jesus knows no bible

[kidcanman]

There is none. That is the answer. I apologise, I believed people has already addressed this.

if there is no evidence to claim that it is, then the NT is not the inspired word of god. jesus did not sanction it. and it is not be considered "devine" guidance in the sense that god definitly approves of it.

 

[Supreme]

if there is no evidence to claim that it is, then the NT is not the inspired word of god. jesus did not sanction it. and it is not be considered "devine" guidance in the sense that god definitly approves of it.

Fair enough.

 

[Seeker1066]

deciding the cannon means deciding which books are to be included.

where did peter, or the pope, or the church claim to have the devine authority to make this decision.

i take it that you are saying that st peter prophecied this decision seeing as how he too died hundreds of years before the new testament was completed.

were did peter claim to be a prophet.

you say that the pope and peter, the head of the church ( i.e. a group of men), made the decision.
were does jesus say (implicitly or explicitly) that his followers, "the church", have the authority to write scripture or to say that certain writings are from god. where does god give the church this authority.

The Church is not a group of men. It was founded by Christ upon the confession of St. Peter the first pope.

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are (T)the Christ, (U)the Son of (V)the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, (W)Simon Barjona, because (X)flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are (Y)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (Z)Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you (AA)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (AB)whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Here you see Jesus founds the Church and that Saint Peter has the power of the keys of Heaven to Bind and Loose here on earth and in Heaven.

 

[Seeker1066]

i pose the same question that i posed from the beginning. give 1 single scriptual or historical evidence of the church or the bible claiming to have devine insperation. if there is none then simply state that.

so far you have purposefully, or inadvertantly, stated examples that are not historical or scriptual evidence of devine authority. and i had to show you how you have not addressed the question.

bring 1 concrete example and that will not lead to further questioning.

Here from the Ecuminical Council of Trent.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

 

[Seeker1066]

if there is no evidence to claim that it is, then the NT is not the inspired word of god. jesus did not sanction it. and it is not be considered "devine" guidance in the sense that god definitly approves of it.

I have answer this in other posts. Jesus himself gave the the Church supreme authority to bind and loose. Anyone familiar with the old testament use of Keys of Authority cannot deny that Christ has transferred his authority.

 

[kidcanman]

The Church is not a group of men. It was founded by Christ upon the confession of St. Peter the first pope.

that does not mean it was founded upon st. peter. it means the church was founded by jesus upon st. peter's confession; i.e. st. peter's statement (you are christ son of the living god). which means the church was founded upon the statement, "you are christ, son of the living god". that has nothing to do with st. peter, and everything to do with the statement. Nor does this mean that the people who are part of the church are more than a group of men.

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are (T)the Christ, (U)the Son of (V)the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, (W)Simon Barjona, because (X)flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are (Y)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (Z)Hades will not overpower it.

its clear that when jesus says, "and upon this rock", he is refering to peter's statement, "you are christ...". because it is the statement that they were talking about. first jesus affirmed peter's statement. and then he said, "you are peter, and upon this rock (i.e. the statement that i was just affirming) i will build my church".

19"I will give you (AA)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (AB)whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." [/U][/B]

Here you see Jesus founds the Church and that Saint Peter has the power of the keys of Heaven to Bind and Loose here on earth and in Heaven.

you infer from this statement that jesus gave peter a power of the keys.

i infer from this statement that when jesus says, "i will give you...",
he is simply stating that if you follow me (i.e. whoever follows jesus)then you will receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
the latter part of the statement is simply a lesson. whatever a person binds on earth that shall have been bound in heaven. i.e. faith and deeds.

i dont see how this could difinitively mean that jesus is saying, "peter now you can speak for god or now you have godly authority to make decisions". especially since in the same chapter of the bible JUST A FEW SENTENCES DOWN peter rebuked jesus and jesus turned and said unto peter GET THE BEHIND ME SATAN. now does that sound like the desicion of somebody who is making godly desicions? rebuking jesus?

if you have an example of where PETER STATED that jesus gave him a power then that's different. or like in this statement jesus says, "i will give you the keys". do you have an example where jesus says, "peter now has the keys".

 

[Grace Seeker]

when some christians say "gospel" they mean the sanctioned words of god.

Does it surprise you that some Christians are misinformed as to that word's meaning as well?

im not taking issue with this definition. are the writings inspired by god. or are they god's words? and by what authority.

You'll get a different answer from each person you ask -- generally depending on where they fall on the liberal to conservative spectrum.

My own view is that the individual writers are inspired (by the presence of God's Holy Spirit in their lives) and they write out of that inspiration. Then the Church (which is also gifted by the Holy Spirit for discernment) determines through its collective voice that which is or is not willing to recognize as being worthy of being called scripture and that which is simply other writings (or in some cases even rejected writings).

 

[Grace Seeker]

The fathers were men not gods; nor prophets. Therefore the criteria they followed is a result of mortal reasoning. there is no basis to consider this criteria or the product of it devine so far as you said.

Discernment is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit. This would mean that the Church could under its own collective inspiration observe that a very human and non-inspired person might have said something that is still God's word for us.

For example there is the story of Gamaliel speaking as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin with regard to treatment of the apostles-- "I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39).

I doubt that Gamaliel was aware of the prophetic nature of his statement at the time, but the Church has preserved his words because it has discerned them to be God's word for the Church.

In other words, one does not have to have the office of a prophet to be one who might at least temporarily have the gift of prophecy and speak forth on behalf of God. The Holy Spirit moves in many different ways among different people to communicate God's message to us in a whole host of different formats. In the end, we believe that it is the work of the Holy Spirit moving in and among his people to help the Church discern the relative value of different messages that confirms whether something was to be part of our scriptures or not. For instance, two of Paul's letters to the church of Corinth were preserved and an apparent third letter was not. We trust this to be the work of the Holy Spirit to preserve some but not all of Paul's letters and that the Church led by this same Spirit discerned that those we did have were worthy of being part of scripture, while the letters of Clement (though considered for a time) ultimately were not.

 

[Grace Seeker]

st peter did not determine the current cannon unless he did so by prophecy.
regardless of when the scriptures were written, it was later church leaders that decided which ones are devine and should be included.

What you previously said was:

Originally Posted by kidcanman
i take it that you are saying that st peter prophecied this decision seeing as how he too died hundreds of years before the new testament was completed.

When the NT was completed is prior to 100 AD. There is nothing that is in the NT today that was written later than that. When it became a composite entity was later. I've read enough of your material to see now that you do understand these things and we've just not been clear with one another.

To my way of thinking, if your statement is to be true that the NT wasn't completed until several hundred years after Peter's death because it wasn't put together in the form it now has until later, then we would have to say the same thing of the Old Testament, as the list of books which are to be considered canonical for it was not formulated till later either. Indeed the explicit definition for the canon of the Old Testament used by the Catholic Church was given at the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. I don't really think you are wanting to argue that the Old Testament wasn't "completed" till 1546. And that's why I argue that it is incorrect (perhaps a better word than "untrue" since you weren't trying to convey a falsehood) to say that the NT wasn't completed until hundreds of years after Peter.

 

[kidcanman]

Here from the Ecuminical Council of Trent.

this is a claim, from the church, of authority to make devine desicions.
in many places of this document the council claims that the gospels are inspired but of course many christians make that claim.

my concern remains the same: where do christians, that is the council, get the devine authority to make that claim.

in this document i noticed 2 places in which the council cites where they get the devine authority to claim that the gospels are inspired.

"the synod of trent, lawfully assembled in the holy ghost"

"the holy ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted hand to hand"

in the statements where the council cites how they have devine authority to make these decisions, there is no mention of where scripture, or jesus, or st peter gives them that authority. or how they can interprit through "a devine source", that such authority is given to them. and really thats the kind of information that such a claim requires.

this document, assembled 500 years after peter, basically states, "we have devine authority because we've always said we do".
this is a claim without any evidence

so what i've infered from this? not only do christians claim, without any devine authority, that the NT is the inspired word of god. but the catholic church claims to have devine authority without any devine authority.

 

[kidcanman]

I have answer this in other posts. Jesus himself gave the the Church supreme authority to bind and loose. Anyone familiar with the old testament use of Keys of Authority cannot deny that Christ has transferred his authority.

you interprit the quote were jesus tells peter, i will give you the keys to heaven, as jesus giving the church, through peter, sepreme authority. i addressed this passage of scripture a couple of post prior as im sure you noticed.

however just to futher clarify Peter never claimed to have any special power from jesus. nor did peter claim that his church has that power. nor did peter claim that he is passing that power on to anybody.

in addition the old testament message is similar to matthew 16. the keys that god gives eliakim are the reward for his faith. then god blesses him so that whatever eliakim opens (the blessings from his faith and good deeds) no one can shut (because god will not allow it to shut).

i think thats the old testament verse you are refering to.

 

[Seeker1066]

this is a claim, from the church, of authority to make devine desicions.
in many places of this document the council claims that the gospels are inspired but of course many christians make that claim.

my concern remains the same: where do christians, that is the council, get the devine authority to make that claim.

in this document i noticed 2 places in which the council cites where they get the devine authority to claim that the gospels are inspired.




in the statements where the council cites how they have devine authority to make these decisions, there is no mention of where scripture, or jesus, or st peter gives them that authority. or how they can interprit through "a devine source", that such authority is given to them. and really thats the kind of information that such a claim requires.

this document, assembled 500 years after peter, basically states, "we have devine authority because we've always said we do".
this is a claim without any evidence

so what i've infered from this? not only do christians claim, without any devine authority, that the NT is the inspired word of god. but the catholic church claims to have devine authority without any devine authority.

Honestly I don't have the energy to debate Christian Theology on a forum I came to in order to learn about Islam. So we will simply agree to disagree and I wish you Peace.

 

[yuksel]

I want to ask a questions for abaut gospels!!!

The mathew and Lucas explain Jesus's family...

But those are very very diffrence...

Which one is correct???

 

[asadsami]

asalam o alaikum brother,,, the founder of Christianity was not so called "JESUS(pbuh)" but it was mainly SAINT PAUL... there is something in the bible called "RED LETTER BIBLE" which christians themselves claims that whatever is in red ink in the bible are the words uttered by Jesus(pbuh) himself and if u see or read the 27 books in the new testament there is only 20% or less verses written in red ink.... which means only 20% of what Jesus(pbuh) had spoken is kept preserved!!! but what about remaining 80% of the new testament???? who have written or collected them???? probably historians!!!! BIBLE CANNOT BE A WORD OF GOD!!! ITS NOT EVEN A WORD OF JESUS(PBUH) WHOLLY!!! so actually people have written the bible!!!!

 

[yuksel]

I agree your thought...

but ,I wondering christians thougt...

 

[Grace Seeker]

asalam o alaikum brother,,, the founder of Christianity was not so called "JESUS(pbuh)" but it was mainly SAINT PAUL... there is something in the bible called "RED LETTER BIBLE" which christians themselves claims that whatever is in red ink in the bible are the words uttered by Jesus(pbuh) himself and if u see or read the 27 books in the new testament there is only 20% or less verses written in red ink.... which means only 20% of what Jesus(pbuh) had spoken is kept preserved!!! but what about remaining 80% of the new testament???? who have written or collected them???? probably historians!!!! BIBLE CANNOT BE A WORD OF GOD!!! ITS NOT EVEN A WORD OF JESUS(PBUH) WHOLLY!!! so actually people have written the bible!!!!

First off, I want to show you that you are not as logical as you think you are. You said:

only 20% of what Jesus(pbuh) had spoken is kept preserved

If this is true, then add up all of the verses that are preserved, multiply by 5 and you have the total amount of all that Jesus ever said. Maybe that is not what you mean, but it is what you wrote. And no one makes such a claim. What we have in the scriptures is indeed just a very small portion of all that Jesus ever spoke. That only 20% of the verses in the NT are reported to be Jesus' words is not the same as saying that one has just 20% of what Jesus ever spoke. As a logic problem, knowing one fact tells you absolutely nothing about the other.

Secondly, the practice of some Bible publishers to print "red-lettered" editions of the Bible with the words of Jesus in red is just a marketing tool. It does make it easier to find what are reported to be Jesus' words for those for whom such a thing is important. Of course, the use of quotation marks is just as effective for those who don't need things highlighted for them. But more importantly, understand that those are just the publisher's opinion about what are and are not Jesus' words. The NT text itself had no red-highlighting of Jesus' words when originally written; they didn't even use quotation marks. And so there are many passages where an educated guess has to be made whether what is in the text are the words of Jesus or of the gospel writer adding his own commentary regarding the scene. The most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, is an example of one such passage where based on the original text itself there is no way to know for certain whether Jesus himself said "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life," or if that is John's writing making further comment on the discussion that Jesus has been having with Nicodemus. My Bible has John 3:10-21 as Jesus speaking, but it could be that Jesus concluded his remarks in verse 12 and where the language switches from 1st person to 3rd person is not Jesus speaking, but John reflecting. There is no way to tell today.

All of that is to say that the actual words of Jesus that we have are probably an even smaller portion of the NT than you perceive. But just as you erred in your previous logic, so to you have erred in the significance of that information.

What makes a person the founder of something is NOT the amount of verbage that he employs, but the degree of influence they have. Certainly Paul has been one of the key influences of Christianity, no denying that, but he simply is not a greater influence than Jesus. Even listen to what Paul had to say about what was the central influences on his life and they are his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road which reordered his life from a persecuter of the Church to a missionary on behalf of Jesus. And the message that he delivered was one that focused on the cross as central. Now I know that Muslims don't believe this event ever even occured, and so you want to lay it at the feet of Paul. But Paul didn't preach that first. It was preached before him by Peter, John, Phillip and the other disciples. It was the message of Stephen whom Paul had put to death. It was the central rallying cry of the church long before Paul ever shows his face on the scence. So, while Paul took this message more effective and to a broader group of people than anyone else in Christian history, the founder of Christianity, in the words of Paul, "the chief cornerstone" is Jesus. As Paul himself reported,

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:10-11)

There Paul takes credit for laying the foundation of the Christian faith in the lives of the Corinthian church (which supports your idea), but immediately he emphasizes that no one can really lay a foundation other than that which already exists -- Jesus.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:19-21)

This time the foundation is laid by many, but again it all built up from Jesus who also holds it all together.

Take out the early kerygma preaching of Peter and the other discples and remove the work of Christ from the cross from the story, and Paul's message become meaningless. Without Paul the specific form of Christianity that emerged would have no doubt been different (just as it would have been different without Peter, John, Philip, Stephen, Barnabas, Priscilla or Eunice). But Christianity would still have existed. Without Jesus, there is no Christianity at all. Given that it is meaningless to say that Paul is the founder of Christianity.


Now as to your final comments:

BIBLE CANNOT BE A WORD OF GOD!!! ITS NOT EVEN A WORD OF JESUS(PBUH) WHOLLY!!! so actually people have written the bible!!!!

You make a connection between the two that simply isn't so. You are correct in saying that the Bible isn't a word of Jesus wholly -- at least if by that you mean that it neither contains the whole of what Jesus said nor is wholly the work of Jesus. But then it never claims to be, nor does it need to be to be the word of God.

A question for you: Is the Qur'an a word of Jesus? I'm going to assume you answered no.

Second question: Is the Qur'a a word of God? I'm going to assume that you see is as not only a word of God, but indeed God's very words recited to Muhammad.

Conclusion: Even you recognize that something need not be the word of Jesus to qualify as the word of God.

Why is this so? Well, because you would assert that God spoke to Muhammad (though it would be more correct to say that Muhammad got it second hand via Jibreel) who then recited it for others to write down. So, the Qur'an is a third-hand account of God's words. That it is third-hand doesn't bother you for you believe that even third-hand it still accurately preserves the word of God. But still this shows that even in the case of the Qur'an it doesn't require that God, his messenger (Jibreel), his prophet (Muhammad) record the message, others can do so and it is doesn't lose it's integrity. We Christians would hold that God spoke through not just one person (Jesus), but through many who related not only his words, but also his life as well. For just as you look to more than just the words that Muhammad recited, but to his life and consider the Hadith of the prophet to be scripture as well, so do we Christians consider the life and work of Jesus to be every bit as much a part of his message as his actual words. Further, we don't hold that Jesus alone speaks God's message to us, but that as Jesus promised his Holy Spirit speaks to us through the lives of ordinary men (and women, too, if you look at the Old Testament) and that their stories are a part of God's message to us as well.

So, the Word of God is much more than just the words of Jesus. It is Jesus' life, his actions, his very being and it is the story of many others who are also instruments in the hands of God for the telling of God's story and its application to our lives.

Yes, people wrote the Bible and we consider that a good thing.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I want to ask a questions for abaut gospels!!!

The mathew and Lucas explain Jesus's family...

But those are very very diffrence...

Which one is correct???

Would you believe both and neither?


Seriously. You will get both answers from Christians depending on who you ask. Many liberal theologians simply discount the first few chapters of both Matthew and Luke as nothing more than storytelling. The more traditional view is that Matthew and Luke are telling two different branches of Jesus' linage -- Matthew tracing back through Mary's side and Luke through Joseph's side -- which are both descended from David.

 

[kidcanman]

Discernment is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit. This would mean that the Church could under its own collective inspiration observe that a very human and non-inspired person might have said something that is still God's word for us.

i will not dispute the scriptual idea that followers of jesus are somehow touched by a holy spirit which then makes there judgement more in line with god's judgement.

but being touched by the holy spirty does not mean that your judgement can no longer be influenced by the devil; or that your wisdom is now perfect or on the level of god or jesus.

do you know of a verse that implies that those touched by the holy spirit have perfectly inspired judgement?
that's what discernment means.

i have not read in scripture the WORD, OR IDEA of "discernment". nor of it being applied to the church, or to christians in general.

the church can view a writing and then, because it is touched by a holy spirit, make the judgement that the writing SEEMS to be something that god would say.

but it does not have the devine authority, nor the perfect judgement required in order to take writings, never before mentioned or seen by jesus, and state that these are definitly words inspired by god.

were is it implied that the devil will no longer influence the judgement of the church.

where is it implied that the church has a power of "discernment".

 

[kidcanman]

I don't really think you are wanting to argue that the Old Testament wasn't "completed" till 1546. And that's why I argue that it is incorrect (perhaps a better word than "untrue" since you weren't trying to convey a falsehood) to say that the NT wasn't completed until hundreds of years after Peter.

by completed i mean composite entity. and your right both the NT, and the OT were cannonized by men.

jesus referenced, according to the NT, some (i dont think he referenced all) of the writings in the OT. and so one can argue that they are inspired by god.

though the writings of the NT can bee seen as true accounts of history due to witnesses. neither jesus, nor peter, nor scripture, referes to them as inspired at all. and so it is not safe to assume that they are.

 

[kidcanman]

Honestly I don't have the energy to debate Christian Theology

My original post is a refutation of an important idea in contemporary christian theology.

You have been engaged in debating christian theology from the moment you participated.

i refuted the evidence you provided. if my refutation is inadequate then prove it.

you posted earlier:

I have answered this in other posts

i assume you provided me with that answer and i have refuted it.

i think you dont have the evidence to show how christians have the authority to claim that the NT is inspired. perhaps you don't have the energy to LOOK for evidence.

I came in order to learn about Islam. So we will simply agree to disagree and I wish you Peace.

this is the comparative religion section. and this thread is not about islam.

jesus does not reference the new testament. the scriptures do not reference the new testament. st peter never claimed to have the power of decernment. and the church does not have any devine authority to claim to have that power.

christians have no right to claim that the bible is inspired