Your thoughts on 2 men, Trump and Osteen

[Singalphile]

I know nothing about Olsteen. These days, I'm most attracted to men and women who do good and who teach others to do good in Jesus' name. Does Olsteen? I don't know. I don't know what he does with his time and money. Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily impress me, and preparing/giving a 30 minute speech a few times a week on Sunday (and maybe Saturday) doesn't either. So I don't know.

As for Trump, I don't know much about him either. I know I don't trust a word he says, so I have no idea what he will or won't try to do. My state has voted the same way for 40 years, so I guess it's not too likely that I'll need to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, thank goodness. I feel sorry for those of you who might have to.

[dwight92070]

That's a simple choice: Hillary, a Socialist at heart, who tried to force socialized healthcare down our throats back in 1992, but was quickly stopped by the American people, or Trump, who is accused by the Left of being a fascist, but no one can come up with any evidence. Also, George Sauros is using his money to disrupt Trumps rallies, so that tells us something right there - the Democrats don't want Hillary to face Trump in the general election.

[steve7150]

That's a simple choice: Hillary, a Socialist at heart,











College kids according to polls mostly love socialism because it seems so fair plus you get free stuff. But no one suggests they go live in socialist countries for a few years to try it out. Countries like Cuba or Venezuela or Greece or many others sliding down into the abyss. You do end up with income equality because everyone lives in poverty.

[morbo3000]

You are mistaken in saying that 2 Peter 1:19-21 only refers to the Old Testament. In context, it is referring to any "prophecy of Scripture", and we know that Peter considered Paul's letters "Scripture". Peter clearly says that in 2 Peter 3:14-16.

Which of Paul's letters was 2Peter referring?

If you argue for an early date for 2Peter's authorship then there were fewer Pauline letters in circulation for him to deem "Scripture." How do we know which ones he was writing about?

The best candidates could be, in chronological order, 1Thessalonians, Galatians, 1Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, 2Corinthians, and Romans. These are letters the majority of scholars believe were genuinely written by Paul, and whose authorship would fall closest to an early date for 2Peter's composition.

But we still have no way of knowing which ones 2Peter affirmed.

What do we do with letters written after 2Peter's composition? The majority of scholars believe 1Timothy, 2Timothy, Titus and Ephesians were written late, so would be unknown to an early 2Peter writer. The majority of these scholars believe these books weren't written by Paul. We also know that there were other pseudoaprigriphal letters of Paul floating around, and possibly some lost letters.

So again, which letters was 2Peter referring to? Letters correctly attributed to Paul, written before 2Peter's authorship? Letters correctly attributed to Paul, but written later that 2Peter? Or ones believed to have been written by Paul during 2Peter's time, but later determined to have not been written by Paul?

We have no way of knowing.

The biggest problem, though, is who wrote 2Peter? 2Peter is not written by St. Peter. Or at least, not the same Peter who wrote 1Peter. I'll leave you to research this on your own, rather than post links. But it is a widely acknowledged problem.

The solution to all of this, is that the councils that canonized the books of the New Testament were led by the Holy Spirit, and their decisions were infallible. I can accept your faith in this, though that is what it is. Faith. You may feel there is a reasonable basis for your faith. I can't judge that. But you can't make a reasonable case for the New Testament works as "Scripture," from inside the book itself. You have to rely on the church fathers to make that judgment, and trust their decision.

[dwight92070]

You believe 1 Thessalonians was genuinely written by Paul. So read 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but for what is really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."

So you see Paul himself claimed that his teaching and preaching was indeed the word of God to the Thessalonians. So we know that the letters that Paul actually wrote to any of the churches was the word of God, unless you don't believe Paul. Another word for 'the word of God is "Scripture". So it is proper and correct to call the New Testament "Scripture".

[morbo3000]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but for what is really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."

So you see Paul himself claimed that his teaching and preaching was indeed the word of God to the Thessalonians.

Yes. As any spirit-filled preacher's preaching would be. That was not unique to Paul.

So we know that the letters that Paul actually wrote to any of the churches was the word of God, unless you don't believe Paul.

This doesn't follow. All we know from this verse is that when Paul preached in Thessalonica, they received it as the word of God. But that doesn't mean that every word from his mouth was the word of God. Nor that whatever he wrote was the word of God.

All that can be said from this verse is that Paul's preached words to the Thessalonians were the word of God. Nothing more can be said beyond that.

Another word for 'the word of God is "Scripture". So it is proper and correct to call the New Testament "Scripture".

Not to get distracted, that is not what "word of God," means. See John 1

[Homer]

The majority of these scholars believe these books weren't written by Paul.

Seems a bit arrogant and a bit late (many centuries late) to "lick that calf over again". IMO we are stuck with the canonicity of scriptures established long ago by those who were nearest the time they were written.

[dwight92070]

Amen, I'm with you, Homer.

Morbo, let me get this straight. Is it your position that if people like Homer and myself, (Homer, forgive me if I am making a wrong assumption about your beliefs) and I daresay most of Christendom, believe that both the Old and New Testaments are Scripture, i.e. the inspired Word of God, and are inerrant, that we are basing our belief on BLIND FAITH and not on evidence?

And if that is what you believe, and you are correct, then what? Are we not even Christians? Do we not even know God? Is it possible to know God without having the truth about the Old and New Testaments? What about the thief on the cross? Is he in paradise as Jesus said? And what scholarship did he possess? Or do you question the validity of that story too?

Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3 How much scholarship do most children possess? ZERO! And yet they can enter into heaven. Remember Jesus said of little children: "The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."?

Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." John 20:29 There is a point, Morbo, where even you will have to believe with "blind" faith, and yet our faith in God is never really blind or without evidence: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard..." Psalm 19:1-3

So it is possible to love God and enter His kingdom without knowing anything about church history or canonicity. And it is also possible to know all of that and yet not love God and not enter His kingdom.

So am I against scholarship and research? No, unless it leads to an arrogant, self-righteous attitude that keeps that person from loving God, loving other Christians, and being saved. Having said all of that, I intend, God willing, to keep studying and researching, keep loving Him and His people.

[Paidion]

Hi Morbo,
I recall one of my Greek teachers at St. John's Anglican college (a college of the University of Manitoba) expressing his disbelief that Paul wrote Ephesians, solely on the ground that in Ephesians, the author affirmed "you have been saved" ( a single word "σεσωσμενοι" that is a perfect passive participle). William Mounce in his first edition of "Basics of Biblical Greek", p.272, stated that this tense "carries the same significance that the perfect does in the indicative."

Nowhere else did indicate peoples' salvation as a completed fact, but rather either as a process, or as a future state. However, I was unable to accept the teacher's position on that fact alone. Indeed, I think Paul was, in fact, the author all the letters that have been historically assigned to him (with the exception of Hebrews), though I agree that the apostle Peter probably wasn't the author of 2 Peter. Origen (225 A.D.) disputed James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter. The early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea disputed James, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revelation.

However, what I find the most remarkable about those who accept their Bible as infallible and without error, outside of which is no inspiration, is why they accept their particular list? Why do Protestants reject the OT books that Roman Catholic and Orthodox accept (there is even a difference between the OT books that the RC accept as compared to those of the Orthodox). And of course the RC and Orthodox believe that the Protestants have omitted part of the inspired Old Testament.

I wonder myself, why Protestants include Esther, a book in which the Protestant version of Esther does not even contain the word "God", while rejecting Judith, who like Esther was a Hebrew hero who saved her people.

Also, I wonder why Clement's letter to the Corinthians, shortly after the death of Peter and Paul, was not included in the NT "canon." Clement was Paul's fellow labourer (Phillipians 4:3).

[morbo3000]

Morbo, let me get this straight. Is it your position that if people like Homer and myself, (Homer, forgive me if I am making a wrong assumption about your beliefs) and I daresay most of Christendom, believe that both the Old and New Testaments are Scripture, i.e. the inspired Word of God, and are inerrant, that we are basing our belief on BLIND FAITH and not on evidence?

No. I did not say BLIND FAITH. I said that the belief in inerrancy is a faith position. I don't know why you would be offended by that.

What about the thief on the cross? Is he in paradise as Jesus said? And what scholarship did he possess? Or do you question the validity of that story too? Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3 How much scholarship do most children possess? ZERO! And yet they can enter into heaven. Remember Jesus said of little children: "The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."?

Those are both great examples of the simplicity of coming to Jesus. And neither relies on a written word. Jesus did not pass a tract to the thief on the cross. And the children weren't in Sunday School.

This conversation began when you made the claim that Trump's political opinions are Biblical and I remarked this reflects on how you interpret the Bible. That was admittedly a slight. But it is true. For good or bad, if you believe his opinions are Biblical, it reflects on what you believe the Bible does and does not say. Even more so, what you believe the gospel of Jesus is. Others in this thread took on the point of whether or not his positions are "Biblical." I don't need to.

The broad point I've tried to make is that good exegesis begins by letting the text say what it says, and not try to make it say what we want it to say. Or what we've been taught it says. We start with what do the words say. Then we look at what those words meant in context. And then we try to apply those words to our lives. My point has been, you don't need to believe in inerrancy to do that.

However, I've never said you shouldn't believe in inerrancy. I've tried to explain my position while you've thrown everything at me about what is wrong with my belief.

Here are the strawmen you've erected.

By your "method" of interpretation, you could make it say anything you want.

Since you don't assume revelation, or inspiration, or inerrancy in the Bible, then who cares what it means? If it's not the revealed word of God, inerrant and inspired, then we all might as well eat, drink, and be merry, because it would be totally irrelevant.

If it's not really a holy book, i.e. the word of God, graciously given to us so that we might have salvation and hope, then why would anyone even consider following it's instructions? If it's not our standard, then what other standard is there?

And if that is what you believe, and you are correct, then what? Are we not even Christians? Do we not even know God?

Each of those is false, as I've tried to explain.

I'm fine with you believing in inerrancy. I've said as much in previous messages. And in fact, I don't need to prove to you that you are misapplying the verses you've quoted. I was simply explaining why those verses don't say what you say they do. But it's fine with me if you believe that way. I don't need to prove anything about Jude or 2Peter, or whether or not certain letters that may have been wrongly attributed to Paul.

The authority of the New Testament is that it is the best record we have of the extraordinary events of Jesus the Messiah. If we want to know him. His teachings, and the teachings of his followers, the only place we can go is to those books. And even if Ephesians wasn't written by Paul (which I'm not trying to say it wasn't), it reflects the church in the late 1st century as it tried to live faithful to Jesus' life and teachings, and the teachings they'd learned from Paul. And even if Gospel of John and 1John aren't historically accurate, (which I'm not saying) they are as much love-letters to Jesus and his message as they are anything else. What a tremendous testimony to the late 1st century church that they reflected the gospel of love so many decades after Jesus lived, died and rose again.

But you are insulting to people of integrity who approach the Bible with the same passion you do, with the same goal to know the Savior, and to faithfully follow him, but do not go to it with the same assumptions.