What is Scripture?
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Yes yes. Your opinion. Asking a question is borderline blasphemy.
Jesus has been here since the beginning of our time on this planet. Consult Genesis.
First off you say there was no Bible when Jesus was here, then you say He quoted the OT regularly.
Since the OT is incorporated into our Bibles, it would indicate that Jesus did in fact apply the OT scrolls to indicate prophecy fulfilled and also the wisdom of God presented since the foundation of the earth.
I have no beef in the stew, but I would not want to eat whatever it is you are cooking up.
Jesus has been here since the beginning of our time on this planet. Consult Genesis.
First off you say there was no Bible when Jesus was here, then you say He quoted the OT regularly.
Since the OT is incorporated into our Bibles, it would indicate that Jesus did in fact apply the OT scrolls to indicate prophecy fulfilled and also the wisdom of God presented since the foundation of the earth.
I have no beef in the stew, but I would not want to eat whatever it is you are cooking up.
Peter acknowledged Paul’s epistles as scripture. See the use of “other scriptures.”
2 Peter 3:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
-
1
- Show all
P
Word salad with no dressing.
I'll pass.
LOL. Love the transference and amateur gaslighting. Doesn't work.
Anyway, folks and puppies are hungry here so up and at em.
ps. When you deny what someone actually said and twist what they said, I don't suppose we should be surprised that such liberty is displayed in your Biblical pursuits.
I'll pass.
LOL. Love the transference and amateur gaslighting. Doesn't work.
Anyway, folks and puppies are hungry here so up and at em.
ps. When you deny what someone actually said and twist what they said, I don't suppose we should be surprised that such liberty is displayed in your Biblical pursuits.
Actually I’m doing damage control on your posts. You’re apparently spreading lies that the Bible calls the New Testament scripture which it doesn’t.
Do we believe and agree the New Testament is scripture? Yes we both agree.
This isn’t a matter of what we believe right now, but rather a matter of Sola Scriptura.
Do you believe the Bible has the final say on a matter? If yea, then you’re released from the burden of trying to prove something with the Bible that can’t be proved. You just don’t have any verses to support your claims.
I know, I ask for verses a lot; that’s a problem for false teachers.
Do we believe and agree the New Testament is scripture? Yes we both agree.
This isn’t a matter of what we believe right now, but rather a matter of Sola Scriptura.
Do you believe the Bible has the final say on a matter? If yea, then you’re released from the burden of trying to prove something with the Bible that can’t be proved. You just don’t have any verses to support your claims.
I know, I ask for verses a lot; that’s a problem for false teachers.
I disagree. Peter called Paul’s writings epistles. The “other scriptures” are the Old Testament.
Any verses that just plainly call the New Testament writings scripture?
If yes then we have something significant. The Old Testament is regularly referred to as scripture in the NT. So if the NT was also considered scripture at the time it was written then it should be referred to as scripture with frequency; it isn’t.
Any verses that just plainly call the New Testament writings scripture?
If yes then we have something significant. The Old Testament is regularly referred to as scripture in the NT. So if the NT was also considered scripture at the time it was written then it should be referred to as scripture with frequency; it isn’t.
I saw those but I disagree with what you’re claiming they say. This OP is about if the New Testament was viewed as scripture when the letters were wrote and if we have verses to call it scripture today.
The verses you provided don’t address the OP. Maybe you were trying to create a new topic and thought I would follow it, but that isn’t happening.
If you respond with verses I’ll measure them against the OP to see how they apply or not. If I don’t feed into a comment then I’m usually to minimize the unnecessary static. I don’t really want a lot of distractions and useless comments in this thread.
Also, let’s keep context. The verses I quoted in the OP are about the scriptures.
You quoted Revelation in one example. Seriously? The context of that isn’t even about the scriptures. It has “the word of God” written in one of the verses you referenced which is able to be interpreted many ways.
Repent now.
The verses you provided don’t address the OP. Maybe you were trying to create a new topic and thought I would follow it, but that isn’t happening.
If you respond with verses I’ll measure them against the OP to see how they apply or not. If I don’t feed into a comment then I’m usually to minimize the unnecessary static. I don’t really want a lot of distractions and useless comments in this thread.
Also, let’s keep context. The verses I quoted in the OP are about the scriptures.
You quoted Revelation in one example. Seriously? The context of that isn’t even about the scriptures. It has “the word of God” written in one of the verses you referenced which is able to be interpreted many ways.
Repent now.
-
1
- Show all
Actually, you’re implying that Peter was implying Paul’s letters were scripture. Unfortunately we can’t just ask Peter what he meant, but I think it’s quite clear he called Paul’s letters just letters.
With the Bible I think it’s not necessarily wise to build a doctrine off of one verse, with one word, that you believe implies something. You need a few verses, even two will suffice, that support what you’re claiming.
There just aren’t any verses that plainly say something like “Paul’s writings are scripture.”
With the Bible I think it’s not necessarily wise to build a doctrine off of one verse, with one word, that you believe implies something. You need a few verses, even two will suffice, that support what you’re claiming.
There just aren’t any verses that plainly say something like “Paul’s writings are scripture.”
How about you and the op explain why you do not think the NT is scripture and then share how you think we should treat the NT since you do not believe it to be scripture.
I know for a fact that no matter what I post, it will just be ignored as has already been shown by the op. Peter refers to what Paul wrote as scripture. HUH? Yeah...look up above. It is in my 1st post.
I know for a fact that no matter what I post, it will just be ignored as has already been shown by the op. Peter refers to what Paul wrote as scripture. HUH? Yeah...look up above. It is in my 1st post.
Peace!
-
1
- Show all
this isn't circumstantial; it's textual evidence. i'm pointing out a word in the text that hasn't been explained how it can fit your interpretation of it.
"scripture" implies one, but "other scripture" is tacitly, specifically referring to more than one - with the first being an example exactly like the remainder.
you wouldn't say "God saved me & other Christians" without implying that you are part of the group 'Christians'
likewise why does Peter say that people twist Paul's epistles just like they do the other scripture?
if Peter means that people twist Paul's letters just like they also twist 'actual scripture' he has no reason i am aware of to use the word "other"
if making a case of, or finding import in one word bothers you, haven't you read things like Galatians 3:16? God doesn't say seeds but 'seed' singular?
or how about Hebrews 8:13? by saying "new" He makes the old obsolete? or Hebrews 9:16 - in the case of a testament there must be the death of the testator? or how about in Genesis 22 when Abraham is assured God will provide Himself a Lamb -- then when the angel stops Abraham's hand, he finds a goat?
i could mention the warning in Revelation 22:18 about adding or removing a word from the book, or how important to understanding Christophanies is the difference between "an" angel of the LORD vs. "The" Angel of the LORD -- but you see what i mean by now, right?
the word "other" happens to appear in Peter's epistle.
it must be explained, unless we're also just throwing Peter's words out as uninspired, therefore untrustworthy too
it's just a point you will have to find a way to work around, if your case is correct -- and brother, saying "that word doesn't matter" is not a sound argument. it's just not convincing. the word exists here; we have to find a reason for it. that's all.
if you have the right argument, then the right explanation should exist; we just have to find it -- and no, i do not accept "other doesn't actually mean other" as a valid explanation.
"scripture" implies one, but "other scripture" is tacitly, specifically referring to more than one - with the first being an example exactly like the remainder.
you wouldn't say "God saved me & other Christians" without implying that you are part of the group 'Christians'
likewise why does Peter say that people twist Paul's epistles just like they do the other scripture?
if Peter means that people twist Paul's letters just like they also twist 'actual scripture' he has no reason i am aware of to use the word "other"
if making a case of, or finding import in one word bothers you, haven't you read things like Galatians 3:16? God doesn't say seeds but 'seed' singular?
or how about Hebrews 8:13? by saying "new" He makes the old obsolete? or Hebrews 9:16 - in the case of a testament there must be the death of the testator? or how about in Genesis 22 when Abraham is assured God will provide Himself a Lamb -- then when the angel stops Abraham's hand, he finds a goat?
i could mention the warning in Revelation 22:18 about adding or removing a word from the book, or how important to understanding Christophanies is the difference between "an" angel of the LORD vs. "The" Angel of the LORD -- but you see what i mean by now, right?
the word "other" happens to appear in Peter's epistle.
it must be explained, unless we're also just throwing Peter's words out as uninspired, therefore untrustworthy too
it's just a point you will have to find a way to work around, if your case is correct -- and brother, saying "that word doesn't matter" is not a sound argument. it's just not convincing. the word exists here; we have to find a reason for it. that's all.
if you have the right argument, then the right explanation should exist; we just have to find it -- and no, i do not accept "other doesn't actually mean other" as a valid explanation.
-
1
- Show all
@Runningman
i think the most logical ((perhaps the only logical)) path to arguing Paul's epistles are not 'scripture' is to say that Peter didn't know what he was talking about.
do you agree with that?
i think the most logical ((perhaps the only logical)) path to arguing Paul's epistles are not 'scripture' is to say that Peter didn't know what he was talking about.
do you agree with that?
I agree the New Testament are scripture, but you’re implying I’m dangling over hell.
Matthew 12:36,37
36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
What will be your answer be if God asks you why you said I’m inspired by Satan and that I’m dangling over hell?
Tip: there won’t be any careful word-smithing, dodging, or manipulating happening. Hopefully you’ll be given a chance to repent then and there.
Matthew 12:36,37
36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
What will be your answer be if God asks you why you said I’m inspired by Satan and that I’m dangling over hell?
Tip: there won’t be any careful word-smithing, dodging, or manipulating happening. Hopefully you’ll be given a chance to repent then and there.