Extra biblical references

[RickShafer]

It has become clear that some proffer extra biblical sources when arguing a position.
Almost as if they were waiting to exclaim 'some new thing' that they have learned. - Luke 17:21
Some whole threads are based on nothing else than extra biblical knowledge.
If one would even try to address it with scripture, they are put down as backward.
Some are here to spread knowledge of the extra biblical sort.
And the same seem to put more faith in the extra knowledge they have acquired than the Book itself.
As if the information is somehow 'holy' because it is new to a "Bible Forum".
Hmmmm,.......I wonder why God didn't see fit to include it in His Word?
Saying that, take all extra biblical references with a grain of salt.

 

[RickShafer]

For instance, you can read through a whole thread without a biblical reference even mentioned.
Such is the case in a Bible Forum?
You can see a whole thread be multiplied out on nothing more than extra biblical sources.
It seems strange to me to happen on a bible forum.
Reminds me of a limerick:
There was a man who wanted to show,
his knowledge attained to throw,
A girl agreed,
and they did proceed,
to answer questions they didn't know.

 

[Tintin]

More often I see Bible verses used out of context to support Universalism or deny the reality of the Trinity etc.

 

[RickShafer]

I've seen those, but I'm addressing whole currents of thought based on supposition.
I've seen whole threads based on extra- biblical philosophy, ..... in the Bible Forum.
Whole realms of intuition that have nothing to do with scripture.
Funniest is that they are never concluded, always left open like a hanging participle.
Such are the vain philosophies of man.

 

[mark54]

I have been amazed, since I frequentred internet websites as to the amount of ologies and isms that exist. The amount of time many must have spent reading avidly of scholars and theologians makes my head spin. The result? The simple truths of scripture are no longer enough, and many will be damned for standing on them
It is a plain truth, that many who have read so vastly will condemn others for refusing to accept demands that ministers will not make from the pupit, and demands that at least 90% of churchgoers would not make either. For the average churchgoer, will rely far more on the simple truths of scripture, than will many who have studied so vastly and appear on the internet.
For many the simple truths of the Bible have been left far behind on the altar of the wisdom of the academic mind. Looking back, it had to happen. Man, in his ego would never simply be able to accept what was written, he had to constantly pour over the scriptures, looking to expound ever more the truths withing its pages, and to uncover truth, others had not seen .
Paul warned of all of this in his letters. A hugely intelligent man by worldly standards, but he put that all aside to be led of the Holy Spirit
And the Holy Spirit is the true dividing line in Christianity, it is not denominations as such, there's over 3,000 of them so I have been told.
For you can either be led of the brilliant academic mind of man, or the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would never condemn anyone for standing on the plain words of scripture, neither will ministers from the pulpit, neither will 90% of churchgoers, but the scholar and theologian on the internet will, but as Paul said:
The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise are futile
1Cor3:20

 

[RickShafer]

People have it all mapped out.
They aren't satisfied with the simplicity of the gospel so they search for something else.
I think this is what you mean.
Many aren't satisfied because they don't know Him in the fullness of His presence.
So they either fall back on religion, or jangling words of those who appear to be 'smarter' than them.
I think this is what you are saying. - I agree.
Knowing Jesus Christ is an inside experience, nothing else will do.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Excellent word-smithing and very insightful....thank you gentlemen.

 

[oOfallen_angelOo]

Yes, I call it " cherry picking," because there are verses that are easily misread and adopted to other meanings.

What I've noticed most is that people ignore the context of the verses - I've had people try and argue against clear biblical ideals, by taking one or two verses and saying that those two mere verses are absolute evidence of whatever stance they have.

Problem is, if you actually continuing reading below those verses, or even the entire book those verses are spoken in, you'll get the real idea behind the context of those verses.

Like someone on here posted the bible verse in which Jesus Christ and the disciples picked some grain on the Sabbath day;

They took that one verse and was like Jesus violated God's Law!! He is a sinner!

Um dude, just reading that whole passage, it's clear that Jesus didn't violate anything, and he gave a superb absolute reality about the Sabbath that the Pharisee's got all pissy about because they were using the Sabbath as some lawful weapon - obviously not the way the Sabbath was meant to be adhered to.

I've refuted a great amount of er...interesting arguments people have cherry picked out the bible, by simply reading two or three verses before the ones they picked or below. Likewise, when I present an argument, I make sure the entire book is relative to what I'm defending with the verse I picked.

Also helps to have time right, some non - biblical references to history, and a couple extra verses to support the main verse you're using as spiritual proof.

I know I don't quote bible verses as much as I should, but I've had no complaints about me not doing so because all I talk about on here mainly is the obvious context presented in various sections of the bible. Context to me, functions more like a plot of what's being shown in that particular aspect of the bible, and then the various verses feed off that one central theme.

You know your on the right track when the main point you make has solid, concrete, real life support all throughout the part of the bible your taking it out of.

It's like presenting an argument for an essay; you don't just say this means that with absolutely no accurate support behind it - and you also have to accurately explain the support behind that support to have something remotely convincing.

 

[crossnote]

seems like you gents are singing to the choir but even the choir often comes up with different findings.

 

[Ariel82]

seems like you gents are singing to the choir but even the choir often comes up with different findings.

Can they convey those different findings in limrick responses? That would be a fun thread to read.
What is the pattern?
Aabba

 

[RickShafer]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
(That sort of thing)
Seriously, it becomes about that ridiculous.
.........Well, the "Third Samaritan Synod of Agitate" claimed....(and on it goes).....

 

[nathan3]

The scriptures have a lot of simple truths, Christ taught a way that people could understand. But Christ also taught on a deeper level. (parables,etc) A kid can understand it better then adults even at times. because over time people pick up all kinds of stuff , that is traditions . Then finally when they accidentally happen upon some real truth in the Bible; suddenly they are offended. The truth is simple but its also requires a degree of maturity too. Statements like " just believe ' , and are you saved, and its all within it, is not good enough for me; if a catch phrase; or a emotional response takes place, of what's actually written. And it kinda shows a lack of love for God, that some one would toss aside whats written in the Bible, and choose some ones tradition or teaching over it. God took the time to bring us the Word. we shouldn't be offended by Biblical truths.

 

[RickShafer]

How soon the intent of this thread has morphed into another altogether.
Please indulge me as the OP to restate it here yet again:

It has become clear that some proffer extra biblical sources when arguing a position.
Almost as if they were waiting to exclaim 'some new thing' that they have learned. - Luke 17:21
Some whole threads are based on nothing else than extra biblical knowledge.
If one would even try to address it with scripture, they are put down as backward.
Some are here to spread knowledge of the extra biblical sort.
And the same seem to put more faith in the extra knowledge they have acquired than the Book itself.
As if the information is somehow 'holy' because it is new to a "Bible Forum".
Hmmmm,.......I wonder why God didn't see fit to include it in His Word?
Saying that, take all extra biblical references with a grain of salt.

 

[crossnote]

sometimes the extra-biblical source is none other than a sprinkling of logic from Aristotle or a little spray from Plato leaving the question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

 

[psychomom]

(warning: I am about to do what aggravates my 24 yo son...if you're reading, JD...stop! lol)

and now, to play 'devil's advocate', a phrase I detest, but use since we all know what it means--

the plain Word of God has passages whose meaning we disagree upon.
i know, it shouldn't be, but yet it is so.

and so till all flesh is gone and we really see what the Lord is telling us, there will always be those
who may offer some brilliant theologian's words to help explain their POV.

i only attempt to offer an explanation for someone posting something other than God's Word.

or is that not what we're talking about?
(cuz as JD says so often, 'has anyone seen mom's point?' )

i do tend to agree with you, though, Rick.
if a passage seems unclear, offer another passage to explain it!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

People only use extra biblical sources when scripture does not come right out and PROVE their doctrine, Thus they need words of men to add to the word to help support their doctrines and beliefs.

It is also nothing new. They jews did this, and they held these words of men equal to scripture. So much so that when Christ came and broke these rules, they had him killed. where if they just stuck to the word of God, he would not have offended them.

The sad part is, if Jesus came today, he would do the same to these people, and they would reject him to. Jesus would be the protestant of all protestants!

 

[mark54]

In the Living Bible there is a footnote to Matt7:29:

'Not as the scribes' These leaders often quoted others, and did not presume to present any fresh revelation.

 

[Tintin]

Yes, the extra biblical sources aren't the problem, they can be helpful in understanding the Bible. The problem lies in raising these resources above the Bible. Also, looking for fresh revelation in such books, when only the Bible and Holy Spirit should be our only source of revelation from God.