Hi,

Would you like to take a peek? Lol!!! I love this book, I just can't stop reading it. It has all the secrets to life you know. A good friend gave it to me...God rest his soul!

He said it's more like a 'road map' and everything I need to know is stated explicitly in this book. And true to his words, whenever I needed to know about stuff, I opened the appropriate page and voilà, I find a solution to the problem...

I am particularly excited today. I have just been informed that I am to give a speech about my book. Now the world can get a glimpse of it, know what I know and have this wonderful 'road map' to the solutions of all life's problems.

Now off I go with my book in hand. But wait a minute, there is no mention of an air craft or a boat in my book...and without them I can't possibly get off this Island...now I am sad! My one time opportunity of bringing good to the world is dashed...if only my friend had given me a better guide...


The above is not far from what I see exhibited by some Christians here on nairaland and it is indeed sad!

If you have everything you need to know in the book then the book should have a transportation means stated unless you won't need travelling or the book isn't as good as you claimed.

superior1: If you have everything you need to know in the book then the book should have a transportation means stated unless you won't need travelling or the book isn't as good as you claimed.

True but maybe the book is not meant to be THE GUIDE per se...

The book definitely is useful to him but it does not seem to cover everything...

striktlymi:

True but maybe the book is not meant to be THE GUIDE per se...

The book definitely is useful to him but it does not seem to cover everything...

Anything with a beginning must have an end, an incomplete book doesn't worth my attention, the author must be a confusionist. I thank God he is not an author of confusion.

superior1:

Anything with a beginning must have an end, an incomplete book doesn't worth my attention, the author must be a confusionist. I thank God he is not an author of confusion.

Look around you and tell me Christians do not appear confused? Don't take this the wrong way but try and visit threads put up here on nairaland and see for yourself...

You are right, God is not one of confusion. He can NEVER lead anyone astray or 'confuse' anyone and that is part of the reason Jesus NEVER wrote or promised any book.

He knows that what he needs to teach the Apostles CANNOT be held by just one or several books. Teaching for him is an ongoing process. It continues till the end of time. That explains why he promised the Holy spirit instead.

striktlymi:


Look around you and tell me Christians do not appear confused? Don't take this the wrong way but try and visit threads put up here on nairaland and see for yourself...

You are right, God is not one of confusion. He can NEVER lead anyone astray or 'confuse' anyone and that is part of the reason Jesus NEVER wrote or promised any book.

He knows that what he needs to teach the Apostles CANNOT be held by just one or several books. Teaching for him is an ongoing process. It continues till the end of time. That explains why he promised the Holy spirit instead.

I have sure came across several threads that shows the divergent understanding of some individuals as relating to a part of the scriptures but there is nothing absolutely wrong with the scriptures and it is a complete book. 2Timo 2:15 study to show thyself approve. There were various teachings by satanic agents even during the time of Paul. We can only be assured of following the truth when we follow the Bible and nothing but the Bible, no addition, no subtraction, no liturgy, no man made traditions and doctrine, Just the Bible. If it is not in the Bible, it is irrelevant, I will not read or accept any other book or opinion accept that which is written on the pages of the Bible.

superior1:

I have sure came across several threads that shows the divergent understanding of some individuals as relating to a part of the scriptures

Okay, cool!!!

superior1:
but there is nothing absolutely wrong with the scriptures

Agreed!!!

superior1:
and it is a complete book. 2Timo 2:15 study to show thyself approve. There were various teachings by satanic agents even during the time of Paul. We can only be assured of following the truth when we follow the Bible and nothing but the Bible, no addition, no subtraction, no liturgy, no man made traditions and doctrine, Just the Bible. If it is not in the Bible, it is irrelevant, I will not read or accept any other book or opinion accept that which is written on the pages of the Bible.

Not quite!

I don't know what you mean by the bold but if by the bold you are saying that everything God wants to reveal to the world is contained in Sacred scriptures then I disagree with it.

During the time of the Apostles, Sacred scriptures only contained the old testament. There was nothing like the new testament as we have it in the bible today.

You say there should be no addition but the truth is that the new testament is an addition to sacred scriptures which comprise of just the old at the time of the Apostles.

A number of the things you oppose are actually what was taught by the Apostles themselves. They practiced some form of liturgy by meeting on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread...

Paul preached religion and differentiated this from what is termed 'man made religion' but today everyone wants to denounce religion.

The Apostles subtracted from the old testament when they rejected circumcision and a number of old testament teachings; and most of all, the Apostles did not rely on scriptures to teach...they relied on the holy spirit. If they had relied on scriptures then we wouldn't have had the new testament.

striktlymi:

Okay, cool!!!



Agreed!!!



Not quite!

I don't know what you mean by the bold but if by the bold you are saying that everything God wants to reveal to the world is contained in Sacred scriptures then I disagree with it.

During the time of the Apostles, Sacred scriptures only contained the old testament. There was nothing like the new testament as we have it in the bible today.

You say there should be no addition but the truth is that the new testament is an addition to sacred scriptures which comprise of just the old at the time of the Apostles.

A number of the things you oppose are actually what was taught by the Apostles themselves. They practiced some form of liturgy by meeting on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread...

Paul preached religion and differentiated this from what is termed 'man made religion' but today everyone wants to denounce religion.

The Apostles subtracted from the old testament when they rejected circumcision and a number of old testament teachings; and most of all, the Apostles did not rely on scriptures to teach...they relied on the holy spirit. If they had relied on scriptures then we wouldn't have had the new testament.

The Old and New Testaments are inspired scriptures and the basis of Christian faith. The teaches inherent are clear and unambiguous. Do you have any problem with this?

superior1:

The Old and New Testaments are inspired scriptures

None of my posts denies the above.

superior1:
and the basis of Christian faith.

Not quite!

Faith in this context has to do with the belief in God. It is inappropriate to say that the Old and new testaments are the basis of faith or Christian faith.

Abraham NEVER read one passage of the old or new testament but still he was tagged our father in faith. The Apostles believed in Jesus before any book of the new testament was written.

Sacred scriptures is indeed the inspired word of God that has been written down but it is not the basis of Christian faith. Christ is the basis of Christian faith.

superior1:
The teaches inherent are clear and unambiguous. Do you have any problem with this?

I do not have a problem with Sacred scriptures but still I do not agree with the bold. Peter made us understand that not everything in Sacred scriptures is clear and unambiguous...there are things that are difficult to understand.

2 Peter 3:15-16
New International Version (NIV)

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

striktlymi:

None of my posts denies the above.



Not quite!

Faith in this context has to do with the belief in God. It is inappropriate to say that the Old and new testaments are the basis of faith or Christian faith.

Abraham NEVER read one passage of the old or new testament but still he was tagged our father in faith. The Apostles believed in Jesus before any book of the new testament was written.

Sacred scriptures is indeed the inspired word of God that has been written down but it is not the basis of Christian faith. Christ is the basis of Christian faith.



I do not have a problem with Sacred scriptures but still I do not agree with the bold. Peter made us understand that not everything in Sacred scriptures is clear and unambiguous...there are things that are difficult to understand.

2 Peter 3:15-16
New International Version (NIV)

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

By Faith, I mean Christian doctrine and concerning Peters comment, it is the same what a primary school holder (Peter was a fisher man) will say of a letter written by a Doctor degree holder (Paul was an equivalent of a Professor of Jewish law). The intent of scriptures are quite clear or else he won't advice Timothy (2Timo 2:15) to study and divide the word correctly and won't commend the berean Christian Acts 11:17 for being diligent. In study.

The Bible is complete and whole, any man tradition beyond this is nothing short of man's tradition and Gos doesn't honor or recognise the tradition of men

Hi Super,

superior1:

By Faith, I mean Christian doctrine

Christian doctrine are taught by the Spirit...not by Sacred scriptures. The teachings of the Apostles were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

If Christian doctrine is from Sacred scriptures then we would not have had the new testament because all the doctrines taught would have been from the old.

superior1:
and concerning Peters comment, it is the same what a primary school holder (Peter was a fisher man) will say of a letter written by a Doctor degree holder (Paul was an equivalent of a Professor of Jewish law).

Peter being a fisherman has nothing to do with his understanding of Sacred scriptures. The Holy spirit is responsible for teaching anything in scriptures and not man.

Peter Understood the teachings of Paul perfectly and that is why he mentioned that Paul writes in the same way. If you are saying that Peter did not understand Paul's writing then you are wrong.

superior1:
The intent of scriptures are quite clear or else he won't advice Timothy (2Timo 2:15) to study and divide the word correctly and won't commend the berean Christian Acts 11:17 for being diligent. In study.

Paul admonished Timothy to STUDY the word because it is not that easy and straight forward to understand. If he refuses to study, he would be at the risk of teaching incorrectly.

Sacred scriptures in itself is not that straight forward. It needs the proper guidance of the Spirit to understand it. One can be a bible scholar and still fall into error because of a lack of understanding. Go and read the book of Revelations and see how difficult understanding scriptures can be.

superior1:
The Bible is complete and whole, any man tradition beyond this is nothing short of man's tradition and Gos doesn't honor or recognise the tradition of men

You still haven't said what you mean by the bible is complete and whole...Scriptures does not contain everything about God. All we have is a snapshot and not all revealed truth.

Scriptures does not claim to be complete, for Scriptures made us understand that Jesus did so many things that were not written; this in itself makes it incomplete.

striktlymi: Hi Super,



Christian doctrine are taught by the Spirit...not by Sacred scriptures. The teachings of the Apostles were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

If Christian doctrine is from Sacred scriptures then we would not have had the new testament because all the doctrines taught would have been from the old.



Peter being a fisherman has nothing to do with his understanding of Sacred scriptures. The Holy spirit is responsible for teaching anything in scriptures and not man.

Peter Understood the teachings of Paul perfectly and that is why he mentioned that Paul writes in the same way. If you are saying that Peter did not understand Paul's writing then you are wrong.



Paul admonished Timothy to STUDY the word because it is not that easy and straight forward to understand. If he refuses to study, he would be at the risk of teaching incorrectly.

Sacred scriptures in itself is not that straight forward. It needs the proper guidance of the Spirit to understand it. One can be a bible scholar and still fall into error because of a lack of understanding. Go and read the book of Revelations and see how difficult understanding scriptures can be.



You still haven't said what you mean by the bible is complete and whole...Scriptures does not contain everything about God. All we have is a snapshot and not all revealed truth.

Scriptures does not claim to be complete, for Scriptures made us understand that Jesus did so many things that were not written; this in itself makes it incomplete.

Answer this, is the new testament part of the scriptures or not?

superior1:

Answer this, is the new testament part of the scriptures or not?

At the time of Jesus, it was not! In our present time, it is.

striktlymi:

At the time of Jesus, it was not! In our present time, it is.

Do you also believe the New Testament is inspired of the Holy Spirit?

superior1:

Do you also believe the New Testament is inspired of the Holy Spirit?

I believe it firmly!!!

striktlymi:

I believe it firmly!!!

I also do, now this is my point
The scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the basis for any Christian doctrine

2Timothy 3,16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There should be no addition to the scriptures as it is and doctrine shouldn't be accepted unless written in the pages of the scriptures.

Revelation 22, 18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

superior1:

I also do, now this is my point
The scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the basis for any Christian doctrine

2Timothy 3,16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There should be no addition to the scriptures as it is and doctrine should be added unless written in the pages of the scriptures.

Revelation 22, 18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Thanks and this is where i stand too. Over interpretation has caused a lot of confusion in Christendom. Whatever anybody is writing or teaching must not go beyond the scope of what is written. When someone tries to redefine a verse of the scriptures to suit his selfish aim it becomes a problem. Most of the things written especially in the new testament are so plain and understandable and when someone begins to give it bogus explanations beyond what is written there, another person gives his own interpretation then confusion is being invited. Nobody will be condemned for believing what is in the scriptures but condemnation awaits those who misinterpret the scriptures. Lets be careful. The bible should be our marking scheme to whatever teaching we read or hear and not the other way round. When pastor's interpretations and teachings becomes your marking scheme for what is written in the scriptures then there is danger ahead.

superior1:

I also do,

Cool!

superior1:
now this is my point
The scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the basis for any Christian doctrine

2Timothy 3,16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The above does not say that Scriptures is the basis for any Christian doctrine. The only reason why scriptures is profitable for doctrine and the rest is because it is given through the influence of the Holy spirit, hence the Holy spirit is the basis of any Christian doctrine.

If Scriptures is the basis for doctrine, then there wouldn't have been a new testament. Every doctrine we have today would have been from the old testament because then, that was the only scriptures available.

What we see is a situation where some of the teachings of the Apostles go against some teachings in the old testament e.g the ish with circumcision and the kind of food that are forbidden.

The Holy spirit who is the basis of every doctrine, taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. Christ NEVER commanded the Apostles to learn their doctrines from scriptures. He promised them the spirit who he said will teach them:

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

superior1:
There should be no addition to the scriptures as it is and doctrine should be added unless written in the pages of the scriptures.


Revelation 22, 18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The above is not talking about addition to Sacred scriptures but the book of revelation. I have demonstrated already that every book in the new testament, including the book of Revelations was an addition to sacred scriptures because then there was just one scriptures which was the old testament.

The book of Revelation is separate from the Gospels, separate from the various Epistles and books written in the new testament when it was given to John and the proclamation about adding to it is unique to that book i.e Revelations and not to every other part of Sacred scriptures.

striktlymi:

Cool!



The above does not say that Scriptures is the basis for any Christian doctrine. The only reason why scriptures is profitable for doctrine and the rest is because it is given through the influence of the Holy spirit, hence the Holy spirit is the basis of any Christian doctrine.

If Scriptures is the basis for doctrine, then there wouldn't have been a new testament. Every doctrine we have today would have been from the old testament because then, that was the only scriptures available.

What we see is a situation where some of the teachings of the Apostles go against some teachings in the old testament e.g the ish with circumcision and the kind of food that are forbidden.

The Holy spirit who is the basis of every doctrine, taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. Christ NEVER commanded the Apostles to learn their doctrines from scriptures. He promised them the spirit who he said will teach them:

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.




The above is not talking about addition to Sacred scriptures but the book of revelation. I have demonstrated already that every book in the new testament, including the book of Revelations was an addition to sacred scriptures because then there was just one scriptures which was the old testament.

The book of Revelation is separate from the Gospels, separate from the various Epistles and books written in the new testament when it was given to John and the proclamation about adding to it is unique to that book i.e Revelations and not to every other part of Sacred scriptures.

What do you understand by doctrine?

The above does not say that Scriptures is the basis for any Christian doctrine. The only reason why scriptures is profitable for doctrine and the rest is because it is given through the influence of the Holy spirit, hence the Holy spirit is the basis of any Christian doctrine.

That verse said sciptures is inspired by God (the devil inspired the new testament, yes?), the new testament isn't part of the scripture for we Christains, yes?

The Holy spirit who is the basis of every doctrine, taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. Christ NEVER commanded the Apostles to learn their doctrines from scriptures. He promised them the spirit who he said will teach them:

The Apostles wrote what they are inspired of the Holy Spirit, no?. Paul said we shouldn't accept any different teaching from what he taught, no?

The above is not talking about addition to Sacred scriptures but the book of revelation. I have demonstrated already that every book in the new testament, including the book of Revelations was an addition to sacred scriptures because then there was just one scriptures which was the old testament.

The book of Revelation is separate from the Gospels, separate from the various Epistles and books written in the new testament when it was given to John and the proclamation about adding to it is unique to that book i.e Revelations and not to every other part of Sacred scriptures.

The same Spirit inspired the epistles and John prophecy,No?.

The scriptures (the Bible) is the final authority of God and the basis of all doctrine. Any dogma that do not draw existence from the scriptures (the Bible) is man made and dogma of the devil

superior1:

What do you understand by doctrine?

Simply put: Teachings about our faith as Christians.

superior1:
That verse said sciptures is inspired by God (the devil inspired the new testament, yes?), the new testament isn't part of the scripture for we Christains, yes?



The Apostles wrote what they are inspired of the Holy Spirit, no?. Paul said he shouldn't accept any different teaching from what he taught, no?

The same Spirit inspired the epistles and John prophecy,No?.

The above does not demonstrate an understanding of my post!

striktlymi:

Simply put: Teachings about our faith as Christians.

It is the bases of our believe and conduct. It is the frame for our actions and teaches.

striktlymi:

The above does not demonstrate an understanding of my post!

How?

In a few words, skrilyml argument is centred on the history and development of the Christian doctrine. He has showed that at the time of Jesus, the existing "bible" or Sacred Scriptures were the Old testament. That the Apostles and Paul further developed the Sacred Scriptures as part of Christianity. They more or less documented their experiences and added it to the Sacred Scriptures, up until our times.

We can't say Christianity has stopped development or the history of christianity is stagnant neither has the holy spirit departed. And the implication is the Bible has stopped taking record of the Christian experience, and subquent visions, revelations and miracles. We can say as a result that the Bible as it is on is stagnant and incomplete.

This Bible being the end product of the Christian faith, can not be the Basis of the Christian faith.

superior1:

It is the bases of our believe and conduct. It is the frame for our actions and teaches.

The basis of any Christian teaching is God and doctrine does not define God.

Kay 17: In a few words, skrilyml argument is centred on the history and development of the Christian doctrine. He has showed that at the time of Jesus, the existing "bible" or Sacred Scriptures were the Old testament. That the Apostles and Paul further developed the Sacred Scriptures as part of Christianity. They more or less documented their experiences and added it to the Sacred Scriptures, up until our times.

We can't say Christianity has stopped development or the history of christianity is stagnant neither has the holy spirit departed. And the implication is the Bible has stopped taking record of the Christian experience, and subquent visions, revelations and miracles. We can say as a result that the Bible as it is on is stagnant and incomplete.

This Bible being the end product of the Christian faith, can not be the Basis of the Christian faith.

The Bible is the end product of the Christian faith, says who?
If the Bible is not a basis Christian faith, what is?

striktlymi:

The basis of any Christian teaching is God and doctrine does not define God.

The basis of Christian teaching is what God has inspired in the Bible

Kay 17: In a few words, skrilyml argument is centred on the history and development of the Christian doctrine. He has showed that at the time of Jesus, the existing "bible" or Sacred Scriptures were the Old testament. That the Apostles and Paul further developed the Sacred Scriptures as part of Christianity. They more or less documented their experiences and added it to the Sacred Scriptures, up until our times.

We can't say Christianity has stopped development or the history of christianity is stagnant neither has the holy spirit departed. And the implication is the Bible has stopped taking record of the Christian experience, and subquent visions, revelations and miracles. We can say as a result that the Bible as it is on is stagnant and incomplete.

This Bible being the end product of the Christian faith, can not be the Basis of the Christian faith.

Lol!!!

Stagnant wouldn't be my choice word but on the whole, you have a good grasp of what I have been saying...this gives me a cause for worry.

striktlymi:

Lol!!!

Stagnant wouldn't be my choice word but on the whole, you have a good grasp of what I have been saying...this gives me a cause for worry.

Hakuna matata

superior1:

The basis of Christian teaching is what God has inspired in the Bible

Again I repeat:

Scriptures comprise of just the Old testament at the time of Christ.

If the basis of Christian teaching was scriptures the Apostles would have gone back to the old testament to get the teachings therein.

striktlymi:

Again I repeat:

Scriptures comprise of just the Old testament at the time of Christ.

If the basis of Christian teaching was scriptures the Apostles would have gone back to the old testament to get the teachings therein.

For Christians, Scriptures (the Bible) contains both old and new testament. Both are inspired words of God and our teachings must be based on the Bible (scriptures) alone