bible passage

[jcrichton]

Angel,

Yes – just do a Google search on ‘Didache’ and you’ll find lots of info and texts (in Greek and in a variety of English translations)!

Thanks!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Is that a requirement for something to be part of the Bible? He has to declare that he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirt?

I don’t see that in hardly any of the inspired writers–can you point me to where each of the authors says that they are writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Incidentally, Mohammad claimed to be writing Scripture, so does that make it s?

.

Exactly.

QED.

You go by the Church’s authority. Just like every other Christian.

Not sure what you’re saying here?

Well, then! What exactly do you think infallibility is if not exactly what you describe above!

So you do believe in what the Catholic Church professes: men can be infallible.

I would be interested to see your evidence for this.

Where does Mark say that he knew he was inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Some of the Scriptures show indication that they were writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Other writings are known to be inspired because the authors made the claim and they were immediately recognized and treated as Scripture. All of the writings were made in the 1st century by one of the 12 Apostles or those that were close to their ministry. All Scripture is historically accurate and inerrant.
How could someone be writing God-breathed Scripture, but be unaware that the Holy Spirit was inspiring them? I don’t think that it is that mysterious to determine what is Scripture and what isn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Some of the Scriptures show indication that they were writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

But the question remains: how do we know what’s Scripture and what’s not?

Once we know it to be Scripture we can of course, say that it’s “inspired of God”, but first you have to have someone tell you that, say, Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle of Clement is not.

Other writings are known to be inspired because the authors made the claim

Does making the claim that it’s inspired guarantee that it is? Didn’t Mohammad make that claim of his writings?

Also, where does Mark make the claim that his writing is inspired?

and they were immediately recognized and treated as Scripture. All of the writings were made in the 1st century by one of the 12 Apostles or those that were close to their ministry.

This sounds like, then, that you believe in the Oral Tradition of spreading the kerygma?

You believe in Sacred Tradition, then?

 

[susanlo]

But the question remains: how do we know what’s Scripture and what’s not?

Once we know it to be Scripture we can of course, say that it’s “inspired of God”, but first you have to have someone tell you that, say, Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle of Clement is not.

Does making the claim that it’s inspired guarantee that it is? Didn’t Mohammad make that claim of his writings?

Mohammad wasn’t a 1st century disciple of Christ.

Also, where does Mark make the claim that his writing is inspired?

This sounds like, then, that you believe in the Oral Tradition of spreading the kerygma?

You believe in Sacred Tradition, then?

Not all writings clearly state that they are inspired within the text. The texts were accepted and used by Christians since the earliest centuries. There were a few books that may have been disputed by a few, but overall the identification of Scripture has been consistent.

The Scripture was given from God to the Apostles and disciples. The church recognized and used the Scriptures. We can have faith in God that He inspired the text and preserved and protected the writings over the centuries. I do not know if recognizing mankind’s role in receiving and preserving the inspired teaching of God means that we should accept teachings that were not written within the inspired writings.
I can accept that there may have been some things that Christ and the Apostles taught that are not in Scripture. I think everything that is necessary for Christians to know is in Scripture. I don’t think God forgot things that He needed man to add in later. I think that recognizing that Christianity has maintained and preserved Christian teachings (New Testament) over the centuries doesn’t mean we must accept a separate set of teachings which are not written down and have no historical basis in early Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Mohammad wasn’t a 1st century disciple of Christ.

True, true.

So your criteria for determining whether something is inspired is that “It must say that it’s inspired and it has to come from a 1st century disciple of Christ”.

Firstly, where does the Bible state this?

Secondly, surely you can see that someone can claim to have an inspired writing–but that doesn’t make it so, right?

Not all writings clearly state that they are inspired within the text. The texts were accepted and used by Christians since the earliest centuries.

BINGO!

So…you are NOT a Bible alone advocate.

You go by what others told you. Not what the Bible told you.

 

[susanlo]

True, true.

So your criteria for determining whether something is inspired is that “It must say that it’s inspired and it has to come from a 1st century disciple of Christ”.

Firstly, where does the Bible state this?

Secondly, surely you can see that someone can claim to have an inspired writing–but that doesn’t make it so, right?

Which Apostle or Christian within the church claimed to have written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but it was later determined that they were lying or not a believer in Christ?
There are Gnostics, but they were not trained within the Christian church and their teachings contradicted the established teachings.

BINGO!

So…you are NOT a Bible alone advocate.

You go by what others told you. Not what the Bible told you.

I don’t know if you understand what sola scriptura or “Bible alone” means.

“Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[PRmerger]

Which Apostle or Christian within the church claimed to have written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

I’m still waiting to see where Mark claimed to be inspired.

Oh, and the author of Hebrews, too.

Can you offer where they say this?

(Still catching up on your posts, so if you already answered, please forgive me and direct me to that post.

Incidentally, saying that St. Clement referenced the author of Hebrews as inspired doesn’t quite work–because that makes you, again, NOT a Bible Alone advocate. So you would have to offer a text FROM THE BIBLE that says that the author of Hebrews says he is writing the inspired Word of God).

 

[PRmerger]

The Scripture was given from God to the Apostles and disciples.

Well, since there was no Bible at the time of the Apostles, nor their disciples, but didn’t come until 400 years…the correct way to say it is that the Scriptures were given from God to the CHURCH.

The church recognized and used the Scriptures.

Well, yes. But this means that you are not a Bible Alone Advocate but get your direction from the Church on this matter.

So you must trust in men, not the Bible, to tell you what books belong in the Bible.

We can have faith in God that He inspired the text and preserved and protected the writings over the centuries.

This sounds like what Catholics call Sacred Tradition.

I do not know if recognizing mankind’s role in receiving and preserving the inspired teaching of God means that we should accept teachings that were not written within the inspired writings.

Really?

Isn’t this a teaching that was not written within the inspired writings: there are 27 books that belong in the NT.

You get that from men, not from the Bible

I can accept that there may have been some things that Christ and the Apostles taught that are not in Scripture. I think everything that is necessary for Christians to know is in Scripture.

Firstly, that’s a man-made tradition.

Secondly, you should know that not everything that is necessary for Christians to know is in Scripture–where does it say that there are 27 books in the NT? Isn’t that kind of necessary to know?

I don’t think God forgot things that He needed man to add in later.

Correct. The kerygma was given once for all to the Church.

I think that recognizing that Christianity has maintained and preserved Christian teachings (New Testament) over the centuries doesn’t mean we must accept a separate set of teachings which are not written down and have no historical basis in early Christianity.

Do you believe that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? If so, where do you get this belief?

Do you believe that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God? If so, where do you get this belief?

Do you believe that the Epistle of Clement is not theopneustos? If not, where do you get this belief?

 

[PJM]

Mohammad wasn’t a 1st century disciple of Christ.

Not all writings clearly state that they are inspired within the text. The texts were accepted and used by Christians since the earliest centuries. There were a few books that may have been disputed by a few, but overall the identification of Scripture has been consistent.

The Scripture was given from God to the Apostles and disciples. The church recognized and used the Scriptures. We can have faith in God that He inspired the text and preserved and protected the writings over the centuries. I do not know if recognizing mankind’s role in receiving and preserving the inspired teaching of God means that we should accept teachings that were not written within the inspired writings.
I can accept that there may have been some things that Christ and the Apostles taught that are not in Scripture. I think everything that is necessary for Christians to know is in Scripture. I don’t think God forgot things that He needed man to add in later. I think that recognizing that Christianity has maintained and preserved Christian teachings (New Testament) over the centuries doesn’t mean we must accept a separate set of teachings which are not written down and have no historical basis in early Christianity.

My friend, I would like to challenge the hi-lighted position
:
Historically it is heal that the bible was NOT fully authored until the END of the 1st Century or Early 2nd Century.; and then it took a prolonged period to assemble it.

**The Early Christian {Catholic} church was established without a Bible and existed without a bible for at least several hundred years. **

Sure “random” books later to be included existed and were AT times referenced, but the Church that Christ founded birthed the bible,{today’s RCC} and is not a Church that came into existence because OF the Bible.

That is NOT to minimize the important of the bible and its’ critical role in learing who GOD is and WHAT God desires, which can be summarized as:

Belief on the One True God {the 1st Commandment}

Only One set of TRUE faith beliefs {even GOD can do nothing else} PRAY ABOUT THIS Reality.

And Only One “Chosen people” {Exo 6:7 & changed by Jesus Christ to “My Church” singular in Mt 16:18 {many hundreds of years before the reformation}

God Bless you

Patrick