• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Surrendering the Faith (A Scriptural Perspective)

COTO

Panthera Uncia
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
1,541
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread is an offshoot of this thread by @EMNofSeattle. Please read the OP there for context.

You're dabbling in dangerous territory with this thread. This is not good witness, this is weaponized religion, and, ironically, provides atheists with a wonderful example of how Christianity has lost its way. Progressive churches focus on love, which is what we are called to do, and leave the judging up to God...which is also what we are called to do.
What does the Bible have to say about love:

"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him hought himself also to walk just as He walked." - 1 John 2:3-6, NKJV

"And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another. This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it." - 2 John 5-6, NKJV

Christ Jesus lived and walked by every commandment, statute, and judgment of God. That's how he walked; that's how we should walk.

What does God say about those who substitute their own ideas about love for the commandments of God:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you: depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'" - Matthew 7:21-23

Further Reading

Regarding the Commandments of God (with particular emphasis on the 7th)

By all means, pray about your concerns and frustrations, but I'm not sure how God is served by killing his brand.
This is unbelievable coming from a Christian. Your concern is that teaching what your Lord and Saviour teaches without sweetening it up for the masses is "killing his brand". God's "brand". Like He's a carnival barker trying to lure us into the Big Top?

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ’My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.’" - Isaiah 46:9-10

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed." - Malachi 3:6

"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." - Matthew 3:9

"Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." - Luke 17:9-10

"I don't change and I don't compromise on evil, but My brand is hurting in the 21st Century, so I'm A-OK with priests preaching in My name whatever damnable thing makes people happy." - Book of OlNate 1:25

I don't know what could possibly give you the impression God respects or regards even slightly what mankind considers right and wrong, or that He'd be willing to compromise on His doctrines in order to win converts, but I'm 100% dead certain it's not the Bible. God doesn't need mankind. He doesn't compromise with mankind. He doesn't expect the vast majority of mankind to obey Him or love Him in this age (see Luke 18:8 or the entire Revelation of John). His "brand" is utter perfection, offered to us as a free gift. Anyone who believes He'd deviate from perfection to gain broader appeal simply does not understand His nature. It's time for such a person to find a church that preaches the full doctrines of the Bible and nothing but the doctrines of the Bible.
 
This thread is an offshoot of this thread by @EMNofSeattle. Please read the OP there for context.


What does the Bible have to say about love:

"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him hought himself also to walk just as He walked." - 1 John 2:3-6, NKJV

"And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another. This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it." - 2 John 5-6, NKJV

Christ Jesus lived and walked by every commandment, statute, and judgment of God. That's how he walked; that's how we should walk.

What does God say about those who substitute their own ideas about love for the commandments of God:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you: depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'" - Matthew 7:21-23

Further Reading

Regarding the Commandments of God (with particular emphasis on the 7th)


This is unbelievable coming from a Christian. Your concern is that teaching what your Lord and Saviour teaches without sweetening it up for the masses is "killing his brand". God's "brand". Like He's a carnival barker trying to lure us into the Big Top?

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ’My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.’" - Isaiah 46:9-10

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed." - Malachi 3:6

"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." - Matthew 3:9

"Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." - Luke 17:9-10

"I don't change and I don't compromise on evil, but My brand is hurting in the 21st Century, so I'm A-OK with priests preaching in My name whatever damnable thing makes people happy." - Book of OlNate 1:25

I don't know what could possibly give you the impression God respects or regards even slightly what mankind considers right and wrong, or that He'd be willing to compromise on His doctrines in order to win converts, but I'm 100% dead certain it's not the Bible. God doesn't need mankind. He doesn't compromise with mankind. He doesn't expect the vast majority of mankind to obey Him or love Him in this age (see Luke 18:8 or the entire Revelation of John). His "brand" is utter perfection, offered to us as a free gift. Anyone who believes He'd deviate from perfection to gain broader appeal simply does not understand His nature. It's time for such a person to find a church that preaches the full doctrines of the Bible and nothing but the doctrines of the Bible.

Sorry, I already answered you in the forum you're quoting. I don't respond to call out threads in the main forum...dem's the rules, and all that. ;)

Anyway...looks like you're having all kinds of fun on your own here. You don't need me. :)
 
:lamo

Some people really want to be pissed.

Needless to say our theologies are not compatible. From my end, weaponizing God's word is the destruction of God's brand (it's ok, Coto, our faith can bear modern terminology), referenced in the Malachi verse you quoted.

Ah well...nice to see you're keeping the tradition of the Pharisees alive and well. You know what Christ had to say about them, right? ;) :lol:
The Pharisees were hypocrites and false teachers, "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). They'd substituted their own laws (e.g. Talmudic law) for the laws of God.

Only Christ, who'd given the Law to the Israelites, had the authority to establish the Law. His orders were clear: it was not to be added to or taken away from by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19). The Pharisees had a problem with adding to the Law. They felt they could justify themselves to God, make themselves righteous by their countless rites and rituals. 21st Century society has a problem with taking away from the Law. Twisting modern truisms about love and tolerance or Paul's writings about justification into arguments that mankind need not observe the Law. Both are serious offenses.

God's Word is what it is. Calling sin sin isn't "weaponizing" it. Yes, there are appropriate versus inappropriate times and places to admonish people, and admonition must be delivered with the right spirit and intent, but a priest upholding the doctrines of his church on the pulpit certainly qualifies as an appropriate place.
 
Sorry, I already answered you in the forum you're quoting. I don't respond to call out threads in the main forum...dem's the rules, and all that. ;)

Anyway...looks like you're having all kinds of fun on your own here. You don't need me. :)
Is there a rule against call-out threads?

The hoi polloi in the original thread suggested I move my discussion with you here.
 
Obedience to God goes hand-in-hand with faith. Thus Jesus - as the Son of God - had clearly demonstrated what obedience to the Father means. His agonizing prayer in garden just before His arrest, shows the fear that He must've felt as a man (knowing what was about to come).


Luke 22
41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.



To some of us, it is hard to imagine a God not exactly in the image that we want our God to be.
To some of us, we have a huge stumbling block when it comes to our own interpretation of love and the love of God that is written in the Scriptures.
Thus, many had decided the place of torment called Hell could not possibly be real, and that there is no such thing as eternal torment (for how can a loving God "torture" those who are not saved).

Then, to some who are what we call "progressives" or those who embrace political correctness - editing the dire warnings that have been repeatedly written throughout the Scriptures, is their way of showing what they think is, "love."
They're quick to side with those non-believers who critique the Scriptures - rebuking those believers who dare "scare" the non-believers with mentions of sins and perdition.

They seem to forget, or ignore the importance of those warnings by Christ!

We are all commissioned to spread the Gospel - but I don't think Jesus meant for us to spread a "sanitized" version of the Gospel.

Jesus Christ has been quite clear:

Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


Thus you see, without obedience - there won't be any ticket to Heaven.

We have to bow to the will of the Father!
It's also in the Lord's Prayer - which Jesus had taught to His apostles!

....Thy will be done....ON EARTH, as it is in Heaven!

Therefore we can see how terribly important it is to be obedient!


If God says "this is how it's going to be....," we should accept it without question!
You don't say...."well God, this is the 21st century now, you know......or, God - we don't want to turn off would-be believers, do we?"
 
Last edited:
How are we supposed to spread the Gospel?


Matthew 28

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”



There is more to than just saying "Here's the Good news! Jesus died for your sin. Believe."
That's just part of it. What did He command for us to do?

Obey.
 
The Pharisees were hypocrites and false teachers, "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). They'd substituted their own laws (e.g. Talmudic law) for the laws of God.

Only Christ, who'd given the Law to the Israelites, had the authority to establish the Law. His orders were clear: it was not to be added to or taken away from by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19). The Pharisees had a problem with adding to the Law. They felt they could justify themselves to God, make themselves righteous by their countless rites and rituals. 21st Century society has a problem with taking away from the Law. Twisting modern truisms about love and tolerance or Paul's writings about justification into arguments that mankind need not observe the Law. Both are serious offenses.

God's Word is what it is. Calling sin sin isn't "weaponizing" it. Yes, there are appropriate versus inappropriate times and places to admonish people, and admonition must be delivered with the right spirit and intent, but a priest upholding the doctrines of his church on the pulpit certainly qualifies as an appropriate place.

What does it mean to add or take away by men? How was more added after Duet? How is it that Revelation wasn't the last book John wrote? So, how did he add to his Book of Revelation? In the Old Testament book of Amos, chapter 3 verse 7 it says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." So, it seems that that's what happened after Duet. and after Revelation. So, why can't it happen today? As we near the millennium, that the Lord God needs to give us further light and knowledge to prepare us for the Last Days? The last days are the times of restitution of all things, as it says in the New Testament. Now, I don't think the main Commandments will change like all of a sudden Homosexual behavior is allowed. That goes contrary to the Plan of Salvation and Happiness in the Eternal Life of things. But, certainly we need direction from the Lord for our times too.
 
What does it mean to add or take away by men? How was more added after Duet? How is it that Revelation wasn't the last book John wrote?
The Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse) is John's final writing that was bound and canonized as scripture by the Apostles who were specifically charged by Christ with binding and sealing scripture (namely, James, Peter, and John). Many of the Apostles, particularly Paul, wrote epistles and other tracts that weren't included in the final compendium, and God had His reasons for so instructing their omission.

Any work that purports to be a further prophetic revelation of John after the Book of Revelation is clearly false and a heresy if the words of Revelation are to be believed. (As a Christian, it's my enduring belief that they are.) If the "book" you're referring to is simply a compendium of non-prophetic writings of John, I would more or less expect he wrote dozens or even hundreds of letters and tracts while on Patmos. Whatever extant copies of these exist, although they may be instructive, they're not to be regarded as scripture, i.e. the inspired Word of God.

So, why can't it happen today? As we near the millennium, that the Lord God needs to give us further light and knowledge to prepare us for the Last Days?
“The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16), referring to John the Baptist, who was the last prophet. After Christ's earthly ministry, he founded his Church and placed in the charge of his Apostles. Authority was given to the Church over binding and sealing the testimonies. The Apostles were given the power to effect great miracles as a sign of this authority.

You'll note that dozens of scriptures are warnings against false prophets and teachers, people with "itching ears" heaping up doctrines (2 Tim 4:2-4), and demagogues coming in Christ's name--that is, purporting to be great witnesses or prophets speaking in Christ's name. Indeed one of the most powerful messages running consistently through the New Testament is to reject novel doctrines and heretical teachings, and to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

The message is clear: Only Christ and those appointed by him have the authority to prophesy in his name, and there will be no such people subsequent to the Apostles until Christ returns. Everything we (mankind) needs from the founding of the Apostolic Church to these end times is present in the Bible. If any man tells you that he's a prophet, or that God has spoken to him in a dream, or that he's Jesus Christ himself: run (figuratively). He's at best deluded, at worst a con artist or a cult leader. Note Christ's own admonition about the end of the age: "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)

God is orderly and thorough. We don't have to guess or try to logically deduce which modern-day "prophets" are false teachers. We have scripture, and scripture is complete. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
 
The Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse) is John's final writing that was bound and canonized as scripture by the Apostles who were specifically charged by Christ with binding and sealing scripture (namely, James, Peter, and John). Many of the Apostles, particularly Paul, wrote epistles and other tracts that weren't included in the final compendium, and God had His reasons for so instructing their omission.

Any work that purports to be a further prophetic revelation of John after the Book of Revelation is clearly false and a heresy if the words of Revelation are to be believed. (As a Christian, it's my enduring belief that they are.) If the "book" you're referring to is simply a compendium of non-prophetic writings of John, I would more or less expect he wrote dozens or even hundreds of letters and tracts while on Patmos. Whatever extant copies of these exist, although they may be instructive, they're not to be regarded as scripture, i.e. the inspired Word of God.


“The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16), referring to John the Baptist, who was the last prophet. After Christ's earthly ministry, he founded his Church and placed in the charge of his Apostles. Authority was given to the Church over binding and sealing the testimonies. The Apostles were given the power to effect great miracles as a sign of this authority.

You'll note that dozens of scriptures are warnings against false prophets and teachers, people with "itching ears" heaping up doctrines (2 Tim 4:2-4), and demagogues coming in Christ's name--that is, purporting to be great witnesses or prophets speaking in Christ's name. Indeed one of the most powerful messages running consistently through the New Testament is to reject novel doctrines and heretical teachings, and to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

The message is clear: Only Christ and those appointed by him have the authority to prophesy in his name, and there will be no such people subsequent to the Apostles until Christ returns. Everything we (mankind) needs from the founding of the Apostolic Church to these end times is present in the Bible. If any man tells you that he's a prophet, or that God has spoken to him in a dream, or that he's Jesus Christ himself: run (figuratively). He's at best deluded, at worst a con artist or a cult leader. Note Christ's own admonition about the end of the age: "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)

God is orderly and thorough. We don't have to guess or try to logically deduce which modern-day "prophets" are false teachers. We have scripture, and scripture is complete. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

Okay, I admit I didn't read the whole post you wrote. You wrote: "The Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse) is John's final writing that was bound and canonized as scripture by the Apostles who were specifically charged by Christ with binding and sealing scripture (namely, James, Peter, and John). Many of the Apostles, particularly Paul, wrote epistles and other tracts that weren't included in the final compendium, and God had His reasons for so instructing their omission." - Here's a news flash for you. John was the last Apostle alive when he wrote his final books. Peter, John, Paul all of them were DEAD!!! The scriptures or writings of the Apostles weren't bound and canonized into 325 AD at the Council of Nicene. What the heck are you talking about? No! Revelation was not his last writings. He wrote John 1, 2 and 3 afterwords. Good grief!!!
 
Okay, I admit I didn't read the whole post you wrote. You wrote: "The Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse) is John's final writing that was bound and canonized as scripture by the Apostles who were specifically charged by Christ with binding and sealing scripture (namely, James, Peter, and John). Many of the Apostles, particularly Paul, wrote epistles and other tracts that weren't included in the final compendium, and God had His reasons for so instructing their omission." - Here's a news flash for you. John was the last Apostle alive when he wrote his final books. Peter, John, Paul all of them were DEAD!!! The scriptures or writings of the Apostles weren't bound and canonized into 325 AD at the Council of Nicene. What the heck are you talking about? No! Revelation was not his last writings. He wrote John 1, 2 and 3 afterwords. Good grief!!!
I didn't mean to imply he wasn't the last surviving Apostle. I'm saying that he, along with Peter and James--both long dead by that time--were the ones vested with the responsibility to canonize the New Testament.

And yes, there were several councils held in the 4th Century to sort out what ought/ought not be considered canon, but ultimately, after the dust, debate, and political machinations had settled, they simply affirmed what had already been canonized (at least initially). God wouldn't leave such a critical matter to chance, and He often works even through unconverted and deeply flawed men to accomplish His goals.

We'll have to agree to disagree on when John wrote his epistles with respect to the Book of Revelation.
 
I didn't mean to imply he wasn't the last surviving Apostle. I'm saying that he, along with Peter and James--both long dead by that time--were the ones vested with the responsibility to canonize the New Testament.

And yes, there were several councils held in the 4th Century to sort out what ought/ought not be considered canon, but ultimately, after the dust, debate, and political machinations had settled, they simply affirmed what had already been canonized (at least initially). God wouldn't leave such a critical matter to chance, and He often works even through unconverted and deeply flawed men to accomplish His goals.

We'll have to agree to disagree on when John wrote his epistles with respect to the Book of Revelation.

Maybe where John wrote Revelations in relationship to where he was when he wrote the other letters would help you. Check that out. Revelations was not the last writings of John. Just like Duet. wasn't the last writings of Moses. So, the command not to take or add was specific to the book of Duet. and the Book of Rev. and not that the NT couldn't be added or other writings of inspired persons couldn't be put together with the Bible. Ezekiel actually speaks of another writing or book added to the book of Judah. The book of Joseph through Ephraim. The word "stick" is the translation. But, understanding writing on a stick is the same as a scroll.

As to canonization, that was never an idea of the Apostles. Other Apostles wrote things and so did Mary. So did other Bishops. The concept of Canonization was Constantine's. Not the Bishops. In fact, some of those Bishops that brought in other writings were killed if Constantine and the council of Nicene didn't like it. Don't get me wrong. I think God did inspire which letters to keep and which to discard.
 
COTO: “The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16), referring to John the Baptist, who was the last prophet. After Christ's earthly ministry, he founded his Church and placed in the charge of his Apostles. Authority was given to the Church over binding and sealing the testimonies. The Apostles were given the power to effect great miracles as a sign of this authority.

Cougarbear: Who said no more prophets? The Law referred to is the Law of Moses. But, Apostles prophecy. So, they are Prophets, seers and revelators. The difference is that the Law was no longer something people were born into. It was changed to that those not born into Israel could also be brought under the new and everlasting covenant and laws of Christ. The Redeemer of Israel and Savior of all mankind. Not just those of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin. And, the Priesthood authority could be held by others that were not Levites and children of Aaron, Moses's brother. After Christ's death and Judas and other Apostles died, new Apostles were called for a while until the apostasy grew too large. But, there is no indication future prophets could not be called after the apostasy. It would be part of the 2nd coming of Christ as Christ would have to appear to someone to call a new Prophet in the last days because there would be a time of the restitution of all things spoken in the NT.

COTO: You'll note that dozens of scriptures are warnings against false prophets and teachers, people with "itching ears" heaping up doctrines (2 Tim 4:2-4), and demagogues coming in Christ's name--that is, purporting to be great witnesses or prophets speaking in Christ's name. Indeed one of the most powerful messages running consistently through the New Testament is to reject novel doctrines and heretical teachings, and to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

Cougarbear: But, that doesn't mean Christ can't still call true prophets. It's up to each person to ask the Father in the name of the Son to know if a person is a true Prophet manifested through the Holy Ghost. To gain the talent of discernment. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21). That includes re-establishing His Church on the earth which would have the necessity of Prophets and Apostles to preach and teach with authority. Priesthood authority after the orders of Melchizedek and Aaron must be re-established. Restitution of all things. Prophets, Apostles...Ephesians 4:11-12 King James Version (KJV)11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
 
COTO: The message is clear: Only Christ and those appointed by him have the authority to prophesy in his name, and there will be no such people subsequent to the Apostles until Christ returns. Everything we (mankind) needs from the founding of the Apostolic Church to these end times is present in the Bible. If any man tells you that he's a prophet, or that God has spoken to him in a dream, or that he's Jesus Christ himself: run (figuratively). He's at best deluded, at worst a con artist or a cult leader. Note Christ's own admonition about the end of the age: "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)

Cougarbear: Well, no. There are a good number of books and letters missing from the OT and NT. And, there are some errors in the writings through misinterpretations over the centuries of translation. But, again, there also can be true prophets as well. And, what about John 10:16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." The fold he is referring to is those of Judah in the land of Israel. So, what about others around the world back in those days. Like Australia or even the North and South American continents? Are they not also Christ's? Did he also call prophets and apostles for those places around the word cut off from the land of Israel? I think not! He loves all of Father's children. Why do so many Christians end up so cold to others not of their fold of Christianity. Open our hearts!

COTO: God is orderly and thorough. We don't have to guess or try to logically deduce which modern-day "prophets" are false teachers. We have scripture, and scripture is complete. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

Cougarbear: If what you say is true, why are there 20,000 Christian churches worldwide preaching different doctrine over the same verses of the Bible? The Bible is not for private interpretation as you are trying to do. It's for those who seek truth by asking the Father, in the name of the Son and listen to the still small voice of the Holy Ghost and receive knowledge. The way it should work is, read scriptures. Meditate on them. Study them. Ask questions. Listen to preachers and teachers and even those who say they are prophets or apostles. Then, pray to Heavenly Father and ask him what is true and do so in the name of Jesus Christ and it shall be given. Don't just take the writings or preachings of someone in your church leadership as gospel truth. That's why there are 20,000 Churches. And, never stop trying to learn and grow.
 
Maybe where John wrote Revelations in relationship to where he was when he wrote the other letters would help you.
We know that the Book of Revelation, John's gospel, and his three letters included in the Bible were all written in the 90's AD. We know that the Book of Revelation was written while he was on Patmos.

Anything beyond these two facts is, at best, speculation.

Not that it matters what specific order he wrote them in. When they were compiled, the Book of Revelation was placed last, with the very last verses pertaining to the completeness of scripture as a whole. This is not an oversight or a mistake.

Just like Duet. wasn't the last writings of Moses.
Moses' instruction (inspired by God) was not to add to the Law nor take away from it. The many books and testimonies of the OT follow this instruction exactly, neither adding nor taking away from the Law. The standard was unchanged until the coming of Christ, who is/was the God of the Old Testament, the One who gave the Israelites the Law, and who came in order to fulfill (that is, complete) the Law, which was in his authority to do.

Ezekiel actually speaks of another writing or book added to the book of Judah. The book of Joseph through Ephraim.
Scripture refers to certain books that aren't in the Bible, such as the Book of Jasher. These can be very useful as resources and historical references, but they not to be regarded as scriptural canon (that is: wholly God-inspired, inerrant in their original manuscripts, and required for the spiritual equipping of the saints).

As to canonization, that was never an idea of the Apostles.
This article, this article, and chapter 4 of this document--all linked to each other--may be of interest to you, particularly the first. They're too long to excerpt.
 
Who said no more prophets? The Law referred to is the Law of Moses. But, Apostles prophecy. So, they are Prophets, seers and revelators. The difference is that the Law was no longer something people were born into. It was changed to that those not born into Israel could also be brought under the new and everlasting covenant and laws of Christ. The Redeemer of Israel and Savior of all mankind. Not just those of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin.
Christ indicated there were to be no more prophets, in Luke 16:16. His Church, founded with the Apostles (meaning "ones sent forth"), were to assume the role of proclaiming his word and the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God. They were prophets in a sense, but with offices within a different governmental hierarchy, i.e. the Church. They called themselves ministers, apostles, and bondservants, and had notably different roles from the prophets of old.

I'm not sure how your statement about the Law follows from your question about the prophets.

Also, I'm compelled to point out that "Israel" and "The House of Israel" in the Bible either refer to all tribes descended from Jacob--not just Benjamin and Judah--or else to the ten tribes other than Judah and Benjamin (after the split between the nations).

After Christ's death and Judas and other Apostles died, new Apostles were called for a while until the apostasy grew too large.
It's worth mentioning that most references will only refer to "the Twelve" as "Apostles"--and up to 13 men besides who are described as "apostles" in the Bible itself.

I'll also point out that "apostasy" doesn't mean what I think you intend it to mean here. Check your terminology.

It's up to each person to ask the Father in the name of the Son to know if a person is a true Prophet manifested through the Holy Ghost. To gain the talent of discernment. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21). That includes re-establishing His Church on the earth which would have the necessity of Prophets and Apostles to preach and teach with authority. Priesthood authority after the orders of Melchizedek and Aaron must be re-established. Restitution of all things.
Christ's return to the Earth isn't a symbolic or spiritual thing. It refers to a physical world-ruling kingdom. And indeed it will lead to the restitution of all things.

Regarding asking God for advice on who is or isn't a true prophet, God has given us our answer: anyone who comes professing to have some secret, God-given knowledge or revelation is not to be trusted. The New Testament is full of warnings about departing from the "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Again, the linked article explains it, with scriptural backing, better than I can in a message board post.

God's inspired Word--scripture--is what we as Christians ought to cling to. We should not be running around looking for prophets to tell us new and wonderful things. Consider Paul's warning to Timothy about the end times: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

I'll address your remaining points later, time permitting.
 
COTO: We know that the Book of Revelation, John's gospel, and his three letters included in the Bible were all written in the 90's AD. We know that the Book of Revelation was written while he was on Patmos. Anything beyond these two facts is, at best, speculation. Not that it matters what specific order he wrote them in. When they were compiled, the Book of Revelation was placed last, with the very last verses pertaining to the completeness of scripture as a whole. This is not an oversight or a mistake.

Cougarbear: It does make a difference because Revelation 22:19 says "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy." So, the commandment refers only to the Book of Revelation. Yet, Christians have decided that the commandment is to include the entire NT and OT for that matter. So, if John 1, 2 or 3 is written after Revelation, then John would have broken the commandment as well. The first epistle John wrote was long after he left Patmos. Therefore, the commandment is only for the Book of Revelation and not the entire Bible. Same with Duet. It was a specific commandment for the Book of Duet. because that book was the entire Book of the Law of Moses. The words are interesting: ""Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2.)
"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12:32.) The spirit of the commandments is just as important as the letter of the Law. Something Israel soon forgot several times. Diminshing the commandment or law is done by rationalizing it with the traditions and customs of the land. They weren't supposed to do that like we aren't today.

COTO: Scripture refers to certain books that aren't in the Bible, such as the Book of Jasher. These can be very useful as resources and historical references, but they not to be regarded as scriptural canon (that is: wholly God-inspired, inerrant in their original manuscripts, and required for the spiritual equipping of the saints).

Cougarbear: The reason why some books made it and some didn't doesn't necessarily have to be because inspiration. Perhaps pride didn't allow Ezra, the founder of the Great Synagogue or Sanhedrin, to accept some doctrine in the books that were lost. Or, maybe, the Lord told Ezra not to put those lost books in the OT. We don't know. We do know that Ezra did say that they, the Great Sanhedrin were the interpreters of the writings of the prophets and prophets were merely messengers only and had no place in the interpretation of their prophecies. That's why there were no more prophets in the old world until John the Baptist.

The articles were interesting and had some truth to them. But, they were only people's own interpretations of how the Bible came into existence. Constantine was the main reason the books we have in both the OT and NT are there and why the rest of them didn't make it. Although, I think the OT lost books were already gone and Constantine didn't know about them. He wasn't a reader of scripture.
 
By the way, thank you for responding in a thoughtful way. Too many here want to attack rather than share their understandings. When I respond, I'm not attacking you or your beliefs. I'm simply doing what you are doing, sharing my understanding and knowledge with you.

COTO: Christ indicated there were to be no more prophets, in Luke 16:16. His Church, founded with the Apostles (meaning "ones sent forth"), were to assume the role of proclaiming his word and the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God. They were prophets in a sense, but with offices within a different governmental hierarchy, i.e. the Church. They called themselves ministers, apostles, and bondservants, and had notably different roles from the prophets of old.
I'm not sure how your statement about the Law follows from your question about the prophets.
Also, I'm compelled to point out that "Israel" and "The House of Israel" in the Bible either refer to all tribes descended from Jacob--not just Benjamin and Judah--or else to the ten tribes other than Judah and Benjamin (after the split between the nations).

Cougarbear: Ephesians 2:19-20, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and the Household of God (the church); And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." So, the church is built "upon" the foundation of apostles and prophets, not in the apostles and prophets. This goes along with the misconception that Peter was the "rock" when we know Jesus Christ is the Rock of Israel, the Stone of Israel. The Catholic Church ads a word stating Peter is the rock. But, how could he be? The church is built upon revelation or the rock of revelation from our lord and savior Jesus Christ. Peter was simply called to be the receiver of revelation or the little rock of revelation from Christ. Jesus is the rock, isn't he? I think so!

COTO: It's worth mentioning that most references will only refer to "the Twelve" as "Apostles"--and up to 13 men besides who are described as "apostles" in the Bible itself.
I'll also point out that "apostasy" doesn't mean what I think you intend it to mean here. Check your terminology.

Cougarbear: Matthias replaced Judas. There may have been more. Paul was not one of the original apostles either. So, at least 14.
2Thessalonians 2:3, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (Satan)." Christ won't come for his second time until there has been a falling away led by Satan. Thus, "falling away" means precisely "apostasy." And, apostasy means "falling away" from Christ, his teachings and his authority. Mainly his authority. One can cling to his words with the Bible. But, not be exalted with Christ because there was no authority with that Bible. I invite you to read the prophecy of the latter days from Isaiah chapter 29. The book from the ground certainly isn't the Bible. It's never been completely hidden and dug up. And, read Ezekiel 37:16-23 speaking more of that book Isaiah saw. It's again, not the New Testament being the stick or writings of Joseph. There is more to learn in these latter days.
 
Back
Top Bottom