Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

We have heard that the Bible is God's word. But the word Bible is not in the Bible, but only on the cover. But the New World Translation and surely other translations uses other names, such as The Holy Scriptures.
So, what is then the Bible? It is Holy Scriptures. And because it is Holy, it should be God's word, because what is holy originates from the Holy One, that's Jehovah God.

Today listening to apostle Pauls letter to Colossians, wich is a part from the Holy Scriptures, I heard in the end of this letter: And when this letter has been read among YOU, arrange that it also be read in the congregation of the La·o·di·ce´ans and that YOU also read the one from La·o·di·ce´a. -Colossians 4:16 (NWT)
But what was that letter? The letter to Laodicea? Well, it seems that Paul wrote a lot of letters. Apostle Peter also mentioned this: Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.- 2 Peter 3:15,16 (NWT)
Paul did write to Ephesians at least once before he wrote the letter we have in the Bible, because he says: that by way of a revelation the sacred secret was made known to me, just as I wrote previously in brief.

Were then all his letters "inspired"? And why do we not have all his letters in the Bible?
Well, Paul says: For we are those with the real circumcision, who are rendering sacred service by God’s spirit and have our boasting in Christ Jesus and do not have our confidence in the flesh, -Philipians 3:3 (NWT)
So, Paul served God with holy spirit. His service included writing letters. And while writing letters he was backed up by holy spirit. So, propably all his letters where "inspired", and therefore holy, just as he was considered holy, and just us faithful christians were concidered holy. So in a way, all his letters could be considered as holy scriptures, eventhough not all were saved in the Bible.

What about Luke? He wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts of apostles. Had he an intention to make them as a part of the Bible? No, but they where personal letters to Theophilus.
He writes: Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph´i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.-Luke 1:1-4

Here also we see that Luke was just one of many who wrote about Jesus' life. Was he then "inspired"?
Well, he rendered sacred service, like apostle Paul, backed up by God's holy spirit. Surely many other christians who also like Luke wrote about Jesus' life were backed up by holy spirit while writing.

What kind of conclusion can be made then? Well, there have been circulating many holy scriptures, written by faithful worshipers of God. If they all would be gathered together, the Bible would be much thicker. Just as before Jesus came to earth, there were a lot of prophets who prophecied a lot of things from God. But facts about them have not been saved.
It has not been necessary to save all the holy scriptures. Otherwise there would be to much of them.
But Jehovah God has saved those holy scriptures wich he has chosen and there we have them, in the Bible or if you call it The Holy Scriptures, or just Scriptures or God's word.

Brotherly Love
Jan

Hey Jan;

I think that I see where you're going with this, for it appears that you are questioning whether we shouldn't trust the leading of God's Holy Breath as much as the Bible. And this surely (like most things) isn't a new idea. There are many books representing people's personal conclusions about Bible teachings, which many others think should be added to the Bible. But if you read them, your quickly see why they shouldn't be. The Mormons, for example, would like us to put their obviously distorted ramblings right up there with the Gospels.

The one thing that has become very clear to me over the years, is that the Apostles and early disciples had much more of God's Breath than we do today. So I trust what they wrote moreso than someone's personal revelations.

We also need some sort of straight edge and something we can look to in order to have a starting point for our beliefs... and they did a pretty good job or creating one.

In my work on the Book of Luke, I did find some major contradictions to what was written in Matthew and Mark. However, these contradictions were more event related, and didn't change the fundamental teachings of the Bible. So, the writers weren't perfect -- they weren't infallible as the Society has tried to prove -- but they shared a common faith.

I am always appalled by the fact that even among our group here, working with clear scriptures, people seem to be able to come up with so many different ideas. And then we have some who like to quote their own personal ideas as being higher that the written word that we already have. And I'm sure that many do this because they believe that they have been given some personal revelation. But if their Revelations are truly inspired, then why do they contradict the personal revelations of others?

Unfortunately, people's own ideas and teachings through the centuries have resulted in changed Bible words, as well as added and changed verses, which are very hard to spot and correct today... we don't need any more of that.

In my personal opinion (for what that's worth), I think that what all Christians really need is a bit less of strong personal opinions and revelations, because we think that we are individually closer to God than all the rest, and a lot more humility. For as Jesus said, "The meek will inherit the earth."

I'm not scolding you my brother, because I have too much love and respect for for you, and your views and opinions. But while I believe that we need to keep an open mind, I think the Universalists have taken if all way too far.

I personally need that "straight edge" of faith in the Bible.

Your friend and brother,

JIM

Hi Jan:hibye:

Sorry for the delay, Warm welcome. :clap:

I think it depends on which book in the scriptures you are talking about. I believe the prophets wrote their books under Inspiration.

As regards Pauls letters, I think there is no denying that there are personal opinions and insights that that are not neccesarily (or not directly, for lack of a better term) inspired. 1 Corinthians chapter 7 comes to mind. There Paul lays out matters regarding Marriage. Now, he knew what an important issue he was dealing with. For that same reason he was careful not to confuse people when he worte issues whether he was writing by inspiration or out of his own personal insight. In verse 10 he explicitely said; "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):", while in verse 12 he was careful not to claim to be guided by the spirit."To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): "

Further down in vers 25, he was again cautious, but authoritative at the same time. "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Remember, those folks who worte down the scriptures, even when not inspired, had an indespensable insight into the deep things of God. Spiritual common sense if you will. That by itself makes everything they write incomparably valuable.

:heartbeat:

AR

Hi Jim,
Thanks for your comment to what I wrote. I understand you, that it brought a lot of questions. I just wanted to help people to understand how it can be proved that the different books in the Bible are holy, and deserve our attention. Sometimes poeple stumble and become atheists when they read the bible because it does not sound like God is personaly speaking in every part of the 66 Bible-books. So I wanted to give a logical explaination, wich can be used when we meet atheists.

I agree totally with you on that, that we need some sort of straight edge, and a starting point for our beliefs.
Like new christians in the first centry, we do well in listening to the teachings of the apostles, as it is said in Luke 2:42 (NWT): Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added. 42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to sharing [with one another], to taking of meals and to prayers.

I am happy to hear also, that you still love and respect me. I apologize that I propably stired up your feelings. I am sorry that I could not explain the matter better.

With much love
your brother Jan

Hi AlienResident,
It's encouraging to read your comment. It shows that you have read the Bible carefully, and have not stumbled that it does not always sound like God is speaking personally in His word. That Paul was wise and reasonable, reflected God's wisdom and reasonableness. He wrote:
Let YOUR reasonableness become known to all men.-Philipians 4:5 (NWT)

May God bless you
Your brother Jan