Where in the bible does it say I need to use it

[bbyrd009]

Really? What "world" are you talking about? This one?

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,.."

yup, "these are in the world"

Why did he overcome and even leave the world even before he went to Calvary?

oh i totally agree, but that is a diff subject imo. Also we are compelled to be in the world, at the end of the day?

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." I John 2:15-17

but Yah so loved the world too though, so i'm not talking about falling in love with the world, or becoming of the world again, none of those things; more like recognize how complaining, as a believer, makes one "of the world" number one, and two they prolly arent even technically correct?

The world is passing away strikes me as a great way to say "things generally get better day by day, step by step, as the world "passes away" and the Spirit occupies that place; i could offer several examples of things we deem "bad" now, and moan about them, when a generation ago they were considered acceptable or at least tolerated, incest, slavery (still tolerated way too much imo) etc

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you not Christian?

wadr what do you mean by "Christian?" Do you mean someone who is in the Cult of Sol and "believes" Jesus will come as Apollos to take them somewhere? Then no, i am not that kind of Christian, as i have no bargain with the grave any longer wadr

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No, it means that the medium that is used to transmit the Word, is incidental, as long as it conforms to the Scripture.

This changes the stance from being:
-Only scripture and only scripture.
-To only things I believe to be in accordance with scripture.

It's a big difference.

I only make this rather obvious point, in order so that no one thinks that a hard-copy of the Bible is what we're referring to. Any evangelizing efforts, must have their soteriology based on what is declared in Scripture. An again, no one comes to this realization without the aid of Scripture.

DNB, I respect your views here due to the fact they are part of you.

But I don't remotely agree with them, nor find them to hold much weight. You're see on this forum the wide variety & conflicting things people believe to be in accordance with scripture. And there's no escaping or resolving that with this epistemology method. You're also not escaping the large influence of human teachers have on each of these views, and rather glossing over it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, I agree here. What comes to mind re this principle is the account of Jesus sending out the 70. They were told to go out and preach the Kingdom of God. What did they tell the folks??
Jesus hadn't died or been resurrected....the Lord's supper had not been instituted, Pentecost had not occurred, Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was not yet commissioned.....all those positions that 'Christians' consider indispensable with the message of the Kingdom of God yet here they were instructed to spread the message of the Kingdom of God.

What am I saying here? Is the message of the Kingdom of God independent of Jesus death and resurrection and so forth, no, of course not but I'm adding this because I know that some will take issue with my above observation.
What I am saying is, that unless we understand how the message both pre and post resurrection fit, yes, including the utterances of the Prophets it is too easy to hole up in cosy theological ivory towers thinking we have something to say and miss the whole objective of God's Redemption plan for all of humanity.

word

And to further that, although a small digression from the OP, without the foundation of a correct understanding of the scriptures any manifestations or interpretations which appear, have the power to take us down the road most travelled.....and we all know where that heads to.

i wonder if you would consider those "appeals to the emotions?" ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Either way, you're putting the cart before the horse again. You said that the first bit of trust & faith is a gift, but there is no faith, if there is nothing offered to believe in. How can one believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice if they weren't even aware of the Abrahamic covenant, the Levitical Law, the seed of Jesse, or the crucifixion?

well then, how did Abraham possibly get any credit for having faith?

 

[kcnalp]

all writings are God-breathed, and that is our friendly scribes at work i guess

and the writings are "words," Rhema, not Pneuma, Word right?

The Bible proclaims itself to be the written Word of God.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Bible proclaims itself to be the written Word of God.

ok, Quote that then if you would, ty

for myself, i notice that Word is always accompanied by heard
they heard Paul's word, and then searched the Writings to see if it were true

i might agree that Rhema was indeed Pneuma to the one that heard It, but then he wrote it down, rendering any reading "second hand," and translation, yikes, i mean scribes translate, right, let's take a look at what Scripture has to say about scribes why don't we, otherwise "Easter" will suddenly be becoming Word here if we're not careful?

 

[kcnalp]

ok, Quote that then if you would, ty

for myself, i notice that Word is always accompanied by heard

2 Tim 3 All Scripture is God breathed ...

 

[bbyrd009]

2 Tim 3 All Scripture is God breathed ...

imo that fails on two counts; Paul likely wrote All writings are God-breathed, the diff in graphe and gramme, (no one wrote what we now call "fiction" back then i guess) and
God-breathed is from psucho, not pneuma
2 Timothy 3:16 Lexicon: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Strong's Greek: 2315. θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) -- God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God

2 Timothy 3:16 | All Scripture is God-Breathed? | Commentary

 

[kcnalp]

imo that fails on two counts; Paul likely wrote All writings are God-breathed, the diff in graphe and gramme, (no one wrote what we now call "fiction" back then i guess) and
God-breathed is from psucho, not pneuma
2 Timothy 3:16 Lexicon: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Strong's Greek: 2315. θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) -- God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God

2 Timothy 3:16 | All Scripture is God-Breathed? | Commentary

Paul wrote more Books in the Bible than anyone. I'll take his word over anyone here.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Paul wrote more Books in the Bible than anyone. I'll take his word over anyone here.

kcnalp, do you realize that other people have different interpretations of those words?
No one isn't taking them seriously, but there are different understandings.

 

[kcnalp]

kcnalp, do you realize that other people have different interpretations of those words?
No one isn't taking them seriously, but there are different understandings.

You're saying you don't believe the NT? Well I do!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You're saying you don't believe the NT? Well I do!

You COMPLETELY missed my point.

You believe the NT as you understand/interpret it.
"Bob" believes the NT and Bob understand/interprets it.
You BOTH love it and BOTH believe it. Even when you have different understandings of things.

 

[DNB]

"Already taught"? I wonder about this. My first memory of being aware of God and believing in Him was when I was 6 years old being baptized in the Catholic Church. After that I became a faithful Catholic of I amy mother's family, loving God alone... for no other person in that family was more than a very nominal Catholic. I did not begin to read a Bible myself until I was 32 years old when my connection with the Catholic Church was already history.

Very little of the scriptures were read during the Catholic masses [and that by the priests alone] in those days [ending for me in 1961] so most of what I learned about God came from the nuns using charts and pictures, but reading no scripture. I was hungry then but not hungry enough to reach out and do what the church discouraged and what no one in my home did... read a Bible myself.

There is no doubt in my mind that as a young Catholic boy I was walking with God in a measure without the use of a Bible. Consider also what Naaman, the Syrian leper, had when he listened to a little Hebrew slave girl.

I was not saved until I heard the Gospel of Christ. Prior to that, I believed in God, went to Church only at Christmas and Easter, revered Him enough to not be an atheist. But I wasn't going to heaven until I confessed my sins (repented), and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Regardless of how I specifically came to knowledge of the Gospel (via radio, messenger, newspaper, book, etc,..), what I heard as the Gospel, came from the Bible and absolutely nowhere else.

 

[amadeus]

yup, "these are in the world"

"...but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:11

So then would you say that when and if we get to where we are kept by His name, the Holy Father's name, no more division [one], then we with Jesus and the Father would also no longer be In this world?

oh i totally agree, but that is a diff subject imo. Also we are compelled to be in the world, at the end of the day?

At the day's end when no man can work, if we are one with Jesus and the Father, then we are no long In this world at all... but those who are not one...?

"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." John 9:4-5

When he says that he is still In the world. In 17:11 he no longer was. The difference I see in him is that he had overcome the world as he says here:

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

When we have overcome the world as he did, if we ever do, we will also no longer be "In" the world and our work, our tribulations, will be done for it will be night, night for the ones did not continue through the remainder of their day.

When Jesus left the world, then he also was no longer the Light of the world. Guess who would then be then the Light?

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." Matt 5:14

but Yah so loved the world too though, so i'm not talking about falling in love with the world, or becoming of the world again, none of those things; more like recognize how complaining, as a believer, makes one "of the world" number one, and two they prolly arent even technically correct?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:16-17

What was world was it which through Jesus might be saved? This one may more difficult to see...

The world is passing away strikes me as a great way to say "things generally get better day by day, step by step, as the world "passes away" and the Spirit occupies that place; i could offer several examples of things we deem "bad" now, and moan about them, when a generation ago they were considered acceptable or at least tolerated, incest, slavery (still tolerated way too much imo) etc

Or simply this world of the flesh and its fleshly way is "passing away". The temptations as per I John 2:16 cite in my previous post have been overcome. They have passed away for the overcomer. No more temptations of that sort and we are more like God:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:13-15

No more temptation and no more death for the overcomer. Too many people want to become overcomers without doing the work of an overcomer.

What kind of a Light are we, when we are still manifesting more darkness than Light? We need to do the impossible?

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2

 

[amadeus]

You COMPLETELY missed my point.

You believe the NT as you understand/interpret it.
"Bob" believes the NT and Bob understand/interprets it.
You BOTH love it and BOTH believe it. Even when you have different understandings of things.

And out of this, schisms and denominations!

 

[DNB]

i am not skeptical of Scripture at all, but rather those who read It only in english's interpretation of It, and those who would seek to change Paul's all writings into Canon, Approved by Committee, and those who would scribe. Bc i am convinced if Paul ever heard "kjv only" he would be laughing in their face, the Bible is chock full of imported wisdom!

And wadr most believers dont even accept the parts in plain englyshe that they dont like, right, so my skepticism is not at all about the Bible, but the professors

Well this discussion is not about fanaticism necessarily, it's simply about the authority of the inspired Scriptures. Very sincere and scholarly men, have been able to conduct textual criticism on all the extant manuscripts available to us today, and determine up to 90%+, that we have the inspired canon. KJVO are nutcases for sure, where did that come in?

 

[DNB]

imo it is important to note however that the term "Scripture" has been defined for us by other men, who "felt" they had a better idea.

Who are they, or we, to say that the "extra-Biblical"--not even Apocryphal iow--books Quoted by Jesus and Paul are not "Scripture" too?

many, many ppl who are not Christians have picked up their cross and followed Him imo, even if they would not use those words

Scholarly efforts have attempted to define canon, for various reasons. What we have is extremely reliable. The contents of the books themselves, should give you an indication of their authenticity. If one can't tell the difference, that's their problem.

No one picked up a cross on the own accord. The Bible taught them about the cross.

 

[DNB]

wadr what do you mean by "Christian?" Do you mean someone who is in the Cult of Sol and "believes" Jesus will come as Apollos to take them somewhere? Then no, i am not that kind of Christian, as i have no bargain with the grave any longer wadr

What? You don't know what the definition of a Christian is? As long as I've been reading your posts on this forum, you've been quoting Scripture left and right? And yet, you're unfamiliar with the Gospel of Salvation?

 

[bbyrd009]

Paul wrote more Books in the Bible than anyone. I'll take his word over anyone here.

i def agree, so imo do yourself a favor and make sure what Paul--who i bet imported more theology than anyone--meant to say. The graphe/gramme argument seems pretty compelling imo, but that is for you to decide