God Clearly Defined Who Could Speak For Him

[Hazelelponi]

lol

It's seriously not funny... This is my Lord and Savior, this is my God, and this is my faith...

It's a Faith people actually give their lives for.

 

[Josheb]

Thanks @Josheb. Anyone who claims to speak for God is off in my book, because I don't see any path for that in the Bible.

Do you mean those who explicitly state they are speaking on God's behalf and, therefore, everyone should listen and adhere to what that person says? (that inquiry is intentionally as a yes or no question)

Do you think the same way about those who post views in this discussion board they believe represent God?

John the disciple was able to write letters that spoke for God because Jesus gave him prophecy that has come true.

That is certainly part of why John was able to write a gospel, multiple letters, and an apocalyptic prophecy. That's, however, not all of the why.

John as far as I have found, is the only New Covenant person who met the criterial for speaking for God-- Sorry Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, etc.

What are those criteria? Please list them. If there are more than ten then please list only six.

The Gospel authors who were witnesses of Jesus spoke for God, but through Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 that is expected.

I am unaware that a gospel requires a person to be a first-person witness. Where did you find that stated as a necessity? Do you also discard Mark's gospel?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I have no idea what the ECFs wanted me to believe or what they said about it. That is not the source of my information on the subject. I have various sources, most of them internal to the Bible.

And no proof that they aren't. It is not a big issue. It changes no truth. It does not change the inerrancy of the Bible.

What does that even mean? "The eyewitness who documented Matthew"?

Is this something the Holy Spirit showed you or a vision. Since I can find no scriptural reference to someone documenting Matthew I have no place to even start tracing back to this religious leader etc. So it is on you to do that so we can all know after all the study done on it since the first century, and the author of Matthew still not definitively known, that only you have found. I'm serious. Let me hear it. Then maybe I will be able to take your investigations seriously.

Is this in the Bible somewhere?

The reason I can quote Paul as validating himself as speaking for God is because Jesus appointed him for that purpose. It was not Paul who gives the first accounting of the Damascus Rd. It was Luke. And there were witnesses when Paul had that experience. "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." They led him to Damascus. In Acts 9: 10-15 we have the account of Ananias being sent to Paul to open his eyes and verse 16 the angel saying to Ananias who was afraid to go anywhere near Paul (Saul) "But the Lord said to him, 'Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name to the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." It is likely Luke was one of the eyewitnesses traveling with Paul as he traveled with him a lot.

Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded hi to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. ANd if you say in your heart, "How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?----what a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.

Good news. You don't have to reject those verses to believe that the writers of the NT are speaking for God-----which is the same thing as God speaking through them, both OT and NT. The scripture I gave above from Acts, the other scriptures I have been giving you to validate the apostles since first I posted in this thread, show clearly that they are speaking for God. Jesus (God) appointed them and equipped them to do that. What have they spoken that has not come to pass other than the promised consummation which awaits Christ's return? Unless you don't trust God to oversee what his word says and to oversee what goes into it as canon, there is no need to ever question the validity of them speaking for God. They were given the very same proofs of the authority of what they spoke as Jesus was.
2 Cor 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

I have no idea what the ECFs wanted me to believe or what they said about it. That is not the source of my information on the subject. I have various sources, most of them internal to the Bible.

I'd be interested in reading your evidence.

And no proof that they aren't. It is not a big issue. It changes no truth. It does not change the inerrancy of the Bible.

What does that even mean? "The eyewitness who documented Matthew"?

Is this something the Holy Spirit showed you or a vision. Since I can find no scriptural reference to someone documenting Matthew I have no place to even start tracing back to this religious leader etc. So it is on you to do that so we can all know after all the study done on it since the first century, and the author of Matthew still not definitively known, that only you have found. I'm serious. Let me hear it. Then maybe I will be able to take your investigations seriously.

The eyewitness who documented the Gospel of Matthew

The reason I can quote Paul as validating himself as speaking for God is because Jesus appointed him for that purpose. It was not Paul who gives the first accounting of the Damascus Rd. It was Luke. And there were witnesses when Paul had that experience. "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." They led him to Damascus. In Acts 9: 10-15 we have the account of Ananias being sent to Paul to open his eyes and verse 16 the angel saying to Ananias who was afraid to go anywhere near Paul (Saul) "But the Lord said to him, 'Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name to the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." It is likely Luke was one of the eyewitnesses traveling with Paul as he traveled with him a lot.

Did any of those witnesses with Paul testify? Did Luke say he witnessed Paul state that? Did Luke even write the Gospel of Luke? There is no proof that Luke wrote that Gospel other than words from people who lived generations after that book was written. BTW, when was it written?

Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded hi to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. ANd if you say in your heart, "How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?----what a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.

Good news. You don't have to reject those verses to believe that the writers of the NT are speaking for God-----which is the same thing as God speaking through them, both OT and NT. The scripture I gave above from Acts, the other scriptures I have been giving you to validate the apostles since first I posted in this thread, show clearly that they are speaking for God. Jesus (God) appointed them and equipped them to do that. What have they spoken that has not come to pass other than the promised consummation which awaits Christ's return? Unless you don't trust God to oversee what his word says and to oversee what goes into it as canon, there is no need to ever question the validity of them speaking for God. They were given the very same proofs of the authority of what they spoke as Jesus was.

So when did Paul prophesy Jesus arrival to the world? When did Paul prophesize anything that came true?

2 Cor 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

So Paul claimed that apostles are performing miracles. What does that prove?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Who was John writing to in 1 John? A specific group of people who are believers.
Why is he writing it to them? The internal evidence shows that it was a warning about a particular teaching that was trying to come into the church. (4:2,3). The teaching was that Christ only appeared to be human, so that there was no real incarnation and no divine Savior who was able to die for sinners. He only appeared to die. This teaching (docetism) is known from early Christian history.

So I'm to change the meaning of what was written because other people said so? I reread it and John is writing to men, fathers, brothers, young men, and little children. Sure seems like evidence that John was writing to EVERYONE.

So who is it that "went out from us" in 2:19? Those false teachers and it would apply to any false teachers or teaching. Who are the "us" the true church of Christ and its teachings as given by who? the apostles with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. What does it mean that they went out from us? Either they left that particular congregation, or the false teaching itself was "out" from the foundation laid by the Apostles. I would say definitely the latter and probably both.

You can try to read into it what you want to support your point of view, but to do that you need to twist the meaning. Read every word slow...what does it say? Not try it again and take out your biases.

So where is your expert analysis and evidence of fraud in your investigation that shows John was inditing all the other apostles as false teachers?

I never said he was inditing ALL THE OTHER APOSTLES. John was describing a church coup so who was it? Everyone they selected to replace them. Who were the apostles and was John referring to them?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'd be interested in reading your evidence.

You joined a forum that upholds Christian orthodoxy in the rules and tells you that you cannot teach against the tenants of our faith.

One of those tenants is that we accept all the books in the Bible

If you want to come and tell us our faith is wrong when you never even bothered to learn it in the first place then the onus is on you to prove, actually prove, that all of our scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and the witness of the Holy Spirit is a lie.

There's on you to actually prove the most investigated book in the history of mankind is all a great big hoax.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Do you mean those who explicitly state they are speaking on God's behalf and, therefore, everyone should listen and adhere to what that person says? (that inquiry is intentionally as a yes or no question)

Outside of OT prophets and Jesus I reject any of those claims/

Do you think the same way about those who post views in this discussion board they believe represent God?

Yes. They do not represent God. I don't represent God. God is perfect so how can I, a mere man represent him? I can't. God may have given me a job to do just like he gave others a job to do, but we are workers. God did not ask me to represent him to others. I have a message, that I humbly try to share, but that is it.

What are those criteria? Please list them. If there are more than ten then please list only six.

I've presented them several times already. Deuteronomy 18:20-22, 17:6 and 19:15

I am unaware that a gospel requires a person to be a first-person witness. Where did you find that stated as a necessity? Do you also discard Mark's gospel?

Take a look at Jesus' response to the testimony confrontations he had documented in John. Eyewitness testimony is clear from the Law and it is clearly required today to prove someone's guilt or innocence.