₦airaland Forum

Jessicha:
Why is the Father never called son of God ? Not even once .

Why is the father never addressed as the firstborn of all creation ?

This line of argument is not applicable here

Jessicha:
Not at all , I gave you the example of pharaoh , you claim that one his human birth , which is why I cite proverb 8:24 to prove that even Jesus was given birth to .

Humans born by sex

God born by creation

Of All the creation by God , Jesus is the firstborn . Thats what col 1:15 is saying

That violates the context! Besides, Why will He be called Firstborn in vs 15 since vs 16 says All other things were created? Why did it not say they were begotten?

@ brown

All this underlined fabrications are not found in the manuscript .

15 He is the exact living image [the essential
Manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible
Representation of the invisible],
the firstborn [the
preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all
creation
(AMP)

Prove it! Give links/quotes from referenced sites that confirm your claim. The amplified version uses the words in parentheses as a way of capturing the full meaning of the word used in the manuscript.

.
@ underlined : the earth and mountains were also " brought forth" psalm 90:2 , i guess they are not created . Uh ?

this is figurative! The same passage speaks of the earth being formed! Besides, apart from Proverbs 8:24-30 that speaks of the earth being made/created (by Jesus as Col 1:16 affirms) there are other passages that tell us expressedly that the mountains etc were created but not ONE that says the Son was created!

@ blue : false opinion .. Jesus remains a son , FATHER is greater than Jesus [ John 14:28]

That was spoken by Christ after the incarnation. What? Would you say He was lower than Joseph and Mary because He was subject to them as a Child? There are other passages where His Divinity was revealed eg John 17:5

ShaheedBinAliyu:
Google is your friend bro... posting it for you will be too easy

You made the claim, then prove it. It will be cowardly to refer to Google. Just write it in this order: Book- , Chapter- , Verse- ,.

ShaheedBinAliyu:
go read your story book called bible and see those terrorist verses in there... I would so much love to post it but Quran told me never to involve in anything that will make an unbeliever insult Allah or Islam..
salam alaykum

On the basis of the highlighted, I assume you are sure of that below.

ShaheedBinAliyu:
cc:yanabasee




am sure you never read bible... its inside bible that we are to marry 100 wives in heaven..


why are you people always arguing about what you have absolutely no knowledge about xef

Kindly tell us where the highlighted is; book, chapter and verse.

CANTICLES:
Youngman, Born simply means " brought into existence " . A Nation Can Be Born , a school can be born .



Scripturally, Its a two way process:

By creation or by sexual intercourse .

Angels are born by creation

Adam was born by creation

But the premises in your initial post is evidently focussed on born by sexual intercourse.

So , why not admit Jesus was born by creation ? - Col 1:15

No.Jesus was not born by creation. Rather He created all creation but He Himself was not created.

Now notice this:
Proverbs 8:24-30
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
26 while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,

Here, He uses the clause,"Brought Forth". But goes no further. That the only means of being brought forth known to finite mortals is that of birth or creation does not mean God too is limited thereto. (Scriptures stops at that clause and I go no further!)

Besides going further, it says:

Proverbs 8:30
30 then I was by him, as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

A creation would say ," brought up by Him" because the usage up there indicate that they were equals, peers.

Going to the New Testament, the preposition (WITH) did not change:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

The same was in the beginning with God
John 1:2

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was
John 17:5

Suggests a participation!

A creature would have said, "the Glory which I received from Thee."

CANTICLES:
@ Scholar8200 ... Fisrtborn of isreal is a son of isreal $ firstborn of pharaoh is a son of pharaoh , when it comes to firstborn of cretion ..... Do you admit he is a son of creation ?

You are welcome; pls the objects there - Pharaoh & Israel are human. In the light of this can you re-phrase your question?

Because you appear to say:
son of Pharaoh = born by Pharaoh
son of Israelites = born by Israeli fathers
son of Creation = born by Creation (Absurd if you ask me) Hence I suggest that you seek for another passage that will flow with your line of thought, in its context.(the one here refers to Pre-eminence)

carinmom:
Exposed Islam ke , go deal with all d lies and contradictions contained in your so called book of god. Nonsense.

Alright ma'am. Pls help clear the air on the op then, if you dont mind, open a thread for the highlighted.

Thanks in anticipation.

Jessicha:
@ccording to the bold and underlined , Prov 8:24 : " I was given birth to" .How? The way earth was also given birth to , creation .

Wow are we done with Colossians? And what about the samples whence your conclusions - lies, twist and harden scriptures, hypocrite - came? Let's be thorough now!

Now notice this:
Proverbs 8:24-30
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
26 while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 when he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 when he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 then I was by him, as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Now the black highlighted texts show us that:
1. The mention of brought forth (regarding the Son) and made(concerning the earth and elements) show us that The Son was not made/created else why the change in verbs within same passage?


The green highlighted text establishes equality! How? It does not say, "brought up BY Him" but , "brought up WITH Him"

Just like John 17:5 speaks of ," Glory which I had WITH Thee" not "Glory which I had FROM Thee"

See the use of that same clause here:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Acts 13:1 That suggests that Manaen and Herod were peers brought up together!

Jessicha:
All those personal opinions in bracket are lies meant to harden and twist the scripture . Your post above reveal you are displaying hypocrisy .

I wish you could be more specific in highlighting those and describing how they 'harden and twist' the scripture. At least it will help where corrections need to be made.

Scriptural usage :

Is the firstborn of isreal , not a son of isreal ?

Is the firstborn of pharaoh , not a son of pharaoh ?

Correct!!!

Why is the firstborn of creation , not a son of creation !

Here lies the problem! The premises above suggest that the objects (Pharaoh, Israel) gave birth to the first born. Now how is Jesus Christ the First born of creation? Is creation there personified? Does this follow the pattern of your premise?

I suggest you search for another passage. Like I said, the context of this passage is Pre-eminence

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Firstborn from the dead highlights that he was at one time dead . Same way firstborn of creation highlight he was part of creation .

Of course, after His incarnation, He could suffer hunger, be limited by space, sleep, ...Die (and He rose from the Dead).

It seems to me that you think Christ was flesh and blood before His incarnation. Would HE have died if He was not incarnated?

Jessicha:
All those personal opinions in bracket are lies meant to harden and twist the scripture . Your post above reveal you are displaying hypocrisy .

I wish you could be more specific in highlighting those and describing how they 'harden and twist' the scripture. At least it will help where corrections need to be made.

Scriptural usage :

Is the firstborn of isreal , not a son of isreal ?

Is the firstborn of pharaoh , not a son of pharaoh ?

Correct!!!

Why is the firstborn of creation , not a son of creation !

Here lies the problem! The premises above suggest that the objects (Pharaoh, Israel) gave birth to the first born. Now how is Jesus Christ the First born of creation? Is creation there personified? Does this follow the pattern of your premise?

I suggest you search for another passage. Like I said, the context of this passage is Pre-eminence

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Firstborn from the dead highlights that he was at one time dead . Same way firstborn of creation highlight he was part of creation .

Of course, after His incarnation, He could suffer hunger, be limited by space, sleep, ...Die (and He rose from the Dead).

Jessicha:
Firstborn OF every creature , is a figurative use realy?

If we will be faithful to the context! However the term used in John 3:16 Monogene, means exactly what it was translated as!

It doesnt mean Jesus was Never one of the Dead .

I highlighted that to underscore the fact of the passage focussing The Preeminence of Christ

Jessicha:
Explain the underlined.

15 He is the exact living image [the essential manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible], the firstborn [the preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all creation
(AMP)

The Greek there is prototokos from two words protos - first and tikto -to bear, bring forth, preeminent

It can be used literally (Matthew 1:25) or figuratively (to mean preeminent Colossians 1:15,18b)

The conclusion of that recitation in Colossians 1:15-18 proves that the writer stresses the Preeminence ie the figurative use of the word First- Born

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:18

Note the term Firstborn from the dead!

We are all born , are we then created beings ? Simple logic

I am afraid the passage under consideration clearly speaks of creatures in relation to a Creator, not progenitors i.e. we were not born by Christ hence that logic is not applicable here!

Jessicha:
O ga o , you took "firstborn" alone , where do you throw the next line that set the record straight . Not just firstborn but " firstborn of all creation " , firstborn of isreal is born of isreal , isnt it ? Why is the firstborn OF CREATION difficult for you to accept as the first BORN OF CREATION ?



Hahaha , lol ; he was born but not created abi ? Explain to us how he was born

15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Then how come He is the First born of the creatures He created?? Why did it not read that by Him were all things born (since you imply that born = created)

See
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm

For the meaning of Monogene (Only Begotten) see:
http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3439.htm

uboma:
Jesus Christ was also created by God. The Bible refers to him as the first born of all creation.

But it clearly says that He is the First BORN (not first creation) but that He the First Born created all things. The passage differentiates being born and being created/made.

The following verses should clarify things

Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

John 1:1,2,18 (AMP)
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God.
No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father].

What of the Old Testament?

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a [b]son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Son is also the Mighty God!

If one claims this was the Father, then consider this:


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9-6.htm

Father is omitted in the Hebrew meaning the use thereof was implied as a result of the general use of the word, 'abiad' being followed by Father. Besides, that Joseph described himself as a father to Pharaoh (GEnesis 45:8.) being his second-in-command tells us what it means that Jesus was described , impliedly, as Father.

lexiconkabir:
so, all you've been saying did not address the fact that insects have six feet, not four. It seems redundant to forbid the eating of something that does not exist. The more straightforward explanation is that this is an error in the Bible.

Being the conclusion you had before commencing your research.

tartar9:
what is this ogre saying.

lexiconkabir:
@embolden, i helped you to fix it well, anyway you should have added "when i copy and paste misconceptions from anti-islamic site" to the underlined.

Why don't you rather explain to the house since they are misconceptions like you said?

After all there have been many copy and pastes from anti-Christ sites which by God's grace were refuted.

Holyman3:
Very well.

But you understand I could have my own interpretation of the verse.
Or do I have to accept yours whether I like it or not?

Whatever interpretation you choose should not contradict the Scriptures. ( pls trash my interpretation if it fails this test)

lacum:
ur quoting d bible out of contxt. no body even d church added anything to d book of revelatn and oda books.d bible, the church help us undastand more Gods word. u too sola scriptura but believe diffrent doctrins but we took our teachings and d bible as authority n we are not confused because d church is d pillar of truth.

Pls highlight:
1. what passages i quoted out of contexts and kindly correct me.
2. What doctrines I believe that are 'extra-scriptura'

Thank you

Holyman3:
Eccl. 9:11.


"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"

From my own understanding, it seems that only time and chances favours people here.

Let's have your own view.

This passage was speaking about men in general as it concerns issues like Providence, Timing by nature (eg 9 months in the womb to be spent by babies which no amount of prayer can shorten) etc and does not refer to God's promises, provisions, purposes etc Else why did Christ say to pray without ceasing?

Holyman3:
Eccl. 9:11.


"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"

From my own understanding, it seems that only time and chances favours people here.

Let's have your own view.

This passage was speaking about men in general as it concerns issues like Providence, Timing etc and does not refer to God's promises, provisions, purposes etc Else why did Christ say to pray without ceasing?

lexiconkabir:
@scholar8200, That site did not address the fact that insects have six feet, not four. It seems redundant to forbid the eating of something that does not exist. The more straightforward explanation is that this is an error in the Bible. The author of that site is even implying that it is a man-made idea due to the fact that only four is clearly visible, however the All-knowing God Almighty can never inspire such.

Not when secular philosophers held the same views of insects:

which have four feet; or more; the Vulgate Latin version adds, "only", but wrongly; for those that have more are unclean, and forbidden to be eaten, excepting those in the preceding verse; and most creeping things that fly have six feet, as the locusts themselves, reckoning their leaping legs into the number; though it may be observed, that those creatures that have six feet have but four equal ones, on which they walk or creep; and the two foremost, which are longer, are as hands to them to wipe their eyes with, and protect them from anything that may fall into them and hurt them; they not being able to see clearly because of the hardness of their eyes, as Aristotle (a) observes, and particularly it may be remarked of the fly, as it is by Lucian (b), that though it has six feet it only goes on four, using the other two foremost as hands; and therefore you may see it walking on four feet, with something eatable in its hands, lifting them up on high, just after the manner of men: now all such creatures that have four feet or more, excepting the above:

shall be an abomination unto you; abhorred as food, and abstained from.

(a) Ut supra. (Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6.) (b) De Musca.
Gill's exposition of the Bible

I think that goes to establish the fact that it is not the work of man; only the Truth attracts the attention of the father of lies. he has been at it since Genesis 3!

Moreover, another problem is PRIDE!!!

(we are afraid/unwiling to discover that
i) we have been deceived;
ii) our 'exalted' clergy/pastor/priest/church founder did not do a thorough job;
iii) the partial position/teaching satisfies and gratifies our flesh and relieves us of our responsibility and we dont want any contrary but Scripturally sound view that will deny us our pleasure/false assurances.
iv) the man who left a ministry to start his own wants numbers and wants to be different from where he left even at the risk of distorting the Word etc

Besides, if you consider the claims and beliefs of various dissenters, you will notice a holding unto a position/teaching, carved out from a passage ignoring what was said about the same subject in other passages and a movement is born holding to that teaching while ignoring other passages that, if considered, would have set things in the right perspective.

plappville:
Christ handling the Kingdom is enough to refute Trinitarian s that Chriat is not the Almighty God. Its a simple and clear verse. But human al2ays like to make things difficult. This same character the Pharisees displayed but Jesus rebuked them. They made the sabbath a big bone in the throat. But Jesus came and told them they were over doing it. Same this we see in the church today. Why not let bible interprets itself.

Sure those verses were from the Bible! Besides, its only good we consider a subject from all perspectives as far as the Word reveals!

As to making images and forms, I am unable!

plappville:
Look at Husband and wife in this picture.  They share everything in common but they are separate beings.  Yet the bible told us they are one flesh. Does thst make them one person Husband and wife share things in common.  They are one. But seperate beings.

Thanks for the highlighted. However there is a deeper dimension as Christ describes in John 17:21a
that they all may be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You,
John 17:21a

Take a look at : Exodus 23:20-21

20 Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

An angel has the power to forgive? And Has Go's name in Him Waoh, now Take note of: {{ But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak}} (the angels voice and God speaks)
Lets see who this angel is according to the NT.

 
1 Corinthians 10:1-6 take note of verse (4)

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; [b] 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that [size=14pt] Rock was Christ. [/size] [/b]5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

The angel that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, He bears the GOD'S name, He will not forgive if they provoked him. They must listen to His voice. Paul told us This angel was Christ. Do you agree with Paul here?

You see the word Angel (malak) basically means ambassador, king, angel, messenger, prophet, priest, teacher (Jesus was described as a Teacher come from God)
http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/4397.htm

In Revelations 2 & 3, the angel of the churches was referring to the pastors/leaders over those churches! Not literal angels.

Hence its use does not always refer to the created angels meaning it will be wrong to assume that the manifestation of the Pre-incarnate Christ was that of an Angel that was created!

I am happy you quoted Paul who mentioned Rock (not an Angel as the created ones).

The use of the term Rock was another way of referring to God in the OT see:

For their rock is not like our Rock,
Even our enemies themselves judge this.
Deuteronomy 32:31

lacum:
@scholar, i jv gone through ir post . yes you tried but you know u didnt answer even one of it. eg question 2 dats where u spoilt d whole thing,lolz.
pls try again.
that am going to testify to somtin does not mean dat i must write them down. in short how many times hv u testified of d goodness of God in ur life n how many hv u written it down.? he didnt even say that only d testimonies written down will b accepted as word of God.

But even John that was asked to write the Revelations said thus:

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:
Revelations 22:18

He testified in writing!

Besides, the Pharisees are a good example of those who were against sola scriptura of their time! They invented traditions, bound grievous burdens tried to monopolise the Law and its interpretations in ways that served their purpose (reminds me of Tetzel in Luther's time) etc and Christ denounced them and their traditions! Why? It made the Word - the Scriptures - of none effect! The same still holds true today!

Take note of Revelations 22:18,19 and Mark 7:7 and 2 John 9-11. Does it look like they discourage the sola scriptura stand point?

See http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.php

This answers it:

19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair[c] the Bethlehemite killed the brother of[d] Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

20 [b]In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. [size=14pt]He also was descended from Rapha[/size]. 21 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David’s brother, killed him.
[/b]
22 [size=13pt]These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men[/size].

Goliath had brothers all of them sons of a certain Rapha in Gath. David killed Goliath (else why did Saul and Israel recognise him?)

2 Samuel 21:19-22
Which four? (Remember they were killed after Saul had died and David being King led the battle)
1.Ishbi-benob vs 16
2. Saph Vs 18
3. Lahmi 1 Chronicles 20:5 also 2 Samuel 21:19 (called brother of Goliath but actual name was Lahmi)
4. The one with extra fingers and toes vs 20,21

Conclusion: The person mentioned in vs 19 was indeed Goliath's brother and not Goliath himself hence Mr Aribisala was wrong in his claims that they inserted it there; DAVID KILLED GOLIATH!!!


Let's sing:

"The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
’Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.

Refrain:
The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.

The Bible stands like a mountain tow’ring
Far above the works of men;
Its truth by none ever was refuted,
And destroy it they never can.

The Bible stands and it will forever,
When the world has passed away;
By inspiration it has been given,
All its precepts I will obey.

The Bible stands every test we give it,
For its Author is divine;
By grace alone I expect to live it,
And to prove and to make it mine."
Haldor Lillenas

lacum:
I am a Catholic and I believe in all the teachings of the Church.
If you can answer all these with the "BIBLE ALONE", I'll leave my Church. I'm talking about real good answers.
1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Jesus, after resurrection established the Inspiration of the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:27,44), referring to that written therein concerning Him!
Furthermore, He sent the disciples to teach men ALL things He had commanded and taught them (Matthew 28:20)- the 4 Gospels. The other parts of the NT were the writings of the Apostles (and Disciples) thus sent and none invented any new thing other than that revealed. Besides, Peter's reference to Paul's writings endorses the latter (for those who want it) having accepted his calling as an Apostle to Gentiles (the first).
Galatians 2:8-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16

2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

John 15:20,26,27
There, Jesus spoke about the sayings of the Apostles and that the disciples would testify of Him having being with Him from the BEGINNING (of His Earthly ministry this testifying not being the same as preaching the Gospel-a command to all believers). It is not by mistake that the last of them to die - John - concluded the book of Revelations with Revelations 22:18,19 - an express warning to those who may come to claim new/strange revelations/ tradition contrary to that which was written!

3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

The Apostles severally warned of ANY belief, teaching or practice contrary to that which was given. See 2 John 10,11; 2 Timothy 3:16; Galatians 1:8,9 and Revelations 22:18,19

4. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?

That was no approval given! Why? Remember that Jesus denounced the same people for making God's Word of none effect through their TRADITIONS Mark 7:6-13 See:
They worship Me in vain [their worship is meaningless and worthless, a pretense],
Teaching the precepts of men as doctrines [giving their traditions equal weight with the Scriptures].’
Mark 7:7

5. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:. If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?
(And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)

Being an Apostle whose Apostleship was not denied by the other Apostles, Paul's traditions here was nothing different from that which characterised the early church - breaking of bread (1 Cor 11:23-33), prayers (Ephesians 6:18/ Colossians 4:2,12,) teaching of the Word (Acts 20,21), dignity of labour ( 2 Thess.3:6,7,10), holiness of life (1 Thess 2:10), church administration (1 & 2 Timothy), discipline (1 Corinth 5:11-13) etc

6. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

These quotes were from Inspired sources! Besides, one rallying point is that none of those contradicted that which was written! (One of the surest test of what is inspired and what is not). etc Moreover, can it be perfectly established that they were quoting from oral traditions? Is it not possible that the Writers were being Inspired by He that Inspired the first speakers?
Afterall:
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:21

7. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

This question is a summary of some earlier ones already answered.

8. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

How does this apply to the church issue? For assistance, remember that the book of Jeremiah contains the prophecies and part of the biography of Jeremiah but most of the writings were done by Baruch! Paul authored a good number of epistles but the actually penman were his lieutenants eg Tertius Romans 16:22...

9. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

On the basis for which Christ authenticated His Ministry - the Law, prophets and the Psalms. But we have a plus now - the Words of Christ.

10. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)

Deep calleth unto deep. That neither Christ nor His disciples referred or quoted from the inter-testament period books underscores the statement in Isaiah 34:16
Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read:
no one of these shall fail,...:
for my mouth it hath commanded,
and his Spirit it hath gathered them.
The Spirit that inspired them will do the sifting.


Summary
Salvation is through faith in Christ (after repentance), not in a Church.

yazach:
Mother of your God was married at the age of 12

Ouch! Book, chapter and verse from a CREDIBLE source sire!
And of Paul and Christianity show us ONE teaching of Paul that contradicts that of CHRIST and/or His disciples!

plappville:
Bro thank s for your response. But this type of subject has been treated here in NL times without numbers. You have quoted verses didn't say anything about the trinity. The bible made us to know that Jesus came from Above. His devine nature is not my argument but that He Jesus is Yahweh The Almighty according to the trinity. Jesus himself told us in several verses that He has a "GOD" he also told us the word he says are not his. We know that It is only through Him we can be saved because He made it clear. ( I am the way the truth and the life for no man cometh unto the father but by me.) I don't really want to go into posting verses here. It will looks like repeating same things over and over again. If the Trinity was a doctrine of Jesus, them he would have made it known by teaching it. Jesus never introduced such doctrine. We know when this came to the church and by who it came. If God puts His word in Jesus mouth it means when he says I am the Alpha and the Omega. It is God who is speaking through Him.

Don't forget that at the end of everything, Jesus will hand over everything to the Father. How are they thesame?

Alright, let's clarify thoughts this way (some are questions while others are points you may choose to refute or endorse):

1. Was Jesus right when He said, before Abraham was I am"?

2. Jesus spoke about a Glory He had with the Father before the World was and in a latter verse (john 17:10) said, " all Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine" meaning There is a Distinctness and at the same time a Oneness. Pls this does not suggest a Duo; here Jesus was praying to the Father, not teaching/preaching. He gives us the full picture in Matthew 28:19.

3. Paul the Apostle described the Incarnation of Christ that HE:
6 who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it]; 7 but emptied Himself [without renouncing or diminishing His deity, but only temporarily giving up the outward expression of divine equality and His rightful dignity] by assuming the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men [He became completely human but was without sin, being fully God and fully man].
Phil. 2:6-8 (AMP)
Since this is so, I wont be surprised if His earthly life contained events such as weariness, hunger as well as speech such as WE Worship, My God etc

4. God put His Word in Jesus' Mouth etc was the pattern after His incarnation meaning He showed us what is the real order of living - God (Christ) in us, the hope of Glory- He showed us how to use the mortal body in relation to God and Eternity. This was the pattern He gave us hence Paul was able to say that God called him to, "reveal His Son in me" Galatians 1:16. The corollary? He was our example and thus we see the essence of all christian experiences: God dweling in and living in and through us (see 2 Corinthians 6:16)- living inspired lives!

5. Endeavour to differentiate the Pre-Incarnate Christ, the Incarnated Christ and the Resurrected Christ and the Words spoken at different times at the Revelation of each!

6. Your reference to Christ handing over all to the Father should be considered in the Light of that statement by Christ:
John 17:11
New International Version
All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.


and a re-iteration in John 16:15

New International Version
All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

P.S.
May I appeal that those pictures be re-considered; there are mysteries in the Bible that the full picture (we know in part 1 Corinth 13:12) can only be appreciated on the other side. Making caricature pictures now is similar to the mistake made in Romans 1:23
23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man.."

Same applies to he that think the Divine Nature must be explicable by the miserable inventions/discoveries of finite man - mathematics/physics!!!

ShaheedBinAliyu:
if you like believe... if you like don't... even if na angel showed him those things... it means angel dey lie abi... don't you know it's visions that shows the truth about everything

Rather you are the one that was about to create the impression that those words in vs 9 were spoken by Jesus!