T
I do believe the Bible is, but some spiritual truths are starting to confuse me...
So, if the written Bible is God's word, what is the difference between the law being carved in stone and written on paper? I would think that if the original Bible was written on stone, than at least we would have had a no-nonesense source to go back to instead of pulling on soooo many different sources as 'early texts'. It would have made the Bible sooo clear...
But instead we have the Bible engraved on our hearts and placed in our minds...which is where trouble comes in...
The problem is subjectivism...Everyone that says they have it within them don't necessarily have it; what is to stop the wolves from trying to pervert the original text? I do believe there is only one truth that the Bible always shows--though there are different meanings all leading to this one truth...
Well, thats not the direction I was meaning to go with this...
Okay, reading scripture a lot...and I am being confounded as I said before...by things like "you search the scriptures in order to find me, but refuse to turn to me in order to find life; these very scriptures speak of me." And the famous verse that the law is not like the law of our ancestors written on stone, but it is engraved in our hearts...
So why do we force down people's throats that the Bible is 100% God's word? It seems that the true Lord writes the law in our hearts...and it is confusing to insist on something outside the heart, in experience, being God's new law...(I really don't know if it matters that Paul's greetings to his friends are on my heart or not...)
What's to stop the new testament from being the same stumbling block as the old testament?
What I mean is that both display the faults of Paul that they are both of being of "the written code".
The problem I am seeing is both the new and old testament, and insisting on them being God's word completely, forces the soul to try to regulate itself by an outside commandment and not one that is 'of the heart' as the new testament itself states.
I really don't care how many times you read the scriptures, if the Lord doesn't plant them in you heart it is futile...so why do we continually insist on using the physical Bible to reach the spiritual? And even after we have found the spiritual law and Lord, do we go back to the physical Bible, of the written code? It seems like Paul complaining against the Corinthians? (I am almost 100% sure I am wrong on which letter this is) that after finding the spiritual , why are we submitting to the slavery of a written fleshly code?
I honestly in a way feel right now that a lot of preachers use the new testament the same way pharisees and scribes used the old testament...and instead of setting people free and opening them up, they are laying more and more burdens on people after they are reborn...
Look at Paul...After he was converted, there was no new written law (gospel or letter)for him to read probably...On the confidence of his own experience he goes out to follow the Lord (true someone did cure his blindness through the Lord and baptize him), but afterwards he is not regulated by a church or any written code, but INSTEAD HE RECOGNIZES THE LORD AND FOLLOWS...
I know some would say complete madness would arrive in Christianity if any Christian followed God completely and forgot about the written code ( the physical Bible) chaos and complete madness would result...But it doesn't seem that way in scripture, people completely give themselves to Christ--and rely on the spiritual without going back to the written code...
Just think on On what basis did Paul refute Cephas for drawing back from the Gentiles when he saw the Jews? No where in the Bible does he draw from; he has Jesus and his Spirit telling him it is contrary to the new law, so he refutes him based on the certainty that he was with God and God showed him it was wrong...
So as I said before confounded...
May God's word bring light, love, and life to us all
tony
So, if the written Bible is God's word, what is the difference between the law being carved in stone and written on paper? I would think that if the original Bible was written on stone, than at least we would have had a no-nonesense source to go back to instead of pulling on soooo many different sources as 'early texts'. It would have made the Bible sooo clear...
But instead we have the Bible engraved on our hearts and placed in our minds...which is where trouble comes in...
The problem is subjectivism...Everyone that says they have it within them don't necessarily have it; what is to stop the wolves from trying to pervert the original text? I do believe there is only one truth that the Bible always shows--though there are different meanings all leading to this one truth...
Well, thats not the direction I was meaning to go with this...
Okay, reading scripture a lot...and I am being confounded as I said before...by things like "you search the scriptures in order to find me, but refuse to turn to me in order to find life; these very scriptures speak of me." And the famous verse that the law is not like the law of our ancestors written on stone, but it is engraved in our hearts...
So why do we force down people's throats that the Bible is 100% God's word? It seems that the true Lord writes the law in our hearts...and it is confusing to insist on something outside the heart, in experience, being God's new law...(I really don't know if it matters that Paul's greetings to his friends are on my heart or not...)
What's to stop the new testament from being the same stumbling block as the old testament?
What I mean is that both display the faults of Paul that they are both of being of "the written code".
The problem I am seeing is both the new and old testament, and insisting on them being God's word completely, forces the soul to try to regulate itself by an outside commandment and not one that is 'of the heart' as the new testament itself states.
I really don't care how many times you read the scriptures, if the Lord doesn't plant them in you heart it is futile...so why do we continually insist on using the physical Bible to reach the spiritual? And even after we have found the spiritual law and Lord, do we go back to the physical Bible, of the written code? It seems like Paul complaining against the Corinthians? (I am almost 100% sure I am wrong on which letter this is) that after finding the spiritual , why are we submitting to the slavery of a written fleshly code?
I honestly in a way feel right now that a lot of preachers use the new testament the same way pharisees and scribes used the old testament...and instead of setting people free and opening them up, they are laying more and more burdens on people after they are reborn...
Look at Paul...After he was converted, there was no new written law (gospel or letter)for him to read probably...On the confidence of his own experience he goes out to follow the Lord (true someone did cure his blindness through the Lord and baptize him), but afterwards he is not regulated by a church or any written code, but INSTEAD HE RECOGNIZES THE LORD AND FOLLOWS...
I know some would say complete madness would arrive in Christianity if any Christian followed God completely and forgot about the written code ( the physical Bible) chaos and complete madness would result...But it doesn't seem that way in scripture, people completely give themselves to Christ--and rely on the spiritual without going back to the written code...
Just think on On what basis did Paul refute Cephas for drawing back from the Gentiles when he saw the Jews? No where in the Bible does he draw from; he has Jesus and his Spirit telling him it is contrary to the new law, so he refutes him based on the certainty that he was with God and God showed him it was wrong...
So as I said before confounded...
May God's word bring light, love, and life to us all
tony