- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
The Rogue Tomato said:
Well, all this discussion of sharp knives, and now a "hands" post from a Mater can only remind me of one thing.
Original Ginsu 1 Ad
Well, all this discussion of sharp knives, and now a "hands" post from a Mater can only remind me of one thing.
Original Ginsu 1 Ad
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
PappaBear said:
The issue is the determining definition of "God's words". I think you would agree that God's words are eternal. Jesus taught that the only "words" that are eternal are the Law, Prophets and His own teachings. To believe anything other as "God-breathed" would be a "man-centered" belief, IMHO.
PappaBear said:
IOW, you base your belief of inspiration on the tradition of man.
Even Paul in II Timothy 3:16 (when taken in original context) states that the "God-breathed" portions of the Scriptures are edifying. That implies that there are portions of the Scriptures that are not "God-breathed" and when looking at the history of the Jewish Bible, one will see they held only portions of the OT to be actually "inspired" or "God-breathed" but not all. Hence, the Ketuvim which they were not sure what was inspired and what wasn't but they deemed profitable anyway.
PappaBear said:
Concerning the portions Jesus upheld, I agree. Concerning any particular canon, it is mere opinion with no way to document or evidence to corroborate.
PappaBear said:
I would agree. The word or "logos" is a part of the character of God which transcends any canon and was given to Jesus to demonstrate the logos through His life (John 1:1; John 14:10, 24; John 17:6, 8 ).
PappaBear said:
It is very much a stretch to apply that passage to the 66-book canon, no less books, no different books.
PappaBear said:
God empowered His word in and through Jesus, not a canon.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
That is your belief, but it does not square with John 17 or the later words of Christ given to the 7 churches in Revelation.Smellin Coffee said:
No, I did not say that I based my belief on other fundamentalists, rather that you are swimming against the tide of agreement.Smellin Coffee said:
Again, your opinion. But SC, you are being inconsistent. Paul's writings in 2Timothy are not included in your listing of "eternal words" above. It is highly improper to attempt to apply a citation from him, then. All scripture is given by inspiration, that is the mode of transmission. It is not based upon the subjective effectiveness of the words.Smellin Coffee said:
Smellin Coffee said:
The inconsistency lies in the fact that some of the gospel writers recording the words you accept are the same used for the later writings you seem to deny. Eventually, that path leads to distrust of the whole. Ultimately, like all things God deals with, belief in the words of God is a matter of Faith. John 17:8 says that Christians -- His true sheep -- receive them. Notice the plurality of the word "words" especially in that verse, SC.
And here we part company once again in interpretation. You ignored John 1:14 in your references, which contextually applies John 1:1. Jesus Christ is the word incarnate. Such a wide all-encompassing view of the logos as yours is a Greek philosophy imported by the gnostics into Christianity, attempting to amalgamate the two. Applying every passage where the Greek "logos" is found only to Christ and ignoring the obvious application to the written word is similar to the Calvinist's unwholesome desire to apply every instance of the word "know" to causal intercourse instead of allowing the obvious meaning of foreknowledge as knowing before.Smellin Coffee said:
Smellin Coffee said:
I don't think so. The majority of scripture assumes a single view of God's authorship, not a mutliplicity view where Moses, Joshua and Samuel, etc. disagree with one another. There was continuing revelation, until the end of the Book of Revelation, where the canon was sealed at the end of the book. Now, I already know how you will disagree with my view of that, but before you jump think of what I am saying here. Applying Rev 22:18-19 to the Bible as a whole is the equivalent of applying the use of "book" and "word" to the single book we know as "The Bible" as a whole, whether written by other writers before or after the particular passage referenced. I do that and agree with that. I already know you will not, but I and others do not have to adapt our faith in God's work and reception of His words to your restrictions of philosophy or interpretation.
Blessings, man. Things have been busy of late. Please give my regards to Wang.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
That is your belief, but it does not square with John 17 or the later words of Christ given to the 7 churches in Revelation.
Two things. First, no mention of canon the eternal nature of any writings in John 17. Jesus said basically that He fulfilled prophecy. Second, who spoke the words of Revelation to the churches? Jesus did, so how does that defy my position "Jesus taught that the only "words" that are eternal are the Law, Prophets and His own teachings"? IMHO, I would consider those admonitions from Christ Himself.
No, I did not say that I based my belief on other fundamentalists, rather that you are swimming against the tide of agreement.
Jesus' teachings swam against the tide of religious agreement in His day also. Does this mean the Pharisees were right and He was wrong? Traditions have a way of skewing truth sometimes.
But SC, you are being inconsistent. Paul's writings in 2Timothy are not included in your listing of "eternal words" above. It is highly improper to attempt to apply a citation from him, then. All scripture is given by inspiration, that is the mode of transmission. It is not based upon the subjective effectiveness of the words.
Not being inconsistent. What I was doing was stating that even though I don't believe Paul's writings to be God-breathed, NEITHER DID HE. Again, "Scripture" at that time meant something different than it does today. That is why he differentiated between "the Holy Scriptures" in the previous verse with "all scripture" in that verse. Two distinctly different words in the Greek. And at that time, the Scripture section of the canon was not deemed to be "God-breathed" but the Law and Prophets were. So Paul admitted that only the Scriptures that God-breathed were profitable. Even though I don't believe that passage is "God-breathed" I do believe it to be true. A true statement does not have to be "God-breathed" in an effort to maintain truthfulness.
The inconsistency lies in the fact that some of the gospel writers recording the words you accept are the same used for the later writings you seem to deny. Eventually, that path leads to distrust of the whole. Ultimately, like all things God deals with, belief in the words of God is a matter of Faith. John 17:8 says that Christians -- His true sheep -- receive them. Notice the plurality of the word "words" especially in that verse, SC.
So which one of the Apostolic epistles did Jesus give to His disciples? So why do we marginalize the words that Jesus spoke (that His sheep receive) in favor of other authors? Why do we attribute "God-breathed" status to those writings WHEN CHRIST DIDN'T?
And here we part company once again in interpretation. You ignored John 1:14 in your references, which contextually applies John 1:1. Jesus Christ is the word incarnate. Such a wide all-encompassing view of the logos as yours is a Greek philosophy imported by the gnostics into Christianity, attempting to amalgamate the two. Applying every passage where the Greek "logos" is found only to Christ and ignoring the obvious application to the written word is similar to the Calvinist's unwholesome desire to apply every instance of the word "know" to causal intercourse instead of allowing the obvious meaning of foreknowledge as knowing before.
John 1:14 proves my point. The logos did not have flesh before it was given to Jesus. In fact, the logos Jesus had WAS NOT HIS OWN:
It sure seems to me that John recorded that the logos which was eternal did not take on flesh until it embodied Jesus and Jesus claims that the logos that He spoke was not His but rather the Father's logos.
The majority of scripture assumes a single view of God's authorship, not a mutliplicity view where Moses, Joshua and Samuel, etc. disagree with one another. There was continuing revelation, until the end of the Book of Revelation, where the canon was sealed at the end of the book. Now, I already know how you will disagree with my view of that, but before you jump think of what I am saying here. Applying Rev 22:18-19 to the Bible as a whole is the equivalent of applying the use of "book" and "word" to the single book we know as "The Bible" as a whole, whether written by other writers before or after the particular passage referenced. I do that and agree with that.
And there are those who would adhere authorship to other works outside of the 66-book canon. Continuing revelation? Apart from Jesus dictating to John what to write down, revelation had been completed. Otherwise Jesus would have told His disciples that there was further doctrines they must learn from others' revelations rather than telling them to teach "all things I (Jesus) have commanded you". To adhere to the belief of further revelation is to marginalize what Jesus commanded to His disciples. Granted, He did promise the Holy Spirit would come to guide them into all truth and to bring to their remembrance the things that HE taught, but He never said there would be additional revelation or doctrine.
I already know you will not, but I and others do not have to adapt our faith in God's work and reception of His words to your restrictions of philosophy or interpretation.
You are correct. However I am not asking anyone to restrict to anything I have stated or believe as if I am some kind of bastion of truth. I'm not anywhere close by any means. The restrictions I try to apply to my own life are confined to what recorded teachings of Jesus we have available to us. And like you, I consider my position as a "faith in God's work".
Two things. First, no mention of canon the eternal nature of any writings in John 17. Jesus said basically that He fulfilled prophecy. Second, who spoke the words of Revelation to the churches? Jesus did, so how does that defy my position "Jesus taught that the only "words" that are eternal are the Law, Prophets and His own teachings"? IMHO, I would consider those admonitions from Christ Himself.
No, I did not say that I based my belief on other fundamentalists, rather that you are swimming against the tide of agreement.
Jesus' teachings swam against the tide of religious agreement in His day also. Does this mean the Pharisees were right and He was wrong? Traditions have a way of skewing truth sometimes.
But SC, you are being inconsistent. Paul's writings in 2Timothy are not included in your listing of "eternal words" above. It is highly improper to attempt to apply a citation from him, then. All scripture is given by inspiration, that is the mode of transmission. It is not based upon the subjective effectiveness of the words.
Not being inconsistent. What I was doing was stating that even though I don't believe Paul's writings to be God-breathed, NEITHER DID HE. Again, "Scripture" at that time meant something different than it does today. That is why he differentiated between "the Holy Scriptures" in the previous verse with "all scripture" in that verse. Two distinctly different words in the Greek. And at that time, the Scripture section of the canon was not deemed to be "God-breathed" but the Law and Prophets were. So Paul admitted that only the Scriptures that God-breathed were profitable. Even though I don't believe that passage is "God-breathed" I do believe it to be true. A true statement does not have to be "God-breathed" in an effort to maintain truthfulness.
The inconsistency lies in the fact that some of the gospel writers recording the words you accept are the same used for the later writings you seem to deny. Eventually, that path leads to distrust of the whole. Ultimately, like all things God deals with, belief in the words of God is a matter of Faith. John 17:8 says that Christians -- His true sheep -- receive them. Notice the plurality of the word "words" especially in that verse, SC.
So which one of the Apostolic epistles did Jesus give to His disciples? So why do we marginalize the words that Jesus spoke (that His sheep receive) in favor of other authors? Why do we attribute "God-breathed" status to those writings WHEN CHRIST DIDN'T?
And here we part company once again in interpretation. You ignored John 1:14 in your references, which contextually applies John 1:1. Jesus Christ is the word incarnate. Such a wide all-encompassing view of the logos as yours is a Greek philosophy imported by the gnostics into Christianity, attempting to amalgamate the two. Applying every passage where the Greek "logos" is found only to Christ and ignoring the obvious application to the written word is similar to the Calvinist's unwholesome desire to apply every instance of the word "know" to causal intercourse instead of allowing the obvious meaning of foreknowledge as knowing before.
John 1:14 proves my point. The logos did not have flesh before it was given to Jesus. In fact, the logos Jesus had WAS NOT HIS OWN:
It sure seems to me that John recorded that the logos which was eternal did not take on flesh until it embodied Jesus and Jesus claims that the logos that He spoke was not His but rather the Father's logos.
The majority of scripture assumes a single view of God's authorship, not a mutliplicity view where Moses, Joshua and Samuel, etc. disagree with one another. There was continuing revelation, until the end of the Book of Revelation, where the canon was sealed at the end of the book. Now, I already know how you will disagree with my view of that, but before you jump think of what I am saying here. Applying Rev 22:18-19 to the Bible as a whole is the equivalent of applying the use of "book" and "word" to the single book we know as "The Bible" as a whole, whether written by other writers before or after the particular passage referenced. I do that and agree with that.
And there are those who would adhere authorship to other works outside of the 66-book canon. Continuing revelation? Apart from Jesus dictating to John what to write down, revelation had been completed. Otherwise Jesus would have told His disciples that there was further doctrines they must learn from others' revelations rather than telling them to teach "all things I (Jesus) have commanded you". To adhere to the belief of further revelation is to marginalize what Jesus commanded to His disciples. Granted, He did promise the Holy Spirit would come to guide them into all truth and to bring to their remembrance the things that HE taught, but He never said there would be additional revelation or doctrine.
I already know you will not, but I and others do not have to adapt our faith in God's work and reception of His words to your restrictions of philosophy or interpretation.
You are correct. However I am not asking anyone to restrict to anything I have stated or believe as if I am some kind of bastion of truth. I'm not anywhere close by any means. The restrictions I try to apply to my own life are confined to what recorded teachings of Jesus we have available to us. And like you, I consider my position as a "faith in God's work".