There is. Sola scriptura is something I am very much willing to discuss with you if you don't believe in it's veracity.
Are you a Christian btw?
Discussion
Hi Yes. I have Jesus as King.
I declare him messiah. Just so you know you are not contending with the spirit of anti Christ.
He is the living God made flesh through virgin birth. Emmanual God with us.
OK, thank you. So I don't quite understand your issue with scripture only?
Could you point out it? Because to me as a scripture only believer it seems very basic and logical and also supported by the scripture itself.
It was devils advocate semantics to try and stimulate debate.
I believe that what is currently considered canon is not a divine but a human composition. Making discussions and debate with regards to the meaning of texts and their usefulness for learning and edification open for study, inference and speculation.
You mean we have no divinely inspired scriptures available? So Paul's, Peters, John's, Luke's writings are all not inspired?
I am talking about compiled canon. The individual gospel books are testimonies. When you say divinely inspired what does that imply?
Jesus is the inspiration for their testimonies and if a person believes that Jesus is divine then it is divinely inspired by default.
With regards to Paul his writings are inspirational, his reasoning is sound, his logic solid.
I believe that he was led by the holy spirit in his quest.
Paul would not have liked it if people used his writings as a hammer to beat people into uniformity of thought and opinion with regards to the sincere search of truth. That is why he commended the Bereans and that is why he spoke of the liberty we have in Christ.
Scripture was not yet canonized when these writings were written. The "holiness" of scripture could be comprimised by the compilation of texts into a canon.
That is why certain books are included and others excluded, I do not attribute this effort to God but to men who use their reasoning faculties and historic knowledge to try with best intent to compile scriptures for record, edification and historic preservation.
We can claim it is canonized by God but we cannot prove it. That is why we must lean on truth discovery through knowledge of the written word, which we must examine critically, because truth does not fear criticism or investigation because through-out this process we discover it to be even more true than we originally had hoped or believed. Trancending truth from faith to certainty. Milk to meat.
So if I challenge scripture it is not to defy it though it may appear to be the case.
It is to challenge the ones who thought they had a sure footing and to throught the argumentative process see if we can discover something we had not taken into consideration before.
Scriptures must be canonized by God for several reasons. And we assume here that God is loving and just.
1. He's the author, which means that he's the one responsible for writing and defining the canon.
2. Everyone will be judged by those scriptures at some point. He can't judge you fairly if you don't have the whole canon or one with mistakes - that wouldn't be just.
3. God promised to preserve his wors into eternity - not one jot or tittle would be lost.
4. We need his word for spiritual growth and he gave it to us - hiding it or taking it away makes no sense.
Now obviously Satan wants us to believe we have lost it, never had it, it's unclear etc.
But it's not.
We have today the word of God in the scriptures. and can use and profit from it.
I think that you might mean a different thing when you say inspiration then me
Let me clarify: when I say inspiration I mean that it's breathed by God, it's his wirds that the writers of the books wrote dow . what he wanted them to write down.
Is that the same way you use the word?
If God compiled and canonized the Bible. Which bible are you refering to and what books are in it?
It doesn't matter at this stage which one, first we need to agree or disagree that there is a canon, a scripture from God to us. Then we can try to identify it.
Let's not skip steps.
Do you see the necessity for the existence of such a canon, and that it could have only be decided by God and created by God and serve specific purpises like instruction, illumination, edification etc.
I agree that there is text which is considered canon by churches and institutions. You are claiming that the Bible is canonised by God. I say that the Bible was canonised by men.
You claim that the Bible was written by God.
I claim that it is a compilation of books written by different men, over a long period of time. Sometimes they are recording the speech of God and sometimes they are recording the events of their lives. Sometimes it's poetry and sometimes it's prophecy.
The first book of the new testament is commonly referred to as, the gospel according to Matthew. It was important for Matthew to be the author of his testimony otherwise he would not be considered a credible witness.
If you say the book was written by God through Matthew you are implying that the manuscript is true on merit of it's source and not on merit of it's content.
This tactic of exalting a book by canonization I believe is because an institution wants to exert authoritative power over individual humans and that they should not be allowed to question that authority.
The power of the truth lies not only in the believing of it but in the understanding of it also. To understand something you must be willing to stress and challenge it to see where it's limits and capacity lies. When it comes to testing the veracity of knowledge we should not fear contention.
Only problem is you are a heretic as soon as you suggest that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.
Challenging consensus with hubris and pride means there is a hidden agenda and evil intent. Challenging consensus with sincere concern or perhaps greater insight is honest and useful.
Then we have different positions.
Because only the author can say what's canon and what's outside of it.
And yes, different people wrote different things, but it was everything that God wanted us to have. He inspired those men to write it.
Men are fallible, God is not and as such we can only trust God's word not men's words.
So to have this thing so very important to our faith - a book (and remember even Job back in the day lamented he didn't have one) that teaches us about God, tells us his wish and his plan and that let's truth speak for itself.
And yes - I do believe that the Bible is authoritative because it's the word of God.
There are actually a lot of other smart books written, on morals, life, history etc.
But neither of them carries the same authority as the Bible. And the Bible is unique in this regard as it is the ONLY authority for a Christian.
Once you choose books based on what you deem good or correct and not on their source - you can have multiple authorities. Not a single, trustworthy authority.
There is certainly the Word of God. The term canon of scripture convolutes the truth due to the historic agendas of men.
I find the 66 books of the bible to be harmoniously preserved for us, and is the inspired truth of God. Men wrote it as they were born along with spirit. 2Peter1:20-21.
Moses wrote. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established.
This is logical and can be compared with triangulation of data points helping the observer to come to a sound conclusion. The more data points the clearer the picture.
Paul also laments that we see through a glass darkly. Meaning that it is hard to connect the dots and discover pure signal. Thankfully he points out that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, now we can reference the works of many and discover truth by seeking it.
Jesus being the way the truth and the life is the revelation that ends the search, for some.
Others become obsessed and cannot help but dive into the never ending rabbit hole of what Veritas manifesting in the mind through the power of LOGOS could encapsulate.
I have discovered some crazy, cool and unconventional things. But you do not throw pearls before swine. Therefore you have to test the fruit of the tree before you declare it good.
And trees don't give fruit out of season.
Walk a few miles with your peers before you share what has been gifted to you, lest they turn around...
I agree. As for the word canon, I mean the canon that God established as he inspired the books. Not the one that the RCC claims they have decreed.
"It doesn't matter at this stage which one, first we need to agree or disagree that there is a canon, a scripture from God to us. Then we can try to identify it.
Let's not skip steps."
So we disagree. Albeit respectfully.
Now we define what you consider canon and I challenge you on why we disagree and we work through it on a case by case basis.
(I really appreciate your willingness to have these discussions. It proves your conviction and devotion to the ideals. LFG)
No problem. From our disagreement we both can learn more. Since we both take different positions we can't be both right. We can be both wrong though heh.
It's a good opportunity to work on polishing our knowledge and conviction, and thank you for doing it in a polite and civilized manner.
Our question of canon is really only about the NT canon, correct?
Old testament scriptures were all revealed and acknowledged as such long before Jesus was born.
And they are inspired by God. Since the writers even wrote that God told them to write
Deuteronomy 31:9 KJVA “¶And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.”
Shared using AndBible: Bible Study. (https://andbible.github.io)
Isaiah 8:1 KJVA “Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher–shalal–hash–baz.”
Shared using AndBible: Bible Study. (https://andbible.github.io)
Notice how Isaiah even writes down that God told him to write down - words of God are all precious and we can learn from everyone of them.
Here we can learn as throughout the whole old testament is that God wanted us to write things down - not an oral tradition but a written tradition.
Through study of the new testament and the manuscripts included in the King James I have found no extra texts which I deem need to be included or text included which I would exclude.
The compilation is sufficiently and irreducably complex.
With regards to the new testament it frequently cites and refers back to the old. This is what I consider a two witnesses minimum as described by Moses.(I know he meant it in the context of witnesses and accusers in the case of a crime, I am applying it more broadly in the way we determine if a historical text has a degree of verifiability)
When Jesus cites an old testament manuscript, like Jonah for instance he lends credence to the books historicity which many "scholars" would flippantly dismiss because of the texts fantastic claim. I on the other hand find no issue with the possibility of someone surviving such an event. Because I believe it happened (for multiple reasons not all relevant to this discussion) based on the fact that I hold Jesus in such esteem that I believe he would not qoute something if he did not value the account of it. There is text in the old testament that I would dispute more ardently than I would the new.
There are events in the new testament that I have read and understood but when I discussed my perception and understanding with christians in general they shout at me as if I am crazy but my statement is textually accurate and verifiably true.
So, just because I believe the new Testament is canonised by men. Does not mean that I believe a manuscript should be added or removed. That is an assumption on your part.
Moving on.
I call on witnesses to make my further claim.
Paul (1st witness) wrote that we should test all and retain that which is good. This supposes that he does not restrict lessons and edification to scripture alone but allows us to draw knowledge and inspiration from information extant to the "canon".
Joshua and Samuel (2nd & 3rd witnesses)
both state. "Is it not written in the book of Jasher?"
If God is indeed the author of Joshua and Samuel (like you claim) then why would He have referenced a book that no scholar on earth including myself would consider anything more but a compilation of stories which have value only in marginal and fringe research of history?
Would you value it if God referenced it as a source to verify events? Of course you must.
By nature of your claim you might just as well include the book of the upright into your supposed canon.
I do not fear reading it as I have. I do not fear drawing a valuable allegory or conclusion from it as I have. Most of what is recorded in it is utterly useless information.
> “Through study of the new testament and the manuscripts included in the King James I have found no extra texts which I deem need to be included or text included which I would exclude.
The compilation is sufficiently and irreducably complex.”
Then this is something we agree on in regards to which books are in the canon.
> “Because I believe it happened (for multiple reasons not all relevant to this discussion) based on the fact that I hold Jesus in such esteem that I believe he would not qoute something if he did not value the account of it. There is text in the old testament that I would dispute more ardently than I would the new.”
According to this you also believe the Bible because of God. So we agree there too.
> “So, just because I believe the new Testament is canonised by men. Does not mean that I believe a manuscript should be added or removed. That is an assumption on your part.”
So far I did not assume anything IMHO. My question would be here, since you say you believe it was canonized by men, how do you know it is the correct canon? How do you know that Revelations belongs into the Bible? Or that Gospel of Barnabas doesn’t?
> ”Paul (1st witness) wrote that we should test all and retain that which is good. This supposes that he does not restrict lessons and edification to scripture alone but allows us to draw knowledge and inspiration from information extant to the "canon”.”
Paul says that the scripture is sufficient to make us perfect workers of God. Which means we don’t need anything else. Also whenever he was challenged on something Jesus always said “have you not READ?” So he was using scriptures as his authority. Which sets a good example for us and protects us from error. We should not add to the scripture but test everything against the scripture.
> “Joshua and Samuel (2nd & 3rd witnesses)
both state. "Is it not written in the book of Jasher?"
If God is indeed the author of Joshua and Samuel (like you claim) then why would He have referenced a book that no scholar on earth including myself would consider anything more but a compilation of stories which have value only in marginal and fringe research of history?
Would you value it if God referenced it as a source to verify events? Of course you must.
By nature of your claim you might just as well include the book of the upright into your supposed canon.”
That’s a wrong assumption. Just because it is mentioned doesn’t mean it should be included in the canon. Paul mentions also Greek writers and epistles we don’t have. They are not part of the canon.
“I do not fear reading it as I have. I do not fear drawing a valuable allegory or conclusion from it as I have. Most of what is recorded in it is utterly useless information.”
Here we disagree profoundly. So you are saying Bible is useless information? What do you mean by that? Because the way I see the Bible is the only place I can learn about God and his will. Reliably.
Sorry man. I did a 1000 kilometer drive today and I'm exhausted. How do you quote me and answer me like you did? I would like to include that in my response later when I have time. You make some good points and misunderstand one of mine. On the last point, I was referring to the book of Jasher.
I read your debate and agree with you that we should use our ability to think to question everything. I am a Christian.
Can you explain to me why the stories in the Old Testament are so different from those in the New?
No problem! Have a good rest. The Convo won't run away haha
You can do it by doing markdown style commenting.
Using "> QUOTE return, blankline"
I want to adress what you said earlier.
"Men are fallible, God is not and as such we can only trust God's word not men's words."
I agree that man - singular is fallible.
If man is fallible that means that it is very hard for him to get along with his fellow man.
If they do not get along they disagree. When they disagree an opportunity is created for them to argue, discover and learn.
If they, through this process of reason, manage to discover some divine grain of truth. That truth will permeate the concsiousness of all men who understand that applying the knowledge gained will improve their lives and the lives of those around them. Proving the truth by manifesting it into their reality through working and refining their understanding.
Their fallibility is not detrimental to their pursuit of truth but the reason for it. When they form cults and groups it is a competition for truth veracity and dominance. The truth always wins in the end.
Sometimes God gifts us by injecting truth directly into our world. Like Exodus 20 God introducing himself to Moses and the life of Jesus.
We fallible men who are originally created in the image of God are the benefactors of divine truth and seek to understand it and when we realise something profound we seek to preserve it. I believe that this is a miracle of creation. That men could discover truth by reason of desire to understand pain and suffering in a dark world.
This makes the love of Christ for the oikoumene in John 3:16 more powerful and understandable. Because if God loves anything less than that He is diminished. When claimed that men who are created in His image and animated by his spirit are less than capable to discover, understand and manifest truth in the world. All glory to Him for being the source by virtue of being the creator. We can clearly see where he injected truth directly into the world.
Man's fallibility is a gift to us.
> If they, through this process of reason, manage to discover some divine grain of truth. That truth will permeate the concsiousness of all men who understand that applying the knowledge gained will improve their lives and the lives of those around them. Proving the truth by manifesting it into their reality through working and refining their understanding.
What makes us Christians though is that we believe the gospel and are saved when we do it. And even through 50 years of contemplation in a cave in Tibet - you’ll never learn that Jesus gave his life for us and that by believing that you are saved.
> Sometimes God gifts us by injecting truth directly into our world. Like Exodus 20 God introducing himself to Moses and the life of Jesus.
the Bible is God teaching us about his plan and himself. This is how we can learn about Jesus, gospel, what God wants.
> We fallible men who are originally created in the image of God are the benefactors of divine truth and seek to understand it and when we realise something profound we seek to preserve it. I believe that this is a miracle of creation. That men could discover truth by reason of desire to understand pain and suffering in a dark world.
Adam was created in the image of God. We are in the image of Adam.
> This makes the love of Christ for the oikoumene in John 3:16 more powerful and understandable. Because if God loves anything less than that He is diminished. When claimed that men who are created in His image and animated by his spirit are less than capable to discover, understand and manifest truth in the world. All glory to Him for being the source by virtue of being the creator. We can clearly see where he injected truth directly into the world.
Yes. And you learn it from the Bible, which God revealed to us.
> Man's fallibility is a gift to us.
No. It is a result of sin.
Contemplating in caves in tibet is not a useful tactic. The best way to discover truth is to search for it and caves is useful for hiding and shelter not searching.
The Bible is the most useful tool to discover the truth of which Jesus is the end of the search but the beginning of a life of freedom and peace. The journey does not end once you found life.
The preserved texts is this truth. We just copy and compile into convenient formats because we value it. We also make sure that it remains as close to originally written intent so as not to mislead or inject personal agendas into the text. Where there are many critical readers and scholars it is very difficult to corrupt a work of this decentralized nature.
Adam image of God we are in the image of Adam. Mans fallibility. I think these two discussion points should be the topic of further debate and deliberation.
But we should open a new thread on one of Willy's newer posts, because this one is becoming a bit loaded.
Maybe Willy can post something about Adam?