Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[glorydaz]

Since she has no experience with a literal raising from the dead,

It rather grieves the Spirit.

You charlatans amuse me.

 

[glorydaz]

Do not give up and run away, Lon.

You need this experience.

The SSSSSSSSNAKE must be losing his audience. :chuckle:

Stay....listen to these "teachers" who preach these fables. You, too, can be like God. Raise the dead, walk on water, we will do greater works than Jesus, if we reject what is written, and HEAR those words which tickle our ears. :devil:

2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.​

 

[Lon]

2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.​

Been reading the same:

1 Timothy 1:3,4,6,7; 2:7,8; 4:6,7,11,13 1 Timothy 4:16; 5:7,15,18,19; 6:3-5,9-10,20,21 2 Timothy 1:11-14;2:2;3:14-15; 4:1-5 Luke 16:11 Titus 1:3,9,13,14; 2:1,7,15; 3:10

 

[glorydaz]

Been reading the same:

What? You mean you don't just want to go to a meeting and hear some dude pretending to speak as God?

 

[2003cobra]

What? You mean you don't just want to go to a meeting and hear some dude pretending to speak as God?

Reminds of the day of Pentecost when the scoffers said the Apostles were drunk.

 

[jsanford108]

I understand that have completely bought into the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity, an idea which developed long after Mary had died as the good wife of Joseph and a mother.

Any inerrant proof of this?

But, if abandoning that myth of the Roman Catholic Church about the perpetual virginity of Mary is too much for you to bear, you could just consider the brothers of Jesus to be sons of Joseph from a former marriage — with Joseph being a widower before his engagement to Mary.

For the record, I believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary long before I became Catholic.

I moved this later point of yours higher up, so that I could add that bit of clarity, as well as address this possibility. Where is your evidence of Joseph being a widower before betrothal to Mary? This idea has no evidence in Scripture, nor outside historical sources that I know of.

On to Perpetual Virginity:

I will provide some scripture to counter that view:

Matthew 1 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

Matthew is exceedingly clear that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Due to having heard these points before, I will make some assumptions. Here, you are emphasizing the phrase "no marital relations with her until she had borne a son," am I correct?

But, does that phrase mean that Joseph did have relations with her post-Jesus birth? First, let us examine this phrase. Your implication lies with the word "until." "Until" can be used to mean "leading up to the time of" without a change afterward. Consider the following passages from the Bible....
2 Samuel 6:23: "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child to the day of her death." Does this mean she had children after her death?
1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." Does this mean Timothy should stop doing these after Paul arrives?
1 Corinthians 15:25: " For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet." Does this mean that Jesus will cease to reign after He was vanquished the enemies? (Of course, we see in Luke 1:33 that "He will reign over the House of Jacob forever and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.")
Matthew 28:20: "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Does this mean that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the world?
1 Timothy 6:14: "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." Does this mean we can break commandments, after Jesus appears?
Acts 25:21: "But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept until I might send him to Caesar." Did Paul's captivity end after being sent to Caesar?

See, how "until" does not necessitate a ceasing of particular status?

In Matthew 12, Jesus himself contrasts the brothers of the flesh and blood with the brothers of likemindedness or distant relations:
Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

Again, "brother" in Hebrew can mean "close relative." How could Jesus' mother be outside, yet inside with His Disciples? Unless, perhaps some words can have multiple meanings....

(further proof of "mother" being used for two different relationships below, in point 2)

In Matthew 13, it is very clear that the townspeople were talking about brothers of flesh and blood:
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Note that there was a brother Joseph, named after his father, and James the brother of the Lord. James went on to lead the church at Jerusalem.

Two points here.

1.) You are relying on the words of these people, who also say that Jesus is the carpenter's son. So, if you accept their words as fact, then you must accept that Joseph is also Jesus' father. It is illogical and disingenuous to pick which parts to believe, due to their support of personal doctrine.

2.) James' parentage is not from Joseph or Mary. There are two James' among the Apostles. One is the son of Zebedee. The other's father is Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). Here, we will get into some Greek usage to prove my point, so bear with me. John 19:25 references Jesus' mother's sister "adelphe." This "Mary" is the "wife of Clopas," and is present at the foot of the cross with Mary (Mother of Jesus), and Mary Magdalene. It is highly unlikely that there would be two uterine sisters named "Mary." This is surely an example of some other relative using the term "sister." Matthew 27:56 tells us that "Mary, the mother of James and Joseph." Nail in my coffin, right? Except that Mary, mother of Jesus, is always called "mother of Jesus" or "mother of the Lord," and would have been especially referenced in such a way in the context following her divine Son at the time of the Passion. Yet, the children of this other Mary are called "brothers" of the Lord. (Scholars agree that this Mary is not the Virgin Mary, in this passage) Thus, even more weight is added to the argument that these "brothers" were cousins, or some sort of close/extended relation, depending on how closely related Mary (mother of Jesus) and her "sister" Mary were.

2.) Continued....As for the two Apostles being named James, we see one is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the "brother" of Judas (Jude) according to Jude 1:1. So, the "brothers" listed were not siblings, but some sort of relative. Based entirely on Scriptural evidence.

I could go on with proof.

Much of this rewriting of history by the RCC comes from the Protoevangelium of James, something of a second century fairy tale.

Is there any inerrant proof of this "rewriting?" History, and scholars, agree that this is not the case.

But, if abandoning that myth of the Roman Catholic Church about the perpetual virginity of Mary is too much for you to bear, you could just consider the brothers of Jesus to be sons of Joseph from a former marriage — with Joseph being a widower before his engagement to Mary.

Again, any inerrant, outside proof of this?

So, why did I bring up John 7?

Because it shows that our Western aversion to stating something false is inconsistent with the evidence in scripture. in John 7, Jesus clearly misstated His plans to go to the festival. As Jesus does not sin, misstating your plans for your own protection or for a good mission is not sin. In short, Jesus made a false statement for noble reasons.

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." 5 (For not even his brothers believed in him.) 6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come." 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10 But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in secret.

But, did Jesus attend the festival? It says "he also went," but that would make more sense if He went to Judea, rather than actually going to the festival, because that would have been public, not secret.

You asked about the midwives. Here is the passage from Exodus 1:
The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 "When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live." 17 But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?" 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them." 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.


God blessed the midwives for lying. Our knee jerk reaction of God’s ways are not always right. We should have the mind of Christ.

It says that God "dealt well." He blessed them due to their righteous fear of God combined with preventing murder, rather than blessing them for lying. This is a twisting of words, meant to imply that God blessed someone for lying. That is not the case.

The point that I am trying to make is that your premise “Jesus can’t mislead” is contrary to the evidence in scripture.

What I find interesting in this particular post, is that you argue that Scripture is errant; yet you use Scripture as proof for Jesus having brothers. If Scripture is indeed errant, then one could simply dismiss these claims of siblings as "errors." And it would stand logically to do so, if the Scriptures are errant.

It is only with an inerrant Scripture that one could infer that these brothers were indeed sibling relations. Yet, as you can see from my analysis, it is easily disproved by simple readings of the Scriptures, and basic contextual understandings of history, culture, etc.

So, if Scripture is errant, you cannot rely on Scripture as proofs for doctrine, because it could easily be dismissed as erroneous. See the glaring paradox present in your arguments for this particular post?

 

[Zenn]

I have a serious question for you, no mocking or poking fun, but seriously: if, as you say, "the Rhema" takes over and speaks through you, (that is what you meant, right?), then why is it not the same with writing?

YES.

FINALLY.

(A very serious and important question.)

It is. It is the same with writing. But I think you also mean to include "scripture". "Why is it not the same with scripture?" (After all, scripture just means graphe which just means writing). And the answer would be that all inspired writings would be scripture (in this special sense). But not all of what the Catholics declared to be scripture is inspired.

Rhema speaks Logos. Rhema is the utterance. Rhema is the event where God breaks through and speaks to a person.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word RHEMA of God.
(Rom 10:17 KJV)

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
(Act 8:29 KJV)

This is to happen in our everyday walk - That we are to receive the Rhema of the Spirit. It's not just for special prophets and it's not just for special apostles. And this is what James was trying to say, rather than to invent yet another bead for the Rosary (James 4:15). To conclude that Rhema was only possible for those "special people" (called Apostles) and that anyone today who hears the voice of God (cf. Heb. 3:7) is to be belittled or declared that "he is besides himself" (cf Mark 3:21), is to grieve the Spirit. God will only meet your beliefs. If you don't think He'll talk to you, He won't.

But while Rhema speaks Logos, Logos comprises the principles, the teachings, the Logical content - the Idea behind what is spoken - the Pattern of the way things are to be - the Pattern of the Truth of God. And yes, certain writings may be considered a Logos, a "recording" of such Rhema.

But the problem is when the Catholic Bishop Athanasius says, "This, this specific writing, these books are the Holy Writ of Scripture and none other."

Are we to be led by a Catholic Bishop? (A very serious question.)

We are to somehow believe that God inspired this Bishop in 367 AD to list the correct books comprising New Testament scripture and yet God could not inspire that very same Bishop to correctly understand the Doctrine of how one is saved? As if God is more interested in creating Holy Writ than in saving souls?

So to answer the OP. Scripture is whatever the Holy Spirit says to you that scripture is.

If "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom 8:16 KJV) how much more will the same Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that something spoken or written is the Word Truth of God?

Again, serious question, why are you not writing perfect books ...

First, I appreciate that you're engaging in serious discussion. And the serious answer is that I've not been led by Holy Spirit to "write perfect books" (yet). If the Rhema of God does not say, "Zenn, write this down," then anything I do write within such a capacity IS pride and hubris. Participation in a forum is a bit different than creating works for publication to be distributed as Holy Scripture. (Although there have been times when the Spirit of the Lord has prompted and guided me to write certain posts.)

But I absolutely demand that you not take MY word for it.

How are you to be led? By your own mind? That was Martin Luther's mistake. He published his New Testament translation in German to show the common folk just how right he, Martin Luther, was. Luther could just not conceive that anybody else could read the exact same words and arrive at a completely different understanding. He had no clue that this would lead to the torrent of 30,000 or so denominations, with every Calvin and his brother using their own brain to create new doctrines.

So how are you to be led? By a book? But even the book does not say this. Rather the books says: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:14 KJV)

And yet how are most Christians led? By a book. By a book that says to be led by the Spirit. And over the decades, I have yet to find any Protestant explanation that describes something other than each individual being led by what their own brain can figure out from what is written in a book the Roman Catholics declared to be scripture (i.e. Holy Writ).

I personally find this astonishing.

... and why are not all charismatics such as yourself ...

Sigh. Uh... oops.. okay, it's likely you haven't yet read my post which says I am not a Charismatic.

... and why are not all charismatics such as yourself writing perfect books of the wonderful things of God?

I think it has something to do with doing the works rather than writing about them, although I know a few accounts that you might find interesting (e.g. Lester Sumrall). Most Pentecostals don't know anything of Protestant authors, and most Protestants don't know of anything written by Pentecostals.

Surely if what you say is true ... an experience and power that cannot really be described, ...

daqq my apologies in that I don't quite remember offhand that I said such "cannot really be described". Perhaps I wasn't clear (and unfortunately I don't have the time to review my posts at the moment). I can, though, to the best of my ability, describe what happens to me. However, it's not easily described. Written words have great limitations. How can one describe the experience of riding a bicycle to someone who hasn't?

Surely if what you say is true ... then why is it not the same with writing? If you can speak such holy things through the Spirit, (or the Spirit speaking through you), then why are you not writing the same such things and putting them down for posterity?

God would rather lead each and every one of his children directly by the Spirit (which He cannot do if they're being led by something else, like a Bible). So go get your own Rhema (he says in a humorous and friendly manner). I'm not really here to get you to believe what I say. But I can recount what God has said to me (if it becomes edifying to do so), and encourage everyone to seek the Rhema of God for him or herself.

But how can they if they don't know it's there?

Zenn

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by daqq
... it is not me who thinks that Matthew intends that, "Jesus actually rode upon two beasts simultaneously", no, that is YOU, because that is the same faulty interpretation which you impose onto Matthew so as to make your errant accusation.

daqq, I never said anything about what Matthew "intends". It was about what YOU believed. Let's look at what I actually said.

Originally Posted by Zenn
Obviously you think that Jesus actually rode upon two beasts simultaneously,

This is rather easy to settle.

DO you think (teach, preach, believe, pick your synonym) that Jesus actually rode upon two beasts?

Zenn

PS: I thought your view on this was rather clear, and my apologies for not asking first so that you could clarify what you believe.

None of this is accurate. If you are so poor you cannot even afford to pay attention what makes you think you have the heavenly money it is going to cost you to make your bold accusations against the scripture? I do not owe you any explanations or interpretations so as to satisfy your curiosity. I am not on the witness stand or on cross examination: you made an accusation and the only way you were able to make your assertion is by claiming that the Matthew account or whoever wrote Matthew did not understand (your version) of Hebrew poetry in (your interpretation of) Zec 9:9. It is you who said Matthew was writing of two beasts, by default, because it is automatically filed in your initial complaint by default. It does not matter that you are not willing to come out and admit it because everyone knows it is true: for if it were not you would not be saying that Matthew is in error. The burden of proof is upon you, to make your case, which you have not even come close to or even attempted to do. You are only asking me what I believe about the passage so that the process can be started all over again and you can deny everyone else's answers with your refusal to accept any of them as even possible and then proclaim yourself to be "winning". It doesn't work that way. You need to make your case and prove your accusation or it is lights out, case dismissed, for lack of evidence or none at all. It does not matter what anyone else believes the passage means because you are the one making the accusation or complaint, and again, you cannot file such a complaint without seeing Matthew the way you do, which is that you think the text actually intends two donkeys, and for that very reason you believe it is in error, or you would not be making your accusation to begin with.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Shalom.

Today is Sheni, 10-21.

Thank you for giving a response. May your understanding of God's word continue to grow.

Shalom.

Jacob

Yes Day 21 Month 10 Year 5988

https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/guide_v2017calendar_year5988_2018.pdf

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I do not consider copyist errors or misspellings errors.

If I believed what others have claimed here, that God wrote the Bible and preserved it, then these would be a problem.

From a Roman Catholic and Protestant perspective, the work of Jerome could be the most complete. One could argue the 50 Bibles that Eusebius compile under a commission from the Emperor were more important. There were other churches with different important traditions.


The errors that I have been mentioning fail the affirming of something contrary to fact description.

For example, Matthew’s version of the Jairus story affirms something contrary to fact if Mark’s and Luke’s affirmations of the facts are true.

He is God Incarnate. At least He was while on earth. I don’t know for certain if He has flesh now. I would not be able to prove one way or the other that he kept or laid down the flesh at or following the resurrection or at ascension or at some other time. Unlike some here on this forum, I am not at all certain that I can define God.


I don’t know that we could say that Jesus will not misrepresent. He did not come to earth to correct all misconceptions.

Are you familiar with what Jesus told His brothers when they said that He should go to Jerusalem?

John 7 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him. 6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.


And are you aware that Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest seed, yet it is not?

And are you aware that God blessed the Israelite midwives for lying to pharaoh?

For that matter, a captured soldier does not sin when lying to the enemy.

So Jesus could present things that were not accurate in pursuit of a greater goal, just as He protected Himself and His mission by telling His brothers that He was not going to the festival.


He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit. He did not give them infallibility. If they had received infallibility, Paul would not have had to rebuke Peter for avoiding Gentile believers.
We have no reason to believe Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, as it could have been written by his students. The gospel’s various errors indicate that.
Being guided by an inerrant guide does not insure the follower of no missteps.

The documents are trustworthy, but they never claim to be inerrant and infallibility is not a spiritual gift found in people.

For the reasons listed above, no.

And let me add, all through the life of Jesus we are told to look and see.

In the sermon at church Sunday, the pastor at my church spoke of John the Baptist when Jesus came. John said “Look” or “Behold.” He did not say have faith. He did not say believe. He said Look.

Jesus told Apostles to come and see.

Peter said they could not help but talk about what they had seen.

So we are not called to deny the obvious things in front of our eyes. And there are errors that cannot be attributed to copyists.

Yes.

We (the body of Christ) will not be perfect till God makes a new heaven and new Earth:

1 Corinthians 15:28
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[daqq]

YES.

FINALLY.

(A very serious and important question.)

It is. It is the same with writing. But I think you also mean to include "scripture". "Why is it not the same with scripture?" (After all, scripture just means graphe which just means writing). And the answer would be that all inspired writings would be scripture (in this special sense). But not all of what the Catholics declared to be scripture is inspired.

Rhema speaks Logos. Rhema is the utterance. Rhema is the event where God breaks through and speaks to a person.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word RHEMA of God.
(Rom 10:17 KJV)

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
(Act 8:29 KJV)

This is to happen in our everyday walk - That we are to receive the Rhema of the Spirit. It's not just for special prophets and it's not just for special apostles. And this is what James was trying to say, rather than to invent yet another bead for the Rosary (James 4:15). To conclude that Rhema was only possible for those "special people" (called Apostles) and that anyone today who hears the voice of God (cf. Heb. 3:7) is to be belittled or declared that "he is besides himself" (cf Mark 3:21), is to grieve the Spirit. God will only meet your beliefs. If you don't think He'll talk to you, He won't.

But while Rhema speaks Logos, Logos comprises the principles, the teachings, the Logical content - the Idea behind what is spoken - the Pattern of the way things are to be - the Pattern of the Truth of God. And yes, certain writings may be considered a Logos, a "recording" of such Rhema.

But the problem is when the Catholic Bishop Athanasius says, "This, this specific writing, these books are the Holy Writ of Scripture and none other."

Are we to be led by a Catholic Bishop? (A very serious question.)

We are to somehow believe that God inspired this Bishop in 367 AD to list the correct books comprising New Testament scripture and yet God could not inspire that very same Bishop to correctly understand the Doctrine of how one is saved? As if God is more interested in creating Holy Writ than in saving souls?

So to answer the OP. Scripture is whatever the Holy Spirit says to you that scripture is.

If "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom 8:16 KJV) how much more will the same Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that something spoken or written is the Word Truth of God?

First, I appreciate that you're engaging in serious discussion. And the serious answer is that I've not been led by Holy Spirit to "write perfect books" (yet). If the Rhema of God does not say, "Zenn, write this down," then anything I do write within such a capacity IS pride and hubris. Participation in a forum is a bit different than creating works for publication to be distributed as Holy Scripture. (Although there have been times when the Spirit of the Lord has prompted and guided me to write certain posts.)

But I absolutely demand that you not take MY word for it.

How are you to be led? By your own mind? That was Martin Luther's mistake. He published his New Testament translation in German to show the common folk just how right he, Martin Luther, was. Luther could just not conceive that anybody else could read the exact same words and arrive at a completely different understanding. He had no clue that this would lead to the torrent of 30,000 or so denominations, with every Calvin and his brother using their own brain to create new doctrines.

So how are you to be led? By a book? But even the book does not say this. Rather the books says: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:14 KJV)

And yet how are most Christians led? By a book. By a book that says to be led by the Spirit. And over the decades, I have yet to find any Protestant explanation that describes something other than each individual being led by what their own brain can figure out from what is written in a book the Roman Catholics declared to be scripture (i.e. Holy Writ).

I personally find this astonishing.

Sigh. Uh... oops.. okay, it's likely you haven't yet read my post which says I am not a Charismatic.

I think it has something to do with doing the works rather than writing about them, although I know a few accounts that you might find interesting (e.g. Lester Sumrall). Most Pentecostals don't know anything of Protestant authors, and most Protestants don't know of anything written by Pentecostals.

daqq my apologies in that I don't quite remember offhand that I said such "cannot really be described". Perhaps I wasn't clear (and unfortunately I don't have the time to review my posts at the moment). I can, though, to the best of my ability, describe what happens to me. However, it's not easily described. Written words have great limitations. How can one describe the experience of riding a bicycle to someone who hasn't?

God would rather lead each and every one of his children directly by the Spirit (which He cannot do if they're being led by something else, like a Bible). So go get your own Rhema (he says in a humorous and friendly manner). I'm not really here to get you to believe what I say. But I can recount what God has said to me (if it becomes edifying to do so), and encourage everyone to seek the Rhema of God for him or herself.

But how can they if they don't know it's there?

Zenn

Testimony is Spirit, and especially the Testimony of the Master recorded in the Gospel accounts and the Apocalypse because that Testimony is the "New Spirit" foretold in Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, and 36:26. But this is where we will part ways because you cannot be held accountable, (except by Elohim the Judge), to what is written when you say it has errors wheresoever you do not wish to accept what it says, (how therefore can I "hold your feet to the fire" in a discussion-debate when you reject anything in the scripture you do not wish to accept?). I would normally quote the following passage along with the fact that there is no codex, manuscript, fragment, or Greek text anywhere that inserts the Greek equivalent for given in this text like most all of the English translations do because of paradigm-mindset. And yet, if the following statement is true, (and it surely is), then this speaks not of a spirit-entity or literal force but rather of the Testimony of the Messiah which is the Spirit of the New Covenant which even Paul speaks of in many places, (even the "earnest of the Spirit"), and yet it speaks of the writings and not a spirit-entity. This is not to say that there is no "Holy Spirit", (we know the Father is Spirit, and what I am saying is not an argument against the Trinity), but simply that there is moreover an additional and different way in which Paul sometimes uses Spirit and Holy Spirit where it is in reference to the Testimony of the Messiah, which is WRITTEN.

I will quote the YLT (T/R) which is faithful to the text and does not add to it:

John 7:37-39 YLT
37 And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink;
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Yep, that is what it says, and although there are some variants concerning whether we read Spirit or Holy Spirit there is no Greek text that adds the word for given into the text. "For not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified", and when was it that he was magnified, exalted, (lifted up is the same word for exalted), and glorified, (sat down at the right hand of the Father)? His Testimony, which is the New Spirit of the New Covenant, was not yet complete until he said, "IT IS FINISHED", and that is of course Golgotha or Calvary. "The Holy Spirit was not yet" because the Testimony of the Messiah was not yet filled-up-complete until that day. Therefore according to Paul "walking in the Spirit" is walking in the holy Testimony of the Master which is written in the Gospel accounts, which in 1Cor 15:3-4 he calls the writings, which Testimony the Master-Teacher paid for with his own blood, (for that is after all the reason why they killed him).

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

No problem. I'm used to being falsely accused by people who think they can tell others how they should respond to posts. I don't have time or the inclination to read all your drivel, or that of the other fools who attempt to mock God's Holy Word, so I'll just stick to the method that works for me.

Perhaps you should change your method so that you can allow yourself to read any post and respond to it without saying nasty things (or lying) and instead respond in at least a respectful and considered way.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Just like the pharisees, aren't ya? White on the outside, but filled with dead men's bones.

You are my enemy, and I will not treat you as anything else.

So you think Christ died so that His followers could be enemies? I see you as a sister in Christ just needing some correction.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Of course I "sound" self important ....because I speak the truth. I take no credit for the truth, however.

Oh, before I forget....the next time you want to call someone a liar because you have seen what time they answer certain posts, and imagine what they were doing in between (like giving thanks or looking things up), you'd be wise to look at that person's profile and see what threads they were busy posting in between those posts you noted. It gets back to the stupidity of one who sees only what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

As I've said in the past, "nasty", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. :chew:

By all means post any proof you have that you were busy replying to other posts in those 15/16 minutes. Otherwise repent.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Personally, I believe the whole "censer" / thumiatérion discussion should be spun off into its own thread, but I've spent some time looking at the passage in Hebrews 9:4 and the aktionsart of the verb ἔχω (link) rendered 'had', and it's looking more like "kept in" or "inhabited" as opposed to "allowed inside".

The Holy of Holies had both the censer and the ark kept in it according to the author of Hebrews.

Zenn

PS: Clean out your Inbox.

Yes, the censer could have been kept in the the Holy of Holies. I have no problem with that unless someone can show otherwise from scripture.

Going to clean out the mail box.

 

[daqq]

Rhema speaks Logos. Rhema is the utterance. Rhema is the event where God breaks through and speaks to a person.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word RHEMA of God.
(Rom 10:17 KJV)

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
(Act 8:29 KJV)

This is to happen in our everyday walk - That we are to receive the Rhema of the Spirit. It's not just for special prophets and it's not just for special apostles. And this is what James was trying to say, rather than to invent yet another bead for the Rosary (James 4:15). To conclude that Rhema was only possible for those "special people" (called Apostles) and that anyone today who hears the voice of God (cf. Heb. 3:7) is to be belittled or declared that "he is besides himself" (cf Mark 3:21), is to grieve the Spirit. God will only meet your beliefs. If you don't think He'll talk to you, He won't.

But while Rhema speaks Logos, Logos comprises the principles, the teachings, the Logical content - the Idea behind what is spoken - the Pattern of the way things are to be - the Pattern of the Truth of God. And yes, certain writings may be considered a Logos, a "recording" of such Rhema.

But the problem is when the Catholic Bishop Athanasius says, "This, this specific writing, these books are the Holy Writ of Scripture and none other."

Are we to be led by a Catholic Bishop? (A very serious question.)

We are to somehow believe that God inspired this Bishop in 367 AD to list the correct books comprising New Testament scripture and yet God could not inspire that very same Bishop to correctly understand the Doctrine of how one is saved? As if God is more interested in creating Holy Writ than in saving souls?

So to answer the OP. Scripture is whatever the Holy Spirit says to you that scripture is.

Trust me, you are not the only one who gets belittled if that is what you mean. However I do see Rhema and Logos as according to how they are expounded in the scriptures, and there is a third, the Letter, which of course kills, (if one does not have the Logos, because if not then the Letter is mistaken for a carnal understanding). This sense is also used in 2Tim 3:15, ιερα γραμματα, and as you know that is "sacred letters(writings)", and thus the Letter is also holy, as Paul teaches elsewhere, (for the Torah is holy, and the commandment is righteous, and good, but the Torah(teaching) is also spiritual and supernal, Rom 7:12-14). Moreover Paul gives many, many examples of Rhema in his discourses and preaching from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and this we can know because of how Rhema is used in the Septuagint and one of the passages Lon already brought up, (Mat 4:4 quoting from Dt 8:3 (LXX)). I also have already presented an example of Rhema here in this thread: it has nothing to do with speaking in unknown tongues which no one else can understand, and for the same reason it is written that the Rhema of Elohim came to Yohanan the son of Zechariah in the wilderness, (Luke 3:2). The Rhema is the manna from the heavens: it never contradicts the Logos, for the Logos is the reasoning taken from the Letter which in turn produces new Rhema that will not contradict the Letter or the Logos-Reasoning. This is shown in the Deuteronomy passage which is quoted in Mat 4:4.

Deuteronomy 8:3 LXX Brenton Translation
3 And he afflicted thee and straitened thee with hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thy fathers knew not; that he might teach thee that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every [ρηματι - Rhema] word that proceeds out of the mouth of God shall man live.

Rhema is not only manna from above, ultimately from the Father through His Son, but moreover produced through the mouths of Messengers, (Elohim-Angels, Elohim-Prophets, Elohim-Judges, Acts 7:53 KJV, Gal 3:19, those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come, John 10:35). Now therefore, understanding these three, the Letter, the Logos, and the Rhema, Paul gives a perfectly executed exemplar for this internal process in the following passage:

1 Corinthians 9:8-11 KJV
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Paul clearly has the Logos-Reasoning of Messiah and applies it herein producing Rhema.

What is the Letter?

"You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn."

What is the Rhema? (a new fuller understanding based in the Logos-Reasoning of the Letter)

"So that the one who plows should plow in hope: and that the one who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Originally Posted by Zenn
Good people can still make bad decisions and believe things that are just plain wrong. And people can still be saved, and much of the New Testament can still be believed if Matthew and Luke strongly disagreed on the genealogy of Jesus.

What do you think the following verse is about, if not trying to deal with Black and White thinking that arose from questions about this discrepancy?

(1Ti 1:4 KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Meaning, ... there's no need to make stuff up. The genealogies differ. Period. And trying to reconcile this with fables and fake answers is detrimental to godly edifying. One should take no heed. The difference makes no difference. Accept it and move on.

So you think that was what that statement in 1Tim 1:4 was all about? disputations from the very beginning over the Matthew and Luke genealogies? That is nothing more than opinion guided by the fact that you believe your opinion about there being an error somewhere is correct. Frankly I am a little disappointed: you have part of the answer right in front of you, and even quoted it yourself, and yet do not see it. For most all intents and purposes Luke is Paul just as Mark is Peter. That should tell you something about the Luke genealogy and how it might otherwise be read. Moreover here is an example from a different text teaching the same by parable:

Mark 4:24-29 ASV
24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you; and more shall be given unto you.
25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth;
27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how.
28 The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade,^[1] then the ear,^[2] then the full grain in the ear.^[3]
29 But when the fruit is ripe, straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come.^[4]

And he said to them, Take heed how you hear what you hear: with what measure you measure out, it shall be measured unto you, and to you that hear shall more be added. For the one who retains, unto him shall be given; and the one retaining not, even what he has shall be taken from him. And he said, In the same manner is the kingdom of Elohim, as if a certain one should cast seed upon the earth, and should sleep and rise night and day, and how the seed should germinate and spring up, he knows not: for the earth brings forth fruit of herself, first the garden-courtyard of foliage, then the rising stalk, then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he dispatches the sickle, for the harvest stands ready.

Watching I was, and praying I was, and behold, a certain mighty one stood in my house: and I heard the voice of Adam in the midst the mighty on the Living River, saying, Gabriel, give this one the manna. And he opened a little scroll, and therein was the record of Boaz and Ruth, and he said to me, Thus it is recorded in the writing of Truth concerning David the king, tribe Yhudah:

1) Pharez, like a seed in the earth splitting open, breaking forth, and sprouting up:
2) And Pharez produces Hezron, the sprouting of a courtyard like a garden of foliage:
3) And Hezron produces Ram, the height of a stalk rising up toward the heavens:
4) And Ram produces Amminadab, people of a willing heart, a full head of wheat in the stalk.

And by this I began to understand genealogies . . . :chuckle:

H6557 - H6556 פרץ perets (peh'-rets) n-m
a break
{literally or figuratively}
[from H6555]
KJV: breach, breaking forth (in), X forth, gap

H2696 חצרון Chetsrown (chets-rone') n/l
1. courtyard
2. Chetsron, the name of a place in Israel
3. (also) of two Israelites
[from H2691]
KJV: Hezron

H7410 רם Ram (rawm) n/p
1. high
2. Ram, the name of an Arabian and of an Israelite
[active participle of H7311]
KJV: Ram

H5992 עמינדב `Ammiynadab (am-mee-naw-dawɓ') n/p
1. people of liberality [cf. H5068, willing (of a willing heart)]
2. Amminadab, the name of four Israelites
[from H5971 and H5068]
KJV: Amminadab

H5068 נדב nadab (naw-daɓ') v
1. to impel
2. (hence) to volunteer (as a soldier), to present spontaneously
[a primitive root]
KJV: offer freely, be (give, make, offer self) willing(-ly)

So then, in the genealogy of David, Pharez is likened to the seed of the Word which is planted in the fertile adamah-soil of the heart, as in the parable of the sower and the parable quoted above from the Gospel of Mark:

Ruth 4:18-22
18 Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez^[seed] begat Hezron,^[1]
19 And Hezron begat Ram,^[2] and Ram begat Amminadab,^[3]
20 And Amminadab begat Nahshon,^[4] and Nahshon begat Salmon,^{[1 (new generation)]}
21 And Salmon^[1] begat Boaz,^[2] and Boaz begat Obed,^[3]
22 And Obed begat Jesse,^[4] and Jesse begat David.^{[1 (new generation)]}

Did I "spiritualize" this genealogy into meaningless nothingness like your pal Cobra will no doubt believe? Perhaps not so much as Cobra will imagine, (and I am sure he and his counterparts will have a field day with my little Gabriel story, lol, but it was all in good fun), but please do note that I learned the things herein from the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel of Mark, from his parable, as quoted above. And every day the Word amazes me even more and more in one way or another: for every day it seems that the Master adds more and more in one way or another.

What you and Cobra call spiritualizing is actually Rhema based in the Logos of the Letter.

 

[daqq]

Rhema is not only manna from above, ultimately from the Father through His Son, but moreover produced through the mouths of Messengers, (Elohim-Angels, Elohim-Prophets, Elohim-Judges, Acts 7:53 KJV, Gal 3:19, those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come, John 10:35). Now therefore, understanding these three, the Letter, the Logos, and the Rhema, Paul gives a perfectly executed exemplar for this internal process in the following passage:

1 Corinthians 9:8-11 KJV
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Paul clearly has the Logos-Reasoning of Messiah and applies it herein producing Rhema.

What is the Letter?

"You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn."

What is the Rhema? (a new fuller understanding based in the Logos-Reasoning of the Letter)

"So that the one who plows should plow in hope: and that the one who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Almost forgot: 1Cor 9:11a ~ If we have sown unto you spiritual things = manna.

 

[2003cobra]

Any inerrant proof of this?

Inerrant proof?
No, people don’t write documents we can declare inerrant.

However, if you believe the canonized scriptures to be inerrant, then I have provided the inerrant proof already.

For the record, I believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary long before I became Catholic.

I moved this later point of yours higher up, so that I could add that bit of clarity, as well as address this possibility. Where is your evidence of Joseph being a widower before betrothal to Mary? This idea has no evidence in Scripture, nor outside historical sources that I know of.

Since the scriptures clearly indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, when the myth of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained some followers, this theory was developed to reconcile the scriptures to the myth (perpetuated by the 150 AD aprocyphal Protoevangelium of James).

I offered it as an option so that the perpetual virginity of Mary would not be an impasse and we could move on to other topics.

On to Perpetual Virginity:
Due to having heard these points before, I will make some assumptions. Here, you are emphasizing the phrase "no marital relations with her until she had borne a son," am I correct?

But, does that phrase mean that Joseph did have relations with her post-Jesus birth? First, let us examine this phrase. Your implication lies with the word "until." "Until" can be used to mean "leading up to the time of" without a change afterward. Consider the following passages from the Bible....
2 Samuel 6:23: "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child to the day of her death." Does this mean she had children after her death?
1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." Does this mean Timothy should stop doing these after Paul arrives?
1 Corinthians 15:25: " For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet." Does this mean that Jesus will cease to reign after He was vanquished the enemies? (Of course, we see in Luke 1:33 that "He will reign over the House of Jacob forever and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.")
Matthew 28:20: "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Does this mean that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the world?
1 Timothy 6:14: "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." Does this mean we can break commandments, after Jesus appears?
Acts 25:21: "But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept until I might send him to Caesar." Did Paul's captivity end after being sent to Caesar?

See, how "until" does not necessitate a ceasing of particular status?

We will have to disagree on the ability to read Matthew’s statement any other way than the obvious: he was a good man and she was a good woman. When such people get married, they have sex. Matthew’s saying Joseph had no marital relations with her until after Jesus was born is exceedingly clear.

Frankly, the verses and argument you put forth appear a little silly.

Again, "brother" in Hebrew can mean "close relative." How could Jesus' mother be outside, yet inside with His Disciples? Unless, perhaps some words can have multiple meanings....

(further proof of "mother" being used for two different relationships below, in point 2)

Two points here.

1.) You are relying on the words of these people, who also say that Jesus is the carpenter's son. So, if you accept their words as fact, then you must accept that Joseph is also Jesus' father. It is illogical and disingenuous to pick which parts to believe, due to their support of personal doctrine.

In the situation and the context, claiming here were not brothers and sisters lacks credibility. But you are free to hold that opinion.

2.) James' parentage is not from Joseph or Mary. There are two James' among the Apostles. One is the son of Zebedee. The other's father is Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). Here, we will get into some Greek usage to prove my point, so bear with me. John 19:25 references Jesus' mother's sister "adelphe." This "Mary" is the "wife of Clopas," and is present at the foot of the cross with Mary (Mother of Jesus), and Mary Magdalene. It is highly unlikely that there would be two uterine sisters named "Mary." This is surely an example of some other relative using the term "sister." Matthew 27:56 tells us that "Mary, the mother of James and Joseph." Nail in my coffin, right? Except that Mary, mother of Jesus, is always called "mother of Jesus" or "mother of the Lord," and would have been especially referenced in such a way in the context following her divine Son at the time of the Passion. Yet, the children of this other Mary are called "brothers" of the Lord. (Scholars agree that this Mary is not the Virgin Mary, in this passage) Thus, even more weight is added to the argument that these "brothers" were cousins, or some sort of close/extended relation, depending on how closely related Mary (mother of Jesus) and her "sister" Mary were.

There was also “James the Lord’s brother” mentioned in scripture.

Galatians 1:19 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/galatians/1-19.html
19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother

This is the James from Matthew 13. He did not believe in Jesus at first. After all, what would it take to get you to believe your brother was the Son Of God? If I recall correctly, he is also called the Lord’s brother in Eusebius. I may be able to locate that, but I will be helping with a grand baby today so time is limited.

Paul was telling the Galatians which James he met with. Not kinsman, brother.

2.) Continued....As for the two Apostles being named James, we see one is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the "brother" of Judas (Jude) according to Jude 1:1. So, the "brothers" listed were not siblings, but some sort of relative. Based entirely on Scriptural evidence.

Is there any inerrant proof of this "rewriting?" History, and scholars, agree that this is not the case.

Again, any inerrant, outside proof of this?

If you believe the Bible is inerrant, it is right there.

If not, we look at sources and weigh them. Hundreds of years after the scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to have marital relations with his wife, the Roman Catholic Church decided to declare Mary was a perpetual virgin.

But, did Jesus attend the festival? It says "he also went," but that would make more sense if He went to Judea, rather than actually going to the festival, because that would have been public, not secret.

Of course He went to the festival. Read the rest of John 7. About the middle of the festival He went up to the temple and began to teach. See Verse 14.

It says that God "dealt well." He blessed them due to their righteous fear of God combined with preventing murder, rather than blessing them for lying. This is a twisting of words, meant to imply that God blessed someone for lying. That is not the case.

It certainly appears to be the case from the text. They lied. God dealt well with them. He gave them families. Do you seriously think lying to a murderer to protect innocent people is a sin?

If so, learn from this story. And from the story of Jesus saying He was not going to the festival.

What I find interesting in this particular post, is that you argue that Scripture is errant; yet you use Scripture as proof for Jesus having brothers. If Scripture is indeed errant, then one could simply dismiss these claims of siblings as "errors." And it would stand logically to do so, if the Scriptures are errant.

I don’t recall saying scripture is errant. I have said that it is not inerrant. I have said that it has some minor, insignificant errors. I have pointed out a few. I have also said that it is reliable and valuable and authoritative.

You seem caught in the trap of “if it is not perfect it is worthless; if it is not 100% accurate then you can’t beleive anything in it.” That is not the way God has set things up. He has always used imperfect people to do His work.

It is only with an inerrant Scripture that one could infer that these brothers were indeed sibling relations. Yet, as you can see from my analysis, it is easily disproved by simple readings of the Scriptures, and basic contextual understandings of history, culture, etc.

No, we have multiple witnesses that Jesus had siblings.

So, if Scripture is errant, you cannot rely on Scripture as proofs for doctrine, because it could easily be dismissed as erroneous. See the glaring paradox present in your arguments for this particular post?

No, I see no paradox.

I rely on multiple witnesses to establish facts.

I do see the multiple paradoxes for you, however. You demand an inerrant scripture but the scripture you choose as inerrant has demonstratable errors.

Your turn — but do respond to this: Jesus did go to the festival, didn’t he?

 

[2003cobra]

My grandbaby is a little delayed in arriving, so I located something from Bishop Eusebius’s history:

“Chapter 1. The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ.

1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin[…]”

Excerpt From
The History of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-history-of-the-church/id511749440?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.


This history was written by a bishop of the church around 300 AD

And:
“But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.”

Excerpt From
The History of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-history-of-the-church/id511749440?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[Zenn]

Unbelief.

Actually, the best way to destroy faith is to redefine the word to mean something completely different.

This has actually happened with Faith. When the New Testament texts speak of pistis (faith) it has nothing to do with the way most people use this word today. Change the definition and you destroy the concept.

So today, when people speak of faith they hold in their mind the Kierkegaardian definition of faith (the "leap" of faith), not the definition of pistis as would have been understood 2000 years ago. Yet while the prevailing and overwhelming definition of faith is Kierkegaardian, I have noted from years of discourse that there are five different extant definitions of 'faith' in use today.

My point, though, is not to define faith, nor to start down a different rabbit trail about faith, but to show that the best way to destroy a concept is to redefine the word to mean something else. The definition of faith to a Catholic is markedly different than the definition of faith ascribed to by a Protestant. The word faith has been redefined.

So if one translates both Rhema and Logos as "word" then one destroys the concepts. If the "Word of God" (either one) is redefined to mean "Bible" then one destroys what the 'Word of God' truly is (either one).

Zenn

PS: Remember, the truth shall set you free.