The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it?

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

Sorry zeek. I missed your entry until now.

Rather than have me review and critique what Evangelical said, do you disagree with what I said?

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry zeek. I missed your entry until now.

Rather than have me review and critique what Evangelical said, do you disagree with what I said?

Drake

I'll be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine. I didn't ask you to critique what Evangelical said. I just asked if you agreed with him. You freely express agreement and disagreement on this forum. Here are the questions again:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

I think Witness Lee would have disagreed with Evangelical's statement on questions 1 and 2. I'm less certain what he would have thought about 3. I think he may have recognized that Christians outside the Recovery could be one with the Lord in some matters. Number 4 is a troubling theological paradox that may be inescapable for the believer. So, I ask you again: what do you think?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'll be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine. I didn't ask you to critique what Evangelical said. I just asked if you agreed with him. You freely express agreement and disagreement on this forum. Here are the questions again:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

I think Witness Lee would have disagreed with Evangelical's statement on questions 1 and 2. I'm less certain what he would have thought about 3. I think he may have recognized that Christians outside the Recovery could be one with the Lord in some matters. Number 4 is a troubling theological paradox that may be inescapable for the believer. So, I ask you again: what do you think?

Zeek,

this was for discussion in Alternative Views, not on the Open Forum. If this can be further discussed there, would be better. You have the wrong context about number 3)

The first and second point was also taken out of context. You are missing the "Perhaps because.. " on point 2, which is offered as an open possibility for discussion and not an absolute statement of belief.

Points 1 and 2 are based on the following observations:

No one writes books about other books or topics which are finalized and completed. It implies that the Bible alone is insufficient.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Zeek,

this was for discussion in Alternative Views, not on the Open Forum. If this can be further discussed there, would be better. You have the wrong context about number 3)

The first and second point was also taken out of context. You are missing the "Perhaps because.. " on point 2, which is offered as an open possibility for discussion and not an absolute statement of belief.

Points 1 and 2 are based on the following observations:

No one writes books about other books or topics which are finalized and completed. It implies that the Bible alone is insufficient.

Okay thank you for the clarification. You weren't stating that the Bible is insufficient. My mistake. But your statement is still untrue. People write books about completed books all the time.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

Zeek misquoted me. That is not what I wrote at all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Zeek misquoted me. That is not what I wrote at all.

Here's an exact quote of what you stated cut and pasted:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

Here's my paraphrase of what you said in the form of a question:

"4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?"

I added "in the Bible" to supply context without quoting your entire post and "because" to make a causal connection that think you were implying. You do admit you were talking about the Bible, don't you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's an exact quote of what you stated cut and pasted:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

Here's my paraphrase of what you said in the form of a question:

"4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?"

I added "in the Bible" to supply context without quoting your entire post and "because" to make a causal connection that think you were implying. You do admit you were talking about the Bible, don't you?

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

Did God inspire the devil during the 40 day trial in the wilderness, when speaking to Jesus?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

I see. Well once again, here's your statement verbatim:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

So, to try to paraphrase, once again, first you're saying that mistakes in the Biblical text were God-breathed. Is that right? Second, you're saying that Judas's betrayal of Christ, not merely the account of it in the Bible, was God-breathed. Correct? Third, you're saying that the God-breathed errors in the Bible are the same as the God-breathed crime of Judas. Do I have that right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

Great points, Trapped.

Failures, even by great men of God, are recorded in the Bible for our admonition and encouragement, and that's why Paul tells us that "all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (II Tim 3.16)

Even the betrayal by Judas, formerly Jesus' "familiar friend," (Psalm 41.9; 55.12-14) a trusted companion, warns us that it is never wise while following the Lord to compromise the truth, accept short term gains, condemn an innocent man, bear false witness, succumbing to filthy lucre, saving one's own skin -- all of which I saw when LSM's Blendeds held their Kangaroo Court at Whistler Resort to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu of Cleveland.

The Blendeds would be wise to learn all the lessons of Judas.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

Does expressing supposed "erroneous human concepts" undermine the truth? And how do we define "erroneous human concepts?"

Does the expression of "erroneous human concepts" disqualify an author or his writings in scripture?

I think this takes us down a very slippery slope indeed. The Apostle Paul apparently expressed a few "erroneous human concepts" himself both before and after his salvation. He was complicit to the stoning of Stephen. A little erroneous? He later celebrated the Passover and then took a vow in Jerusalem, which the Lord did not approve of.

It is WL once again sowing seeds of doubt concerning the word of God. If I remember correctly, it was the serpent in the garden who first started this trend. Once we open up this Pandora's Box of doubt, we will now have inbred suspicions cast on every verse. Does this then reduce us to the safety of "red letter" verses?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

Peter did not write any erroneous human concepts into his epistles which are part of the Bible, nor in his messages in Acts.

Of course Peter as a Christian human being said things that were wrong, but not as a writer of the Bible.

Did Bro Lee say any erroneous human concepts?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

Unfortunately we don't have any autograph copies of any of the NT books. So we can't correct the more variants in the over 5500 pieces of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Don't trust any scholar(s) that claim they know something about the NT autographs.

To believe they are inerrant is a matter of faith.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Unfortunately we don't have any autograph copies of any of the NT books. So we can't correct the more variants in the over 5500 pieces of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Don't trust any scholar(s) that claim they know something about the NT autographs.

To believe they are inerrant is a matter of faith.

Nevertheless awareness, we can trust that God delivers to us His speaking in the canon of Holy Writ we call the Bible. Out of the thousands of MSS’s there is no substantive difference between them.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

I agree ZNP that one of the primary functions of Gods speaking is to operate within us. All Scripture is profitable in that way also.

Jesus in His divine eternal status as coequal in the Godhead is with and was God as the Word and this Word was incarnated, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. Some who beheld His glory, the glory of an Only Begotten Son, wrote down what they saw and that is included in the record in the Bible, Gods written and documented word to us. When we read the Bible or hear a message from the Bible with the Spirit then the written word becomes the instant word, a sword in function, the rhema, to operate in us, to divide the soul from the spirit.

Christ is the eternal Word, the Bible is the written word, and the Spiriit operates in us as the instant speaking word. These three uses of the “the word” are not interchangeable but all are Gods speaking to us in different formats, means, and ways.

That how i see the broader definition of the word.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree ZNP that one of the primary functions of Gods speaking is to operate within us. All Scripture is profitable in that way also.

Jesus in His divine eternal status as coequal in the Godhead is with and was God as the Word and this Word was incarnated, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. Some who beheld His glory, the glory of an Only Begotten Son, wrote down what they saw and that is included in the record in the Bible, Gods written and documented word to us. When we read the Bible or hear a message from the Bible with the Spirit then the written word becomes the instant word, a sword in function, the rhema, to operate in us, to divide the soul from the spirit.

Christ is the eternal Word, the Bible is the written word, and the Spiriit operates in us as the instant speaking word. These three uses of the “the word” are not interchangeable but all are Gods speaking to us in different formats, means, and ways.

That how i see the broader definition of the word.

Drake

Well then I feel this is true of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and James.