Do you throw out parts of the bible?

[DinoDillinger]

Parts of the bible which don't seem to match up with other parts in your mind...

Do you consider them not to be Holy scripture since it doesn't make sense to you? This happens in many instances in modern day christanity and is also noted throughout history. I believe Luther wanted to throw out atleast James, maybe even Revelation.

As you might notice on these forums, there is a portion of believers here who believe that as gentiles we should keep the law of Moses. Some of these either base this off of or come to the conclusion therefore that Paul was a false prophet.

I've heard of some people who are 'red letter only' christians who don't accept anything except Jesus's word as divinely inspired. I myself have seen a website where a person not only claimed Paul was a heretic but also that the apostles who wrote the gospels erred in connecting some prophesies in the Old Testement with Jesus.

One of the main tenets of the muslim faith stands on the Old Testement and Christian New Testement being changed by man. Ofcourse they believe their prophet has the only untainted word of God.


If the Judiasers or muslims are correct then everybody is in trouble since in their view God puts the responsibility on man's shoulder's in finding His word in a book laced with the lies of satan.

 

[Nuhen]

Look at it this way - if it's not possible for non-Scriptural writings to be put into the bible, why do Protestant bibles no longer contain the Apocrypha? It was contained in the earliest canon and only removed by Martin Luther after the Protestant Reformation.

 

[sportygirl]

I believe all parts of hte bible are important because its all the word of God. Yes some parts are confusing, and some parts maybe should have more focus than other. Such as Jesus's words these are vrey important and are the most relevent but the old testement has a lot of background information that goes along with the words of Jesus. I think when reading you have to go into it wth an open mind and pray about the things that confuse you, or you find to go against what you had previous thoughts. These are the things that challenge you and allow yout o grow in your faith.

 

[MahogonySnail]

It's ironic that James and Revelation are probably the two least used books of the bible. James because it sort of argues against "saved by faith alone", and Revelation because it's too hard to understand and contains threats of having ones name taken out of the book of life, which doesn't sit well with those who think they are always saved, they can't hack any concepts of them possibly losing something they think they have.

 

[karuna]

If the Judiasers or muslims are correct then everybody is in trouble...

Not to be snarky, but even with a Bible in our native tongue, we're still in peril. Merely having a perfect book, which is a miracle in itself, is no promise of success. We have the remarkable ability to avoid putting into practice what we know to be true. I know you're not arguing that people can do as they wish as long as they acknowledge the whole of Holy Scripture, but just because we're not Judaisers or Muslims doesn't mean we're in the clear. I'd much rather have one of those "Red Letter Christians" follow what Jesus said than a person who taught the whole Bible but lived none of it.

 

[DinoDillinger]

Look at it this way - if it's not possible for non-Scriptural writings to be put into the bible, why do Protestant bibles no longer contain the Apocrypha? It was contained in the earliest canon and only removed by Martin Luther after the Protestant Reformation.

Do you take the postion that the Apocrypha is not Holy Scripture or that it is?

From the brief search I did it appears that those are writings that would be put in the Old Testement anyway. Which I would think important for someone of the position of Christians being under the old covenant. The reading of the scriptures themselves is to no avail unless your empowered by the Holy Spirit in the first place. I guess you would say that the Holy Spirit lead you to discard the teachings of Paul and not your rational deduction correct? If that is the case why would you and like minded believers attack those who do accept his writings with passages highlighted for your own private interreptation however you consider it inspired? Would you cast off part of the bible if someone came to you and said look at this passage I highlighted, doesn't that sound different than what (insert apostle here) says over here? Satan himself attacked Jesus with manipulated parts of scripture.

You sow discord among the body and attempt to cast believers into condemnation. That is the fruit of your labor.

( I was gonna quote scripture here, but hey, it was in an epistle of Paul, so what's the point?)

 

[Nuhen]

Do you take the postion that the Apocrypha is not Holy Scripture or that it is?

From the brief search I did it appears that those are writings that would be put in the Old Testement anyway. Which I would think important for someone of the position of Christians being under the old covenant. The reading of the scriptures themselves is to no avail unless your empowered by the Holy Spirit in the first place. I guess you would say that the Holy Spirit lead you to discard the teachings of Paul and not your rational deduction correct? If that is the case why would you and like minded believers attack those who do accept his writings with passages highlighted for your own private interreptation however you consider it inspired? Would you cast off part of the bible if someone came to you and said look at this passage I highlighted, doesn't that sound different than what (insert apostle here) says over here? Satan himself attacked Jesus with manipulated parts of scripture.

You sow discord among the body and attempt to cast believers into condemnation. That is the fruit of your labor.

( I was gonna quote scripture here, but hey, it was in an epistle of Paul, so what's the point?)

I haven't reached a conclusion on the Apocrypha yet, but I'm still studying it.

Also, I've never attacked someone on this site. I think you've misinterpreted me. I am here only to make people think, and to learn from you just as I hope you can learn from me.

As to why I reject Paul's writings as inspired, it was only after much prayer and study that I felt led by G-d to reject Paul's writings as inspired. Not to reject them completely, as many non-Scriptural writings can be beneficial to a believer's walk with G-d, including Paul's writings, but to reject them as Scripture.

 

[HumbleSaint]

I haven't reached a conclusion on the Apocrypha yet, but I'm still studying it.

Also, I've never attacked someone on this site. I think you've misinterpreted me. I am here only to make people think, and to learn from you just as I hope you can learn from me.

As to why I reject Paul's writings as inspired, it was only after much prayer and study that I felt led by G-d to reject Paul's writings as inspired. Not to reject them completely, as many non-Scriptural writings can be beneficial to a believer's walk with G-d, including Paul's writings, but to reject them as Scripture.

Wow, the Bible says that the Word is God. So by rejecting pat of God's inspired Word, Because the Bible says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Is That rejecting part of who God is if you say that part of it is not inspired? Just a question.

 

[Nuhen]

Wow, the Bible says that the Word is God. So by rejecting pat of God's inspired Word, Because the Bible says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Is That rejecting part of who God is if you say that part of it is not inspired? Just a question.

Do you reject the Apocrypha? Is the book of Tobit or Judith in your bible?

 

[HumbleSaint]

Do you reject the Apocrypha? Is the book of Tobit or Judith in your bible?

I have no idea what the Apocrypha is. I use the King James which I believe is God's inspired and preserved Word. But that is a whole nother topic, I know we disagree on many issues.

 

[Nuhen]

I have no idea what the Apocrypha is. I use the King James which I believe is God's inspired and preserved Word. But that is a whole nother topic, I know we disagree on many issues.

The Apocrypha is a collection of books that was in the first canon, but removed by Martin Luther after the Protestant Reformation.

 

[HumbleSaint]

huh, interesting

 

[Nuhen]

Anyway, my point with that is just because the Word of G-d is holy does NOT mean everything in canon is part of the Word. Obviously modern-day Protestants don't consider the Apocrypha Scripture, yet tell me I'm in the wrong for saying Paul's writings aren't Scripture.

It's the same thing. Either you accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, or you have to admit that not everything canon is Scripture.

 

[HumbleSaint]

Well hers the thing though. How are we even supposed to know what is right and wrong if we are not sure what Bible is inspired by God and what is not. The Bible says that it is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. So don't you think God is going to have a book that is completely pure and untainted. I mean if He doesn't want anyone to perish why would He make it a guessing game as to what is wrong and right. God is bigger than that.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Anyway, my point with that is just because the Word of G-d is holy does NOT mean everything in canon is part of the Word. Obviously modern-day Protestants don't consider the Apocrypha Scripture, yet tell me I'm in the wrong for saying Paul's writings aren't Scripture.

It's the same thing. Either you accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, or you have to admit that not everything canon is Scripture.

The apocrypha was never universally accepted, the Eastern church rejecting it as well as the Jews. The Western church was none to sure about it for some time. I reject the apocrypha because the Hebrews reject it....Pauls writings were accepted as scripture before even the gospels. Your "rejection" of them is two thousand years too late--a much longer time than Luther's second thoughts and with no support in the church.

 

[wattie]

Hang on a sec

the gospels.. and all the NT books without the apocrypha had to meet criteria such as being a writing by eyewitnesses.. or people who knew they eyewitnesses of the original accounts they purport. Another criterion is closeness from the original event to recording..

Anyway, the reason the apocrypha books weren't considered is because they contain many inconsistencies, embellishments, some strange doctrines and alot were written a long time after Jesus' life death and resurrection.

And also in regards to James.. it never has works based salvation in it.. the context of the verses that get used for works based salvation show that James agreed with Paul's writing such as 'being justified by the faith of Christ, not by works' and 'by works of the flesh shall noone be justified'

context context context

Abraham being counted as righteous by offering his son Isaac.. this ain't eternal salvation
Rahab hiding those men? Not about eternal salvation. They were justified by works in that their acts were pleasing in the sight of the Lord. Not in terms of being eternally saved.

'for by works of the law shall no flesh be justified' from Paul.. this is about eternal salvation

 

[Nuhen]

Well hers the thing though. How are we even supposed to know what is right and wrong if we are not sure what Bible is inspired by God and what is not. The Bible says that it is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. So don't you think God is going to have a book that is completely pure and untainted. I mean if He doesn't want anyone to perish why would He make it a guessing game as to what is wrong and right. God is bigger than that.

How do you even know G-d wants us to have a canon? Yeshua's disciple John said there were other writings with the teachings of Yeshua. Are the teachings of Yeshua ALL important, or just the ones in canon?

Furthermore, the book of Jude is just a string of quotes from Enoch, and Jude even calls Enoch a prophet - so clearly Scripture identifies Enoch as a prophet, why are his writings not canonized?

 

[Nuhen]

And also in regards to James.. it never has works based salvation in it.. the context of the verses that get used for works based salvation show that James agreed with Paul's writing such as 'being justified by the faith of Christ, not by works' and 'by works of the flesh shall noone be justified'

Historically, James and Paul frequently had disagreements and didn't like the other. Their writings reflect this.

 

[Nuhen]

The apocrypha was never universally accepted, the Eastern church rejecting it as well as the Jews. The Western church was none to sure about it for some time. I reject the apocrypha because the Hebrews reject it....Pauls writings were accepted as scripture before even the gospels. Your "rejection" of them is two thousand years too late--a much longer time than Luther's second thoughts and with no support in the church.

I don't care how "late" they are or whether or not I have support from the church. All I know is that either Paul's writings are Scripture or Yeshua's words are Scripture, because the two contradict.

Not only that, but man's opinion will NEVER be held as Scripture, and numerous places in his writings Paul clarifies they are NOT from G-d but are his own opinions.

 

[Maranatha_Yeshua]

*get's out the popcorn*