God Clearly Defined Who Could Speak For Him

[ReverendRV]

It's nice to meet you @JustTheFacts . I hope you enjoy CCAM Forums. I think I may be able to get to the heart of the matter; IE the Spiritual Gift of Teaching. Do Sound Theologians speak for God; in any sense of being an Instrument of God's Earthly Ministry?

Are you a Gnostic? I like to zero-in; answering that yea or nay will help us communicate...

Simon Greenleaf ~ by ReverendRV * September 25

Luke 1:2-4 NLT; They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be sure of the truth of everything you were taught.

Doctor Luke was highly educated for his day. His account of the Gospel is ‘par excellence’. When a Christian defends their Faith, one of the places they go to is Doctor Luke. Many of the historical themes Luke mentioned have been confirmed by modern Archaeologists. As a Historian, Luke is among the greatest of his time. There are some believers who recognize the persuasive potential of the Gospels but they dismiss many of the Epistles from the Bible. They fail to realize though that Luke would not have wanted this. He ‘carefully investigated everything from the beginning’ and the early Epistles are the ‘eye witness’ reports he speaks of; and were written before his Gospel…

Simon Greenleaf is hailed as a ‘founding father’ when it comes to the Supreme Court. He is often referenced when Christians describe how ‘the case for Christ’ could be successfully tried in a Court of Law. Here is one quote; “It was therefore impossible that [the disciples] could have persisted in affirming the truths that they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.” “The Resurrection of Christ is the most verifiable fact of ancient history” ~ Simon Greenleaf; founder of the Harvard School of Law, after his thorough investigation of whether or not Christ had risen from the dead…

There’s a group of people that believe the four Gospels from the Bible, but not the Epistles; these people are called ‘Gnostics’. They recognize that the Gospel writers are entirely correct when it comes to the account of Jesus Christ, but they forget one thing about Doctor Luke; he also wrote the Book of the ‘Acts’ of the Apostles. Luke tells us that Paul has authority from Jesus to preach the Gospel. Jesus told Ananias this about Paul, “But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.” Elsewhere Luke retells the story, “Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.” In a third retelling of the account, Luke informs us that Jesus appointed Paul to his Mission; “"So I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.'” ~ By the testimony of two or three witnesses, a thing is established…

How can it be on the one hand that a Gnostic endorses Doctor Luke regarding what he said about Jesus, but on the other hand he would dismiss Doctor Luke regarding what he said about Paul? This is a violation of the Law of Non Contradiction! Either dismiss both Jesus and Paul or embrace them both. Paul tells us that the Ten Commandments show us that we are Sinners; have you ever told a Lie? What do you call a person who tells Lies? Paul tells the Thessalonians that Sinners will spend Eternity in a fiery Hell. Paul tells us that he received the Gospel from Jesus himself. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, without Works lest we boast. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; and learn why the whole Bible is the truth…

Galatians 2:9 NLT; In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the Church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued working with the Jews.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Are you going to believe men or God?

You either believe the Bible is from God, or you're no different than Mohammed trying to kick off your own religion on the basis of your imagined visions where you get to reject everything you either don't like or simply don't understand.

Anyone can have a dream or a vision, but because I accept the testimony of Scripture I can tell a false prophet from a true prophet of God, as Scripture says;

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches to you any other gospel than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9

And I accept the testimony of Scripture. I don't question it as I have no need to, the Spirit testifies with my spirit that it is of God.

 

[ReverendRV]

That was my assumption. Congrats for doing God's work!

I agreed with most NT letter documentation. I just believe that it is not the word of God. The words of Moses and Jesus are very specific on that. That's a big distinction. If something is the word of God it goes on the shelf with the words of Moses, Jesus, and the OT prophets so every word will complement other words of God. No word of God will contradict other words of God--if we see a contradiction we are missing something and need to solve the puzzle.

With this a foundation, every contradiction will be resolved and the word of God clearly understood. The fact is I find corruption in fraud in the Bible. But every issue I find can be explained through reason. For example, Matthew 16:18-19 as I commented earlier is a fabrication. Peter walking on water is a fabrication too. Both of these are presented in the Gospel of Matthew and there is specific reasons why that Gospel was impacted.

Jesus said, his words will outlive heaven and earth--and I take this to heart. The words of Jesus have not been affected by fraud or corruption. However, that doesn't mean that key words haven't been added to change a message--like promoting Peter as the leader of the Church. Clear Motive and clear indications of fraud in those sections.

Other points you will have to dismantle, in order to convince Us, are within my Gospel Tract here. It says that Saint Luke has done exactly what you've done; he Investigated this. He came to the conclusion that Men after Jesus, could author Scripture by the Holy Spirit. If you don't agree with Us, this is what you will have to deal with; or it will only be busy work for you. Continuing may be construed as trying to convince weak women...

 

[Arial]

I am an expert on evidence. I also stand behind the claim that the Holy Spirit has been helping me through my investigation. I couldn't have done the work I've done without God.

The Holy Spirit would never teach you that the word of God contains fraud. He would never help you to prove that the apostles were false teachers. Jesus appointed them personally to do exactly what they did and the Holy Spirit taught THEM, and equipped THEM. I have given you a couple of verses that say that very thing.

Give me an example of a false teaching presented by any of the apostles? You are an expert in evidence you say, but where is that evidence?

 

[Arial]

With this a foundation, every contradiction will be resolved and the word of God clearly understood. The fact is I find corruption in fraud in the Bible. But every issue I find can be explained through reason. For example, Matthew 16:18-19 as I commented earlier is a fabrication. Peter walking on water is a fabrication too. Both of these are presented in the Gospel of Matthew and there is specific reasons why that Gospel was impacted.

Where is your evidence?

 

[JustTheFacts]

You either believe the Bible is from God, or you're no different than Mohammed trying to kick off your own religion on the basis of your imagined visions where you get to reject everything you either don't like or simply don't understand.

I believe that the word of God is in the Bible. I've speed read the Qu'ran and found it to be a knockoff of the Old Testament. Mohammad wrote the words about himself and there are no eyewitnesses to support his claim. I can easily write it off. However, there are four Gospels that describe Jesus ministry--that get's a persons attention because there are four possible eyewitnesses.

Anyone can have a dream or a vision, but because I accept the testimony of Scripture I can tell a false prophet from a true prophet of God, as Scripture says;

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches to you any other gospel than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9

And I accept the testimony of Scripture. I don't question it as I have no need to, the Spirit testifies with my spirit that it is of God.

You are blessed with unwavering faith. I have a different blessing, I question everything and God helped me find the answers I needed to believe. If God helped me believe, he can help anyone to find the truth.

You are right, anyone can have a vision. I'm not going to try to justify mine and go over why I believe them to be true. I could do it because they've actually predicted some interesting personal stuff too. But what value is there in it?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Where is your evidence?

It's very obvious that Matthew's author copied from Mark. That's a whole other story and discussion, but for now that shouldn't be objected to because most scholars agree. Compare the two accounts in Matthew and Mark and you can easily see what's been copied and what been added.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I believe that the word of God is in the Bible. I've speed read the Qu'ran and found it to be a knockoff of the Old Testament. Mohammad wrote the words about himself and there are no eyewitnesses to support his claim. I can easily write it off. However, there are four Gospels that describe Jesus ministry--that get's a persons attention because there are four possible eyewitnesses.

Mohammed took it off the gnostics. Like you, he had visions. Like you, he rejected the Gospels. Like you, he wanted to sell it to others.

Every cult manages to begin in just this way, it's a pattern in history, and it's never of God.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The Holy Spirit would never teach you that the word of God contains fraud.

That's a very bold comment by you and it 100% wrong. Through prophecy, God warned us in detail about the fraud that would impact the New Covenant time of Jesus. If it weren't for Daniel and Revelation prophecy providing the detailed warnings many years in advance, I'd be wondering about my direction too.

He would never help you to prove that the apostles were false teachers.

I never said the apostles were false teachers--I said their words are not the word of God.

Jesus appointed them personally to do exactly what they did and the Holy Spirit taught THEM, and equipped THEM. I have given you a couple of verses that say that very thing.

Who did Jesus promise the Holy Spirit too? Who did Jesus breathe the Holy Spirit into? I hope you said disciples and not apostles. Jesus assigned four of them to be his eyewitnesses in accordance with Deuteronomy 17:7 and 19:15 so that we would have proof of Jesus as the Messiah and God. He also assigned them to document their testimony (Mark 13:10). When did Jesus breathe the Holy Spirit into them to remember everything Jesus did and stated? If you said the first night of Jesus resurrection you are right. Consider that Jesus told his eyewitnesses that he would give them help through the Holy Spirit, he assigned them to document their testimony, then he gave them the Holy Spirit THE FIRST NIGHT OF HIS RESURRECTION. Do you think Jesus had a plan? Do you think that plan was for Gospels written 50-70 years after he gave them the Holy Spirit with names of authors told to us by later religious leaders that John said not to trust?

Give me an example of a false teaching presented by any of the apostles? You are an expert in evidence you say, but where is that evidence?

Like I said, I never stated the apostles were false teachers.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Mohammed took it off the gnostics. Like you, he had visions. Like you, he rejected the Gospels. Like you, he wanted to sell it to others.

Actually you don't know if Mohammad had visions--he stated he did.
I embrace the Gospels as the testimony proving Jesus as the Messiah and God.
I have nothing to sell.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Actually you don't know if Mohammad had visions--he stated he did.
I embrace the Gospels as the testimony proving Jesus as the Messiah and God.
I have nothing to sell.

That's why in the introduction thread you talked about your audiences, meaning, you've been selling this story of yours to people, trying to get audiences to hear you out.

There's nothing to hear. The truth has been opposed even before Jesus died on the cross.

Just so you know, you can't pick and choose what books you accept or which portions of which books.The second you chip it up into your chipper you remove the Gospel from the Gospel.

It's why, sans the truth of the Gospel, you have people in a death cult praying to be one of the ones who gets to genocide the Jews and Christians.

Take out the heart, and only death remains... And that's in real life.

We accept the Gospels when we learn what they mean to us. They tell of Jesus, all of them, new testament and old, beginning to end. You remove some, you remove things people need to know.

The disciples/apostles are the foundation with Christ the cornerstone of our faith. You can't take an axe to the foundation without destroying the house.

We can on the other hand build faith on the foundation Christ laid.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That's why in the introduction thread you talked about your audiences, meaning, you've been selling this story of yours to people, trying to get audiences to hear you out.

There's nothing to hear. The truth has been opposed even before Jesus died on the cross.

Just so you know, you can't pick and choose what books you accept or which portions of which books.The second you chip it up into your chipper you remove the Gospel from the Gospel.

It's why, sans the truth of the Gospel, you have people in a death cult praying to be one of the ones who gets to genocide the Jews and Christians.

Take out the heart, and only death remains... And that's in real life.

We accept the Gospels when we learn what they mean to us. They tell of Jesus, all of them, new testament and old, beginning to end. You remove some, you remove things people need to know.

The disciples/apostles are the foundation with Christ the cornerstone of our faith. You can't take an axe to the foundation without destroying the house.

I thought about responding to this then realized you are just lecturing me--you've added nothing to the data or debate.

 

[Soyeong]

The word of God is either what God has directly spoken or indirectly spoken through an agent or a prophet. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, so the Law of Moses is the word of God. Jesus is the word of God made flesh, so he embodied the word of God by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses. It is common for people to Jesus and the NT authors in a way that turns them against obeying the word of God, but I think it is incorrect to do that.

 

[Arial]

I don't want you to take my word, I want you to read God's Law and tell me why you are rejecting God's Law to support Sola Scriptura. The Law in my opinion is very clear. God never said the Bible is the inerrant word of God, men packaged up the Bible and told you that. Are you going to believe men or God?

Do you have any evidence that what you say is true? In your investigation did you ever engage in NT textual criticism? I am guessing not since this would involve examining over 6000 manuscripts in Greek, plus thousands more in other languages, taking note of similarities and dissimilarities in the bunch. But at least you could have learned how textual criticism was applied.
learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/preservation-scripture

In your investigation to discover if the NT canon is the word of God, did you study the history of canonization. To keep the material needed to do this brief in summary form, even though the detailed history of canonization is available online, I post this link. I think the information would be mandatory in an investigation as would textual criticism.
learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/new-testament-canon

 

[Hazelelponi]

I thought about responding to this then realized you are just lecturing me--you've added nothing to the data or debate.

Yes I have added something, I have shared with you that you need all the books of the Bible or your astray from the Gospel and I have shown you why through the Scriptures and reason, giving you real world examples of just how far astray you are going since you don't accept the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit

Since you reject the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit this is the only way to discuss.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus very clearly told us who we could trust to speak the word of God

Do you subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism?

Do you know why it is I ask that question and how the answer pertains to this opening post?

Many religious leaders claim theology that the Bible is the inherent and infallible word of God through men inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak and write it. But how can that be because what they claim contradicts what is written in the Law presented in the Bible? There is a major contradiction between religious leader theology and the word of God. My attempts to get even one Christian religious leader to acknowledge and address this contradiction has been unsuccessful.

Let's get the doctrine of scriptures inerrancy and infallibility correct, first.

The doctrine of Scripture's inerrancy and infallibility does not pertain to our translations that a person finds in our Bibles. That doctrine speaks solely to the revelation of God in its original form. We do not possess the original(s). What we have is copies of manuscripts and then, on top of the manuscript copies, we have the many various language translations. The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility should never be confused and conflated with Biblical inerrancy and/or infallibility. Scripture is inerrant and infallible. The Bible is neither. However, the Bible is THE most examined and worked book in the entire history of books, and the entire history of humanity. It's not flawless (and, therefore, it is fallible) but a great deal of prayerfully, deliberate effort has been put into maintaining whatever inerrancy and infallibility we can, as fallen creatures, muster.

What God spoke was perfect. What men did with what God spoke was write it down, and, although inspired, empowered, and led by the Holy Spirit, those men then wrote down what they heard. What they wrote down was then copied, distributed, and copied again, and again, and again. It is possible for errors to occur at every point in that process. On top of the copying of the original words first spoken, there is the challenge of translation. The Old Testament was originally written Hebrew and Chaldean. Jesus likely taught in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. It's quite likely Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and possibly one or more of the others, as well. Regardless, it all got translated into Greek. The Greek then got translated into hundreds of different languages. It's often impossible to correctly translate every word of Hebrew or Greek into another language, word-for-word, and even if that were possible the idiomatic differences between one language and another could make a formal translation (word-for-word) inaccurate.

The doctrines of scripture's inerrancy and scripture's infallibility take all of the above into account. Those doctrines affirm this, they do not deny it. This is why textual criticism is (supposed to be) a forensic science.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The word of God is either what God has directly spoken or indirectly spoken through an agent or a prophet. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, so the Law of Moses is the word of God. Jesus is the word of God made flesh, so he embodied the word of God by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses. It is common for people to Jesus and the NT authors in a way that turns them against obeying the word of God, but I think it is incorrect to do that.

Soyeong, I'm with ya--it's the words of Jesus and the words of the OT prophets who prophesied Jesus. I haven't been able to find anything justifying others to speak for God--besides the eyewitness testimonies of Jesus--the Gospels

 

[JustTheFacts]

Yes I have added something, I have shared with you that you need all the books of the Bible or your astray from the Gospel and I have shown you why through the Scriptures and reason, giving you real world examples of just how far astray you are going since you don't accept the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit

But prove to me that the letters of Paul for example are the word of God. Soyeong has been reading Deuteronomy and finding what I found. You want to share something with me, but I have no reason to believe you--unless you can point to the word of God that backs up your claim.

 

[makesends]

I am an expert on evidence. I also stand behind the claim that the Holy Spirit has been helping me through my investigation. I couldn't have done the work I've done without God.

Do you want me to reject what John and Moses wrote to believe others because many other believed them? John wrote that NONE of them were following the disciples--this was a coup. Who do you think killed the disciples? I would question my own findings and conclusions were it not for prophecy proving them to be right. Do you want me to reject the Law through Moses to accept Sola Scriptura that is not following the word of God?

No. I want you to understand that we believe the Word of God infinitely over your claims about anything. The fact you call yourself an expert and have concluded that the Bible is not as reliable as you are, already has ruined your ability to be trusted here. The fact that you seem to think that the Spirit of God has helped you to see that the Bible is not reliable, puts you into the category of 'heretic' or 'blasphemer'. I can only hope I misunderstood you.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Do you subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism?

Do you know why it is I ask that question and how the answer pertains to this opening post?

Let's get the doctrine of scriptures inerrancy and infallibility correct, first.

The doctrine of Scripture's inerrancy and infallibility does not pertain to our translations that a person finds in our Bibles. That doctrine speaks solely to the revelation of God in its original form. We do not possess the original(s). What we have is copies of manuscripts and then, on top of the manuscript copies, we have the many various language translations. The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility should never be confused and conflated with Biblical inerrancy and/or infallibility. Scripture is inerrant and infallible. The Bible is neither. However, the Bible is THE most examined and worked book in the entire history of books, and the entire history of humanity. It's not flawless (and, therefore, it is fallible) but a great deal of prayerfully, deliberate effort has been put into maintaining whatever inerrancy and infallibility we can, as fallen creatures, muster.

What God spoke was perfect. What men did with what God spoke was write it down, and, although inspired, empowered, and led by the Holy Spirit, those men then wrote down what they heard. What they wrote down was then copied, distributed, and copied again, and again, and again. It is possible for errors to occur at every point in that process. On top of the copying of the original words first spoken, there is the challenge of translation. The Old Testament was originally written Hebrew and Chaldean. Jesus likely taught in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. It's quite likely Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and possibly one or more of the others, as well. Regardless, it all got translated into Greek. The Greek then got translated into hundreds of different languages. It's often impossible to correctly translate every word of Hebrew or Greek into another language, word-for-word, and even if that were possible the idiomatic differences between one language and another could make a formal translation (word-for-word) inaccurate.

The doctrines of scripture's inerrancy and scripture's infallibility take all of the above into account. Those doctrines affirm this, they do not deny it. This is why textual criticism is (supposed to be) a forensic science.

It's all mumbo jumbo. The word of God says that Jesus words will survive the destruction of Heaven and Earth (Mark 13:31). In other words, Jesus was saying, "I've got this!" This tells me that I don't need to worry about translations nor inerrancy because it's been promised to me by the word of God. That's all I need. I don't need to review theology. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are the testimonies of Jesus and that's good enough for me.