A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!
- Thread starter Jason0047
- 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.
Hello there, Maynard:
The Lord Jesus taught that His sheep heard His voice. That implies that the Children of God, Believers in the Lord Jesus as only & sufficient Savior (not as mere "chance-giver), discern God's Word intuitively. The early Christians received God's word from the prophets & apostles as it was produced by the Lord through them. When the Corinthians received prophet Paul's Word of God they were responsible at once to obey it; same with all the rest of the Bible. And BTW, the Thessalonians were commended for recognizing and accepting the prophetic word from Paul.
Now I think we agree that the Bible of 66 books is God's Word (correct me if I am wrong that you believe this.) This is common ground & needs no debate here.
But the Bible is the only document I have which is God's Word. (Sola). Now if you have some other document (readily available to men in general on earth today) which you claim is God's work, name it & prove it is God's Word -- or admit it is sola Bible-ura.
This idea of "canon" is a blatant error. The early Christians did not wait around 300 years for ecclesiasticals in beard & clerical garb to tell them what was scripture, God's Word. Peter already recognized Paul's letters as scripture. And the NT no where tells Christians that they have no scripture until 300 years later.
The Body of Christ in its individual members (the Actual catholic universal Church) accepted God's word as it came out, because "My sheep hear My voice."
Now what is your primary position?
Is it that the Catholic denomination is true because the Bible says so?
Or is it that the Bible is true because the Catholic denomination says so?
You can't have it both ways without doing circular reasoning.
The Lord Jesus taught that His sheep heard His voice. That implies that the Children of God, Believers in the Lord Jesus as only & sufficient Savior (not as mere "chance-giver), discern God's Word intuitively. The early Christians received God's word from the prophets & apostles as it was produced by the Lord through them. When the Corinthians received prophet Paul's Word of God they were responsible at once to obey it; same with all the rest of the Bible. And BTW, the Thessalonians were commended for recognizing and accepting the prophetic word from Paul.
Now I think we agree that the Bible of 66 books is God's Word (correct me if I am wrong that you believe this.) This is common ground & needs no debate here.
But the Bible is the only document I have which is God's Word. (Sola). Now if you have some other document (readily available to men in general on earth today) which you claim is God's work, name it & prove it is God's Word -- or admit it is sola Bible-ura.
This idea of "canon" is a blatant error. The early Christians did not wait around 300 years for ecclesiasticals in beard & clerical garb to tell them what was scripture, God's Word. Peter already recognized Paul's letters as scripture. And the NT no where tells Christians that they have no scripture until 300 years later.
The Body of Christ in its individual members (the Actual catholic universal Church) accepted God's word as it came out, because "My sheep hear My voice."
Now what is your primary position?
Is it that the Catholic denomination is true because the Bible says so?
Or is it that the Bible is true because the Catholic denomination says so?
You can't have it both ways without doing circular reasoning.
It definitely is circular reasoning, you start with the assumption that God exists - other's don't start out that way
Just because you affirm axioms doesn't mean it's right - thesis-antithesis led to affirming axioms that there is no God
Who said circular reasoning is bad?
Wouldn't an ultimate truth, have to stand on itself? If it stood on another book say the koran, then it's not the ultimate truth
other examples, you can defend a hill, while being on it, you can take something out of your eye while seeing it
You also give a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent IF A, then B - A therefore B
I thought you were asking for evidence that backs up God's Word. But if you were to read my OP, you would not even ask me what other documents are the Word of God or are inspired Scripture as cannon today. For I made it abundantly clear that you cannot add to the Revelation known as the Bible.
For one, that is not a quote from my OP. That is post #13 you are quoting. Second, I was not saying there is more authorative Scripture than the Bible. I was saying that the Bible (the Written Word) contains the memorialization of the Spoken Words of God. In other words, I was trying to say that the words of Jesus were not communicated directly in written form but they were later spoken words that were later written down.
For one, that is not a quote from my OP. That is post #13 you are quoting. Second, I was not saying there is more authorative Scripture than the Bible. I was saying that the Bible (the Written Word) contains the memorialization of the Spoken Words of God. In other words, I was trying to say that the words of Jesus were not communicated directly in written form but they were later spoken words that were later written down.
Last edited:
Does your church service promote James 1:27 when you see them every week or do they promote big loud music and a nice sermon and an offering plate? Are they desiring to get people to go to tell people about Jesus every week door to door? Or is it only the lucky ones who they tell about Jesus if they only visit them within church walls?
My point is not that you should leave your church or to forsake fellowship. No, no. Most certainly not. My point is that church attendance does not mean you are being truly spiritual. Yes, we are not to forsake fellowship. But fellowship is not a church building with a bunch of people that are filled with strangers.
The church is not above the Word of God. For many churches will be judged by Jesus as mentioned in Revelation 2-3. The whole point of this thread is to show how you should make God's Word your authority first and not some church or thinking that by just attending church you are pleasing God. For did Paul attend church while he was in prison? In a way he did. He was with another fellow believer and they praising God within that prison. That is the church. Two or more believers together. Not a building with rules and regulations and worldly promotions, etc.
I could go into how the Creation Ministry seems more focused on Creation than Jesus and say how that is wrong. But that is another topic of discussion. Just as talking about church is another topic of discussion. This thread is about Sola Scriptura, my friend. I would please ask yoiu to stay on topic with that.
Thank you.
And may God bless you.
My point is not that you should leave your church or to forsake fellowship. No, no. Most certainly not. My point is that church attendance does not mean you are being truly spiritual. Yes, we are not to forsake fellowship. But fellowship is not a church building with a bunch of people that are filled with strangers.
The church is not above the Word of God. For many churches will be judged by Jesus as mentioned in Revelation 2-3. The whole point of this thread is to show how you should make God's Word your authority first and not some church or thinking that by just attending church you are pleasing God. For did Paul attend church while he was in prison? In a way he did. He was with another fellow believer and they praising God within that prison. That is the church. Two or more believers together. Not a building with rules and regulations and worldly promotions, etc.
I could go into how the Creation Ministry seems more focused on Creation than Jesus and say how that is wrong. But that is another topic of discussion. Just as talking about church is another topic of discussion. This thread is about Sola Scriptura, my friend. I would please ask yoiu to stay on topic with that.
Thank you.
And may God bless you.
Last edited:
I appreciate your comment, while eager to point out the rest of what Peter said about "who" has such difficulty.
2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) 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;
[SUP][/SUP]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.
I should have emphasized those so's in my post. Let me try again. The scripture declared "all" scripture has those benefits, the first listed being what is clearly meant by peter to be essential for sound doctrine. None of us can hold sound doctrine while not under the influence of the power of God through inspiration of the words He allows to be read. Once inspired that word remains inspired. According to Peter those who remain oblivious to that remain in peril, not able to be taught by the Holy Spirit, remaining confined to the understanding of a natural man. The natural can't handle the spiritual. One either can or cannot comprehend the intended message from God, in this case clearly spelled out in good English.
I will refrain from using "so" so loosely in this post. I meant to say in other words "in order for all scripture to be that useful". There simply can't be more than one meaning of that passage allowing each reader to come away with contrary doctrines, reproofs, corrections, how to walk in righteousness, etc., while allowing contradictions of any scriptures revealing God's take on those vital issues; i.e. righteousness is highly defined in copious scriptures, leaving no room to accept a shred of unrighteousness standing as truth.
I really like that last paragraph. I think Peter was warning that even though the Spirit helps us learn it if we can hear Him, stumbling at Paul's words leads to spiritual peril. His own scriptures interpret his scriptures and those of the other apostles, so there is no excuse. The remaining apostles like Peter reading Paul doubtless increased in their own understanding of the doctrine of Christ, Paul having received such splendidly detailed revelations of doctrine.
2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) 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;
[SUP][/SUP]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.
I should have emphasized those so's in my post. Let me try again. The scripture declared "all" scripture has those benefits, the first listed being what is clearly meant by peter to be essential for sound doctrine. None of us can hold sound doctrine while not under the influence of the power of God through inspiration of the words He allows to be read. Once inspired that word remains inspired. According to Peter those who remain oblivious to that remain in peril, not able to be taught by the Holy Spirit, remaining confined to the understanding of a natural man. The natural can't handle the spiritual. One either can or cannot comprehend the intended message from God, in this case clearly spelled out in good English.
I will refrain from using "so" so loosely in this post. I meant to say in other words "in order for all scripture to be that useful". There simply can't be more than one meaning of that passage allowing each reader to come away with contrary doctrines, reproofs, corrections, how to walk in righteousness, etc., while allowing contradictions of any scriptures revealing God's take on those vital issues; i.e. righteousness is highly defined in copious scriptures, leaving no room to accept a shred of unrighteousness standing as truth.
I really like that last paragraph. I think Peter was warning that even though the Spirit helps us learn it if we can hear Him, stumbling at Paul's words leads to spiritual peril. His own scriptures interpret his scriptures and those of the other apostles, so there is no excuse. The remaining apostles like Peter reading Paul doubtless increased in their own understanding of the doctrine of Christ, Paul having received such splendidly detailed revelations of doctrine.
Starting with axioms & reasoning from them is not circular reasoning.
I do not say A is true because A is true.
I say that there are self-evident axioms & that no logical proof can be done without using axioms as the final proof.
Straw man. I never said that axioms were true because I affirm them.
I am saying that each man has to affirm axioms for himself.
Axiom 1: The God of the Bible exists. Affirm it or deny it for yourself at your own peril
What is your proof of that, not that the statement is cogent.
I think that a multitude of persons say it is bad.
The qur'an is irrelevant.
How do you know that your examples are true & relevant? Proof?
I did not. Backquote it or retract.
I do not say A is true because A is true.
I say that there are self-evident axioms & that no logical proof can be done without using axioms as the final proof.
Straw man. I never said that axioms were true because I affirm them.
I am saying that each man has to affirm axioms for himself.
Axiom 1: The God of the Bible exists. Affirm it or deny it for yourself at your own peril
What is your proof of that, not that the statement is cogent.
I think that a multitude of persons say it is bad.
The qur'an is irrelevant.
How do you know that your examples are true & relevant? Proof?
I did not. Backquote it or retract.
So far as I know, no one ever tried to sew in Ignatius of Antioch into the Bible. No one has ever successfully added any writing to the Bible after the last NT book was written.
Now you apparently ducked the issues I raised in my former posts to you. But I thought I would give my opinion in passing that IMHO, Ignatius of Antioch was a paranoid control freak. At the same time I get a chuckle out of his control-rants. How do they go? Is it not:
Obey me the bishop as if I were Christ,
Obey the presbyters as if apostles ?
Now you apparently ducked the issues I raised in my former posts to you. But I thought I would give my opinion in passing that IMHO, Ignatius of Antioch was a paranoid control freak. At the same time I get a chuckle out of his control-rants. How do they go? Is it not:
Obey me the bishop as if I were Christ,
Obey the presbyters as if apostles ?
Last edited:
I am glad you are enjoying this discussion. We tend to agree but we have different labels for things. I say that there are three different types of Words in the Bible because that is how the Bible itself defines these things. Some believe the Written Word is the Living Word. But I view God's Word like a love letter, though. A letter he can use in conjunction with His Spirit to open my heart and eyes. In other words, it is like a love letter I would write to my fiancé. The love letter would convey my heart, mind, and thoughts to her. But the letter is not the entirety of me, though. She is not going to think the letter is actually me and take that letter out on dates and stuff. But she could cherish the letter because it does convey my love, though.
Last edited:
And the Corinthian Church consistently using the Acts of Peter as Scripture until the ordinance of a canon from the Council of Nicea is trivial? That's not covered up history. Many Churches held onto the core Scriptures, often denying something as Scripture while holding others as Scripture. The earliest Greek Bishops did not accept Revelation as Scripture until the Council. That's important because the Church banded together to remove heresies and heretical books and infallibly names the canon because the Holy Spirit worked through each person at that meeting, to ensure a Divine Word free from error and fallible teachings. Why do you accept that and not accept that throughout the Church there have been reforms and changes to the Catholic Church? Seriously, prior to the foundations of Francis and Dominic, all religious priests and monks hid themselves from the world, and suddenly now they are on the streets, teaching, and feeding the poor and hungry. That was a reform. We believe that Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit guide the Church and steer the Church throughout history. As one comedian said in the 1500s, "Nothing this corrupt could last 14 years, let alone 1,400. It must be God."
Anything that is not God's Word can easily be a false or corrupt document or manuscript. I have no doubt in my mind that History is written by the victors. People want to look good, so they make stuff up. One thing you can't fake is the Word of God. It is clearly divine in origin. For if a person has repented of their sins and accepted Jesus as their Savior according to the Word of God, then they will see that the Scriptures are truly alive. No other book in the world can do that but the Bible. For the Bible tells us about Jesus Christ. It is 100% trust worthy, unlike the documents of men thru out history. Some folks criticize me for not trusting History written by men, but what they fail to realize is that those documents will not judge me on the last day. Only God's Word will judge me on the last day and will matter. There is no way for me to prove what is true in History unless I had a time machine. It takes faith for me to believe in men's documents; And I would rather place my faith in the Bible and not in what man has written.
I'm having trouble following the discussion, but I'll just throw a few things in after scanning through and after reading through the OP - I have no idea how truly relevant they are, so treat them as you will.
#1 - Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only authority on matters of church, faith or life. What it means is that it is the source from which all authority flows. No other authority worth listening to will go against Scripture, and all other authorities will be judged against Scripture. The likes of Calvin and Luther were all to happy to refer to the church fathers and other ancient authorities in their writings, but only insofar as they aligned with the teaching of the Scriptures.
#2 - Scripture is 'sufficient', but it is not exhaustively God's counsel on every possible matter or thing, and it does not contain everything that God has ever said, or will say. I would say that it is probably a fair call to talk about three 'words' of God (THE Logos, Christ - Scripture - God's spoken word, his will), but also want to say it's probably misleading and inaccurate as well. Take Hebrews 1 for example - the comparison is made between the prophets and Christ, Christ being the full and complete revelation of God. The Scriptures are sufficient insofar as they accurately portray Christ, but they are only 'sufficient', not exhaustive - Christ is not contained within the Scriptures, and Christ will outlast the Scriptures. For now we see through a glass dimly...
#3 There was precisely zero discussion of the biblical canon at Nicea. I don't know why people keep saying this, but there wasn't - even non-Christian scholars like Robert Price know this, but somehow it circulates around. Have discussions on canon, by all means, but for goodness sake do some actual research into the primary sources instead of simply repeating what other armchair critics have said on the internet.
#1 - Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only authority on matters of church, faith or life. What it means is that it is the source from which all authority flows. No other authority worth listening to will go against Scripture, and all other authorities will be judged against Scripture. The likes of Calvin and Luther were all to happy to refer to the church fathers and other ancient authorities in their writings, but only insofar as they aligned with the teaching of the Scriptures.
#2 - Scripture is 'sufficient', but it is not exhaustively God's counsel on every possible matter or thing, and it does not contain everything that God has ever said, or will say. I would say that it is probably a fair call to talk about three 'words' of God (THE Logos, Christ - Scripture - God's spoken word, his will), but also want to say it's probably misleading and inaccurate as well. Take Hebrews 1 for example - the comparison is made between the prophets and Christ, Christ being the full and complete revelation of God. The Scriptures are sufficient insofar as they accurately portray Christ, but they are only 'sufficient', not exhaustive - Christ is not contained within the Scriptures, and Christ will outlast the Scriptures. For now we see through a glass dimly...
#3 There was precisely zero discussion of the biblical canon at Nicea. I don't know why people keep saying this, but there wasn't - even non-Christian scholars like Robert Price know this, but somehow it circulates around. Have discussions on canon, by all means, but for goodness sake do some actual research into the primary sources instead of simply repeating what other armchair critics have said on the internet.
#1. Living Word of God:
#2. Spoken Word of God:
#3. Written Word of God:
There are many more of which you can do a keyword search for "Word of God" at BlueLetterBible.org
Jesus is named the Word of God at His Second Coming (Revelation 19:13).
#2. Spoken Word of God:
Nathan receives the (Spoken) Word of God in regards to David (1 Chronicles 17:3-4).
#3. Written Word of God:
Samuel desires to show Samuel the (Written) Word of God (1 Samuel 9:27).
There are many more of which you can do a keyword search for "Word of God" at BlueLetterBible.org
No, faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. The Spoken Word of God was confirmed by the Written Word; And there is no new added revelation or spoken words of God anymore. There is only the written Word of God as God's form of commmunication to us. God is not talking to you in a dream to teach you doctrine. God is not communicating to you from the back of a cereal box. The Revelation known as the Bible is our final Word of authority. Scripture is our ultimate guide in matters of the church. Read 1 Timothy 3:16. It is profitable for correction and training in righteousness. The New Testament gives us guidelines of how the church is to conduct themselves today. Scripture is your guide of how you are supposed to live your life. For we are not our own, but we are bought and paid for with a price. There are many commands given to us within the New Testament. Surely living by them within our lives is very important to Jesus (God). We find these commands in the Bible and they are for our life. They are our sole authority on spiritual matters; And God wants us to be spiritually minded all the time.
Notice in the first paragraph that I mention that Scripture refers to other books that are not a part of the original cannon. Check out the link in that paragraph. What we have as Scripture is what God intened us to have.
I am not adhering to any one historical report in history. It is a logical deduction that the 66 books of the Bible were not all perfecttly bound together as one collection of manuscripts (Sort of like a Bible) after the close of Revelation. I believe it took time for the Word of God to come together into one collection and believers had to determine what was true Scripture and what was not Scripture. Granted, God could have made it so that believers possessed the 66 books as one collecttion at the close of Revelation, but I see that being unlikely because carrying around such documents would have been difficult.
Notice in the first paragraph that I mention that Scripture refers to other books that are not a part of the original cannon. Check out the link in that paragraph. What we have as Scripture is what God intened us to have.
I am not adhering to any one historical report in history. It is a logical deduction that the 66 books of the Bible were not all perfecttly bound together as one collection of manuscripts (Sort of like a Bible) after the close of Revelation. I believe it took time for the Word of God to come together into one collection and believers had to determine what was true Scripture and what was not Scripture. Granted, God could have made it so that believers possessed the 66 books as one collecttion at the close of Revelation, but I see that being unlikely because carrying around such documents would have been difficult.
Last edited:
I agree. My point was simply that the Bible is our ultimate, but not only, point of reference for how to live life. The Bible does not tell me how much, as a Christian, I should spend on groceries every week, but that does not mean there isn't a Christian way to approach that. And, again, the Reformers were not interested in throwing out the history of the church pre the 16th century - what they WERE interested in throwing out were teachings that were contra-Scripture (particularly the system of indulgences), or dogma that was enforced with no scriptural foundation. Read Calvin's Institutes, or any number of Luther's works, and this is the pattern you will note.
Hence why I said sufficient. But sufficient does not mean exhaustive - for our purposes this side of heaven, of course, it doesn't matter, but I think into eternity it does - we have the full revelation of God for salvation, and in knowing Christ we know God, but then we will see him face to face, and that means, by definition, we will know and experience more of God than we do now.
[quiote]I am not adhering to any one historical report in history. It is a logical deduction that the 66 books of the Bible were not all perfecttly bound together as one collection of manuscripts (Sort of like a Bible) after the close of Revelation. I believe it took time for the Word of God to come together into one collection and believers had to determine what was true Scripture and what was not Scripture. Granted, God could have made it so that believers possessed the 66 books as one collecttion at the close of Revelation, but I see that being unlikely because carrying around such documents would have been difficult.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't really aimed the Nicea post at you, more at some of the earlier discussion. But yeah, I agree. I suspect Paul's letters were the earliest collected writings, then the gospels, and then the other letters dribbled in - the whole necessity of having to actually have authoritative and collected writings was most likely brought on by the twin factors of the deaths of the first generation of disciples and by the expanding mission to the Gentiles. The Gospels and the Pauline letters in particular were pretty locked in early on, some of the others (particularly Jude, James, Revelation) took a while longer for people to agree on, and the likes of the Shepherd of Hermas were commonly read by Christians without carrying the canonical authority of the apostolic writings.
Hence why I said sufficient. But sufficient does not mean exhaustive - for our purposes this side of heaven, of course, it doesn't matter, but I think into eternity it does - we have the full revelation of God for salvation, and in knowing Christ we know God, but then we will see him face to face, and that means, by definition, we will know and experience more of God than we do now.
[quiote]I am not adhering to any one historical report in history. It is a logical deduction that the 66 books of the Bible were not all perfecttly bound together as one collection of manuscripts (Sort of like a Bible) after the close of Revelation. I believe it took time for the Word of God to come together into one collection and believers had to determine what was true Scripture and what was not Scripture. Granted, God could have made it so that believers possessed the 66 books as one collecttion at the close of Revelation, but I see that being unlikely because carrying around such documents would have been difficult.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't really aimed the Nicea post at you, more at some of the earlier discussion. But yeah, I agree. I suspect Paul's letters were the earliest collected writings, then the gospels, and then the other letters dribbled in - the whole necessity of having to actually have authoritative and collected writings was most likely brought on by the twin factors of the deaths of the first generation of disciples and by the expanding mission to the Gentiles. The Gospels and the Pauline letters in particular were pretty locked in early on, some of the others (particularly Jude, James, Revelation) took a while longer for people to agree on, and the likes of the Shepherd of Hermas were commonly read by Christians without carrying the canonical authority of the apostolic writings.
100% trustworthy indeed! History does inform us of the works involved in separating holy scriptures from uninspired scriptures such as most of the apocrypha (Lost Books). Some of those were easy to exclude as containing untruth, such as any bearing stories of the boy Jesus doing miracles. John 2 establishes among witness of the original apostles Jesus did no miracle until being Spirit baptized when water baptized by John, later turning water into wine. Just one false boy Jesus story properly disqualified an entire book or letter long ago. There are many other untruths. Read them once if you want to discuss the issues and their dangers, then never read them again. Stick with the 66 books that never contradict one another. Even though several apocryphal books quote or refer to parts of true scripture, most of those books simply are not inherently inspired words that have power to influence our minds enough to be aware God "is speaking" to us. I've known two people who rejected all the Bible upon reading something absurd in a Bible having a section for the "Lost Books". I was able to bring them back to where they departed from the faith, then get them going in proper Bible study. Satan tricked Eve with what seemed to be at least part truth to her. It's wise to avoid any text or preaching that in any way contradicts any part of our 66 recognized books of the Bible. God identified true scriptures by putting an anointing on the words, something no other writings can share. That kept the intended message of each passage undefiled, not subject to diverse meanings based on false teachings.
The historical information in the Bible is being verified almost daily through the works of biblical archaeologists and scientists, not only in Israel but in other nations with historical ties to Israel. Much evidence of the past was carried out of Bible lands by conquerors, looters, and collectors buying artifacts, some being returned to libraries for all to see. But no matter how much of the Bible is factually proven true, the effect of those inspired, power-filled words will never change. The writings of Josephus the historian are amazing, filling in many historical gaps the Bible left out, but nothing in it will bring anointing for salvation or godly living. There is nothing I know of that exposes his book as containing error, but it is not inspired, useful only to add understanding to Bible students by inserting cultural and historical facts into Bible lessons.
The historical information in the Bible is being verified almost daily through the works of biblical archaeologists and scientists, not only in Israel but in other nations with historical ties to Israel. Much evidence of the past was carried out of Bible lands by conquerors, looters, and collectors buying artifacts, some being returned to libraries for all to see. But no matter how much of the Bible is factually proven true, the effect of those inspired, power-filled words will never change. The writings of Josephus the historian are amazing, filling in many historical gaps the Bible left out, but nothing in it will bring anointing for salvation or godly living. There is nothing I know of that exposes his book as containing error, but it is not inspired, useful only to add understanding to Bible students by inserting cultural and historical facts into Bible lessons.