You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?
I'm also dieing to see the proof I asked for. I asked for proof before you asked your question so if/when you can provide such non self certifying proof then I will address your question about my belief. I will ask again in case you missed it,
By what basis do you determine that Paul's writings are inspired by God? can you back up this claim with the scriptures that the bereans used? if not you cannot use Paul's own writings to say that he wrote scripture unless you also agree that I can use my own writings to say my writings are scripture as well. You can't give Paul the authority to declare his own writings as scripture without giving every single believer the same authority to declare their own writings scripture.
@dwells, I thought I answered you. I guess I'll answer it more plainly. I believe that Paul's writings, and that of the whole New Testament, are inspired by God and equal in authority as the Old Testament because God "told" me they are, and I believe Him. The witness of the Holy Spirit within me convinces me that the New Testament is as inspired and Authoritative as the Old Testament. Taking that and combined with the fact that Christians everywhere have believed the New Testament to be inspired shows me that my internal witness of the Spirit is witnessed by countless others, so the matter has been established by 2 or more witnesses. I could go into my personal research as to how the books of the Bible came about, who wrote them, who accepted them as Canon, but all that would do is prove the over all witness of Church history.
Now, what say you?
Do you believe the Greek New Testament is inspired by God and equally authoritative as the Hebrew Old Testament?
I believe that we need to let the Bible define things for us. I believe that every reference to "the scriptures" found in the New testament is talking about the Old Testament, and that the new testament never refers to itself as being scripture. I believe that to think the new testament is scripture is to make the book of Luke out to be a false gospel. The book of Luke says
The new testament speaks extensively about Yeshua but at the time of the Emmaus Road encounter none of the New Testament had been written there for it makes it impossible for him to expound on something that does not exist yet and since it says ALL scriptures concerning him this means the New Testament cannot be considered scripture unless this verse is lying and he didn't expound on ALL scriptures concerning him but rather only a portion of the scriptures concerning himself.
Seeing Christians by the multitudes ignore the Old Testament and form entire doctrines based solely on their understanding of the new testament with zero regard for the Old Testament has made this conclusion rather evident for me.
Man creating contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament and doing away with what God said in the Old Testament by the writings of the New Testament makes me have an adverse feeling toward thinking of the New Testament scripture.
Here is a good indicator if you see where it says thus saith the Lord, that's a clue you are reading what is actually scripture.
Thanks for the reply. But your answer isn't clear.
I want to be clear, not to trap you in your words, but to understand what you believe because as I've said, I do believe the New Testament is inspired by God and is equal in authority to the Old Testament. If you don't believe the New Testament is inspired by God and equal in authority as the Old Testament then that explains why we can't come to an understanding. So, if you could make it abundantly clear to me, is the New Testament Scriptures and equal in authority to the Old Testament Scriptures?
I will let you answer your own question by your response to this statement.
A Jew says "I believe that the Misha, and that the whole Talmud, are inspired by God and equal in authority as the Old Testament because God "told" me they are, and I believe Him. The witness of the Holy Spirit within me convinces me that the Talmud is as inspired and Authoritative as the Old Testament. Taking that and combined with the fact that Jews everywhere have believed the Talmud to be inspired shows me that my internal witness of the Spirit is witnessed by countless others, so the matter has been established by 2 or more witnesses.
By this statement do you accept that the Talmud is scripture?
I see your point, and the answer to that question is no, I don't believe the talmud is authoritative.
I am glad you see my point.
Just so we are clear, I agree with you that the talmud should not be taken as authoritative. The talmud is filled with so much of man's perversion of God's word that I don't think anybody should ever read it period.
@dwells, my wife read your last few comments because I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Here's how she understood it based on your last few comments on this thread and I think I understand it now.
Essentially, the New Testament is just a bunch of writings from followers of God, no more authoritative as writings from you or me or Billy Graham or ? You get the point. It's useful for historical context and for comparison, but where it appears to differ from the Old Testament then it's not to be taken seriously. In essence, the Old Testament is the only authoritative Scriptures. The New Testament is no more authoritative than Josephus or Eusebius or the anti-Nicene church fathers are authoritative? Good history and reference but not on the same level as the Tenach. Is that a fair understanding?