Why not just Jesus?

[Veridican]

Do you ever wonder why, if we are Christians, we don't just follow the Gospels? Like, they would be our only canon of scripture, everything else would just be for historical reference, wisdom, or good advice, but we would be followers of Jesus ONLY. He would be our only teacher. Our canon then would be Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation. Why has there never even been a cult, or church, or denomination like that in all of history?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Veridican in post #1]
Because the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T.) are very important. First of all, they tell us exactly who God really is, and there might be a question about that if only the Gospels and Revelation were studied. The Hebrew Scriptures show us who is the Most High and how He relates to His Son, whom He anointed to come to Earth and atone for humanity, as well as giving succor to us. (Isaiah 61:1,2; see Luke 4:17-21)

No, you're absolutely right. And I believe we need the Bible in order to have historical context and even the wisdom of people who wrote the letters of the NT and the Psalms, and like for instance, Genesis. It's a context for discussing the creation itself. I get all that.

But Jesus must be our only teacher. We can't equate the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Jesus. We can't say that Paul's letters are on the same level as the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. We can't follow the Old Testament relationship God had with humanity now that Christ has come and is our atonement. We have a new covenant through Jesus Christ, a new Way to God. A new relationship.

But I'm not casting out the Bible. I study the Bible all the time. But when it comes down to it. My "canon" is the life and teachings of my only teacher, Jesus Christ.

It's a decision we have to make: either we follow ONLY Jesus Christ, which is all he would accept, or we practice some kind of hybrid Judeo-Christian-Apostolic religion that just won't cut it. It won't bring rebirth and it won't make one Christ. That's where I'm coming from, anyway.

I think I understand what you're saying. We shouldn't follow what current religious teachers are saying, like the Pope or some television preacher....I agree.
But Paul and the writers of the Gospels were picked by Jesus himself to impart his sayings to humanity. Why would we want to ignore them? Didn't Jesus choose them for a reason? And what of Jehovah, Jesus' Father and God? Wouldn't we want to honor Him as Jesus did?

[onewithhim]

But what about Christ's Father (Jehovah) whom he loved? Wouldn't Christ want you to love and obey Him? Please read the 17th chapter of John and you'll see how much Jesus loved and acquiesced to his Father. Should we ignore that? Wouldn't we want to share in his happiness at going back to heaven to be with his Father whom he called his God? (John 20:17)

I know the passage very well. And I know you know this: We don't go to God directly. Trust me, I tried that in the occult. God is there--but God without Jesus Christ is not something meant for human beings. When we become Christ (or if you prefer, when we become the same substance as Christ) then we can have a relationship with God. But without Christ God is a vague spiritual force or an academic philosophical subject to us human beings. That's my belief. That's Veridicanism.

I agree! So why do you basically ignore Jehovah anyway, despite Him being Jesus' beloved Father and God? How can we know God without knowing the Father?

[onewithhim]

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I only call one thing the Word of God, and that's Jesus Christ. I don't think I need to tell you that or quote the verses on that. I know you know them. I will never call this book sitting here on my desk, which is one of many I have, the "Word of God."

That said, Veridicans canonize the following books. That means we consider them the scriptures that God intends for us to use in our religion: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Revelation, Thomas, and the Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's it. Those are for us (Veridicans) because we follow ONLY the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. So, it's not hard to understand, and in fact, it's quite logical--if you actually believe that Jesus is your only teacher.

The authorship of the books is irrelevant. The NT Gospels and Revelation are utterly anonymous at any rate, and for good reason. An anonymous document over time loses the interference of the author. Thus, we do not qualify or denigrate, or establish the authority of the Gospels because of who wrote them. Rather, they are prima facie. They are exactly as we find them, and if one reads them, and if God touches their mind, they will have a revelation of Jesus Christ from them. Because they are anonymous, the Holy Spirit becomes the author. In that sense, the Gospels, as opposed to any other books in the Bible are miraculous documents. So much so, in fact, that one can deduce the entire purpose of the Catholic Church was simply to preserve the Gospel record--and that they did.

And they burned people at the stake also.

[Miles]

Peace to you,

This leads me to believe that many were speaking and writing false things in the name of Moses.

That makes sense yes, even if it is just a matter of the scribes writing/copying/translating in error. Jeremiah even speaks of the lying pen of the scribes that handled the law falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8)


Remember also that Moses gave some commands - not because they were true from the beginning - but because the hearts of the people were hard. So just because Moses made an allowance for the people in some occasions doesn't mean that this allowance is what was true from the beginning. On the other hand, Christ tells us what is true, even if it is hard for people to accept or to hear.

Such as the law on divorce:

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”


He corrected other things as well,

"You have heard it said, but I tell you now..."



Christ is the One who speaks ONLY truth, the One who leads His sheep into ALL truth.

But isn't it true that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), and therefore should never be cherry picked or second guessed? Isn't god also capable of speaking only the truth, or does he lie?


.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

This leads me to believe that many were speaking and writing false things in the name of Moses.

That makes sense yes, even if it is just a matter of the scribes writing/copying/translating in error. Jeremiah even speaks of the lying pen of the scribes that handled the law falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8)


Remember also that Moses gave some commands - not because they were true from the beginning - but because the hearts of the people were hard. So just because Moses made an allowance for the people in some occasions doesn't mean that this allowance is what was true from the beginning. On the other hand, Christ tells us what is true, even if it is hard for people to accept or to hear.

Such as the law on divorce:

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”


He corrected other things as well,

"You have heard it said, but I tell you now..."



Christ is the One who speaks ONLY truth, the One who leads His sheep into ALL truth.

But isn't it true that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), and therefore should never be cherry picked or second guessed? Isn't god also capable of speaking only the truth, or does he lie?


.

We're getting onto another topic (I'll see if I can find a link to other conversations on this matter), but yes to the first part of your questions, all scripture is inspired and profitable for those things. That does not mean that everything in the bible is scripture, and it also does not mean that there are no scribal/copyist/translation errors introduced (via the scribes... the verse about the lying pen of the scribes is in one of the prophets - Jeremiah - which is inspired -aka- something given 'in spirit'). Therefore, the answer to the second part of your question is 'no' (re: the cherry picking), especially considering that God said to listen to HIS SON. Cherry-picking to find what you want to be true... that is not a good way to know what is true. That is just a way to tickle your own ears. Cherry-picking - or rather, holding all things up to the LIGHT, the TRUTH (Christ) to see if something is true (or false, or perhaps just misunderstood)... well, that is putting Christ first. And I mean, why would you make a decision on whether something is true or not, while rooting around in the dark? Hold things up to the LIGHT, so that you can see clearly. That LIGHT being Christ.

The third question does not apply, because it is not God introducing errors, but rather the scribes. Also, God never said, 'listen to this bible'... He said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you Miles (and to you all),

Here is a link to a couple of posts on the topic:

viewtopic.php?p=927265#p927265
viewtopic.php?p=1035359#p1035359

Peace again.

[Veridican]

I think I understand what you're saying. We shouldn't follow what current religious teachers are saying, like the Pope or some television preacher....I agree.

Why not? Why not follow Pope Francis and Jimmy Swaggart?

But Paul and the writers of the Gospels were picked by Jesus himself to impart his sayings to humanity.

Well, yeah, the writers of the Gospels--they're telling us the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. But Paul is telling us Paul's teachings of Jesus Christ. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but Paul was a man, an early Christian, and a traveling preacher. Why are his letters any different than Billy Graham's?

Why would we want to ignore them?

I don't. I read Paul's writings all the time. But, and I will say this again, there is only one Word of God. That's Jesus Christ. There is only one teacher I'm going to follow, that's Jesus Christ. There's only one way to eternal life with God and Christ, and that is Jesus Christ.

Didn't Jesus choose them for a reason?

Sure. The same way he chose Billy Graham. ...And me, for that matter. Not that the world will be around in three hundred years, but if it were, and after my death, Veridicanism became popular, and then they took the book I'm currently working on and canonized it. That would be a terrible error. The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ, of course, is different. But that's a Gospel harmony, not some new Gospel I wrote.

And what of Jehovah, Jesus' Father and God? Wouldn't we want to honor Him as Jesus did?

I take it he's not your God? You speak as if you don't believe in Jesus' God? But...if you want to honor God, I think you know the verse about that.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

[Veridican]

I agree! So why do you basically ignore Jehovah anyway, despite Him being Jesus' beloved Father and God? How can we know God without knowing the Father?

In all of this, with everything I've said, how do derive the idea that I ignore God?

[Miles]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

This leads me to believe that many were speaking and writing false things in the name of Moses.

That makes sense yes, even if it is just a matter of the scribes writing/copying/translating in error. Jeremiah even speaks of the lying pen of the scribes that handled the law falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8)


Remember also that Moses gave some commands - not because they were true from the beginning - but because the hearts of the people were hard. So just because Moses made an allowance for the people in some occasions doesn't mean that this allowance is what was true from the beginning. On the other hand, Christ tells us what is true, even if it is hard for people to accept or to hear.

Such as the law on divorce:

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”


He corrected other things as well,

"You have heard it said, but I tell you now..."



Christ is the One who speaks ONLY truth, the One who leads His sheep into ALL truth.

But isn't it true that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), and therefore should never be cherry picked or second guessed? Isn't god also capable of speaking only the truth, or does he lie?


.

We're getting onto another topic (I'll see if I can find a link to other conversations on this matter), but yes to the first part of your questions, all scripture is inspired and profitable for those things. That does not mean that everything in the bible is scripture,

Boy, according to my dictionary it sure does.

scripture
1a(1) capitalized : the books of the Bible —often used in plural. (2) often capitalized : a passage from the Bible. b : a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative.

2 : something written the primitive man's awe for any scripture— George Santayana.
(source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

What does "scripture" mean where you come from?

and it also does not mean that there are no scribal/copyist/translation errors introduced (via the scribes... the verse about the lying pen of the scribes is in one of the prophets - Jeremiah - which is inspired -aka- something given 'in spirit').

So your god goes to all the trouble of making sure that “All Scripture . . . is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), " but subsequently doesn't give a hoot about preserving its accuracy? So, either he doesn't care, he can't do it, or he's stupid, wouldn't you think? "Here are my instructions. Follow them. Don't follow them. *sigh* Whatever."

Cherry-picking to find what you want to be true... that is not a good way to know what is true.

But isn't that what you're suggesting when you said: "That does not mean that everything in the bible is scripture." If not everything in the bible is scripture wouldn't you have to cherry pick the scriptural stuff out of it all?

The third question does not apply, because it is not God introducing errors, but rather the scribes. Also, God never said, 'listen to this bible'... He said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."

AND, as I've pointed out, he also said "All Scripture . . . is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness."



However, because you assert that not everything in the Bible is scripture, exactly what qualifies as scripture and what doesn't. And why?


,

[tam]

[Replying to Miles in post #89]

I linked you to a couple of posts, Miles. Let me know if you still have the same (or other) questions after that.

Peace to you!