God Clearly Defined Who Could Speak For Him

[makesends]

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.

YOU are the outlier, here —not @Hazelelponi

It is up to you to prove that any of the Bible is not reliable, and don't do it by shotgun spray. Nobody is going to take the time to listen. YOU have to show, bit by bit, why the letters of Paul are not the word of God.

 

[Arial]

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.

That does not mean that you have correctly identified the fraud.

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

@JustTheFacts said in the Welcome forum.
"Jesus wasn’t warning his Church leaders about losing their faith and belief in him, Jesus was telling them they would fail as managers. The only way the disciples could be led astray was through failing as leaders of the early CJC. And fail they did, just as Jesus warned, they were led astray.

The four chosen disciples were fishermen who didn’t have the experience nor foresight to start the biggest enterprise ever to exist—the Church. John stated that they selected replacements and successors, but “none of them belonged to us.” The men the disciples chose to replace them as leaders in the beginning Church were ALL false teachers. John doesn’t tell us there was one, or even a few false teachers, he told us they were ALL false teachers. John did not describe the infiltration of false teachers into the CJC, he described a coup—a total takeover. The disciples were led astray by smooth talking false teachers who weren’t interested in spreading the Good News of Jesus, they were interested in spreading their religion for their own benefit."

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

Deut 17:6-7 On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. 7. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall ourge the evil from your midst. This of course was a legal demand by God concerning the written Law of the Sinai covenant with Israel. It is in no way related to Jesus appointing the 11 disciples to be his apostles in establishing the foundation (doctrinal truths of) his church. And there were 11 when Jesus spoke to them after the resurrection. Judas was later replaced according to OT prophesy after Jesus' ascension. (Acts 1:15-26. I encourage you to actually read that, and in fact the entire chapter since it tells us exactly what happened, who was there at the ascension, and what occurred during the previous 40 days.)

Deut 19:15 "A single witness shall not suffice atainst a person for any crime or any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be establshed" Again, you are completely misapplying Scripture. It is extremely poor investigative work.

Jesus as the Messiah is not the full content of the gospel of Christ's church. Eternal life through faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ is and the future resurrection of those dead in Christ when he returns, and the changing of them, and those who remain alive when Christ returns, and the new heaven and new earth with God dwelling with us ----that is central to Christianity. And to the teaching of the apostles.

 

[makesends]

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?

So, where does God differ in what he says, from the Bible?

 

[Arial]

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.

What meaning are you giving to that? No one has disputed the likelyhood that other sources, sometimes were used, but the sources were also verifiable as authentic. Each of the Gospel writers were presenting their account for specific purposes, and their purposes were not identical, so that not all the accounts were identical as to order or content. One needs to know those things and what they were as part of an investigation. No scriptural truth was changed and it only cast doubt over the whole canon for skeptics and those on a witch hunt.

 

[Josheb]

It's all mumbo jumbo.

What is mumbo jumbo? Would you please just answer the questions asked?

1. Do you subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism?
2. Do you know why it is I ask that question and how the answer pertains to this opening post?

Thank you

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.

How do you know any of that is correct?

The word of God says that Jesus words will survive the destruction of Heaven and Earth (Mark 13:31).

How do you know that is correct?

In other words, Jesus was saying, "I've got this!"

I disagree but accepting that interpretation for now, how do you know that is correct?

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.

Unless the Bible is unreliable.

That's all I need.

Not if the Bible is unreliable.

I don't need to review theology.

With respect, apparently you do. According to you, you think some very important matters of the faith (like the infallibility and inerrancy of God's revelation of Himself) is "mumbo jumbo."

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are the testimonies of Jesus and that's good enough for me.

How do you know that is correct? Was Luke left out on purpose?

 

[Arial]

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.

Is that the extent of your gospel? Do you think that salvation is through believing that Jesus is the Messiah? What about if one believes as many Jews of Jesus' day did, that the promised Messiah would be a king who would deliver Israel from the Roman empire and make them a sovereign nation again? What is it about the Messiah/Jesus that one must believe? The entire Bible, both testaments give testimony to Jesus being Messiah and his divinity. Not just the Gospels.

 

[fastfredy0]

It's not bad news fastfredy0 because God knows everything and ensured we have the required testimony to prove to the world that Jesus is the Messiah and God.

you need to but an "@" in front of a person's id to get their attention. I.E. @fastfredy0 instead of fastfredy0

.... also using Zelle or Venmo to send me $$$$ gets my attention

 

[JustTheFacts]

That does not mean that you have correctly identified the fraud.

@JustTheFacts said in the Welcome forum.
"Jesus wasn’t warning his Church leaders about losing their faith and belief in him, Jesus was telling them they would fail as managers. The only way the disciples could be led astray was through failing as leaders of the early CJC. And fail they did, just as Jesus warned, they were led astray.

The four chosen disciples were fishermen who didn’t have the experience nor foresight to start the biggest enterprise ever to exist—the Church. John stated that they selected replacements and successors, but “none of them belonged to us.” The men the disciples chose to replace them as leaders in the beginning Church were ALL false teachers. John doesn’t tell us there was one, or even a few false teachers, he told us they were ALL false teachers. John did not describe the infiltration of false teachers into the CJC, he described a coup—a total takeover. The disciples were led astray by smooth talking false teachers who weren’t interested in spreading the Good News of Jesus, they were interested in spreading their religion for their own benefit."

Were the apostles the ones John was referring to that they chose to replace them? I don't have that answer, do you? I haven't seen any discussion of leaders AFTER the disciples. All that documentation is missing.

Deut 17:6-7 On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. 7. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall ourge the evil from your midst. This of course was a legal demand by God concerning the written Law of the Sinai covenant with Israel. It is in no way related to Jesus appointing the 11 disciples to be his apostles in establishing the foundation (doctrinal truths of) his church. And there were 11 when Jesus spoke to them after the resurrection. Judas was later replaced according to OT prophesy after Jesus' ascension. (Acts 1:15-26. I encourage you to actually read that, and in fact the entire chapter since it tells us exactly what happened, who was there at the ascension, and what occurred during the previous 40 days.)

That's your conclusion. Were you planning on addressing the three times that Jesus addressed testimony as it applied to him?

Deut 19:15 "A single witness shall not suffice atainst a person for any crime or any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be establshed" Again, you are completely misapplying Scripture. It is extremely poor investigative work.

Jesus as the Messiah is not the full content of the gospel of Christ's church. Eternal life through faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ is and the future resurrection of those dead in Christ when he returns, and the changing of them, and those who remain alive when Christ returns, and the new heaven and new earth with God dwelling with us ----that is central to Christianity. And to the teaching of the apostles.

So "Jesus as the Messiah is not the full content of the Gospel?" What is the secondary message of the Gospels since Jesus is not fully it?

 

[JustTheFacts]

What meaning are you giving to that? No one has disputed the likelyhood that other sources, sometimes were used, but the sources were also verifiable as authentic.

Other sources unless they are named is not evidence and Jesus ensured the evidence would prove him.

Each of the Gospel writers were presenting their account for specific purposes, and their purposes were not identical, so that not all the accounts were identical as to order or content.

I don't know where you heard that nonsense. There is no specific purpose other than to provide eyewitness testimony that proves Jesus to the world.

One needs to know those things and what they were as part of an investigation.

Are you giving me expert advice on conducting an investigation?

No scriptural truth was changed and it only cast doubt over the whole canon for skeptics and those on a witch hunt.

How do you know how it affects those that are skeptic. I once was skeptic and pray I had this information in the past.

 

[JustTheFacts]

What is mumbo jumbo? Would you please just answer the questions asked?

1. Do you subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism?
2. Do you know why it is I ask that question and how the answer pertains to this opening post?

Thank you

I don't subscribe to theology because it is opinions. I focus on only facts. Do you have any pertinent facts from this Dispensational Premillennialism that you'd like to share?

How do you know any of that is correct?

Because I can read and I trust God.

How do you know that is correct?

If the resurrection is true, than it is correct. I went through the analysis and there are resurrection accounts that prove Jesus as God and the Messiah

I disagree but accepting that interpretation for now, how do you know that is correct?

Unless the Bible is unreliable.

Not if the Bible is unreliable.

With respect, apparently you do. According to you, you think some very important matters of the faith (like the infallibility and inerrancy of God's revelation of Himself) is "mumbo jumbo."

Be specific

How do you know that is correct? Was Luke left out on purpose?

Yes I left Luke off on purpose. He admits he is not an eyewitness and he doesn't provide his sources. Therefore that book is not testimony--it is second hand or worse.

 

[Arial]

Were the apostles the ones John was referring to that they chose to replace them? I don't have that answer, do you? I haven't seen any discussion of leaders AFTER the disciples. All that documentation is missing.

I can't make sense of the question. Are you prepared to acknowledge that you did say all the apostles (but John?)were false teachers, since I proved that you did so?

That's your conclusion.

And the conclusion of anyone who was not looking for a way to apply it to the wrong thing and in the wrong place.

Were you planning on addressing the three times that Jesus addressed testimony as it applied to him?

Not unless it came up in the conversation.

So "Jesus as the Messiah is not the full content of the Gospel?" What is the secondary message of the Gospels since Jesus is not fully it?

I would like for you to read my post again and see if there is actually any place in it that I said anything other than Jesus as being the Messiah is not the full content of the gospel. Notice those two words. "Full" and "content". And the reason I said it is because you are posting as though if we know Jesus is the promised Messiah, then we are good to go. Nothing else needed. Nothing else to the gospel. And I told you what the message of the gospel is but you did not quote or address that part. Those on this forum are all too familiar with that becoming the M.O. of those trying to discredit one thing or another in traditional Christian orthodoxy.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Is that the extent of your gospel? Do you think that salvation is through believing that Jesus is the Messiah? What about if one believes as many Jews of Jesus' day did, that the promised Messiah would be a king who would deliver Israel from the Roman empire and make them a sovereign nation again? What is it about the Messiah/Jesus that one must believe? The entire Bible, both testaments give testimony to Jesus being Messiah and his divinity. Not just the Gospels.

The Law of Moses stated that OT prophets who predicted Jesus spoke for God. If Jesus didn't speak for God then all is for nothing and none of them spoke for God. However, if Jesus is the Messiah and God, the the OT prophets spoke for God and Jesus, as God, spoke for God. So yes, it is the extent of my Gospel--it's pretty much all I need to believe. Doesn't matter to me what the Jews thought.

 

[JustTheFacts]

you need to but an "@" in front of a person's id to get their attention. I.E. @fastfredy0 instead of fastfredy0

.... also using Zelle or Venmo to send me $$$$ gets my attention

Thanks for the info. Where do I mail the check?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I can't make sense of the question. Are you prepared to acknowledge that you did say all the apostles (but John?)were false teachers, since I proved that you did so?

John said ALL the ones they chose were false teachers. Do you have any names of apostles that they chose? You have the book of Acts with a bunch of names in it, was John referring to them or others? I don't know, do you? I'm not going to speculate. There was a coup on the Church.

I would like for you to read my post again and see if there is actually any place in it that I said anything other than Jesus as being the Messiah is not the full content of the gospel. Notice those two words. "Full" and "content". And the reason I said it is because you are posting as though if we know Jesus is the promised Messiah, then we are good to go. Nothing else needed. Nothing else to the gospel. And I told you what the message of the gospel is but you did not quote or address that part. Those on this forum are all too familiar with that becoming the M.O. of those trying to discredit one thing or another in traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Not sure what you are after. The OT pointed to the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled it. Spell it out because I don't know traditional Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not sure what you are after. The OT pointed to the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled

Do you know why He came? What He does as our Messiah,?

For what purpose did He come if He can't keep His Bride pure?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Do you know why He came? What He does as our Messiah,?

For what purpose did He come if He can't keep His Bride pure?

You'll have to cite some scripture to clear up what you are looking for.

 

[ReverendRV]

Did you read my last few Posts @JustTheFacts ?

 

[ReverendRV]

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; they 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.

Bump

 

[Carbon]

.... also using Zelle or Venmo to send me $$$$ gets my attention

Haha

 

[Josheb]

I don't subscribe to theology because it is opinions. I focus on only facts. Do you have any pertinent facts from this Dispensational Premillennialism that you'd like to share?

I am simply wondering if you believe Christians will be raptured off the planet prior to either a great tribulation or Jesus' physical return to earth to establish a kingdom here on earth. I am wondering whether or not you think the nation of Israel is relevant to Christian views of the end times.

I am wondering if you know why I ask and what relevance the answers have to this op.

Because I can read and I trust God.

How do you know the Bible is God's words?

If the resurrection is true, than it is correct.

"if"???

So you're not sure?

I went through the analysis and there are resurrection accounts that prove Jesus as God and the Messiah

Oh, so you trust your analysis. Did that analysis include the viewpoints of others, the reading of opinions of others, or was the analysis done solely on scripture without consideration of any outside source?

Be specific

I was. I want to know how you kow everything you have posted about the Bible is correct, and I want you to be specific explaining yuor posted views.

Yes I left Luke off on purpose. He admits he is not an eyewitness and he doesn't provide his sources. Therefore, that book is not testimony--it is second hand or worse.

If that is correct, then do you also discard portions of Acts? He was the author of that book, too, but he was not present for all of the events described therein. Tell me how it is the second-hand account of an investigator cannot possibly be inspired by the Spirit of God?