The Pope's Decree

This is true - many an RC authority in the dark ages had scripture "all to themselves" and still persecuted the saints.

As Christ said to the Jewish leaders in Mark 7 - they were swapping out the real intent of scripture for "the doctrines of men" at a time when Jews had access to scripture but could still be duped by influential leaders.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Absolutely, the Jews are the primary example of groups who had the Scriptures, studied the Scriptures and were blind to the life giving revelation within them.

I'm glad we have something to agree upon.

 

indeed we agree. It does very little good to study the Bible without having a living relationship with the "God of the Bible".

Jesus said "I AM the way the TRUTH and the life" -- To acquire a "Love of the Truth" is to Love Christ - and HIS WORD for it speaks of Christ and through it - the Spirit of Christ speaks to us.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bounds -- (Or shall I just call you E. M?) Though you have some differences with DHK - you have got him to defend ALL 66 as inspiried and "instructive" even to the point of saying "nothing more - NOTHING LESS".

I have not been able to get him to do that in all this time!

I applaud your work sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You argued against using acts in the discussion on Gifts of the Spirit.

you argued against using the OT when discussing Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation.

hmmm. Let me see - what else....

in any case - I am just glad to see you finally adding the "NOTHING LESS" statement to your affirmation of 2Tim 3:16.

Well done!

 

Theology... is the Study of God. Understanding the proper meaning of such study would indeed apply to a theological definition of 'inspiration' as it is historically used in said study.

You are 'artificially' narrowing the use of this term to 'only' describe divine influence on the minds of the authors of Scripture. Your example of Shakespeare neglects the adjective "divine" to properly define the 'kind' of inspiration of which I am speaking.

Any external influence by God can and is properly understood as 'divine inspiration'. Although I have no problem with the use of illumination I see on grounds to limit the term inspiration as you attempt to do. I didn't define the terms I merely use them properly.

When truth is spoken, it is the truth. When the words of God are affirmed, such affirmation can and is properly understood to be divinely inspired as the proper possession of God Himself. We can and do participate in the Godhead. It is our inherence as 'adopted' Children of God.

If an external influence is exercised on an individual, it is normative to affirm that they are in a state of 'inspiration' (i.e. in the spirit). Again your own hermeneutic is coloring what you deem as a proper use of a defined term which I have already proven can be properly used outside your limited interpretation of it's proper usage.

Because it is part of the 'context' necessary to understand the 'subject' of the later verses of which you quote.

Within the blinders of your own hermeneutic perhaps but as I've stated you and your hermeneutic is 'artificially' narrowing the proper meaning of the term 'inspiration'.

And I would go so far as to say that everyone who thinks they are interpreting Scripture properly, are not. 'Claiming the Spirit' does not insure one's interpretation as 'authoritative'.

Read John 14:15-31 and 15:1-17...

You'll find within the passages greater 'conditionals' them simply 'belief'. Claiming 'belief' does not insure one's 'election', nor one's interpretation as 'authoritative'. You are basing your entire faith on unsubstantiated claims. Our Lord said "we will know them by their fruit" not "by their claims".

Our Lord and Saviour also affirmed other 'conditionals' which your use of this one verse fails to recognize. I can only assume that this then is only a 'half-truth' as the whole truth is not present.

What other 'conditionals' do we find within the pages of Scripture?

 

Actually THIS is your quote

And I can see me holding you to that (linking to this thread and pointing out that you said it) even as you claim to reject the doctrine found in Leviticus or Isaiah 66 or Gen 2 or Mark 2:27 etc

Kind of a bold way to condemn Mary, Elizabeth, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters AND ALL of the "EACH ONE" in 1Cor 14 that has either a "revelation, teaching, tongue" and the "TO EACH ONE is given" statement in 1Cor 12 that INCLUDES the distribution of the gift of prophecy TO the church.

The argument that these people are all members of a cult - does not form a compelling argument for the objective unbiased reader (one who is not already clinging to your POV - a POV held no matter what scripture says to the contrary).

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, you gave me 'your' artificially narrow interpretation of the term 'inspiration' which frankly isn't Scriptural.

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. - Job 32:8

The word 'church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word 'ekklesia' which comes from two words 'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call.' An ekklesia or 'calling out' was not just an assembly. The words agora and paneguris as well as heorte, koinon, thiasos, sunagoge and sunago can all mean an assembly. The word ekklesia was a political term, not a religious term. Jesus was the King and the Bible used the term ekklesia for a good reason. In classical Greek "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."

In Israel the legislative assembly was originally composed of the elders of each family group. By the time of Christ it had become a body of rulers exercising authority over the people of Judea. It was a body of lawmakers who exercised authority and ran the offices of government through a vast bureaucratic system.

Since, the authority of the State in Israel was originally in the hands of the elders of each family they did not usually gather together to overthrow the corruption of government since they were the government. The heads of every household were the princes of Israel, which was a government of the people, for the people and by the people, under the God of Heaven as long as they remained faithful to Him. But once the voice of the people sought a king who appointed officers over them from the top down the need for an ekklesia steadily grew.

When the Greek city states found their governments had become too corrupt and oppressive, they would call for an ekklesia, an assembly outside the civil authority of the city. If enough people came out and refused to accept the existing centralized civil authority, that government would collapse. Non participation has been a successful and peaceful means to free mankind from oppressive civil authority throughout history.

Like the walk out strikes instituted by Gandhi in hope of freeing his people from oppression of colonization, the act of calling the people out could be a very effective method of obtaining freedom through nonviolence. Gandhi did not only encourage worker strikes but also practical methods to free society from the benefits and need of the corporate and often oppressive civil state. Moses had done the same in Egypt when he taught the people how to live without the exercising authority and benefits of the Pharaoh while still maintaining a viable, cohesive and productive society.

Jesus' procession into Jerusalem was a call for the people to stand against a corrupt oppressive government by offering them a legitimate government that operated differently than despots like Herod the Great. John the Baptist had preached the kingdom of heaven at hand,2 which was nothing less than a government operating by freewill offerings,3 voluntary charitable participation4 and the perfect law of liberty.5 Jesus preached the same method of self government and proclaimed that right for all who would remain faithful to him. It was a powerful and non violent movement of the people, by the people, and for the people to change the course of history by changing the hearts and minds of men by altering their relationship with governments like the gentiles who exercised authority.6

The use of the word Church was a poor choice in place of the Greek ekklesia but what men often mean unto evil God turns to good. That word Church has its origin in the meaning of lordship which may be accurate from a certain point of view.

The ekklesia or Church was founded and established by Jesus Christ, Yahshua, almost 2000 years ago. It was a government established by the anointed King and appointed to look after His Kingdom.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; - Luke 22:29

Jesus was recognized by the existing world government, Pontius Pilate, who nailed his official recognition of Christ's kingdom to the cross. Jesus and His little flock of followers, the called out [ekklesia], were persecuted by the apostate church of that day who abandoned the house of David proclaiming they had no king but Caesar. At Pentecost thousands of Jews and others were baptized into that government by the appointed followers of the proclaimed and recognized king. All who became members of that kingdom of Heaven were cast out7 of the existing system of benefits through the Corban of the Pharisees and began to live a new life according to the precepts of God's government, by faith hope and charity and the perfect law of liberty.

[to be continued]

 

No text in all of scripture makes that argument.

RATHER God says "IF there is a prophet among you I WILL make Myself known to them in a dream or a vision".

The Text does NOT say "IF they fail to get the revelation included in scripture then I did not speak to them".

#1. You are rationalizing. For example in the case of Gen 3 and Satan's words -- it IS DIRECT inspiration by GOD TO MOSES that gives us those facts. Hopefully we can agree on this point.

Well we agree on at least part of what you have said there.

in Christ,

Bob