Metropolitan

So F.A..The N.T is not part of the scipture?

Greetings to you, F.A So what are known as scriptures? Only the O.T? Cause thats what Jesus and the other jews read in the temple? If so all of the O.T or some of it? Or is the entire set of 66 books in the bible are scriptures? But you have quoted a verse from the apostle John, which obviously refers to the Old Testament only! God Bless

Im still waiting for some thought-provoking scriptural responses! Atleast someone will start by telling me what exactly are sciptures? Im not a seminary student, and I have been largely doing the self study on my own! Its been a privilege for me to interact with such learned, well informed and blessed saints here in this forum! My word-study and walk with the Lord has been enriched ever since I have joined in! Thanks and God Bless!

I dont know much about the history of the acceptance and selection of the New Testament..who selected the books or how were they selected to be passed of as scriptures...I dont know if all the 27 books conformed to the 'canons', what i do know is the there were no disputes on 20 out of 27 books which included the 4 gospels and most of Pauls Epistles...I dont know how a particular letter or writing is accepted as a canonical writing, and which is not. I have some more queries(i seem to have many of them) 1) What are scriptures? ( please dont come heavily on me, as that is a honest question) 2) Jesus spoke aramaic largely, as that was the prevalent language at that time...Jesus never really wrote anything except for those few words he scriblled on the ground...None of his disciples knew Greek, and hence I believe that Jesus's discourses or teaching for them were very much in spoken Aramaic..Out of the 4 gospels, 2 were written by apostles, and the other 2 by their friends...If the new testament were written in Greek, then who interpreted for them? That means the original manuscripts shud have been in aramaic itslef(we dont anything about them) The first person to list the twenty-seven books now canonized into the New Testament was Athanasius (c. 293-373), a bishop of Alexandria. And it was not until the fifth century that disputes about what books compose the canon generally ceased. Thus it would appear that the New Testament canonization took place after the historical redemptive events and therefore should be judged as a matter of church history, not a part of the events. How do we know for sure, then that there werent any more epistles in letters which may have been lost out in the canonisation... If we can accept the letters(which again was spoken by one, and written by another), cant we for a moment think that there wud have been some other instructions which were part of the spoken word of the apostles not recorded or accpeted by the council of Athanisius?! Im pretty much a sola scriptura person(without knowing what the scriptures are), but I dont mind debating about them!

You ask a great question. The answer is that the 66 books of the Bible we now have are suffiecent but was not available yet when Paul said this. The traditions that he was talking about came by spoken word or letter. It is the letters they wrote that we now consider scripture. The word of God is enough and should be veiwed as such. Everything we hear from preachers, teachers and so on should always line up with scripture. If a tradition that has been handed down through the years does not line up with scripture, it should be counted as trash. Grace be to you , GYPC I cannot say for sure, that every thing spoken by the apostles were recorded in the bible...Just as the Gospel writers admitted that not all miracles performed by Jesus was recorded in the Gospels(which was practically not posible according to them)..So cant there be an instance where-in some of those were handed down to the early chuch leaders maybe as tradions or church constitutions? Even Paul would be pleasantly surprised by now, that most of his letters are now recorded as scriptures...But somehow, Im not convinced that those were the only ones he ever wrote or said....I guess, you see my point! Oh yes.....absolutly but whatever it is that is handed down,....... it cannot go agaisnt scripture. Again...where in Scriptura is Sola Scriptura? Whatever it is that Paul handed down...what is wrong with holding fast to it and Scripture? Grace to you, Dei! I request you to read my opening post again! I never said anything against the scriptures or anything 'written' by the apostles! I meant to query only those that has been handed down as 'apostolic traditions' inspired by the 'spoken word' of the apostles!

I never meant it to go that way, Island! PS: Neither am I a Catholic

You ask a great question. The answer is that the 66 books of the Bible we now have are suffiecent but was not available yet when Paul said this. The traditions that he was talking about came by spoken word or letter. It is the letters they wrote that we now consider scripture. The word of God is enough and should be veiwed as such. Everything we hear from preachers, teachers and so on should always line up with scripture. If a tradition that has been handed down through the years does not line up with scripture, it should be counted as trash. Grace be to you , GYPC I cannot say for sure, that every thing spoken by the apostles were recorded in the bible...Just as the Gospel writers admitted that not all miracles performed by Jesus was recorded in the Gospels(which was practically not posible according to them)..So cant there be an instance where-in some of those were handed down to the early chuch leaders maybe as tradions or church constitutions? Even Paul would be pleasantly surprised by now, that most of his letters are now recorded as scriptures...But somehow, Im not convinced that those were the only ones he ever wrote or said....I guess, you see my point!

I have been amongst those who side with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura(Scriptures alone)...But then, I dont know much when it comes to the doctrine of Sola Dei Verbum (Only the Word of God) How do we, as Christians view the 2 doctrines? Were the scriptures truly self-suffiecent? In that case, what do we really mean by apostolic traditions , that Paul talks about in 2 Thessalonians "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter". (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith...Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:7,17) How do we view the above verses? What do we mean by the "spoken Word of God"? Has anyone recorded them down? or passed on to church leaders by the early church fathers? I wish to get some clarity regarding these! God Bless!

Everything from the first worship song to the final Benediction! I just them all! But the Communion Service is something special...i can feel and sense the holiness and the serenity about the whole aspect of it!

Im just trying to look up the period during Jesus' time...The Romans were just about ruling across the continents....So it was almost practically difficult to enforce their own constitutional laws in their city of siege..Thats why the law of the land was prevalent in most of these cities, which was the case in Jerusalem as well..I can imagine the Sanhedrin to take most of the day to day administration decisions, which had only to be vetoed by the Roman Empires Governor ruling in each of these cities...Since Jesus was a jew himself, the decision to condemn him to death was purely a priority of the High Priest, the Sanhedrin and the men involved in the conspiracy..I dont see the Romans getting involved anywhere in this, untill the final moment of the execution itself..I assume the Sanhedrin was the lower court with respect to the Higher court of the Roman governor Thats why verse 11 of John 19 has a greater significance in the context of His death 11 - Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." In this case we can safely assume Jesus meant not only Judas, but the whole bunch of Caiaphas and his fellow conspirators..let us not forget that it was the Jewish officials who arrested him first and taken to Annas the father in law of Caiaphas (verses 12-14) let us also not forget, that the first one to strike Jesus on the face was a jewish official in the presence of the high priest verse 22 - When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him on the face."Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded Let us also look at Mathew 27: 62- 65 The jews wanted to secure the tomb of jesus, which they did after convincing the Romans Now let us read Matt 28 The guards were witness to the incident of the angel of the Lord coming rolling back the stone verse 4: The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men But they were made to tell something else not by the Romans by the Jews themselves(the Governor was not even aware of this second controversy) look at verse 13: telling them,"you are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep" The point Im trying to make is that, the entire cosnpiracy leading to the death of our Lord and the purported rumours about his glorious resurrection was hatched by the jews alone...And so nobody was more guilty of his murder than they themselves...the gentiles were only 'used ' in this purpose

Peace and Grace be to you too, Dave! I agree with you absolutely on the Pilate chapter...there is no way he can absolve himself of his guilt, inspite of hearing the truth from our Lord! About the Jews, I should have made myself clear...About Matt 27: 19, I was only referring to the people who conspired against Jesus...By that I mean, the High priests , Caiaphas, and his band of corties, and the Sanhedrin! While I m pretty sure, that there would have been numerous other 'Jews' who were not part of this mob, and remained fairly neutral to all this commotion at the same time...Im not talking about them! I would like to know about the 'mob' who were present outside Pilate's chamber who were baying for Jesus' blood! You mean to say, even these people are not guilty? That the blood of Jesus would never be on them or their children who still are following their old customs and law, and do not acknowledge that Jesus was Christ indeed? If so , I would like to know the reason!

Mathew 27:24 - When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting , he took water and washed his hands in fron of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said, "It is your responsibility!" Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea at the time when Jesus was arrested...He was the only person who had the authority to condemn Jesus to death...Pilate asked Jesus to defend himself, but Jesus did not say a word...Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent , but he was afraid of the people and did not have the courage to release his prisoner...he allowed Jesus to be crucified and acted as though he had nothing to do with the decision Lets read an earlier verse in the same chapter to see where his real influence came from verse 19- When pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for i have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." I wonder what the dream was...But was Pilate really innocent of the blood of Jesus Christ? And whats the implication of verse 25 - All the people answered , "Let his blood be on us and our children!" Will the blood of Jesus be ever washed away from their descedents?

Here's another one... John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." It sounds like Jesus is saying he came because God wanted him to.... not of himself. He is saying he came FROM God not that he is God. He is making a distinction between God and himself. The Persons of the Trinity share the same will. They are eternally and perfectly submitted, one to the other. Jesus, in His humanity chose to become obedient to the Father. In the context of that relationship (that of only Son, eternally begotten of the Father), Jesus models the perfect response of the sons of God to their Father...that of obedience. Yes, Jesus "wanted to " do the Father's will. When He emptied Himself (Phil 2:7), He laid aside His Divinity and chose to obey the Father. Jesus still maintains His Divine nature, but chooses to subject Himself to the limitations of His humanity. That's the best I can explain it, as I gotta leave soon. Maybe others here could do a better job. Peace, Fiosh A good way to start is by reading John chapters 8,9 and 10..It gives us a lot of clarity regarding our doubts Look at John Chap 10 :30 I and the Father are one Isnt this conclusive enough? verse 36 : what about the one who the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuses me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God's Son?" Jesus is indeed God! I will indeed praise Him, worship Him and bow down before Him...i have no doubt in my mind! Praise you Jesus Oh, Im so in love with Him!

Yes and Yes! Apart from John 8:58, I would also like to quote the following verses John Chapter 9 we read Jesus healing the man who was born blind and the subsequent investigation of the pharisees into the miracle-incident...Here we read the testifying faith of the blind man! It really lifted me up 35- Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said , "Do you, believe in the Son of Man?" 36- "Who is he , sir?", the man asked."Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37- Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38- Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him This man who was born blind literally, had his eyes opened in every true sense..Hallelujiah!

I liked reading it, and how i wished I could simply find a church like that! Having said that, Constitutions of churches are almost the same everywhere, and so are the people who attend them...I believe that God plants us in a particular church, for a purpose..And when its time to move on, He will guide us through!Im staying in a country where we are not allowed to have our own structure for the church...Even with these limiting factors, we are able to meet, fellowship and glorify our God in a not so friendly environment...This in itself is a blessing for us...What more can I say! But our God has no limitations...and He will see to it, that we dont have any, when praising Him!Halleluijah

Ok, lets suppose that there were some transgressions that the priests wudnt want to forgive....Because the verse also gives the provision to not to forgive the sins as well...Who will justify the clergyman's action? For all you know, the sinner might be transformed, and repentant!

Spiritually our local church symbolises the temple of Jerusalem...But then, if you truly follow that custom, then we got to keep all traditions and customs of our spiritual church...Which includes all the biblical festivals, and the related customs...If we are only taking the tithing customs and ignoring the rest, then in my opinion , we need to rethink about that! The local church is imp in todays context, because we are worried about the baptism, burial ground,marriage records, etc...I find it increasingly frustrating about these practices...I remember one time during a marriage ceremony, our local priest then, refused to conduct the ceremony untill he verified our church membership accounts, and all the related records...The same goes for the burial ground as well!

I think these are symbolic penances. Sometimes priests are more creative. The Hail Mary prayer is based on scripture, and of course the Our Father is the holiest prayer for Christians. I think, you may have not understood my query correctly...While I am aware about the prayers, what I wanted to know is whether the reciting of these prayers as a penance is scriptural...like reciting these prayers for 10 or 50 times as demanded by the priests? Here is scripture that supports penance: Luke 13: 1-5 1 And there were present, at that very time, some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things? 3 No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and slew them: think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. KD...I dont know which version of the bible you have quoted ...But both the KJV and the NIV says it is 'repent' and not 'penance' as quoted by you..Here is the verse in NIV Luk 13: 3 " I tell you no, But unless you repent, you too will all perish." where does it say to do penance or confess to a priest, and he will forgive your sins?? I dont know if its blasphemy or not, but surely, Horizon has a point!

On another day, I would have said, male ofcourse..whats the doubt But then, its not as simple as I think it is...And still, I believe that when God deals with us, He comes down to our level, and relates to us just the way we would like think about Him...With such an argument, I think God has made it sufficiently known to us, that He resembles to the male gender! The scriptures also tells us that God has/displays human emotions like anger, love, revenge etc, so even though God is spirit, He has indeed human attributes...I would love to think of him as my 'Father' in heaven

I think these are symbolic penances. Sometimes priests are more creative. The Hail Mary prayer is based on scripture, and of course the Our Father is the holiest prayer for Christians. I think, you may have not understood my query correctly...While I am aware about the prayers, what I wanted to know is whether the reciting of these prayers as a penance is scriptural...like reciting these prayers for 10 or 50 times as demanded by the priests?

And so how about the penance? Is reciting the prayers like "Our Father" or "Hail Mary" is considered to be a penance?If so, is this scriptural?

Thaddaeus, I see your point...Some churches dont have the confessions with a one-on-one with the priest, but they recite a set prayer, which the congregation says after the priest, just before the communion call...But again, I think untill we specifically confess our guilt, it may not be all that an effective confession! But did Jesus, actually give the apostles the power to forgive sins?

John 20 : 23 says " If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven, if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" From this verse it is quite clear that Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive the sins of others James 5 : 16 says " Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed .The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" I have not always agreed to the Catholic ritual of confessing their sins in front of their priests, as I believe that only God has the power to forgive us our sins...And I also do not believe that the so called 'successors of the apostles' in this case the priests , has the authority to forgive our sins...I feel the above passages have been wrongly interpreted by the RC church to defend their ministerial duties, as I believe the power to absolve sins comes from God and God ONLY! I wish to get some more insight into these, from my brethren in this forum! In Christ Jesus

I believe that abstinence is always better than moderation...One glass leads to another one, then another and so on! Everybody starts with a just a glass of alcohol, and nobody downs a bottle at the first instant...They gradually increment their glasses from there on! So it is indeed the wines fault and not ours Wedding at Cana, does give us an indication, that men indulged in wine in those days, and which may have been perfecty alright, then...I dont know how to proceed from here, cause I then wud end up contradicting myself Axxman, I want to agree with you, but I wud be a hypocrite, if i said that you are practically in-correct I still find it a lil un-biblical if I were to advocate 'moderation in wine is allowed' though