for a receiving past, what would be imagined...to the real.

In these tents there is much groaning. But there needn't be complaint (God help ME!). To be satisfied in groans that cannot be uttered...knowing it is One making intercession for us, we are given to know, in the faith of the Son of God. So, there is a glorious birthing taking place being mediated in groans, that we make common plea are not despised.

What did Paul learn? What was he given to see? What might we find exchanged even in himself...for what is the "far better"?
Surely a resident desire, never denied, to be go to his brethren after the flesh. Oh! to have in his eyes, in his time, a part played in that...to see (perhaps) some of a something _of a seeming greater_ fruit bearing, plain to him. 

Who (on the face of it) was "better equipped"? Who knew better the scriptures, the traditions, the _ways_ of the children of Israel (even having _magnificent credentials!_) than he? Who would appear...better fit to it? At least...on the face of it?

Our God is not...a tease. This thing wasn't being "kept just beyond Paul's grasp"...forever moving (as if he would reach for it in desire) and pulled then, just out...of reach. No. God forbid. (And I know fear in my writing!)

No. What did Paul receive? What was Paul given? Even in place of what may have appeared the most fervent desire that he might "play a part"? Might see...to his brother's salvation.

He _saw_ the plan. He saw the way of _it_, the way of God in plan revealed to him...of the "how" all Israel would be saved. Did this make him sorrowful? Or, was a previous sorrow...being consumed? In the overwhelming light of joy?

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 

Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.

For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all. O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?”

“Who has given so much to God, that God should repay him?”
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen


"they are loved on account of the Patriarchs".

There was a something I believe Paul saw. As great as his love was, and burned for his brothers...there was another love...already at work. It was toward them...before he even knew...of a "them". Or the "us" to which he perceived he belonged. It was moving to its fruition of salvation...in a relentlessness he could add nothing to, increase in no way...neither buttress nor support from even his great desire...for a desire far greater...was already working.


I am convinced with fear...this did not make him sad...at all.
What a relief to find...to discover, to have revealed, all he burned for in that desire to see them safely brought home...is being done...perfectly. To know...it already..._as done._

I cannot help but also wonder how many "if only's" passed through his mind and heart..._if only_ he could find the way...to pass his eyes...to them. Seeming so very close...yet likewise far...from the seeing delivered to him. If...only...

We weep many tears for "loved ones"...God knows we do. We do...groan. From places often, most often, and sometimes so deeply...only God can see. We may barely even know...of the depths from which these groanings come, bubbling up in our souls to an unsettlement. An unsettlement we do indeed "feel". Waters stirred in the deep..sometimes to a swirling on surface we begin to perceive. 

Our desire for reconciling is not fruitless, vain, shameful, nor despicable. May we not despise that unsettling it brings. May we let such of the unsettlements of such burning desire _while even in our unknowing _have its free course in and through us. That we may altogether see...this is the work of the Reconciler, already at work from the foundation of the world, and now...even...in us. In our very...foundations.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2018)

I think many folks see my quest or any of our quests as faltering if we ask deep heartfelt questions. That we should not have these thoughts. That just by asking puts us in a place of not having God's coverage or salvation.
I see Paul as such a person. "by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”

"If somehow?" From a man who writes scripture. 

I believe that all of us have a faith that's different from each other. Sometimes it's strong and sometimes it wains. None of us have all of the answers. It's not this set of legalistic rules that one follows to gain acceptance.
I think God is saying that his faith in us never wains.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2018)

Imagine how hard it must have been to keep the faith, Galatian legalists, Colossian Gnostics, and Judaizers at every turn.
Yet he was tasked from God to relay the gospel.


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think many folks see my quest or any of our quests as faltering if we ask deep heartfelt questions. That we should not have these thoughts. That just by asking puts us in a place of not having God's coverage or salvation.
> I see Paul as such a person. "by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
> 
> "If somehow?" From a man who writes scripture.
> ...





> "If somehow?" From a man who writes scripture.




How do we "hear"? 

The Master tells us certain things about hearing.
Do we_ hear_ Him?

I believe Paul did...and I am seeing in you that same hearing...if I understand correctly. 

Am I hearing a sort of "marvel"?

Is there a voice almost saying this: 

"Paul...of all we have been given to see and know by the abundance of your writing and the testimonies to your work and tirelessness and depth of revelation...ain't you...of all..._at least_ a shoo in?"

(For who speaks more of the assurance of "faith" in expectation _and explanation_ to the believer, than he?)

If not you...then who? And if not you...what "chance" of those who see in themselves such a lesser degree of obedience..._if compared_ to yours?

Paul...don't you know? You helped "write the Bible!"

I am being convinced Paul too well understood the dangers of wrong inferences.

Being an apostle...doesn't save anyone. (Or _at least_ is _not a guarantee_ of faithfulness) One can insert any other "calling" they approve there, also. 
Judas.

Speaking oracles of God...doesn't save anyone. (Or at least is not a guarantee of faithfulness) 
Caiaphas.

Being a _member_ of a church...doesn't save anyone. At least as might be accorded by our perceptions.
(Ananias and Saphira)

We are quite sobered by those who even say ..."Lord, Lord... have we not...?"

We know what Jesus says of those whose standing on miracles, prophesies, mighty works (had any had cloths taken from their bodies for the healing, as Paul saw? Raised a Eutychus?) thought them sufficient.

Sin brings with it every wrong inference...to a particular fruit of presumption. And I would be most presumptuous of all to propose I know God's  final disposition of Judas, Caiaphas, and Ananias...etc. Nor do I seek to suggest anything to their endorsement. (It is far more than enough for me that Jesus testified of losing none...except one...so there is ample enough example in that...at least to me)

Paul wrote:

Now all these things happened unto them _for examples_: and they are written _for our admonition_, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.  

I tend to think Paul learned...a lot. A lot in looking and seeking and finding. 

Maybe even how a people could...so blessed with the presence of God in their midst...and manifestly so in wonders...could suffer a numbing of mind to begin to believe...they were special...of themselves, and in such...not even recognize _the voice _of the very God who once moved among them in their deliverance. The voice of Word...in which they thought they could assure their own standing. (O! to see the keepers of God's Word...is not in the parade of being "We, The Keepers of God's Word")

And yet seek...in utter hatred of it...to silence it. (He came unto His own...)

What we see as examples to us grow plainer from the coarse and (seeming) obvious to the _finer_...and refined.

Who do we exalt? I am persuaded Paul understood the ever present temptation and danger to seeing himself, and therefore presenting himself...as anything other than a mere man to whom God in grace had revealed salvation through only One, Jesus the Messiah, and he dare not budge an iota from there...as a man needing...salvation. 

I am also persuaded it is a complete and powerful demonstration of his having the love of God worked so thoroughly through him and out then from him to his brothers, that he dare not lead them to a harm, a harm that comes by allowance of anything...to be presented in competition with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. So...even for their very sakes...he dare not be led to think more of himself...than he ought. Paul understood...how "examples"...work.

But...if we believe Paul's testimony as true...there came a time when he could boldly say (noting it was "near his end" is not the same as presuming that this was why it was so) 

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Ain't it sweet? His assurance there...? Not only "to himself" from God...but making sure those who, as he, had been won to a seeking of nothing other than the Lord's appearing...would also find it to unspeakable...joy.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

Here is something I heard this morning...it's so very very lovely.


----------



## Spineyman (May 21, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Discussion in the AAA forum has me asking what is the Scripture that Jesus often quotes and makes comments about vs the gospel.
> 
> Jesus talks about the scripture a lot. It is the Word of his Father. The Gospel accounts were not written when Jesus did this. Foretold but not written. Well at least by the authors of the four gospels.
> 
> ...


Just as Holy men were carried about by the Holy Spirit to record the Word of the Living God. So were Holy men carried about by the Holy Spirit to make the collection of what was kept and what was discarded to form the cannon of Scripture. It is all important and it was all recorded for our benefit. 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 

16 *All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Inspired by God literally means God Breathed. which means 100 % accurate. What was cannonized is also exactly what God meant to be recorded and kept.


----------



## Spineyman (May 21, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think many folks see my quest or any of our quests as faltering if we ask deep heartfelt questions. That we should not have these thoughts. That just by asking puts us in a place of not having God's coverage or salvation.
> I see Paul as such a person. "by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
> 
> "If somehow?" From a man who writes scripture.
> ...



Paul had an encounter with the Risen Christ and that is why he was such a stalwart of the faith. He was not tutored by the pre crucified Christ but the Risen Lord. 
 Acts 9:3-6 New King James Version (NKJV)

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.  It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Just as Holy men were carried about by the Holy Spirit to record the Word of the Living God. So were Holy men carried about by the Holy Spirit to make the collection of what was kept and what was discarded to form the cannon of Scripture. It is all important and it was all recorded for our benefit.
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> ...



When Paul told Timothy this about "All Scripture," was 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture?


----------



## Spineyman (May 21, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> When Paul told Timothy this about "All Scripture," was 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture?



OK so what are you saying? Any recorded scripture past that doesn't count?. Just remember what I said the Holy Spirit conveyed it, Holy men recorded it and Holy men canonized it. Everything that is there should be there as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> OK so what are you saying? Any recorded scripture past that doesn't count?. Just remember what I said the Holy Spirit conveyed it, Holy men recorded it and Holy men canonized it. Everything that is there should be there as inspired by the Holy Spirit.



No that's not what I'm saying at all. I think that is part of the problem with my presentation of this thread.
Basically I was just looking for a discussion on the definition of Scripture as defined by Jesus and Paul.
That definition. What they defined as "all scripture" vs the written gospel.
The written gospel went on to include what Jesus said, what the apostles said, and to include Paul's letters.

When Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is given from God, this very letter, his epistle to Timothy wasn't a part of the written Gospel. 
It was still the gospel. It was from God via Paul. It was part of the message of the Good News.

Yet at that time, it wasn't scripture.


----------



## Spineyman (May 22, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> No that's not what I'm saying at all. I think that is part of the problem with my presentation of this thread.
> Basically I was just looking for a discussion on the definition of Scripture as defined by Jesus and Paul.
> That definition. What they defined as "all scripture" vs the written gospel.
> The written gospel went on to include what Jesus said, what the apostles said, and to include Paul's letters.
> ...



But it is now and it was still God breathed. Obviously the New Testament wasn't even penned when Jesus walked among us here on earth. But His and the apostles constantly quoting Old testament Scripture speaks to the veracity and validity of the scripture itself. So because we can be assured that the Old Testament is correct and true, then we can be assured that the new Testament is also true. The entire Bible is God Breathed, inspired by God, the Holy Spirit and He will lead you into all truth. The New Testament or actually New Covenant was instituted in Jesus' blood. You can bank on what it says.
You have to realize that Jesus referred to the last days many times, and so did His Disciples. That refers to the last days of the Old Testament, when God wrapped it up like a scroll, and instituted the new covenant by Jesus shed blood on Calvary.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 23, 2018)

If then, all scripture is God breathed....... and the NT writers refer to the book of Enoch many times....... then why was it not included?  It is validated as much as any other book is? Reason.... It did not say what they wanted it to say, those whom decided which books were God breathed


----------



## Spineyman (May 26, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> If then, all scripture is God breathed....... and the NT writers refer to the book of Enoch many times....... then why was it not included?  It is validated as much as any other book is? Reason.... It did not say what they wanted it to say, those whom decided which books were God breathed



Show me in scripture where anyone refers to the book of Enoch?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2018)

This is all I could find;

Enoch 2:1-2 Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

Jude 1:14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Maybe Enoch was quoting Jude.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2018)

We do know that Enoch was a prophet. We don't know for sure that all of the book of Enoch was written by Enoch. Are there any other prophets of God whose prophesies aren't recorded in their own books?

I'm thinking there are many. What Old Testament books have the recorded prophesies of Enoch that the New Testament writers are quoting?

I mean when someone quotes Abraham, Isaiah, or Elijah, these quotes can be found in other scriptures, correct?

So when someone quotes Enoch, it either has to come from some Old Testament scripture or the Book of Enoch.
I would assume Jude is quoting scripture. If not then would that mean Jude is not scripture either? Where is Jude getting this information about Enoch's prophesy?

Also since Jude quoted Enoch, it was also controversial as being considered Scripture as well.


----------



## Spineyman (May 27, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> We do know that Enoch was a prophet. We don't know for sure that all of the book of Enoch was written by Enoch. Are there any other prophets of God whose prophesies aren't recorded in their own books?
> 
> I'm thinking there are many. What Old Testament books have the recorded prophesies of Enoch that the New Testament writers are quoting?
> 
> ...



Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.
> 
> We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
> 
> https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html



Paul quoting Epimenides who was not a prophet of God is a bit different than a New Testament writer quoting a prophet of God. I can agree that the Book of Enoch may not have all been written by Enoch but the Epimenides example is a bad example. Paul was using Epimenides' famous ironic statement about Cretans.

A better example would be showing a prophet of God that doesn't have his own book such as Elijah. If one quotes Elijah then we know it is either oral or from written Scripture. It's an example that not every prophet has a book with their name on it. 

I wonder if there are any prophetic quotes in the New Testament that aren't from scripture? Imagine a man who is given words to tell that isn't scripture. I guess it's possible that in some way God had him speak but didn't want it recorded. Interesting concept.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2018)

Maybe God had his words spoken through Enoch written but somehow "man" lost the recorded word of God. Perhaps God decided what was suppose to be Enoch's scripture wasn't what was found and let the council in on it.

God could have decide he didn't need Enoch's prophesy recorded in a whole book and just had Jude and a few others record the important parts.


----------



## Israel (May 28, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Paul quoting Epimenides who was not a prophet of God is a bit different than a New Testament writer quoting a prophet of God. I can agree that the Book of Enoch may not have all been written by Enoch but the Epimenides example is a bad example. Paul was using Epimenides' famous ironic statement about Cretans.
> 
> A better example would be showing a prophet of God that doesn't have his own book such as Elijah. If one quotes Elijah then we know it is either oral or from written Scripture. It's an example that not every prophet has a book with their name on it.
> 
> I wonder if there are any prophetic quotes in the New Testament that aren't from scripture? Imagine a man who is given words to tell that isn't scripture. I guess it's possible that in some way God had him speak but didn't want it recorded. Interesting concept.




And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own feet and hands, and said, “The Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

We know this was recorded.

We could speculate whether this was the first and only time Agabus ever spoke as a prophet for it is all we have recorded. We could also speculate that all and only what is recorded of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos...et al, is all they ever spoke as prophets. We could be wrong.

The scripture tells us Agabus was recognized as a prophet, therefore I am more inclined to believe this was not the first and only time he spoke as one.

But...the matter is not "what else may have been..." but right attention to what is.

I am well aware of certain contentions regarding these, and other callings, as I would believe, are many of you.
(Also even to the making of distinctions as to what is a NT prophet in contrast to the "older".) What is "like" it was...what cannot be "like it was" because of the _cessation arguments_.

This a capitulation. And that to unbelief. And it is strongest contended by the mind that has institutionalized, systematized, "formularized"...what cannot be made, or even remain so; our relationship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

The sighing, and deep longing for God's manifestation in power, cannot leave the disciple. Nor must it. Even by the strongest of argument...or even testimony of eye "I have not seen it". That must be changed, and of a surety will be, amongst those calling themselves by the Name that has called them. 

It must at best become "Though I may not have seen it _yet_, God is true, and Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever"

Oh! here is a contending. And that before God. A winnowing only the Spirit knows inside a man. "I dare not be of that which only seeks a sign" and yet "I claim to belong to Him who has promised such will proceed in His name". 

Were devils pressed to speak out in cry only "once upon a time?" If so, perhaps we do embrace a fairy tale. To ourselves, anyway. Or does a light carried, if it be same light, have no less effect upon creation today, than ever it had? Perhaps the examination of ourselves is far more in order than a "looking around" outside to conclusions of what can and cannot be. "We do not see such and such happening...therefore we are free to formulate doctrines to enforce according to our seeing".

God forbid! And again...God forbid!

Look, this apostle, this one whose banner is raised quite high, this Paul (Oh God! Our blindness!) whose words are trotted out in places called "St. Paul's Church" or the words of James in "St. Jame's Church"...or Peter's  likewise...to all confusion and interchange (think rightly for the love of Christ)...do we not see?

Do we not see cisterns covered up? A path strewn with stones? And, if we do claim to be among the seeing, why do we not see these things...the thirsty among us, the hobbling whose feet and ankles are turned by an unclear path, the withering...? The deeply doubting and those now given only to speculations?

Look, again. This brother (whose words need not fall upon deaf ears) spoke clearly. He has told us...in our coming together, of our deportment. "Let the prophets speak" two or three! Is he double tongued? Is he? 

Do you think, might you think, could you think, he should have added "until such times as there can be no more among you"?
Then amend his words...amend his speech, amend the whole of his life to read "this be only for once upon a time".
Or this: 

"Call unto Me, and I do answer thee, yea, I declare to thee great and fenced things -- thou hast not known them." YLT

God help us, O! God help us!

How much finer we remain to our own sight to assume this speaks only "of others", taking no heed:

But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!

We can turn away from ourselves, are given to, are commanded to.

looking to the author and perfecter of faith -- Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him -- did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down; YLT

And that is why Jesus suffered outside the city gate, to sanctify the people by His own blood. _Therefore let us go to Him outside the camp_, bearing the disgrace He bore. (Italics mine)

Where are we camped?

"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where are you?"


For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, you know it altogether.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2018)

Agabus, a better example than Epimenides. Thanks Israel. Some of these prophets may have been called around the time of Paul as well.
We can't say that every prophet old or new is scripture. Rather everything they said for God may not be scripture.

A man speaking for God but since it's not written, it's not scripture. That makes sense, scripture has to be written. So maybe all of God's word isn't written.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2018)

Paul is telling us what he heard from Agabus. He didn't need to quote anything written.
Jude was quoting what Enoch said many, many years earlier. It was probably written. Not that that make it scripture though.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe God had his words spoken through Enoch written but somehow "man" lost the recorded word of God. Perhaps God decided what was suppose to be Enoch's scripture wasn't what was found and let the council in on it.
> 
> God could have decide he didn't need Enoch's prophesy recorded in a whole book and just had Jude and a few others record the important parts.


God did not decide anything. Man chose to throw out Enoch because they did not like what it said. You have to realize the time period. It was exactly like it is now. Between the Democrats and Republicans. Exactly. Each side wanting to make the other side look bad, each side playing dirty, taking things out of context that was said, each side using means of association with anyone whom they could crush as a sword against the other. Each side just wanting to win, regardless of right or wrong.  And to top it all off, these guys were not even trinitatian at the time. How do you explain that? That these Godly men decided which books. They were not even saved by todays so called christian standards. What a mess.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> God did not decide anything. Man chose to throw out Enoch because they did not like what it said. You have to realize the time period. It was exactly like it is now. Between the Democrats and Republicans. Exactly. Each side wanting to make the other side look bad, each side playing dirty, taking things out of context that was said, each side using means of association with anyone whom they could crush as a sword against the other. Each side just wanting to win, regardless of right or wrong.  And to top it all off, these guys were not even trinitatian at the time. How do you explain that? That these Godly men decided which books. They were not even saved by todays so called christian standards. What a mess.



And back to one of my questions. I'm seeing this council of men. Two different leanings or parties. Maybe even more. Much like any other council of men. Their pride of winning overcomes everything really.
It's sad the way that works isn't it? 

Even what may be considered the "Word" of God voted on by the yeahs and nays. Man's free will. God giving man the free will to do so. By prideful men no less.

A group of men politically motivated to pick and choose from the actual inspired Words of the God almighty. To vote on it no less. Talk about pressure. Could you imagine being tasked with such a mission?  Perhaps it wasn't God's decision but one of the freewill of man.

I can see them in the separate rooms before the council. If you vote against Enoch, I'll vote for Jude.

So what then? What is scripture? How do we know what is and what isn't? We can't just receive like Jude and Paul did. They were prophets. They had incoming from the Mainline. People "voting" in a council, maybe not. 
They may have had to use freewill. They may have had to study, talk, choose, and perhaps vote along the lines of party affiliation.

If so, where does that leave us? Where or what is scripture? What is the actual written words of God if not Paul and Jude? 

Prophets speaking and no one listening? Jude reiterating what Enoch said. Enoch speaking for God yet his written word not God's word. 

Why? Because a man using freewill said Enoch did not say that. A biased council of men using freewill said that?

Yet without the Scripture, what is the Gospel? Prophets speaking the Word. The Gospel but not the Scripture.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> And back to one of my questions. I'm seeing this council of men. Two different leanings or parties. Maybe even more. Much like any other council of men. Their pride of winning overcomes everything really.
> It's sad the way that works isn't it?
> 
> Even what may be considered the "Word" of God voted on by the yeahs and nays. Man's free will. God giving man the free will to do so. By prideful men no less.
> ...


 I have come to terms with the fact that our bible is not the word of God, but rather that of men. But I see inspiration in parts of it. The context within, still remains. The simple gospel. As far as Enoch, I think the first, something like 63 books are legit. The latter was written by someone else, validated by writing annalist. Someone tried to pass off their writing under the guize of a known writing. It's not hard to see why those fighting that Jesus was fully God would not want the book of Enoch included. Even though it is specifically validated in the NT several times. Weird that they even accepted  books that mentions/validates Enoch


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have come to terms with the fact that our bible is not the word of God, but rather that of men. But I see inspiration in parts of it. The context within, still remains. The simple gospel. As far as Enoch, I think the first, something like 63 books are legit. The latter was written by someone else, validated by writing annalist. Someone tried to pass off their writing under the guize of a known writing. It's not hard to see why those fighting that Jesus was fully God would not want the book of Enoch included. Even though it is specifically validated in the NT several times. Weird that they even accepted  books that mentions/validates Enoch



I think there was some trouble validating Jude. 

The prophets though, weren't they speaking for God? When Jesus referred to "Scripture says" wasn't he referring to the actual Word of God? Did Jesus ever say that Scripture was the Word of his Father?
Maybe Jesus himself knew that scripture was the written work of man. Important none the less but the recording of man telling the story. 

The prophets were speaking by divine authority. Some of their "speakings" were recorded and some were not. Yet they were relaying the messages they were receiving from God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think there was some trouble validating Jude.
> 
> The prophets though, weren't they speaking for God? When Jesus referred to "Scripture says" wasn't he referring to the actual Word of God? Did Jesus ever say that Scripture was the Word of his Father?
> Maybe Jesus himself knew that scripture was the written work of man. Important none the less but the recording of man telling the story.
> ...


I trust the prophets. They were humble men. Realizing the need to be humble. They chose to humble themselves wearing sackcloth and owning nothing. God can use men like that. They can be trusted because they know not to try to steal his glory. These preachers today, making big bucks, expensive suits, etc. They can not be trusted.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2018)

I should clarify that I see most of the OT as "scripture". I also believe scripture was left out of the canon. So, man decided, yet it contains scripture but is missing scripture


----------



## Spineyman (May 29, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I should clarify that I see most of the OT as "scripture". I also believe scripture was left out of the canon. So, man decided, yet it contains scripture but is missing scripture



Then you are saying God is not able to rightly convey His entire guide in certainty. Make no mistake about it there is one author of the Bible with many writers. God recorded entirely what He chose to reveal to us.

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Bible - How we got it - MacArthur.pdf


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Then you are saying God is not able to rightly convey His entire guide in certainty. Make no mistake about it there is one author of the Bible with many writers. God recorded entirely what He chose to reveal to us.
> 
> http://www.onthewing.org/user/Bible - How we got it - MacArthur.pdf


If God had done it, it would not be so full of errors and contradictions.


----------



## Israel (May 30, 2018)

What if a thing existing in contradiction was set upon by what cannot be contradicted?

Jesus said "and the scripture cannot be broken".

It can be spoken against to no diminishing, and yet, even if it can be endorsed, or is...likewise nothing is "added to it".

When a man enters the place where this is seen _for what it is_ "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"...man may see a something.

The "seen for what it is" is this...the man who believes his assent to agreement with God...adds _anything_ to the matter of settling, or in any way increases God's "believability" is sorely deceived.

It might be salutary to read again Jesus' exchange that begins with 

"So He said to the Jews who had believed Him," in John 8:31 and see where that goes.

This is not a man _who needs_ man's testimony of man to Himself. This is not a man at all contradicted by lies and unbelief all around Him. And this is surely not a man who regards not offending what would "lends its endorsement" to Him.

One thing a disciple _might_ learn as he beholds Jesus Christ (and that testifies so very strongly of His being _the truth_, and true) is that Jesus Christ is totally unconcerned with _trying_ to get men to believe Him.

He _knows_ whose work this is:

Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.' YLT

I am persuaded no man _desires to be shown liar_. No man has any affection for shame (unless he foolishly believes he can heap it to others with impunity). But little does the man know that his concern and striving to merely appearing believable is all to his own undoing.
This is why man adds oaths and promises to his own word, why Bibles are trotted out in court...and why Jesus tells men...

"but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No, and that which is more than these is of the evil."

The man who "swears" to tell the truth already shows where that comes from.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King

And if I have learned anything, anything at all (as God alone be true) this learning has come from a man's effort_ to be_ in contradiction to the word of Christ. To think he could live there, find life there, _exist_ there...but only to find God contradicting him of lie at every single point.

But...

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" God forbid.


----------



## Spineyman (May 30, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> If God had done it, it would not be so full of errors and contradictions.



Zero errors and zero contradictions! 100 % God breathed!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Zero errors and zero contradictions! 100 % God breathed!


Seriously? Have you read it?


----------



## Spineyman (May 30, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Seriously? Have you read it?



Absolutely, all the time. I would stake my life on it! That is precisely why it says to study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God to good works which is your reasonable service. It also says to be like the Bereans who search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. Just because you don't understand it or can't explain it doers not mean it is incorrect. It is the Truth that testifies to the Way, the Truth, and the Life,Jesus Christ!!!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Absolutely, all the time. I would stake my life on it! That is precisely why it says to study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God to good works which is your reasonable service. It also says to be like the Bereans who search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. Just because you don't understand it or can't explain it doers not mean it is incorrect. It is the Truth that testifies to the Way, the Truth, and the Life,Jesus Christ!!!


OK, out of respect for the thread, I won't point any out for you to explain. If it were the AAA thread, I would be making you a list


----------



## Spineyman (May 30, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> OK, out of respect for the thread, I won't point any out for you to explain. If it were the AAA thread, I would be making you a list



https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/is-the-new-testament-reliable/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/is-the-new-testament-reliable/


That link..... It's not real validation for a NT writer to refer to "all scripture" as God breathed, him referring to the OT, then years later, someone including his words as scripture, validating itself. Not to mention, that it was his opinion to start with. I don't entirely discount the bible. It would not have read it hundreds of times if that were the case, however, I can't speak of these things as if it's fact as you all can. Because the so called facts are contradictory. You can have contradictions that may have been typos but context contradictions tell the real story


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 1, 2018)

Why would God need to direct the Roman Emperor to have a council of men convene to vote on which books were God's word?
It sounds more political than something God would do or even need to do.

Now if it was one man such as Moses writing for God then yes. I can't see where God would need more than one man to pick and choose the books that God wanted in the Bible. 
Then the voting is confusing as well. Why would God want man to vote on such an important thing?

Moses didn't bring the commandments down and have a council vote on the ones they thought should be included.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 1, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would God need to direct the Roman Emperor to have a council of men convene to vote on which books were God's word?
> It sounds more political than something God would do or even need to do.
> 
> Now if it was one man such as Moses writing for God then yes. I can't see where God would need more than one man to pick and choose the books that God wanted in the Bible.
> ...


It was political. Exactly like today. The  US is split right down the middle with Rep and Dems. We are more divided than ever. Constantine decided to end the controversy, once in for all, at the time, he was not even religious. So he did not care, he just wanted it ended. Strange that they were in such sharp dispute because at that time, the Arian crowd believed Jesus was God but lesser, pointing to verses like, "the Father is greater than I", etc. Constantine later regretted his decision and was influenced by someone's sister, I can't recall and became "Arain" Christian. So interesting to see the writings recorded on this. What is super interesting is the winners of the Council of Nicea, they were not trinitarian. The men whom decided which books.... they were bitarian. They tried to belittle Arius by means of association, claiming that he was acquaintances with a man, I can't recall his name, I will find it if anyone is interested, that believed in the exact version they now call the trinity. Yet they used this against Arius. Modern day Trinitarians sweep this under a rug. He was the first man to ever spell out the trinity in todays version, yet he was deemed at the time as a 'knostic". So rather than even use him as the first sign of the trinity in church history in early 300AD, LOL, they have to wait until it evolves into a trinity until 400+AD. We have record of all these things


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It was political. Exactly like today. The  US is split right down the middle with Rep and Dems. We are more divided than ever. Constantine decided to end the controversy, once in for all, at the time, he was not even religious. So he did not care, he just wanted it ended. Strange that they were in such sharp dispute because at that time, the Arian crowd believed Jesus was God but lesser, pointing to verses like, "the Father is greater than I", etc. Constantine later regretted his decision and was influenced by someone's sister, I can't recall and became "Arain" Christian. So interesting to see the writings recorded on this. What is super interesting is the winners of the Council of Nicea, they were not trinitarian. The men whom decided which books.... they were bitarian. They tried to belittle Arius by means of association, claiming that he was acquaintances with a man, I can't recall his name, I will find it if anyone is interested, that believed in the exact version they now call the trinity. Yet they used this against Arius. Modern day Trinitarians sweep this under a rug. He was the first man to ever spell out the trinity in todays version, yet he was deemed at the time as a 'knostic". So rather than even use him as the first sign of the trinity in church history in early 300AD, LOL, they have to wait until it evolves into a trinity until 400+AD. We have record of all these things


Here are the statements used against Arius at the Nicea Council. Proof that they did not believe in a trinity, because the mere thought of it was considered heritical, and became a means to discount Arius, simply by means of association, that was not even validated as true



Wiki......In the fourth century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus,[10] who is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

Quote "Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[11]"

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra was a staunch opponent of Arianism, but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical, and was later condemned for his teachings. Marcellus attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:

Quote "Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."[12]


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 8, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> That link..... It's not real validation for a NT writer to refer to "all scripture" as God breathed, him referring to the OT, then years later, someone including his words as scripture, validating itself. Not to mention, that it was his opinion to start with. I don't entirely discount the bible. It would not have read it hundreds of times if that were the case, however, I can't speak of these things as if it's fact as you all can. Because the so called facts are contradictory. You can have contradictions that may have been typos but context contradictions tell the real story


There are no contextual contradictions that can not be correctly and factually explained. Just interpretation and translations. That is precisely why we need to be like the Bereans who searches the scriptures daily, and do your absolute best to rightly divide the Word of Truth!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 8, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> There are no contextual contradictions that can not be correctly and factually explained. Just interpretation and translations. That is precisely why we need to be like the Bereans who searches the scriptures daily, and do your absolute best to rightly divide the Word of Truth!


Oh no my friend. There are major context contradictions. If you care to face them head on then I can point some out


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 8, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Oh no my friend. There are major context contradictions. If you care to face them head on then I can point some out


I've gone through this before with someone on FS back when they has the politics forum. They are problems in translation and interpretation, not actual text. If you would like you can pm me a few and I will see what you are referring to.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 8, 2018)

We should start a thread on the AAA forum. I had rather not do this here. There needs to be a safe place


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> We should start a thread on the AAA forum. I had rather not do this here. There needs to be a safe place


I have a question for you straight up.
Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 9, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> I have a question for you straight up.
> Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
> Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
> Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
> Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?


Not surprising that you play this card


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 9, 2018)

So.... are you implying that since I don't agree with your version of truth, that I must not be saved? Are the uninformed more saved than the studied? I have read the NT over 1000 times. I know what's in there and just as important, what's not. I don't have a blind faith. I can not entrust my faith to the bias of men, therefore, I learned to read greek, to see for myself the original translation. I have compared every single word against the greek in the NT, 5 times or more.  I spent years, specifically studying church history and the arguments and writings of the early church fathers. I went wherever the search led me, whether it was what I wanted to hear, or not.  I have read all the books that were denied a place in the Canon of scripture. I stand 100 percent  firm in my faith, in what I believe, not because this is what my preacher said, or my upbringing, or what's accepted, but because I am informed. I am a true apologist because I am informed. If you don't know the opposing issues, then you can't be an apologist. You would then just be considered a fan, in the stands, who yells out occasionally. As far as assuming there are no biblical contradictions.... this only shows that your a "devotional" christian, who reads here and there, wondering around, rather than a bible student. Nothing wrong with that. Not everybody is motivated by the spirit to be a bible student. This in itself can hinder the better calling of those called to minister to others, not at all meaning pastors. I would prefer the better gift of love, but I was lead elsewhere, only problem is that those like myself, meant to keep the church in correct doctrine, have been wrote off as heretical, because  no one wants to hear what we have to say.  The bride has gone astray, she has climbed into bed with an impostor posing as Jesus. But then, this is what the bible told us would happen.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 9, 2018)

I am in no way insinuating that you are not saved. Just simply asking if you are blood bought?


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 10, 2018)

* 2 Peter 3:14-16 *
*Be Steadfast*
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;  15 and consider _that_ the longsuffering of our Lord _is_ salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, *has written to you, * 16 as also* in all his epistles, *speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable _people_ twist to their own destruction, as _they do_ also the rest of the Scriptures.


I still have never heard anyone say the New Testament was not written by and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have had many say the Old is done away with and obsolete, but not the New. To which I also reply. All scripture is inspired by God, both Old and New. What separates the two is merely the Blood of the Living Christ!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> * 2 Peter 3:14-16 *
> *Be Steadfast*
> 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;  15 and consider _that_ the longsuffering of our Lord _is_ salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, *has written to you, * 16 as also* in all his epistles, *speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable _people_ twist to their own destruction, as _they do_ also the rest of the Scriptures.
> 
> ...



Are all of Paul's letters scripture and inspired by the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2018)

Any idea why God would have chosen Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria for a council to pick Holy Spirit inspired books of his Word?
Can we assume there was no free will in these councils, some free will, or just divine intervention? Maybe the emperor used free will to form the council and God used his divine intervention to make them vote the way he wanted them to.

Come to think of it, isn't that how he operates anyway? We only think we are in control such as Irenaeus but in reality God is in control such as with Enoch.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Any idea why God would have chosen Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria for a council to pick Holy Spirit inspired books of his Word?
> Can we assume there was no free will in these councils, some free will, or just divine intervention? Maybe the emperor used free will to form the council and God used his divine intervention to make them vote the way he wanted them to.
> 
> Come to think of it, isn't that how he operates anyway? We only think we are in control such as Irenaeus but in reality God is in control such as with Enoch.


If God had done it, I wonder why he had the opposing writings burned, as if it were a threat to truth.... since he reveals truth anyway? Why would he care. Think of all the opposing views to Christianity.... he did not have them burned and banned? Luckily, we can clearly see what the Arians believed by looking at the opposing writings. We just don't have any left from the Arian side. Anyone burning opposing views in an effort to keep others from having a choice in their belief has a motive to "win", not for truth


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> If God had done it, I wonder why he had the opposing writings burned, as if it were a threat to truth.... since he reveals truth anyway? Why would he care. Think of all the opposing views to Christianity.... he did not have them burned and banned? Luckily, we can clearly see what the Arians believed by looking at the opposing writings. We just don't have any left from the Arian side. Anyone burning opposing views in an effort to keep others from having a choice in their belief has a motive to "win", not for truth



True, God didn't destroy the Hindu or Buddhist writings as you mentioned. It might be God had nothing to do with the free will of the Catholics and was more aligned with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church or the Christian Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt.

It's funny how a bunch of Protestants believe that the Catholics got it all right at the beginning but somehow lost it later on. Either they were always right or always wrong. If they missed the boat on grace vs works then maybe they missed the boat on Canon.

"The Coptic Church is based on the teachings of Saint Mark who brought Christianity to Egypt during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in the first century, a dozen of years after the Lord's ascension. He was one of the four evangelists and the one who wrote the oldest canonical gospel."

I'm gonna have to go with the Coptic Church of Egypt.

"The Coptic Church produced thousands of texts, biblical and theological studies which are important resources for archeology. The Holy Bible was translated to the Coptic language in the second century. Hundreds of scribes used to write copies of the Bible and other liturgical and theological books. Now libraries, museums and universities throughout the world possess hundreds and thousands of Coptic manuscripts."

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2018)

How would one make this out to be?

Luke 1:1-4
1Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word.   3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I see it as Luke composing an account as they were handed down to him by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. In other words, men. Luke carefully investigating these accounts. Researching, testing, checking, composing.
Using his own free will with a tad of divine intervention? If complete intervention, why would he need to carefully investigate?
In other words, Luke didn't set down with God as Moses did and write what God told him to write. Luke wrote an account based on eye witnesses and servants of the word.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2018)

The four Gospel accounts do have some differences or variations. I don't believe it takes away from what Jesus did on the Cross though.
Four different storytellers using free will to gather data maybe. Maybe Luke asked different eyewitnesses than Mark. Maybe one was more lazy than the other. Maybe one felt pressured to hurry up and finish.

That being said, if the actual hand of God instead of men using free will to gather accounts, why four? Wouldn't one inspired account be better than four fact gathering accounts?

Why didn't the Council just pick Mark and be done with it? No future fussing about the differences that way. Just say Mark was the inspired version. Mark had the hand of the Holy Spirit. He didn't have to research eye witnesses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 11, 2018)

The problem with Luke is that he is far reaching...... and would have to be one of two things. He would have to be inspired by God..... or a liar. For instance.... Mary was a humble girl. There is no way that she made up a song while staying with Martha, then told anyone about it. Then Luke knows it word for word. Then, another example.... How does Mary get all this info from angels, sees Jesus turn water to wine, etc.... then show up at a house with the family "to take charge of him for he must be out of his mind"? Lots of embellishments in Luke's writings as well, even the stories that are supported in Mark. This should be called Lukes song. He made it up, not Mary.

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
    of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49     for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
    holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
    from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
    but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
    but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
    remembering to be merciful
55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
    just as he promised our ancestors.”


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> * 2 Peter 3:14-16 *
> *Be Steadfast*
> 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;  15 and consider _that_ the longsuffering of our Lord _is_ salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, *has written to you, * 16 as also* in all his epistles, *speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable _people_ twist to their own destruction, as _they do_ also the rest of the Scriptures.
> 
> ...



If we are to put our trust in the "taught" and "stable" men who chose Canon, do we also put our trust in their ability to choose everything else as well? Did this Church in the Roman empire get it all right at these same councils?
Things such as the nature of Christ and salvation based on works? Things such as one losing their salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2018)

I was thinking last night while going to sleep that the Word was the Son. That being more important than anything written. Perhaps what is written in our hearts.
Maybe that old spiritual vs physical thing becoming more important.
Then maybe it's possible the Holy Spirit calls whom he wants in far away villages and islands where they never had anything written.

I still see the importance of the written, the Scripture, and the Gospel. It needs to be recorded for future generations. But if the Holy Spirit can elect, he can do it without one hearing the Word recited. He can do it when the Holy Spirit reveals the Word from the inside out.

Maybe it's somewhere between all of this. Somewhere between the spiritual and physical. Somewhere between divine revelation and learning from other men.


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> The problem with Luke is that he is far reaching...... and would have to be one of two things. He would have to be inspired by God..... or a liar. For instance.... Mary was a humble girl. There is no way that she made up a song while staying with Martha, then told anyone about it. Then Luke knows it word for word. Then, another example.... How does Mary get all this info from angels, sees Jesus turn water to wine, etc.... then show up at a house with the family "to take charge of him for he must be out of his mind"? Lots of embellishments in Luke's writings as well, even the stories that are supported in Mark. This should be called Lukes song. He made it up, not Mary.
> 
> And Mary said:
> “My soul glorifies the Lord
> ...



What do we do? Who do we trust? What...do we trust?
Anyone? No one?
I am not speaking as though "we must make this all smooth or it is that all will appear rough..." as though difficulties perceived are difficulties indeed, and needing a therefore explanation...conclusion...reduction to being made...amenable to the mind. "Even" the mind of the man calling himself believer.

Why does one...why does one not?
What makes a man a liar...? (I think you may have said it...!)
What (who?) makes a man a hearer?
What other bathwater needs a care lest we throw out the baby? And...ultimately...does it matter_ if (what looks to us like the baby!) _the baby _is_ thrown out?

We might as well "get down to it", right?
(But I don't want to run naked down the street!)

I am now too old to resist. Old in years? God knows.

Here is one thing I do believe. I do believe on the day of Pentecost a "thing" happened. Irresistible to our brothers. Something came out of hiding...came _out of waiting_. Something of total propulsion...of _all_ propulsion.
It moved men to speak of a recently executed man...a man so manifestly a treasonous enemy of Rome as to merit crucifixion. A man so reasoned to be accursed of God by the Jews (For it is written, everyone that hangs upon a tree is cursed...) that their speech is _manifestly_ in opposition to what may men may know of Empire (Rome was indeed,_ the_ power in, and of the "world") and religion, yet, they spoke so boldly _in that propulsion_...something happened.
Yes...something happened. Men heard their invitation...the call from _that_ beyond, their invitation to stand with _the man_ described above...in manifest siding with what appeared an enemy of Rome...and a shame to Jews. They were convicted of their dire and desperate need. Something opened their eyes...to their estate. And Messiah formed in their sight.

This was far more than eloquent preaching, far more than what comes of diligent notes and outlines and flow charts...and man's reason.

They preached one thing...the man who needs no explanation. (And _will not suffer it_...of man) Jesus the Christ. The one who needs...no man's testimony.

How much caution...must be thrown to the winds? (But, I don't want to run down the street naked!) _Is thrown_ to the winds? Those 5,000 didn't need someone to explain to them the significance of crucifixion. They didn't need explained to them...what it meant to take_ that name_...of _that man, _as Lord. They didn't need explanation of where that put them relative to Rome. Of Caesars.
Or of their _powerful _religious leaders. Or even relative to their own kin. What sense could make sense of that...to any?

Who hears what takes place in the garden? Who...records...and makes known? And _to whom_? Who _really_ knows?

You answered your own question. A man is either a liar...or inspired of God.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 18, 2018)

*Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?*
*Apologetics*

by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017

Many people deny that Scripture teaches its own inerrancy, but Brian Edwards shows that, based on Scripture, Christians should absolutely hold to biblical inerrancy.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 18, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> *Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?*
> *Apologetics*
> 
> by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017
> ...


He is simply saying what people want t


Spineyman said:


> *Why Should We Believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture?*
> *Apologetics*
> 
> by Brian H. Edwards on July 5, 2011; last featured February 16, 2017
> ...


Foolish mindset. It's like saying the earth is flat. I could make him look like the fool that he is. At first he would twist everything beyond reason to try to make contradictions work, but after awhile he would get exhausted and his trying so hard would eventually been seen as bending logic. You have no idea to the extent of contradictions and errors. No idea.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 24, 2018)

Because there are none!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> Because there are none!


Seriously. Do you really want to start running all over the internet, seeing what weak defenses you can find for all the errors and contradictions that I will post? Because apparently you don't realize the extent of it. Can your faith handle it? Will it shake your faith to see them? Are you capable of dealing with them? The churches need to learn how to deal with them, so that their faith is not shaken if and when this day comes? Maybe you could find some help that will divide up the task of trying to justify each one. It will be alot of work on my end but waaaaay more on yours trying to search for justification.  I honestly don't want to..... but I will if you think you can prove me wrong? Let me know if you wish to proceed. I will make a specific thread on the AAA forum. Let me know


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

I will give you a few examples, and you can hunt for justification, just to see what your up against. All I need is one to make my case. If they aren't any as you assume. This is a context issue. I don't resort to anything that might have a back door, or a chance that a scribe miscopied. I don't need to since there are 100's of these. 
The genealogy of Jesus. The writer of Matthew tries to make some special event out of Jesus's geology . 14 generations, fourteen more from Ab to David....and 14 to Christ. Actually he mistaken listed 13 to Jesus, but that can be a mistake of the pen. However the mistake is not pen related. It is context that he created. 14.14,14, numbers of 7 I suspect. However, he left out Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, between Jehoram and Uzziah. So we see that his 14,14,14 was wrong with no possible excuse. 
I will give you another. 3 gospels have Mary being sent to comfort the others on finding out Jesus was alive. But in John, "so she came running to Simion and the others and said, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they put him". I have seen many men try to justify this with all sorts of nonsense. In the end, they make a fool of themselves. 
Oh, what the heck.... Which did they eat first, the Manna or the quail. "First they ate only manna. Then God sent them quail." numbers 11:6,31 "First they ate quail, then they ate manna" Ex16:12-13. 
This should keep you busy awhile


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

We can't make the bible into something that it is not. It is what it is. And that's enough. We lose all credibility with Atheist, secular world and sadly college students when we try to force something as one way that they know is not so. So what is the bible? It's man's best attempts at preserving that which they deem as truth. It contains inspiration, which the NT says will be hidden until one's eyes have been opened. This I believe. The OT has several "traditions" we will call it. One geograpical area had a tradition of the OT books, and another geographical area had another. They were very much alike in context, but not in details. These traditions were later merged together by a scribe to create harmony, but the task was burdemsome and he made lots of mistakes called writer fatigue. For instance, Gen 1 is written by a different writer than Gen 2. They use different language, style, words for God,  and contradict each other. Later, we see sooooo many mistakes/contradictions in what is called doublets. Meaning the copiest trying to merge traditions together would give us conflicting info. Things like amount of horses, height of columns, etc. Whole stories told twice with different people. This is where the bulk of contradictions arise. There is a reason for it, thus, so it's  not worth the big cover up that inerrants try to impose. Also, we see mans hands in this rather than Gods. For example, simply read Gen 1 and 2. There are not 2 great lights. Only one and the moon reflects that light. Darkness was not created or separated, it is a result of the earth blocking the sun. It's a total mess given from one whom likely thinks the earth is flat. If God had inspired him, since God created it all, it would be correct. That does not mean God did not create the earth from nothing. It only means that mans attempt to explain it was limited to his knowledge.[ JEPD theory]


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

For a list of Doublets, I found this. I have not looked at them. I do not know if it's complete. I know nothing about the source or beliefs of the site. Only that it claims to be a list of doublets. https://biblebrisket.com/2014/03/17/doublets-in-the-hebrew-bible/


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 24, 2018)

Boy, those guys doin' all that mendin' and blendin' sure were stupid.  They left all there for anybody to see.  How blessed we are that we got so much smarter in the last 200 yrs.  God must have done it all for His most favored people—us.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2018)

My mind often goes to this when matters of inerrancy and inspiration are being put in the docket.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes.


I can't see anything of resolution solely in this instruction until one is moved to seek with sincere heart "what then, Lord, am I to do?" Or equally trained by the folly of assuming one knows...till the same prayer is _unearthed_.

I am persuaded the whole of scripture is to bring us to Whom of which it all testifies for instruction, discipline, and submission to His spirit. And answer.

Asking, seeking, knocking is not a frivolous pass time. If we didn't need it, it would not have been given as instruction.

Ignorance submitted to Christ becomes remarkable as some have noted.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ordinary men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

I don't intend to back anyone into a corner by pushing for them to try to explain that which I know they can not. However.... Since I was specific, it calls for a specific response. Better to not respond at all..... than to respond with no substance. So far, stupid... and fool. LOL, that's exactly what I expected. I did not expect anyone to address the points I made.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2018)

I get no joy from pointing these out, nor feel accomplished to have proven my view. I just feel strongly that believers need to address these issues now, rather than later. .


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Boy, those guys doin' all that mendin' and blendin' sure were stupid.  They left all there for anybody to see.  How blessed we are that we got so much smarter in the last 200 yrs.  God must have done it all for His most favored people—us.



We did figure out grace over works and election over free will. I think in due time we may be able to see much more than "those guys" back then. Each generation learns a little bit more about the truth and the light. (Luther)

As people run to and fro, knowledge will increase.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> We did figure out grace over works and election over free will. I think in due time we may be able to see much more than "those guys" back then. Each generation learns a little bit more about the truth and the light. (Luther)
> 
> As people run to and fro, knowledge will increase.


While the most important thing to remember is that God had it "figured out" all along, I think that what you are referencing as progress in man's understanding is the result of the emphasis being placed in a particular area of study at a particular time.  During the early church period most emphasis was placed on God, His nature, attributes, and relationship to creation.  Those questions are foundational to the church, just as they are to Art and hummer.  Clarity, or confusion, there determines the understanding of all other, frankly less important, issues including justification, sanctification, salvation, and glorification.  Has there been progress?  I'm reluctant to voice an opinion; but I am convinced that we have been blessed by God with many wise and faithful men to lead us on His path; and equally convinced that He has provided for us many contrasting examples in those that would claim a greater privilege at God's hand as a consequence of the passage of time.  To the list of Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, rich or poor, can be added ancient or modern, because in every rendition of the concept there exists the opportunity for egocentric man to claim greater favor before God for his individual or class identity.

Here are a couple of reads for you relating to grace and faith in the early church Fathers.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/did-the-early-church-teach-faith-alone/
http://www.riemerroukema.nl/downloads/RiemerRoukema-0143.pdf


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> While the most important thing to remember is that God had it "figured out" all along, I think that what you are referencing as progress in man's understanding is the result of the emphasis being placed in a particular area of study at a particular time.  During the early church period most emphasis was placed on God, His nature, attributes, and relationship to creation.  Those questions are foundational to the church, just as they are to Art and hummer.  Clarity, or confusion, there determines the understanding of all other, frankly less important, issues including justification, sanctification, salvation, and glorification.  Has there been progress?  I'm reluctant to voice an opinion; but I am convinced that we have been blessed by God with many wise and faithful men to lead us on His path; and equally convinced that He has provided for us many contrasting examples in those that would claim a greater privilege at God's hand as a consequence of the passage of time.  To the list of Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, rich or poor, can be added ancient or modern, because in every rendition of the concept there exists the opportunity for egocentric man to claim greater favor before God for his individual or class identity.
> 
> Here are a couple of reads for you relating to grace and faith in the early church Fathers.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I'll check out the links later. You mention in the early Church most of the emphasis was on God. Is this why we don't see as much about the Holy Spirit?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Thanks, I'll check out the links later. You mention in the early Church most of the emphasis was on God. Is this why we don't see as much about the Holy Spirit?


Are you bitheist, tritheist, or tetratheist?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Are you bitheist, tritheist, or tetratheist?



The thing is I'm not really sure how I would describe the unity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I can see the points Trinitarians see. I can see the points Oneness believers see. To me they are just attempts to explain the unity, just not very good attempts.

Perhaps bitheist(dualism) since the Son was always a Son and the Father has always been the Father. Maybe there is a God and a god. Maybe Jesus only pre-existed in Word. I do beleive the Holy Spirit is only God's spirit so that takes the standard Trinity belief out of the picture.
When I see scripture that says "God" I automatically picture the Father. The Father sent the Son, the Father sent his Spirit, etc.
By the power of my Father in Heaven.
That would mean only one God having all the power, my God and your God. My Father and your Father.
If the Father has all the power maybe that takes bitheism out of the equation. The Son did everything through the power of the Father. The Son is and was subordinate. The Father is the head of Christ.

I will admit that my belief doesn't clear up the answers any better than any of the other beliefs in explaining the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Which label am I? I'm not sure. Maybe their isn't only one I fall under. I guess I'll just say Unity. I in my Father and my Father in me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

We may not know the whole answer until we see Jesus as he is and become like him.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 25, 2018)

I just had the program throw away a whole post I had prepared.  It will be shorter this time.


Artfuldodger said:


> The thing is I'm not really sure how I would describe the unity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Don't worry about being able to describe the relationship.  Those who claim to have succeeded are the ones to worry about.

As an exercise, forget all the rest of the stuff and ask youself "why didn't I say 'I'm not really sure how I would describe the diversity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?'"

minimum 10 min. pause



> I can see the points Trinitarians see.


Have you seen identical points made that were not quoting the same source?



> I can see the points Oneness believers see.


I still don't know just what that is, nonetheless, my Trinitarian comment still applies here as well.



> To me they are just attempts to explain the unity, just not very good attempts.



Like the first question, why not "attempts to explain the diversity,"

If, in sentence one and four, "unity" is preferred, tritheism is nearly unavoidable.  Considering the clarity of scripture on the uniqueness of God (i.e. Deu, 6:4,5; etc.) that is a danger that I think must be avoided above all else.  If "diversity" is preferred the dangers are Arianism and Sabellianism.  If the question is approached with the inviolability of God's singularity foremost, and the clear implication of the divinity of the Son and Spirit, to be accommodated, those duel dangers will be avoided as well.  The result will be that, when someone points to an emphasis on God and who He is, the Son and the Spirit will not be perceived as having been left by the wayside.

For some of my thinking see #48 in the Atheism has a Suicide Problem thread.


----------



## Israel (Jun 25, 2018)

All that we may suffer under, God does not. God is without contradiction in Himself. And _of _Himself. And our God _is_ One.

One man, in himself, has competing thoughts, competing affections, competing _voices _clamoring for attention. (unless I am completely unlike any other man, which is a vanity that has never had any profitable fruit when resorted to as conclusion)

Man is...quite divided in himself, if left to himself.

This leads to the _burden of choices_ in desperate hope of successful outcome by making the "right" one. But man may learn, (by being shown) as ill equipped as he is to "control" for outcomes, he is equally ill equipped to know what, and how, right, or true, success appears.

No matter the cleverness nor resourcefulness of man, (nor any man in particular for that matter), what he earns for all his machinations (even if he has convinced himself he has controlled well enough to "success") that success will _always and eventually_ prove itself to be of _less satisfaction_, than cost of effort and will expended in its procurement.

God sees the awful fix man is in...of frustration. And is merciful...so He gives Himself fully to man in Jesus Christ. (I am not being condescending, I am not the only man to have ever heard the gospel) But, I may be at least of such form of man that knows he has needed it far beyond even his own knowing of need.

Jesus tells us "What does it profit a man to gain_ the whole world_, and lose his own soul?"

But we also know in Christ there is _a gaining _(and eventually through His patient participation _in us) _come to understand this gain is far in excess of even having "the whole of the world".

The path of the disciple is full of dissuasions and persuasions. On our "end" (so to speak) it may appear much trial and error. God's grace is sufficient. (Consider the patience of God _as salvation_ a wise brother wrote)
Blind alleys...looking promising are eventually shown plainly as they are. Repentance returns us.

And here is a completely non-fruitless hope in exercise...that we may inquire of the Lord "what was it here, in this place to which I am returned by your gift of repentance, that deceived into that path of fruitlessness?" What remains "in me" or "of me" that the adversary found just basis in, to lead me into that blindness from which I was compelled to appeal for relief?" "What 'hook' remains to be exposed?"

God is faithful to show.

"The wisdom from above being easily entreated"

We may learn about the "burden" of choice...and choices. And painful outcomes.

God, in His infinite wisdom gives us no choice as to Whom our helper is.
God gives us no choice as to Whom Messiah (His Christ) _is_.
And Messiah helps us _always_. And in _all ways_.

He has removed the shame of being...man. Of being subject. Of knowing only division in our own souls, and falling to shame when we believe we have been so mutton-headed and wrong...and just as surely, delivers us from pride we may have even fallen to in believing "see, _I made_ the right choice!"

Pride and shame are of the same coin, and they are not the "currency" of the Kingdom. We simply cannot handle either. Nor made to. Love only, which _is _life only (in which there is no choice) are made ours through Christ. And learning to walk in what is current (of currency) in the Kingdom is all we have been made for. Learning...what serves life (Who), what (Who) is always in service of love.

God forbid we seek choices in that which God's provision to us, has manifestly removed them.
Jesus, our friend, Lord and Master tells us a thing to relieve such burdens we have known.

The light of the body is the eye: if therefore _thine eye be single_, thy whole body shall be full of light.

This reduction to singleness of eye that we are  enduring is to an end too glorious to expound, and a safety from so many of griefs that would dash our souls, otherwise, to bits. (Even greater fragmentation than previously known). Falling upon the rock is of far greater experience (even if it be in seemingly endless tears) than having the rock fall upon us.

A crushing to powder leaves the soul at whim of every and any breeze. I don't doubt some of us have had a taste of being broken _beyond _what we thought reparable. Yet...we are here. Not forsaken. "I will not leave you as orphans...I will come to you"

We are not here to explain the relationship...we are here, in it, and to be in it...and _know it_. And the knowing of it will make that relationship plain to all whom our God is calling, and has called.

Something will flow, undeniable. And inexplicable. Into the place where men still believe they choose...to believe...what is best for them.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

If we take all the books of the Bible, we have diversity. If we assemble them together, we have unity. I can see diversity in God. A burning bush, his angel, His Son, His spirit, nature, creation, science, the birth of a baby, etc.
When I think of his power is see unity. I don't think I can narrow God down to just two or three of anything. 

Must I choose one or the other to describe God? I'll have to think on that a bit more.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 26, 2018)

I have thought about this long and hard and I believe that you are not looking for reasonable explanations, but rather looking to defend your belief that all scripture is not God breathed and inspired by God. So I won't bother to give any reasonable explanation and you can continue in your belief. The fact of the matter is all of scripture both Old and New point to the One Lord Jesus Christ. The Old points forward to Him and the New points back to Him. He is the focal point in all of History and the Only One in revelation who is worthy to even open the book. It is also in Him the only way to the Father. So I will continue to be blessed by God's revealed will for us clearly written for us in His Word, which He also pointed to and quoted from while here on earth when He tabernacled with us.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 26, 2018)

Spineyman said:


> I have thought about this long and hard and I believe that you are not looking for reasonable explanations, but rather looking to defend your belief that all scripture is not God breathed and inspired by God. So I won't bother to give any reasonable explanation and you can continue in your belief. The fact of the matter is all of scripture both Old and New point to the One Lord Jesus Christ. The Old points forward to Him and the New points back to Him. He is the focal point in all of History and the Only One in revelation who is worthy to even open the book. It is also in Him the only way to the Father. So I will continue to be blessed by God's revealed will for us clearly written for us in His Word, which He also pointed to and quoted from while here on earth when He tabernacled with us.


 This is my 4th response, the first three I erased. I will be a gentleman and say "go in peace"


----------

