Thread: A question on Christian Scripture.

Jimmy there are scriptures that deal expressly with what you are describing.

Or shall I say "what I see" in what you are describing.

Essentially what you are saying is; if these great minds, more than myself, can find unbelief then it must be so; it is untrue. And further if this great mind can believe in spite of the flaws, then it must be true. Your faith is in the reverends genius?


Everything is tangled together. As we have this discussion about how could the betrayal, crucifixion, resurrection happen without the complicity of God. If it was his plan from the beginning to offer salvation through the sacrifice of his son, then it must have been to allow evil to happen. In playing his part Judas made a sacrifice as well, submitting to the will of God; someone had to be the fall guy for the plan to unfold. The devil too must be in accord with the will of God to be the fall guy for the unfolding of reality.

What this points to is the fact, if you will allow me to use that word, the fact that there is only one reality,( one life) that is the reality of this tangled mess of illusion. The reality that we are made from the dust of the earth, the same atoms that compose stars, minerals, plants, and animals are the same elements that compose our bodies. These elements, a physicist can tell you, have more empty space than physical matter, and whats more that atoms are composed simply of vibrations of energy, more like a musical note than any thing we might describe as hard, solid matter.......(perhaps i have more to say later)

Is Lucifer, Satan the devil your adversary, your enemy? It has been said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
Loving your enemies should say to you that you have no enemies.

When Jesus talked about loving your enemy he was referring to people. Satan is not created in Gods image, Jesus did not die for his redemption. As far as Satans negative role in a positive outcome, it is because, "God causes all things to work for his glory.". Romans 8:28. A prime example of taking lemons and making lemonade. If Satan were aware of what God had in mind he would have tried a different strategy, he already knew that something was up which is why he tempted Jesus in the desert during a most difficult fast. Which is most likely why Satan planned to kill Him after Jesus' victory over temptation in the desert.

Originally Posted by kevint

Essentially what you are saying is; if these great minds, more than myself, can find unbelief then it must be so; it is untrue. And further if this great mind can believe in spite of the flaws, then it must be true. Your faith is in the reverends genius?

Everything, as you say Kevin, is tangled together. That is why it can take a lifetime of study to begin to understand the mystery and sometimes that is not enough. MLJ was a great man and a great preacher of God's word. He spent most of his 81 years on this earth studying the book to help people like me understand it. I am saying that through his good work I came to a reconciliation with my doubts. Whether your current journey is Spirit led or an intellectual exercise is beyond my expertise but your seeking through the Gita, Upanishads and Buddhist scriptures mirrors my own path to what I will call enlightenment. Keep on truckin'.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Going back to the adversary. I read early on in the path that their were contradictions in the gospels and other parts of the bible. In the nineteenth century exegesis showed that some of the books of the bible may not have been written by the authors who were credited with those books.

Then I stumbled upon the author Bart Ehrman and read a few of his books. He is a university professor in religious studies. Fluent in the original languages and a specialist in the study or the early manuscripts. He started out a born again evangelical and became an agnostic as a result of his studies.

This really shook my faith in the scriptures. I was torn between wanting to believe and not wanting to be a chump. This is not new. In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul the Apostle addresses those who were being told that there is no resurrection. He says, paraphrasing, if there is no resurrection we are among men most miserable.

Then I was in another thread on this topic some time back and I had occasion to type out a portion of the Reverend Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones introduction to his "Studies In the Sermon On the Mount." One of the best books ever on the topic by one of the greatest exegetical preachers who ever lived. It occured to me that MLJ was a genius and that he had read all of the criticism that I had and then some. Yet he could still say,"All we have is this book, it is our final authority."

Pondering that I came to a peace with myself. I realized that although their may be contradictions and textual questions the message was there and I could have faith that it was true. From that point on I have had no issues with the question. The peace that passes all understanding came to me. Jesus said that we must come as a little child and leave the skepticism behind. The adversary may be responsible for the confusion and I won't be a chump for him.

Jimmy, I don't understand what my quote has to do with yours, I also say i believe it to be truth, the above question was asking if one does not deem the scripture as true where does one go for the authority of what is true.
If i misunderstood your post forgive me.

Originally Posted by paco

Jimmy, I don't understand what my quote has to do with yours, I also say i believe it to be truth, the above question was asking if one does not deem the scripture as true where does one go for the authority of what is true.
If i misunderstood your post forgive me.

Stephen, the part I quoted;
Originally Posted by paco
If I were not to believe that scripture is not totally true how do I know what parts are or are not, what do I use as final authority?

It seemed to me that I was saying the same thing in that I accept the truth of the message of the scriptures even though there may be textual anomalies.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Stephen, the part I quoted;
Originally Posted by paco
If I were not to believe that scripture is not totally true how do I know what parts are or are not, what do I use as final authority?

It seemed to me that I was saying the same thing in that I accept the truth of the message of the scriptures even though there may be textual anomalies.

We agreed OK for some reason i thought you were understanding me to say i did not believe it

My Friend you say:

"I give Scripture the Final authority and do not question it, now i will research something that seems to be contradictory, but believing it can't be because it is of an all knowing God i must find wiser counsel to rectify this contradiction."


In the bible it says the holy spirit will lead you to understanding. Forgive me for not providing the source material for that. In what you have said, the final authority must be researched through seeking wiser council. Said like that it seems the scripture is not the final authority, but the apologetics that attempt to explain away the contradiction provide the final authority (and interpretation).

Originally Posted by kevint

My Friend you say:

"I give Scripture the Final authority and do not question it, now i will research something that seems to be contradictory, but believing it can't be because it is of an all knowing God i must find wiser counsel to rectify this contradiction."


In the bible it says the holy spirit will lead you to understanding. Forgive me for not providing the source material for that. In what you have said, the final authority must be researched through seeking wiser council. Said like that it seems the scripture is not the final authority, but the apologetics that attempt to explain away the contradiction provide the final authority (and interpretation).

What i am saying is scripture will support scripture and if i do not understand something i will go to a more informed person, [ going back to the milk-meat concern at the start], that has more meat ,[understanding than I] because yes the Holy Spirit will lead however it is said to study to show yourself approved. So i go to one who has studied more than i to seek what he has learned by the Spirit to be true.

But again i say all this talk is useless if one does not accept Jesus as Savior and God. And if he does than what Jesus [God] says is truth and He says scripture is His word so why would I doubt that since I believe?
Again i say we will not come to an agreement as long as we give authority to different sources,[ not saying we are, maybe we're just not understanding each other].

²⁰ knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, ²¹ for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

¹⁹ And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

I set things in this order hoping to show that there may be an end to the need for "prophetic word", perhaps this includes all scripture. Is it wrong to take Jesus' words out of their narrative context and accept them as they are for what they say?

The morning star is imagery from Revelations; and as I understand from replies any sort of enlightened state, state of perfection is reserved for His second coming in the accepted view of the church.

Sin is one of those words that a lot of people demonstrate an aversion for. There is a lot of "judgment" -they feel judged, condemned by those who are telling them they are sinning- Do we need to have a greater understanding of what "sin" means? The apostle did say: "all things are lawful to me" (now it may be that he was referring to the Law of Moses; but he did say All Things)

Is there a state of being; having the mind of Christ, as the scriptures say, that surrenders all things to God, so that your actions are in accord with the will of God- which would be either no sin, or anything that might be seen as sin from the outside, is not sin because it is surrendered to God?

Which is to say the Final Authority, is that witness within the individual, the awareness of God, which is the peace of God.

It is interesting that until they ate of the fruit from the tree of life Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked. So with the knowledge of sin comes the need for the fig leaf. When we think of 'sin' many of us, focus on sexual desires, covetousness and the like while most of us cannot say that we love God with all of our heart, mind and soul. Looking at a women with lust in our hearts or a man with the thought of killing him is equivalent to adultery or murder in God's eyes and I probably do both on a weekly basis..... look, not do.

BTW, when Paul the apostle said that,"all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable", he was addressing the eating of sacrificial meat IIRC. Paul was bringing the gospel to the gentiles and there was some pushback from some of the other followers of Jesus who thought that it was for Jewish people only and that the law still applied. They didn't all fully understand the 'new covenant.'

All of the epistles, and the gospels, were written to address specific people and specific theological issues that were being debated within those populations at the time. Understanding what the agenda was for a specific epistle or gospel narrative is helpful. Not that the doctrinal part doesn't apply, it does, but knowing what Paul, Luke, Peter or James were getting at in presenting it is another field of study in trying to understand it.