How has Christanity, a faith based on the teachings of one text(the Bible), divided into so many denominations?

It all boils down to tradition. Even within Catholics depending on what part of the world your in the traditions and celebrations and even mass are different. There are so many people who interpret the bible differently and this would be the cause of so many denominations. Interpretation is very much the factor. Different people, see things differently at the same time the goal, God and Jesus are all the same.

Joe

How has Christanity, a faith based on the teachings of one text(the Bible), divided into so many denominations?
Because people start focusing on their own selfish desires instead of on the Lord Jesus Christ and his word in the Holy Bible... it is really sad, but most people claiming to be Christians probably don't really know Christ

I could point out that the Bible(taken from the word biblias or books) is not one text but 66 different books by 40 different authors over 1600 years of time. But, we as Christians believe that all the Bible is inspired by God and that he is essentially the author of it all. Just as 10 eyewitnesses to the same accident can give a different account, we all have our biases and predjudices and preferences by our culture, our upbringing, our level of intelligence, etc. Paul the apostle had to correct Peter the apostle in one instance and once Paul circumcised a man traveling with him(tho he didn't believe it necessary) so that the group he was going to be speaking to would even listen to him. Each denomination has different things they consider to be important or what makes them feel more comfortable in worship. True Christians do not come from any one group but from all groups.
(One sign a group is a cult, is if they maintain that absolutely no one can get into heaven or paradise unless they are a member of that group)

How has Christanity, a faith based on the teachings of one text(the Bible), divided into so many denominations?

Scripture has told us that grace is given in measure of the gift of Christ. (Eph 4:7) Knowing this we can expect many different levels of wisdom and knowledge that have been given to whoever Christ has elected. To each that is given, will be for the fulfillment of HIM and all things.
(Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers)


All done to offer us the love from Our Father throught Christ Jesus. In the hope of salvation further taught NOW by a ministry knowledgeable in " HIS Will "... correction brought to us by the body of Christ, in forgiveness of sin, and set free from the bondage of sin. We are offered the new man (Eph 4:24), in an image of righteousness, and in hope of being born again of Spirit to live holy as he is HOLY. Abiding in HIM and HIM in us, knowing we can be the perfect man in the fulness of Christ..

(Eph 4:12-13 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ)

However it is also written to beware of false prophets and false teaching that can beguile you from the simplicity of Christ Jesus (2 Cr 11:3) AND I would rebuke those who speak of keeping man in sin, and calling someone unclean that God has made clean.

For it is man's choice to answer the call of God in belief of ONE GOD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

AND to REJOICE in boasting by the one excluded boast... known as THE LAW of FAITH (Romans 3:27)

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Blah blah blah people over the years change around the bible or try to go by it the way they want to try to make everyone "perfect". Which ends up spreading hatred and separation.Once you believe in God, the Holy Spirit and have faith and are a humble person that's all that matters.

blah blah blah people over the years change around the bible or try to go by it the way they want to try to make everyone "perfect". Which ends up spreading hatred and separation.Once you believe in God, the Holy Spirit and have faith and are a humble person thats all that matters.

People can imagine what they want. It would be like staying in Disney World rather then living in reality.

The reality of life is, good and bad being done. Look around you.... (and) Discipline is the mold that can help in keeping us in love. Of course evil hates discipline.

And the reality of Christianity is that there is a begotten Son of God, who was sent to walk in reality of life here on earth. Who did do all that is written out of love for us. To help us, and bring us to what is perfect.

The reality of evil is, hatred and it separates our lives from God.

Does it matter? You can imagine that God and the Holy Spirit are out there somewhere. But I would say when it is time to go home... Home is with God in a world not like this world. Home is the perfect world of righteousnesss. And there the reality is God holds power, protection, and is our only hope in life. A life of righteousness, and love. Faith is what justifies us to come home. Faith in what God has done in all things to mold us for the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Imagine what you want, but reality is God's way, and HIS will to be done.

blah blah blah people over the years change around the bible or try to go by it the way they want to try to make everyone "perfect". Which ends up spreading hatred and separation.Once you believe in God, the Holy Spirit and have faith and are a humble person thats all that matters.
Tai18,
I know where you're coming from. If you are about 18, this is the same time I myself made the same statements you've made. I never considered (at the time)the following questions so I hope you will:
1.What makes you think the Bible was changed around? When? What parts of it? Who did this? What did it say before it was changed? What part of the Bible that was changed do you wish was changed back to the original?
2. Since sin is NOT loving,(either God, others, or yourself) how does wanting people to stop sinning spread hatred and separation?
3. Doess the Devil believe in God?
4. What specifically, should you have faith in?
5. What defines a humble person?
6. If what you said IS all that matters, did Jesus waste His life dying on a cross for nothing?

The conversation seems to have morphed from the initial question, so let's see if we can get back on track..

Why are there so many denominations if all are based on a common bible? I think it has to do with the nature of how people in groups behave - large groups always fragment into smaller groups, as each constituency thinks it has a better handle on how to be "true" to the bible than any other. Think of this analogy from the secular world - here in the US we have one common constitution, yet we have political groups that range from liberal to ultra-conservative that all claim to be living by the constitution; we have groups that are for rights of gun ownership and groups that are for gun control; groups that are "pro-choice" and groups that are "pro-life," groups that support capital punishment and groups that are against capital punishment - and every one one of these factions claim to have their belief grounded in the Constitution. I don't want to get int a debate about the merits of any of these positions here, but I think it's indicative of how one document (the Constitution) can have "followers" with widely different views of how to interpret it. And for what it's worth, essentially all major religions have had major splits within their ranks causing different "denominations" - it's certainly true of Judaism an Islam, for example. So again, it's in man's nature that no single large group can exist without multiple factions evolving.

How has Christanity, a faith based on the teachings of one text(the Bible), divided into so many denominations?

The premise that Christianity is based on the teachings from one book, in my opinion, is somewhat flawed. Christ fulfilled His ministry teaching by word of mouth. Not only did Christ feed the hungry and cure the sick, He also established His Vicar, a representative acting "in the person of" Christ and commissioned a Church to continue to teach. Christ did not leave us his writings.

However, Peter’s keys to teach have been passed from Pope to Pope since Christ. Though inspired by God, the text came later as a special form of this teaching tradition. The text cannot discern from one age to the next, nor can it discern from one interpretation to the next, nor does it reveal more of God’s truth. So, to say there is one teaching based on one text is an oxymoron. The reason is quite simple, without one authority to interpret the text, lending credence to the text; the number of denominations will continue to grow until it matches the number of protesters. Obviously, not recognizing an authority each feels free to interpret the meaning to conform to his own will.

JoeT

The premise that Christianity is based on the teachings from one book, in my opinion, is somewhat flawed.

Actually, look at scripture and see what Jesus Himself used when doctrinal questions arose - He always validated His points by going straight back to scripture. If Jesus used scripture, why should we go to words of men?


However, Peter’s keys to teach have been passed from Pope to Pope since Christ.

This is also outside of scripture - Not only is there nothing known as "Peter's keys" in scripture, there is nothing about a pope or papal succession.

Why are there so many denominations if all are based on a common bible?

There are many different reasons for different denominations.

The Bible does not promise denominational unity, nor that denominations would be the standard of truth. Denominations did not exist in the 1st Century. Churches are a mix of believers and unbelievers. Jesus prayed for unity amongst believers not churches or denominations. This was answered when the new ministry of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers began.

Denominations came about for many reasons:

- Common region or language
- Common beginnings
- Common ministry / mission
- Some came about due to doctrinal emphasis (non-essentials)
- Some came about because of difference on essentials

Where denominations have arisen because of doctrinal differences, this is typically because men have chosen to add their own interpretations to scripture, or to make their denomination supreme over God's word, or to claim only their leadership can rightly interpret or add to the Bible, or they add their denominational traditions to what scripture says.

Denominations therefore are not, in and of themselves bad. They only become an issue when we place the denomination over scripture rather than submitting ourselves to God's word.

People can imagine what they want. It would be like staying in Disney World rather then living in reality.

The reality of life is, good and bad being done. Look around you.... (and) Discipline is the mold that can help in keeping us in love. Of course evil hates discipline.

And the reality of Christianity is that there is a begotten Son of God, who was sent to walk in reality of life here on earth. Who did do all that is written out of love for us. To help us, and bring us to what is perfect.

The reality of evil is, hatred and it separates our lives from God.

Does it matter? You can imagine that God and the Holy Spirit are out there somewhere. But I would say when it is time to go home... Home is with God in a world not like this world. Home is the perfect world of righteousnesss. And there the reality is God holds power, protection, and is our only hope in life. A life of righteousness, and love. Faith is what justifies us to come home. Faith in what God has done in all things to mold us for the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Imagine what you want, but reality is God's way, and HIS will to be done.


No fake preachers here please.No clue why you quoted me.Everyone has their own opinion. Mine religion separates us all."homosexuality" is a "sin" some get thrown out of Gods house church where everyone is welcomed ,by "priest" people who are supposed to be teaching God. They now even say being overweight is a "SIN" that you "love food more then you love God" rubbish they change around the bible to their own evil deeds of what they think is perfect and spread it in the lives of everyone which separates us all and causes hate. Once you have faith,humbleness and believe in God that's all that matters.My opinion.

No fake preachers here please.No clue why you quoted me.Everyone has their own opinion. mine religion separates us all."homosexuality" is a "sin" some get thrown out of Gods house church where everyone is welcomed ,by "priest" people who are supposed to be teaching God. They now even say being overweight is a "SIN" that you "love food more then you love God" rubbish they change around the bible to their own evil deeds of what they think is perfect and spread it in the lives of everyone which separates us all and causes hate. Once you have faith,humbleness and believe in God thats all that matters.My opinion.

Anyone can make up their own belief system, but without validation, it is nothing more than a personal belief. How have you validated that your belief is the only true one?

Anyone can make up their own belief system, but without validation, it is nothing more than a personal belief. How have you validated that your belief is the only true one?

I don't recall writing my views are the "only true ones".as I have written these are MY opinions. & I respect everyone else own views

How has Christanity, a faith based on the teachings of one text(the Bible), divided into so many denominations?
Because, as you mentioned, the Bible is faith-based, it's left up to people to translate and interpret it's meaning, so it's entirely based on opinion which is arguable. The individual's goal is to read it himself and find his own meaning.

I was raised Greek Orthodox and thought it was the only form of Christianity until I was 12 or so because we were always taught it's the "original church". Services really haven't changed all that much in their 2,000 year history. Pope John Paul II even went to Greece in 2001, first time in almost 1,000 years, he and his entourage were greeted with protests. That's all held-over from the Great Schism.

Anyway, one is always more right than the other. It reminds me of the "Go God Go" and "Go God Go II" of Southpark. Watch 'em both, they're relevant to this question.

i dont recall writing my views are the "only true ones".as i have written these are MY opinions. & i respect everyone else own views

However, you do seem to be putting down those who disagree with your position. Further, since Christianity states that there is ONLY one true God, and ONLY one true gospel, though we can respect the right of others to hold vaying beliefs (and I do), it is impossible for all beliefs to be equally valid.

By the fact that you are putting down the beliefs of others, you appear to have some basis for believing that your beliefs are more correct. What is your basis for that position?

However, you do seem to be putting down those who disagree with your position. Further, since Christianity states that there is ONLY one true God, and ONLY one true gospel, though we can respect the right of others to hold vaying beliefs (and I do), it is impossible for all beliefs to be equally valid.

By the fact that you are putting down the beliefs of others, you appear to have some basis for believing that your beliefs are more correct. What is your basis for that position?

I guess I need to repeat myself I never stated my views are the "only true ones" everyone is entailed to have their own and I RESPECT that I don't jump on every person that writes they have a different view about something and say "HOW ARE YOU CORRECT ABOUT THIS???" everyone has their own views. I couldn't care less if all beliefs are valid or not its better then not believing anything,maybe all religions play a role in something who really knows,just like you care deeply about Christianity there are people that care deeply about there religion so I won't tell them they are wrong about everything because they are respected and it is not my place to judge anyone I will leave that up to God just like it isn't anyone's place to preach unless they are living by it 100%. I will say again MY OPINION. Have a nice day

i could care less if all beliefs are valid or not its better then not believing anything,

I disagree. Believing something which is wrong can be very dangerous because it can lead a person to feel comfortable that all is okay when in fact it is not. Let me give another analogy. If you take your car to someone who claims to be a mechanic, but you do not validate his credentials, and he tells you your brakes are great. You may believe that everything is fine, only to find out, when driving down the highway at 60 miles per hour that you are without any brakes.

Now, why should I care? Well, using that analogy, would you knowingly send anyone out in a car like that with the realization that it had been inspected by someone who does not know what they are doing? Could you let someone go without warning them?

[QUOTE=homesell;1773934] [QUOTE]True Christians do not come from any one group but from all groups.[/QUOTE


Surely we should worship God in a way that HE approves, not in a way that we feel comfortable or the way we interpret the scriptures. The bible clearly defines what is acceptable to God and what is not when it comes to true worship.

Galatians 5:19-21 gives us an indication of what is not acceptable to God, among these "works of the flesh" are "divisions and sects" which will not inherit God's kingdom. Does this not sound like there should be only ONE group of True followers whom God will accept? Surely not all religious groups can possibly be approved by God when they all teach and believe different things.


Think of the ancient nation of Israel. They were ONE group of God's chosen ones who were under strict law not to practice any of the rituals/celebrations of pagan nations around them.

This is no different for God's people today. So many pagan rituals/celebrations have oozed into so called chirstian religion and have tainted the truth for many today.

2 Tim 4:3,4 "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories."

We are in that period.

Galatians 5:19-21 gives us an indication of what is not acceptable to God, among these "works of the flesh" are "divisions and sects" which will not inherit God's kingdom. Does this not sound like there should be only ONE group of True followers whom God will accept? Surely not all religious groups can possibly be approved by God when they all teach and believe different things.

Nothing in scripture even suggest that we are to follow a single denomination of organization. In fact quite the contrary:

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Those who are saved are members individually of the body of Christ, not part of a manmade organization.

Exactly Tj3, the body of Christ. He is our Exemplar and what he did and what he instructed for us to do is all there in the scriptures. Manmade organisations whether they be formed yesterday or 3000 years ago have no place in God's acceptable worship. Those who wish to serve God acceptably will do so based entirely on the scriptures.

Deut 31:12 and Hebrews 10:24, 25 encourages us to gather together to spiritually upbuild one another, whether young or old so as to benefit from the regular spiritual food provided by the "faithful and discreet slave whom Jesus master (his father) appointed over all his domestics to keep giving them food at the proper time." (Matt 24:45). These domestics are separate from those who claim to be followers of Christ as he himself said in Matt 7:22, 23.
So although there are many who say they are christians, few will actually be saved. It requires us acting in harmony with the accurate knowledge found in the bible and as I said before, these requirements are clearly outlined for all of us, maybe some more than others? :D

Those who wish to serve God acceptably will do so based entirely on the scriptures.

Agree, because scripture is the flesh of Christ.. Christ is The WORD of God.. Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it is the revealed truth of Our Father in Heaven. If you believe in Christ, if you believe in the Holy Spirit, and if you believe in God's power of creation, then the reality of scripture is HIS labor of love for us, just as THE WORD tells us.



So although there are many who say they are christians, few will actually be saved. It requires us acting in harmony with the accurate knowledge found in the bible and as I said before, these requirements are clearly outlined for all of us, maybe some more than others? :D

Agree, if we hold stedfast in Faith of Christ Jesus. We must "Trust in Christ", we must "Rest in full belief and faith in HIS worthyness". " To glory in God the Father", because we were set free from the bondage of sin, and able to repent upon the blood of Christ Jesus who paid the price for our forgiveness from sin.

BUT, we can not build again in sin nor should we destroy what Christ brought us. We throught Faith are to be dead in Christ and not to abide in sin, but to abide in HIS righteousnesss. Christ is not the minister of sin! Do not be a transgressor to destroy what was built in forgiveness by our faith in Christ. (Gal 2:18) AND do not fall from grace and consent to the law of sin which is good as the schoolmaster.
(Romans 6:16)(Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace)

Should you doubt "Faith in Christ", then you eat of the body of Christ in sin unto damnation. (Romans 14:23)

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Nothing in scripture even suggest that we are to follow a single denomination of organization. In fact quite the contrary:

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Those who are saved are members individually of the body of Christ, not part of a manmade organization.

GREEN Tag GREEN Tag GREEN Tag


Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. KJV

Those who wish to serve God acceptably will do so based entirely on the scriptures.

What exactly do you mean by this? Scripture doesn't mention light-bulbs. Is it impermissible to use electric light suring worship? Well, presumably not, so precisely what constraints to you take this to impose on the worship of God? It's not clear to me what the force of "based entirely on" really is. Perhaps you could expand a bit on what you have in mind.

Why do you say this? Do you find this claim in Scripture somewhere?

Those who wish to serve God acceptably will do so based entirely on the scriptures.



Why do you say this? Do you find this claim in Scripture somewhere?


Moparbyfar can speak for himself.. But if indeed we believe that scripture offers all that is acceptable to serve God then it is scripture that can answer the question, and yes it is found in scripture.

Scripture is the gospel of the Kingdom of God pledged in Christ Jesus. Christ is the Flesh of scripture that is written (The Word of God)sent by the grace of God according to HIS Will.

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Believe in Christ Jesus! The proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ is the gospel.


Mark 1:1-2 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

2 Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

We must remember the gospel is glorified in Christ Name according to the grace of God.

[QUOTE=Akoue Why do you say this? Do you find this claim in Scripture somewhere?[QUOTE]

2 Tim 3:16, 17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work".

There were and have always been laws and principles to follow since Adam and Eve. They were not free to do and what they wished. They had to live within God's guidelines. When those guidelines were broken, their blessings from God was taken away and so were their lives. The same with Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Job, King David, Daniel, Jonah, even Jesus. They all worshipped God in a way that he approved, and although some strayed from the truth (eg King David), as long as they were truly repentant of their wrongdoing, they could find favour with God again.

God is the one who knows what's best for us, after all, HE CREATED US. So it makes sense that he is the one to look to for guidance, hence the importance of using his word the Bible as our "manual" for a happy, successful life.

Jesus set the best example because he based all his teachings on the Bible. He said in John 17:17 "Your word is truth" in prayer to his father. Everything he taught harmonised with the scriptures. The account of Satan tempting him in the book of Matthew proves just how closedly Jesus stuck to the scriptures by quoting them each time in answer to Satan's attempts. (Matt 4:1-11)

Jesus described in Matt 24:11 what we can expect as a sign of his presence, that "many false prophets would arise and mislead many" vs 14 "and this good news of the kingdom shall be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations and then the end will come."

What is that good news? Is it being preached by all Christians throughout the earth to all?

So I say this not because it is a claim but because it has been emphasised by so many throughout the bible as proof that there is indeed only ONE true religion, based entirely on the God's Word.

Moparbyfar can speak for himself.. But if indeed we believe that scripture offers all that is acceptable to serve God then it is scripture that can answer the question, and yes it is found in scripture.

Scripture is the gospel of the Kingdom of God pledged in Christ Jesus. Christ is the Flesh of scripture that is written (The Word of God)sent by the grace of God according to HIS Will.

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Believe in Christ Jesus! The proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ is the gospel.

Mark 1:1-2 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

2 Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

We must remember the gospel is glorified in Christ Name according to the grace of God.

I notice that none of the Scriptures you quote state that the Gospel is identical to, or contained in its entirety within, the written text of the NT. The Gospel is the message, the good news, that Christ brought to God's people. I don't see anything that states that the whole of that message is contained in the pages of the Bible. But, of course, there are plenty of places in the NT where we are told to uphold and abide by oral teachings. This seems to suggest--in fact, it unambiguously affirms--that there are teachings that are precisely not to be found in the Bible.

In other words, then, I think you are quite mistaken to assert that "scripture offers all that is acceptable to serve God". In fact, this looks to me like a dangerous assumption that is gainsayed by Scripture itself.

[QUOTE=Akoue Why do you say this? Do you find this claim in Scripture somewhere?[QUOTE]

2 Tim 3:16, 17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work".


Your earlier statement that our worship of God should be "based entirely on Scripture" would seem to suggest that Scripture alone is entirely sufficient. But the passage you quote from 2Tim. Doesn't say that at all. It says that Scripture is inspired by God (everyone agrees with this), that it is beneficial for teaching, reproving, setting things straight, and for the purposes of discipline (no one disagrees with this either). It says that Scripture is beneficial for these purposes. It precisely does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient for these things. Now, perhaps I have misunderstood your earlier statement and you did not mean to suggest that Scripture alone is sufficient. If I have, I apologize. But, as I say, this is how I understood you, and if I have not misunderstood then I am afraid you are mistaken. Scripture does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient. On the contrary, it repeatedly states that we are to uphold and abide by oral teachings. This means, then, that we are to rely upon both Scripture and oral tradition and not one to the neglect of the other.



There were and have always been laws and principles to follow since Adam and Eve. They were not free to do and what they wished. They had to live within God's guidelines. When those guidelines were broken, their blessings from God was taken away and so were their lives. The same with Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Job, King David, Daniel, Jonah, even Jesus. They all worshipped God in a way that he approved, and although some strayed from the truth (eg King David), as long as they were truly repentant of their wrongdoing, they could find favour with God again.

Yes, you are exactly right.


God is the one who knows what's best for us, after all, HE CREATED US. So it makes sense that he is the one to look to for guidance, hence the importance of using his word the Bible as our "manual" for a happy, successful life.

We ought to rely upon the Bible, that is true, but not to the neglect of those teachings of Christ and the Apostles which were transmitted orally and were not included within the text of the NT as we have it.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the Bible is a manual (or "manual") for happiness and success. This makes it sound a bit like a self-help book. Worldly happiness and success are by no means guaranteed. Our goal ought rather to be eternal life with our heavenly Father. Many have suffered mightily for the faith, after all.


Jesus set the best example because he based all his teachings on the Bible. He said in John 17:17 "Your word is truth" in prayer to his father. Everything he taught harmonised with the scriptures. The account of Satan tempting him in the book of Matthew proves just how closedly Jesus stuck to the scriptures by quoting them each time in answer to Satan's attempts. (Matt 4:1-11)

While you are exactly right to point out the Jesus used the Bible as a pedagogical tool, I wouldn't say that he "based" his teachings on the Bible--which in his case was the OT. Jesus was God. He "based" his teachings on his eternal truth. Or, rather, his teachings were expressions of his eternal truth.


Jesus described in Matt 24:11 what we can expect as a sign of his presence, that "many false prophets would arise and mislead many" vs 14 "and this good news of the kingdom shall be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations and then the end will come."

Where is the end, then? There have been false prophets, many false prophets, since the age of the Apostles. The word has been disseminated. And still the end has not come. Why do you suppopse that is?


What is that good news? Is it being preached by all Christians throughout the earth to all?

So I say this not because it is a claim but because it has been emphasised by so many throughout the bible as proof that there is indeed only ONE true religion, based entirely on the God's Word.

Yes.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions. It is a testament to the thoughtfulness of your post that points of agreement and disagreement have come clearly to light.

I notice that none of the Scriptures you quote state that the Gospel is identical to, or contained in its entirety within, the written text of the NT. The Gospel is the message, the good news, that Christ brought to God's people.


To the glory of God.. "The Gospel" the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom.

QUOTE by sndbay #26: Scripture is the gospel of the Kingdom of God pledged in Christ Jesus.



I don't see anything that states that the whole of that message is contained in the pages of the Bible. But, of course, there are plenty of places in the NT where we are told to uphold and abide by oral teachings.

I don't acknowledge there being another Kingdom or any other power and dominion then Christ Jesus. That is clearly stated in (Eph 2:22) No other to give glory and honor to, then that which is written of in scripture which is the glad tidings of salvation through Christ.

From what is written that is the whole of everything contained in the Bible is The Word of Truth, and The Flesh of Christ is the excellence of the Kingdom of God.

The oral teaching written of in scripture were to establish Christ, and were told by those anointed by God. (2 Cr 1:22-23) They were sealed and given the spirit of God within their hearts. They themselves did not hold dominion over anyone but rather were sent to help others in Faith of Christ Jesus. (2 Cr 1:24)

Christ himself said I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (John 17:6)




In other words, then, I think you are quite mistaken to assert that "scripture offers all that is acceptable to serve God". In fact, this looks to me like a dangerous assumption that is gainsayed by Scripture itself.

The Word of God known in scripture is sanctify as truth.

1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, (let him speak as) the oracles of God; if any man minister, (let him do it as) of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I notice that none of the Scriptures you quote state that the Gospel is identical to, or contained in its entirety within, the written text of the NT.

Interesting that you appear to be denying what Paul said:

2 Tim 3:13-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

This does not say that we need something outside of scripture - it says that the gospel is found IN scripture, and that by scripture the man of God may be COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY good work.

You appear to be saying that there is another gospel outside of scripture, or that we need part of the gospel which is not found in scripture, and that in and of itself is unscriptural.

Jesus' words were the source of doctrine for the apostles. That means that the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition. Additionally, the apostles used written revelations and doctrines found in the OT. As much as 90% of the NT is based on authoritative oral tradition (i.e. from Jesus to his disciples), and the remaining 10% is from written sources.

2 Tim 3:15 "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Paul was referring to the OT, specifically the Ten Commandments. Those were the only "Holy Scriptures" he knew about. The NT hadn't been written yet. In fact, his letters were the first writings of what later became the NT.

Jesus' words were the source of doctrine for the apostles. That means that the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition. Additionally, the apostles used written revelations and doctrines found in the OT. As much as 90% of the NT is based on authoritative oral tradition (i.e., from Jesus), and the remaining 10% is from written sources.

The oral teaching which you are speaking of would be Christ Jesus who said himself that he manifested HIS Father's name unto the men which HIS Father gave HIM out of the world: Those souls were God's and God gave them to Jesus/flesh, Christ/anointed, begotten son of God. And those soul kept God's word/scripture (John 17:6)

2 Cr 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

2 Cr 1:24 ... Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

Interesting that you appear to be denying what Paul said:

2 Tim 3:13-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

This does not say that we need something outside of scripture - it says that the gospel is found IN scripture, and that by scripture the man of God may be COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY good work.

It says that Scripture is profitable for four things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rigtheousness) and that these four things make "the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (Note: good work, not salvation).

So unless "profitable" is synonymous with "sufficient", this passage does not say that we don't need anything apart from Scripture. It also doesn't say that the whole of God's revelation is contained in Scripture. It says that Scripture is inspired by God. Notice that I have said nothing at odds with that: Yes, Scripture is inspired by God. Now where exactly does it say that all of God's revelation is contained in Scripture?


You appear to be saying that there is another gospel outside of scripture, or that we need part of the gospel which is not found in scripture, and that in and of itself is unscriptural.

What I am saying is that there is nothing in Scripture that says that the whole of the Gospel is contained in Scripture. I am also saying that we should obey Scripture when it tells us to uphold and abide by oral teachings (teachings which, since they are oral, are not contained in the written text of the Bible).

Oh, and I'm also saying that you have radically misunderstood 2Tim.3.13-17. I've explained your error above.

I'll also second Wondergirl's excellent point, that the Scriptures referred to at 2Tim.3 are those that belong to the OT not to the NT.

It says that Scripture is profitable for four things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rigtheousness) and that these four things make "the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (Note: good work, not salvation).

Interesting how you ignored part of the passage. I can only guess why, but here is the first part of the passage that you ignored:

"14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. "

Now that I have explained your error, perhaps you might want to read it once again in context.

Interesting how you ignored part of the passage. I can only guess why, but here is the first part of the passage that you ignored:

"14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. "

Now that I have explained your error, perhaps you might want to read it once again in context.

How on earth does this pose problems for anything that I've said. No one has denied that value of Scripture, only its sufficiency. So yes, Scripture (the Scripture referred to here is the OT) "makes you wise for salvation". This doesn't say that the whole of God's revelation to his people is contained in Scripture. Since the Scripture it refers to is the OT, why don't you limit yourself to it? Why do you use the NT at all if you think that the whole of God's revelation to his people is contained in the OT? Do you think that "which are able to make you wise for salvation" means "contains the whole of God's revelation to his people"? If so, that would be an odd and surprising synomymy.

Why don't you explain why you think that anything I have said is at odds with this.

"14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. "
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there was no NT at this time. The Holy Scriptures Paul referred to could only have been the OT, the Law in particular, the knowledge of which and adherence to was bridged, Paul notes, by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (oral tradition alert!).

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there was no NT at this time. The Holy Scriptures Paul referred to could only have been the OT, the Law in particular, the knowledge of which and adherence to was bridged, Paul notes, by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (oral tradition alert!).

Assuming that Paul referred solely to the OT would mean that we can find the gospel of Jesus entirely in the OT, and I agree.

But nonetheless, by saying that this ONLY refers to the OT appears to either deny the inspiration of the Bible by God, or God's omniscience, because if God did indeed inspire the Bible, then God knew what scriptures were being referred to, including those both written at that time, and those yet to be written.

Assuming that Paul referred solely to the OT would mean that we can find the gospel of Jesus entirely in the OT, and I agree.

But nonetheless, by saying that this ONLY refers to the OT appears to either deny the inspiration of the Bible by God, or God's omniscience, because if God did indeed inspire the Bible, then God knew what scriptures were being referred to, including those both written at that time, and those yet to be written.
Did Timothy go into a trance when he wrote that? That conclusion is a HUGE leap.

How on earth does this pose problems for anything that I've said.

Read more carefully. You ignored half the quote by removing the part which spoke of salvation, and then claimed that salvation was not mentioned.

Taking a passage out of context and deliberately eliminating that which you think is at odds with your position is not dealing with what scripture has to say on the topic.

Did Paul go into a trance when he wrote that? That conclusion is a HUGE leap.

So are you in fact denying the Holy Spirit inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Or are you saying that the Holy Spirit cannot inspire without a trance?

Many seem to forget these days that God warns us against teaching or listening to what is NOT in His word the Bible.

Deut 4:2 - Moses instructs the Israelites to stick to God's laws, not to add or take away from them.

Joshua 1:7 - Joshua reminds God's people of what Moses told them concerning the law. "do not turn aside from it to the left or the right."

1 Kings 2:3 - “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go."

Proverbs 30:6 - "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."

2 John 9 - "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son."
... the teaching of Christ is found only in the Bible.

In light of the scriptures mentioned above and other similar ones, I personally will try and stick to the Bible as my guide. :)

Interesting that you appear to be denying what Paul said:

2 Tim 3:13-17
16 [B]All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is …for instruction in righteousness,


Let’s see – scripture is good for INSTRUCTION. And how is INSTRUCTION accomplished? Today, as in antiquity, the instructor tells the student to read then the instructor will give a dissertation on the meaning of the scripture. In short he orally transmits knowledge. The instructor gives VERBAL instruction, he doesn’t allow his students to read the text and hold any fool thought that comes to mind. How many physics instructors do you know tell his students to open the book and derive the theory of relativity any which way they can? The answer is none, it’s simply not done. And would God be the harsh instructor saying, “Get it right, read the TEXT, the eternal disposition of your soul depends on it”?

Maybe that's it Tj, you couldn’t ever ‘get it right’.

Let's see – scripture is good for INSTRUCTION. And how is INSTRUCTION accomplished? Today, as in antiquity, the instructor tells the student to read then the instructor will give a dissertation on the meaning of the scripture. In short he orally transmits knowledge. The instructor gives VERBAL instruction, he doesn't allow his students to read the text and hold any fool thought that comes to mind.

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong and that scripture does not contain those instructions and is not adequate.

I disagree. I accept what God says when He says that scripture is adequate.

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong and that scripture does not contain those instructions and is not adequate.

I disagree. I accept what God says when He says that scripture is adequate.

It seems to me that what you do is to make God in your own image, i.e. scripture only interpreted in accordance with Tj’s standard.

Read more carefully. You ignored half the quote by removing the part which spoke of salvation, and then claimed that salvation was not mentioned.

Taking a passage out of context and deliberately eliminating that which you think is at odds with your position is not dealing with what scripture has to say on the topic.

Interesting. I didn't, in fact, claim "that salvation was not mentioned". I only pointed out that it tells us that Scripture is profitable (and "profitable" is not synonymous with "sufficient") for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. Now these four things are said to fully equip one for good works. That's what the verse says. Now you seem to have got the notion that the fact that it says that Scripture, which is inspired by God, makes one "wise for salvation" just means that Scripture alone is sufficient, or that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people. But, of course, it means neither of those things.

So why don't you show us a place where the Bible unambiguously states that the Bible alone is sufficient in matters of doctrine and discipline. The bit from 2Tim.3 that you have quoted affirms the importance of Scripture, to be sure, but this is something no one is denying. I am denying not the importance of Scripture but rather its sufficiency. You quoted 2Tim. In response to an earlier challenge of mine, to show us a place where Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura. But as anyone can plainly see, 2Tim. Doesn't say anything of the kind. If I adopt your hermeneutic and say that the words mean what they say, well, they say that Scripture:
1. Is inspired by God.
2. Makes one "wise for salvation".
3. Is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And
4. That doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness fully equip one for good works.

Nothing about sola scriptura there. In fact, nothing that even hints at the notion that Scripture alone is sufficient in matters of doctrine and discipline.

If 2Tim.3.13-17 is your proof-text for sola scriptura then we can clearly see that that doctrine is unscriptural. Which makes sense in light of the fact that the NT frequently commands us to uphold and abide by oral teachings.

... the teaching of Christ is found only in the Bible.

Notice that nothing that has been quoted on this thread affirms this claim. The word "only" is a bit of interpretation added to the actual words of Scripture.


In light of the scriptures mentioned above and other similar ones, I personally will try and stick to the Bible as my guide. :)

You are wise to do so. What about the numerous places where the Bible commands us to uphold and abide by teachings that are transmitted orally? If we use the Bible as our guide, then surely we must not use the Bible as our only guide because it commands us not to.

.

So why don't you show us a place where the Bible unambiguously states that the Bible alone is sufficient in matters of doctrine and discipline.

This scripture does it for me..
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I would not question the worthyness of Christ Jesus, nor the value of HIS Word and revelation of HIS flesh (which is scripture being sufficient) in matters of doctrine and discipline. Who would ever doubt, and think "The WORD" was not sufficient unless they want to follow something other then Christ? (Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

Reality is knowing we remain watched over, and guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. And we can call upon HIM and HE will answer. (Jeremiah 33:3)

Isaish 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
Trust in the LORD Forever for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength

There is no other way then ... [B]The Relevation of Jesus Christ Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

If we use the Bible as our guide, then surely we must not use the Bible as our only guide becuase it commands us not to.


Scripture says there is no other way then the Revelation of Christ spoken of in scripture... HIS flesh is the WORD you are saying is not adequate for the purpose..not sufficient proof; not sufficient protection.
(Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

Your belief in man has taught you to follow their oral teachings. Those oral teaching are not what was written in scripture. They have added to what was written in their attempt to save you from death.. But it is not man that saves man.. We are saved by our Lord.

They also have told you, that you are sinners, and called you unclear. God said not to make what I have clean, unclean. Peter was told this by God for evident reason.

In Christ we are saved, free from sin, and no longer in bondage of sin... You can be righteousness and holy in Christ when you have FAITH in HIM... Abiding in HIM. But you must believe in HIM, and HIS worthyness . He stands at the door and knocks...
Will you answer? Will you seek HIM, will you find HIM?

Interesting. I didn't, in fact, claim "that salvation was not mentioned". I only pointed out that it tells us that Scripture is profitable (and "profitable" is not synonymous with "sufficient") for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction.

So are you omitting the doctrine of salvation from "doctrine"?

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong and that scripture does not contain those instructions and is not adequate.

I disagree. I accept what God says when He says that scripture is adequate.
You do not then attend a church where you listen to sermons that expound on the Bible messages, nor do you attend any kind of Bible study in which various povs and interpretations are brought in? You understand everything that's in the Bible only because you yourself have read it and figured it out without any outside explanation from someone else? All the stories and parables were crystal clear to you without outside intervention?

Scripture says there is no other way then the Revelation of Christ spoken of in scripture... HIS flesh is the WORD you are saying is not adequate for the purpose..not sufficient proof; not sufficient protection.

Taking the incarnate word as ‘His flesh’ would require that the Eucharist be a book; that we worship ‘book’, and that God only relates to man through the written page of a book. In Christ’s Kingdom, his Church, we are saved through the sacramental graces only the Church can give.

The incarnate word is the revealed truth that in the one person of Christ there exists two natures, man and God, the hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus in the divine person of Jesus Christ. The incarnate word is the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. It is the Human Nature of Jesus Christ. His Flesh is not the WORD, rather the living bread from heaven.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. ..Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” John 6:50,53

So are you omitting the doctrine of salvation from "doctrine"?

Are you unaware that the doctrine of salvation isn't the same thing as (actual) salvation? One can be saved without knowing very much about the doctrine, just as one can know lots about the doctrine without actually being saved.

The doctrine of salvation is surely a part of doctrine. And, as this Scripture clearly states, Scripture is profitable for doctrine. I have not claimed otherwise. Scripture absolutely is profitable. But, again, "profitable" isn't synonymous with "sufficient". In other words, I have affirmed that 2Tim.3.13-17 means what it says.

In any event, your post doesn't speak to the issue. 2Tim.3.13-17 states, quite clearly and unambiguously that:

1. Scripture is inspired by God.
2. Scripture makes one wise for salvation.
3. Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
5. Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness make one fully equipped for good works.

Nothing here to the effect that Scripture alone is sufficient. Nothing here disqualifies the claim that oral teaching is also profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

2Tim.3.13-17 is the text that you chose as proving unambiguously that Scripture itself states that Scripture alone is sufficient--is our sole authority--in matters of doctrine and discipline. But as numbers 1-5 clearly illustrate, it says no such thing. Your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, unscriptural.

This scripture does it for me..
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I would not question the worthyness of Christ Jesus, nor the value of HIS Word and revelation of HIS flesh (which is scripture being sufficient) in matters of doctrine and discipline. Who would ever doubt, and think "The WORD" was not sufficient unless they want to follow something other then Christ? (Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

Reality is knowing we remain watched over, and guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. And we can call upon HIM and HE will answer. (Jeremiah 33:3)

Isaish 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
Trust in the LORD Forever for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength

There is no other way then ... [B]The Relevation of Jesus Christ Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

You are confused. The Word that was made flesh and dwelt among us was the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. The Word was not a book or set of texts.

There is nothing in what you write, or quote, here that so much as hints that Scripture alone is the sole authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. Why do you choose to ignore Scripture when it commands you to uphold and abide by oral teachings?

In any event, no one denies that Christ is the incarnate Word of God and that we are bound to him and by what he has taught. Now where in Scripture does it say that everything that he taught is contained in Scripture? Why does Scripture explicitly command us to uphold and abide by those teachings that have been transmitted orally. (Remember that orally transmitted doctrine is also verbal, i.e. it too is the word of God, no less than the written text of the Bible.)

Your belief in man has taught you to follow their oral teachings.

Not at all. I do not adhere to the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. Not only does Scripture nowhere affirm this doctrine, it explicitly commands us to uphold and abide by those teachings that are transmitted orally. So it is you, and your fellow sola-scripturists, who have chosen to put your own personal interpretations ahead of the word of God.


Those oral teaching are not what was written in scripture. They have added to what was written in their attempt to save you from death.. But it is not man that saves man.. We are saved by our Lord.

Right, we are saved by the Lord. That is why I do as Scripture commands and abide by those teachings which have been transmitted orally. You choose to reject all that Christ has taught that was not written down and included in the NT. I have not added to Christ's Gospel; you have subtracted from it.


They also have told you, that you are sinners,

Actually, God said this. It is in Scripture.


In Christ we are saved, free from sin, and no longer in bondage of sin...

So you are saying that you are without sin? You are sinless? And what does Scripture have to say about that?


You can be righteousness and holy in Christ when you have FAITH in HIM... Abiding in HIM. But you must believe in HIM, and HIS worthyness . He stands at the door and knocks...
Will you answer? Will you seek HIM, will you find HIM?

What makes you think that I haven't? Awfully presumptuous of you, don't you think? After all, it is you have chosen to reject him when you chose to adhere to the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and to reject the fulness of his revelation to his people. I do not deny Christ by denying the fulness of his Gospel, contained in both the written and oral Tradition preserved by men and women of faith.

2 Thess.2.15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our epistle."

You do not then attend a church where you listen to sermons that expound on the Bible messages, nor do you attend any kind of Bible study in which various povs and interpretations are brought in? You understand everything that's in the Bible only because you yourself have read it and figured it out without any outside explanation from someone else? All the stories and parables were crystal clear to you without outside intervention?

No one said anything of the sort. That argument is ridiculous.

That is like saying that because we have TV and radio, it is not possible to read and a book or newspaper and understand it.

Not at all. I do not adhere to the man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

Neither do I. I adhere to the Biblical version of sola scriptura taught in the Bible.

Likewise, I do not hold to the error that we should add to the Bible through man's tradition, or that we need the erroneous private interpretation of men to know what the Bible says.


So it is you, and your fellow sola-scripturists, who have chosen to put your own personal interpretations ahead of the word of God.

I oppose private interpretation of men, whether it be mine, yours, you denomination's, the pope's or any other church or church leader's private interpretation.

If you don't get your doctrine from the God's word, Bible, where do you get it from?

Are you unaware that the doctrine of salvation isn't the same thing as (actual) salvation? One can be saved without knowing very much about the doctrine, just as one can know lots about the doctrine without actually being saved.

First, are you trying to say that the doctrine of salvation presented in the Bible is not complete and does not tell us what we need to know to be saved, contrary to what Paul says?

It is interesting that you think that a person can be saved without knowing what the doctrine of salvation (the gospel) is in it's essentials.

But you still have not explained away what 2 Timothy says. Your comments sound much like you are trying to place yourself and your beliefs as equal to Paul's writing in this passage. I also find it interesting that in each of your responses, you ignore one part of the passage or another. In your last post you seem to have missed the ord complete. In your first response you ignore a complete sentence about salvation. We need to look at the whole counsel of God, in context.

Taking the incarnate word as 'His flesh' would require that the Eucharist be a book; that we worship 'book', and that God only relates to man through the written page of a book.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Scripture is written as moral precepts given by the HOLY SPIRIT or spoken by GOD.
John denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

(Revelation 10:1) gives us a picture of the bible (little book) John is being told what he can write. John is being shown whats is taking place on earth, what was, what is, and what will be the Revelation of Christ Jesus. In verse 10:8 John is being told to (eat it up) the little book known to be the Word of God/scripture. This is a poetic form in meaning the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions.

We worship God, in all HIS glory.




In Christ's Kingdom, his Church, we are saved through the sacramental graces only the Church can give.

Christ gave us the sacramental grace.. It is done, complete.. We partake of sacramental grace in remembrance of Christ quoted in scripture. The cup is the new testment (Scripture) in HIS blood.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

John6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Second reference speaking of spiritual drink and spiritual meat.
1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This is a consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions in remembrance of Christ who is the Word of God that was made flesh. HIS BODY and BLOOD given for us, setting us free from bondage of sin, and bolting out the sins of the world. We are only to eat and drink of sacramental grace in full awareness of HIS worthyness to grant us forgiveness, and acknoweldge we were set free from bondage of sin. "ONE FAITH" of HIS worthyness





“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. ..Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” John 6:50,53

You shall have no life in you because He will not dwell within you (John 6:56)

Unless we seek Christ, and open that door in which He stands waiting, we will not find life.
It is the written in scripture/The Word, and the cup of the New Testament in life. ONE GOD.. ONE FAITH... ONE BAPTISM..

Faith in all that Christ was sent to do.. We are "A new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).

I adhere to the Biblical version of sola scriptura taught in the Bible. I oppose private interpretation of men, whether it be mine, yours, you denomination's, the pope's or any other church or church leader's private interpretation.
So if you do not understand a passage or a verse, what do you do to figure out what it means? Whose understanding of it rules the day?

So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?

So if you do not understand a passage or a verse, what do you do to figure out what it means? Whose understanding of it rules the day?

We've been through this before. Let scripture interpret scripture.


So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?

I never said that, did? I. In fact I said quite the opposite. All of the inspired oral traditions were written down in scripture, which is why any oral traditions today which are in addition to, or contradiction to scripture must be ignored as additions of men.

We've been through this before. Let scripture interpret scripture.
So you are your own interpreter of Scripture.

So you are saying that you are without sin? You are sinless? And what does Scripture have to say about that?

The New Man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This is opposite to "the old man". This New Man, being entirely in the likenss of Christ, is called "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).

Eph 4:21-24 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:



What makes you think that I haven't? Awfully presumptuous of you, don't you think? After all, it is you have chosen to reject him when you chose to adhere to the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and to reject the fulness of his revelation to his people. I do not deny Christ by denying the fulness of his Gospel, contained in both the written and oral Tradition preserved by men and women of faith.


Do you believe you are without sin by the body and blood of Christ Jesus in ONE FAITH?

Do you believe there is but ONE GOD and ONE ROCK of salvation?

Do you believe Christ dwells with in you and you in HIM by gift of the HOLY SPIRIT in ONE BAPTISM thus buried in Christ?

So you are your own interpreter of Scripture.

Please be honest about what I said. What I said was the exact opposite to that. In fact in an earlier response, I said that I oppose any man being an interpreter of scripture. If you cannot deal with what I actually said, we are not likely to go anywhere.

Please be honest about what I said. What I said was the exact opposite to that. In fact in an earlier response, I said that I oppose any man being an interpreter of scripture. If you cannot deal with what i actually said, we are not likely to go anywhere.
So please explain how you interpret, say, Jonah and the great fish story.

So please explain how you interpret, say, Jonah and the great fish story.

I let scripture speak for itself, like I said.

I let scripture speak for itself, like I said.
And that is how?

And that is how?

Read.

Read.
Is the story a true story or an allegory, do you believe?

Is the story a true story or an allegory, do you believe?

This thread is not about a specific story. If we start getting into that, we could discuss any of several thousand verses in scripture and waste huge amounts of time.

Let me ask you something now - do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound? Were they wrong to simply read it? If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture? Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?

And that is how?

Those who are able to read scripture are gifted in accordance to God's will. It is the Holy Spirit within that offers the revealed truth of God's Word and God's will to be known.

An individual that is born of the spirit and walks in Christ Jesus, is called the new man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This New Man, being entirely in the likenss of Christ, is called "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).

ONE GOD... ONE FAITH... ONE BAPTISM...

This thread is not about a specific story. If we start getting into that, we could discuss any of several thousand verses in scripture and waste huge amounts of time.
Pages and pages have already been "wasted" here with your discussion on Sola Scriptura. I was just wondering if you dare apply it.


Let me ask you something now - do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiatve to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?
The very fact that the men of Berea listened to Paul teach proves that oral tradition was important. Paul didn't hand them the OT and say, "Figure it out yourselves."

And now tell us, what did Paul teach?

Pages and pages have already been "wasted" here with your discussion on Sola Scriptura. I was just wondering if you dare apply it.

I did not bring up sola scriptura - Akoue did.

I apply it every day.

Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?


The very fact that the men of Berea listened to Paul teach proves that oral tradition was important. Paul didn't hand them the OT and say, "Figure it out yourselves."

It does not in any way prove anything about oral tradition. By the fact that the men of Berea were able to go to scripture to check what he was saying shows that what he said was from scripture.

I did not bring up sola scriptura - Akoue did.
But you did a host of contributing.


It does not in any way prove anything about oral tradition. By the fact that the men of Berea were able to go to scripture to check what he was saying shows that what he said was from scripture.
Of course it does! The Scriptures that the Bereans consulted and studied and pored over was the OT. Paul preached sin and Christ crucified. The Christ crucified part was totally oral.

But you did a host of contributing.

You mean responding to questions, as I did to your questions.

Once again, you seem to have a habit of wanting to point fingers at people. You were asked who interprets scripture for you - why won't you answer?


Of course it does! The Scriptures that the Bereans consulted and studied and pored over was the OT. Paul preached sin and Christ crucified. The Christ crucified part was totally oral.

Really? You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT? Paul was:

2 Tim 3:13-15
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, whichh are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Remember, you did say that this was from the OT.

Moses knew about the gospel

Heb 11:24-26
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
NKJV

Job knew about the coming of Christ:

Job 19:25
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
NKJV

And I could go on. Now as for Paul preaching, yes that was oral, but God did not leave the gospel details found in the NT as oral - it was written down.

So your point falls.

Now, how about answering the questions that I asked:

1) Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?

2) Do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?

3) Were they wrong to simply read it?

4) If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture?

5) Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?

Of course it does! The Scriptures that the Bereans consulted and studied and pored over was the OT. Paul preached sin and Christ crucified. The Christ crucified part was totally oral.

Remember who reveals truth... No matter who speaks of scripture unless God reveals as He has shown throughtout scripture, people are left blind. They remain in their own delusion I feel, because of what they are not able to give up that is of their own pride rather then to follow.

Adding to scripture today is not anything other then man doctrine. And what was taught by oral communication in scripture is exactly what God inspired at that time.

Paul teaches in the spirit of Christ...

Example: 1 Corinthains 3:10-11 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

You mean responding to questions, as I did to your questions.

You were asked who interprets scripture for you - why won't you answer?
You have not yet responded to this very question I asked you first.


You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT?
Of course it is, but it is veiled. Paul's teaching is what opened the windows and let in the light for the Bereans. Had Paul not taught, they would have remained clueless in their Jewish beliefs.


Remember, you did say that this was from the OT.
I never said that. You are confused.


Now as for Paul preaching, yes that was oral, but God did not leave the gospel details found in the NT as oral - it was written down.
Not for the Bereans. They searched their Jewish Scriptures to find out if Paul's oral teaching had any merit. The Gospels weren't written down until years and years later. In fact, if it weren't for Paul's missionary journeys and for the missionary work of the apostles (i.e. oral tradition), the Gospel message might well have been lost over time.

You have not yet responded to this very question I asked you first.

Oh come on, don't play that game - all I have been doing is answering your questions.


Of course it is, but it is veiled. Paul's teaching is what opened the windows and let in the light for the Bereans. Had Paul not taught, they would have remained clueless in their Jewish beliefs.

So the fact that Paul was preaching salvation through Christ (the gospel) does not mean that he was preaching something not found in the OT.


I never said that. You are confused.

Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?


Not for the Bereans. They searched their Jewish Scriptures to find out if Paul's oral teaching had any merit. The Gospels weren't written down until years and years later.

But you just agreed that the gospel (though without the fulfillment details) was found in the OT.

Further they were able to read the OT WITHOUT the need of having an interpretation of man. More importantly, they were commended for applying the interpretation that they received from scripture to determine whether what Paul was teaching was true.

Therefore what they received from scripture, without interpretation of man was held to thye level of the standard of what was true.

Let's see which questions you still have not answered:

1) Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?

2) Do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?

3) Were they wrong to simply read it?

4) If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture?

5) Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?

Oh come on, don't play that game - all I have been doing is answering your questions.
You're the game player, putting me on the defensive. You never responded to that one very important question I asked.

So the fact that Paul was preaching salvation through Christ (the gospel) does not mean that he was preaching something not found in the OT.
The Gospel is woven throughout the OT, but 99.9% of the Jews did not, and still do not, understand its message.

Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?
Sneaky, Tom. The reference to the Holy Scriptures in that verse is to the OT. There was no NT written at the time.

Further they were able to read the OT WITHOUT the need of having an interpretation of man.
Not until Paul came along to orally explain did the Bereans (Jews) understand exactly what those OT passages meant.

You're the game player, putting me on the defensive. You never responded to that one very important question I asked.

I responded to them all, but even so, even if you thought that I didn't, that is no reason to refuse to answer any and all questions. If you want to adopt that attitude, clearly there is no value in discussion since you think that I have an obligation to do whatever you ask, but you do not have a similar obligation. Just a reminder - I am NOT your husband - I do not obey what you say because you say it!


The Gospel is woven throughout the OT, but 99.9% of the Jews did not, and still do not, understand its message.

Irrelevant. The same is true of the gospel in the NT.


Sneaky, Tom. The reference to the Holy Scriptures in that verse is to the OT. There was no NT written at the time.

heh heh, last time you tried to avoid acknowledging my point by denying that you had said that this from referring to the OT. And it is not sneaky - the gospel IS in the OT and does contain enough for us to understand the gospel of salvation through Jesus.


Not until Paul came along to orally explain did the Bereans (Jews) understand exactly what those OT passages meant.

I already proved that wrong by showing you what scripture says about the NT.

Let's see which questions you still have not answered:

1) Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?

2) Do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?

3) Were they wrong to simply read it?

4) If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture?

5) Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?

Just a reminder - I am NOT your husband - I do not obey what you say because you say it!
Where did THAT bit of nastiness come from? I have reported you, and hereby unsubscribe from this thread.

>Thread Closed<