Scripture

[Scribe]

In RECONSIDER RECENT THREADS thread, we are dicussing what is scripture. Probably so that all who are interested can follow and any future ones can find it, we need to begin a thread called "SCRIPTURE". Any that come to this discussion now, or later, should refer to the above meantioned thread to see some of the previou postings. Also this is being dealt with in my blog called "THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST-SCRIBE".

I was challenged concerning scripture. I invoked Galations 3:8....the SCRIPTURE announced the glad tidings to Abraham. We agreed that this does not refer to our Bible, for it was not yet written. I reject that there is another book like the koran or book of mormon or any other, that Abraham read. Nevertheless, the scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham. Paul tells us as he wrote. I declare that the scripture is the Word coming to man and finding faith. When the Word and faith join in man, man writes and that writing is scripture. This is the holy faith of the saints. The Word came to Abraham and found faith, as Abraham wrote, he was led step by step. So it is today with the seed of Abraham. This is why Revelation chapter one comes to focus on what is in the right hand of the son of man.

Scribe

[Scribe]

1 Chronilces 28:19 All this [said David,] in writing, by Jehovah's hand upon me, instructing as to all the works of the pattern.

Ponder David's boldness. The Lord had given Moses the pattern of the tabernacle he built. The pattern Moses wrote was with David. The Tabernacle that David built was still in function in another place in the land. But David was bold to lay out the pattern of another house for the Lord in another place. From where and how did he get this boldness? The Bible tells us. The hand of the Lord was upon David as he wrote. In that writing David was made to understand. As David wrote the pattern was made known to him. This is scripture and this is anointing and this is faith in the living Word.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

I was challenged concerning scripture. I invoked Galations 3:8....the SCRIPTURE announced the glad tidings to Abraham. We agreed that this does not refer to our Bible, for it was not yet written. I reject that there is another book like the koran or book of mormon or any other, that Abraham read. Nevertheless, the scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham. Paul tells us as he wrote. I declare that the scripture is the Word coming to man and finding faith. When the Word and faith join in man, man writes and that writing is scripture. This is the holy faith of the saints. The Word came to Abraham and found faith, as Abraham wrote, he was led step by step. So it is today with the seed of Abraham.

You have never addressed my concern, or rather disagreement, that Galatians 3:8 says that "scripture" announced glad tidings to Abraham. That is unless you are simply saying that "scripture," meaning God, who is the Word of God, spoke to Abraham. There is no record of written words being given to, or being written by Abraham. And Galatians 3:8 does not say that scripture spoke to Abraham. It says that scripture foresaw justification by faith by recording that God spoke those specific words to Abraham. But the recording was not at the time that God spoke to Abraham. It was generations later when Moses wrote it.

I believe that you are confusing the telling of Abraham with the recording of that telling in the book of Genesis which was not written at the time of Abraham.

You have essentially ignored what I have said and just turned back to your claim that there was a writing that Abraham read and/or wrote. And you have given no basis for any assertion that there was any kind of writing at the time of Abraham rather than only at the time that Genesis was put to writing.

Originally Posted by Scribe

This is why Revelation chapter one comes to focus on what is in the right hand of the son of man.

What does this mean? What is the relevance?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have never addressed my concern, or rather disagreement, that Galatians 3:8 says that "scripture" announced glad tidings to Abraham. That is unless you are simply saying that "scripture," meaning God, who is the Word of God, spoke to Abraham. There is no record of written words being given to, or being written by Abraham. And Galatians 3:8 does not say that scripture spoke to Abraham. It says that scripture foresaw justification by faith by recording that God spoke those specific words to Abraham. But the recording was not at the time that God spoke to Abraham. It was generations later when Moses wrote it.

I believe that you are confusing the telling of Abraham with the recording of that telling in the book of Genesis which was not written at the time of Abraham.

You have essentially ignored what I have said and just turned back to your claim that there was a writing that Abraham read and/or wrote. And you have given no basis for any assertion that there was any kind of writing at the time of Abraham rather than only at the time that Genesis was put to writing.

What does this mean? What is the relevance?

I continue to tell you the relevance. The question is how can you hear? Of course hearing is the crucial spot in the revelation. You have expressed what you believe. So now your question makes me think of where Moses was before he could stand before Pharoah. Moses had wandered forty years in the wilderness. He had married one of the priest of Midians seven daughters. He had shepherded his father in laws sheep to the back side of the wilderness, to the mount of God. But he didn't realize what he had in his hand. Moses had the staff of God, able to deliver His people in hand, but he didn't realize it. The Angel had to appear in the burning thornbush to reveal this to him. What do you have in your hand? This is the angels cry to the drawn out shepherd. We all must come to this same place Moses came to. The Angel must reveal the living Word in our hand. In the revelation the Angel does this not via a thornbush, but via seven golden lampstands. And ultimately in the sign the son of man takes the place of the angel as the revelation comes to the Israelite. As the angel had to reveal the hand of Jehovah upon Moses in the redemption of Israel of old. So today the church must bring the revelation to the Jews. The Issue here is not God speaking, but how He speaks. We know Moses wrote of Abraham later and we know Paul did even later. And now we do. But the way the Lord revealed Himself to Abraham was by placing His hand upon him. In this way He gave Abraham an oracle that instructed him daily. Paul shows that this same experience now comes to the gentiles as it did to Abraham when he was still a gentile.

Abraham wrote and the scripture spoke to him.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

Abraham wrote and the scripture spoke to him.

That is not a supportable statement. Where did you get this?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is not a supportable statement. Where did you get this?

Again,Galations 3:8.
Do you say when Paul wrote this he didn't mean that the scripture spoke the glad tiding to Abraham?

The scripture annouced the glad tidings to Abraham.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

Again,Galations 3:8.
Do you say when Paul wrote this he didn't mean that the scripture spoke the glad tiding to Abraham?

That is exactly what I am saying. After reading the verse in both the NIV and in the interlinear, I conclude that Paul said that what was spoken to Abraham before there was scripture was recorded in scripture and foresaw justification by faith. The Greek words indicate that scripture foresaw justification by faith because before that God gave a message to Abraham. This last message (actually the first message) is not called scripture. That is your addition to what Paul said.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is exactly what I am saying. After reading the verse in both the NIV and in the interlinear, I conclude that Paul said that what was spoken to Abraham before there was scripture was recorded in scripture and foresaw justification by faith. The Greek words indicate that scripture foresaw justification by faith because before that God gave a message to Abraham. This last message (actually the first message) is not called scripture. That is your addition to what Paul said.

That is your reasoning. Now let see how you reason the David verse, that shows he was instructed in the temple pattern by the Lord's hand upon him as he wrote. 1 Chronilces 28:19 All this [said David,] in writing, by Jehovah's hand upon me, instructing as to all the works of the pattern.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

That is your reasoning. Now let see how you reason the David verse, that shows he was instructed in the temple pattern by the Lord's hand upon him as he wrote. 1 Chronilces 28:19 All this [said David,] in writing, by Jehovah's hand upon me, instructing as to all the works of the pattern.

Before we move on to David, please actually respond to what I said. You have ignored it over and over. That does not constitute a position or a reason.

So far, you seem determined to make statement after statement, and when anyone disagrees, you just move on to something else as if it is settled.

Or are you conceding? (I'm not prone to presume that you are, but you don't seem to be wanting to discuss.) Seems you just want to make statements — one after another. Doesn't seem to matter if others think they are reasonable given the scripture they are said to arise from. You are happy with the statements and that is it.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

Before we move on to David, please actually respond to what I said. You have ignored it over and over. That does not constitute a position or a reason.

So far, you seem determined to make statement after statement, and when anyone disagrees, you just move on to something else as if it is settled.

Or are you conceding? (I'm not prone to presume that you are, but you don't seem to be wanting to discuss.) Seems you just want to make statements — one after another. Doesn't seem to matter if others think they are reasonable given the scripture they are said to arise from. You are happy with the statements and that is it.

You have convinced me that you don't see , and really don't want to see. I concede only that. I concede that you don't want to answer what scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham, but try to make it void by your reasoning. You have convinced me that you think Jesus writng in John 8 is insignificant. (When I fact it is a crucial revelation and open door to how He comes now. You haven't convinced me that you are the only one here. Others watch, and wait patiently. I say Abraham wrote and all saints write and that is how they become holy as John17:17-20 shows. I move on to show other places from Genesis to Revelation (all of which are also written by saints), that show the revelation of the hands on unspeakable gift. You have ignored many, many other spots and statements to prove the faith.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

You have convinced me that you don't see , and really don't want to see. I concede only that. I concede that you don't want to answer what scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham, but try to make it void by your reasoning.

I have answered everything concerning this alleged "scripture" that announced the glad tidings to Abraham. You are the one ignoring. You do not even respond to my assertion that the supposed scripture that Abraham read is instead the scripture that later recorded the speaking (not writing) of God to Abraham. You are linguistically missing what is said by Paul. You have no basis for a claim that there was anything written down for Abraham to read. Or you have managed to provide no basis yet you actually do have one? If so, rather than dodge, please provide it. And don't just say Galatians 3:8. That is a non-answer. You must actually show how it succeeds despite the evidence that it does not.

You have only dismissed me with a claim of "don't want to see." Under this kind of logic, you are free to say anything you want, even if it is entirely delusional, and you make it clear that because you "see" it, you are not open to reconsider in any way. That is a bankrupt position.

And so far, you have spoken as if there is something so wonderfully rich because you have found some "scripture" that Abraham read, but you can't establish that it exists. It only exists because you say it does.

Can you answer two questions concerning yourself? Even if the answers should be obvious, can you tell us plainly (no locations required) whether you have ever met with the Local Churches, and if so, do you meet with them now.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

Can you answer two questions concerning yourself? Even if the answers should be obvious, can you tell us plainly (no locations required) whether you have ever met with the Local Churches, and if so, do you meet with them now.

I have answered these questions before. I have met with the local churches for 35 years. You also meet with the local church, or you practice division. I believe you are in Arlington. (please correct me if I am wrong). Blessed be the angel of the church in Arlington. Arlington means Town of the oath. Blessed be the wandering sheep of Israel, scattered to Arlington. And again....I handle the unspeakable gift even as Abraham did. If you have the gift and it's revelation, there is fellowship in the right hand Paul brought to us. If not there is just debate.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Scribe is from the greek Word= grammateus. This Word is 1122 in strongs. It is rooted in 1125= ,meaning "to grave" , "to write". Also from this root comes 1124= graphe, meaning a written document, scripture.

Every holy scribe writes scripture. The very name scribe and scripture are connected and cannot exist without each other.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

I have answered these questions before. I have met with the local churches for 35 years. You also meet with the local church, or you practice division. I believe you are in Arlington. (please correct me if I am wrong). Blessed be the angel of the church in Arlington. Arlington means Town of the oath. Blessed be the wandering sheep of Israel, scattered to Arlington. And again....I handle the unspeakable gift even as Abraham did. If you have the gift and it's revelation, there is fellowship in the right hand Paul brought to us. If not there is just debate.

Thanks for the information. I was unable to find that in any of your posts, although I did not scour them thoroughly.

Now. A word of caution. While I do not care that my identity and location be given (as I have given it), many do not wish to be so well identified. Since you are operating from supposition rather than repeating the facts I have supplied, you are telling the forum something that you think you have gleaned from some source that is other than me. I believe that you will find that "outing" forum members is against the rules.

But as I said, I am not one to complain for myself. But despite your public guess as to my location, I will not complain to the moderators. But I am not in Arlington. My brother is. Arlington is in Tarrant County, along with Ft Worth. I am in NW Dallas county, just north of Irving. But if you had actually read any of my posts that gave location information, you would already know that. Instead, you tried to read between the lines somewhere, or have acted upon knowledge of my existence in the DFW area from my days in the LRC (now more than 23 years ago) and tried to publish my location. I would suggest that you should now be willing to state your location since you feel so free to publish unstated information about other members. But I will refrain because I still do not feel that anyone should be forced to be public about such things.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

Scribe is from the greek Word= grammateus. This Word is 1122 in strongs. It is rooted in 1125= ,meaning "to grave" , "to write". Also from this root comes 1124= graphe, meaning a written document, scripture.

Every holy scribe writes scripture. The very name scribe and scripture are connected and cannot exist without each other.

Are you suggesting that because you call yourself Scribe that you are writing scripture? Or are you claiming that God has given you this special name that grants you such a status? If either is true, then are you not suggesting that you are somehow "oracle-like" in status? Not necessarily an oracle, but capable of writing words that elevate to "scripture" and therefore additive to our knowledge of God at a rather certain level. Would you agree with such a statement?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

Thanks for the information. I was unable to find that in any of your posts, although I did not scour them thoroughly.

Now. A word of caution. While I do not care that my identity and location be given (as I have given it), many do not wish to be so well identified. Since you are operating from supposition rather than repeating the facts I have supplied, you are telling the forum something that you think you have gleaned from some source that is other than me. I believe that you will find that "outing" forum members is against the rules.

But as I said, I am not one to complain for myself. But despite your public guess as to my location, I will not complain to the moderators. But I am not in Arlington. My brother is. Arlington is in Tarrant County, along with Ft Worth. I am in NW Dallas county, just north of Irving. But if you had actually read any of my posts that gave location information, you would already know that. Instead, you tried to read between the lines somewhere, or have acted upon knowledge of my existence in the DFW area from my days in the LRC (now more than 23 years ago) and tried to publish my location. I would suggest that you should now be willing to state your location since you feel so free to publish unstated information about other members. But I will refrain because I still do not feel that anyone should be forced to be public about such things.

I thought I read you are in Arlington. I realize now my error. I believe I read Irving. I don't believe the info was unstated , I just got sloppy in remembering. Of course you are looking for points of attack. You are quick to attack and quick to call foul when you get roughed up. But I understand why it must be that way with Michael's.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are you suggesting that because you call yourself Scribe that you are writing scripture? Or are you claiming that God has given you this special name that grants you such a status? If either is true, then are you not suggesting that you are somehow "oracle-like" in status? Not necessarily an oracle, but capable of writing words that elevate to "scripture" and therefore additive to our knowledge of God at a rather certain level. Would you agree with such a statement?

I wonder in your statement: "capable of writing words that elevate to "scripture". You seem to think the Word gets elevated in becoming scripture. I have to consider this. The Word is the Word. He is God. He is perfect in every way. He comes to us as seeking faith. When He finds faith in man, man is able to write as attending to the Word. Such attendance is surely scripture.

When Luke wrote to Theophilus was it scripture? Please just answer yes or no. Then I have another question.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

I thought I read you are in Arlington. I realize now my error. I believe I read Irving. I don't believe the info was unstated , I just got sloppy in remembering. Of course you are looking for points of attack. You are quick to attack and quick to call foul when you get roughed up. But I understand why it must be that way with Michael's.

Sorry if I get a little heated over the basic rules. There have been some who have come to make their points, then suddenly start "outing" people as an alternate way to drive them away. (It seems that people who are trying to be private will duck when someone starts "exposing" them.)

Since you identify that you merely misread something in the past and that it was an error of what you otherwise thought was public information, I definitely back down on my complaint. It was not for me, but for others that might back away. You think that I am looking for reasons to attack. But while I might be ready to take on the rationale for positions, I prefer that everything just be on the up and up. I do not look for problems. I like it when there are none. And it looks like maybe there are none here. I'm happy with that. It was just that the posting of erroneous information about my location while providing none concerning yourself seemed to indicate something a little off (to me). Since that is cleared up, my "radar" has gone back to sleep. (And I am not suggesting that you should identify your location. That is still your own decision.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

I wonder in your statement: "capable of writing words that elevate to "scripture". You seem to think the Word gets elevated in becoming scripture. I have to consider this. The Word is the Word. He is God. He is perfect in every way. He comes to us as seeking faith. When He finds faith in man, man is able to write as attending to the Word. Such attendance is surely scripture.

And it is clear that you are missing my point. The point is not how some common words become "elevated" to the become scripture. Rather, I am questioning whether there are words being written now that we can make any assertion concerning them being scripture.

And even if you think that there could be current writings that are "scripture," on what basis would you assert that they are?

Originally Posted by Scribe

When Luke wrote to Theophilus was it scripture? Please just answer yes or no. Then I have another question.

Trick question (whether you considered it that way or not). In one sense, the answer is "yes" because if it was inspired by God for the purpose of being scripture, then it was at its writing. And in another sense, the answer is "no" because it was not immediately accepted by all as authoritative.

So there is a problem in giving a simple answer. From God's perspective, it is what it is. But from man's perspective, they had to consider its heritage and see what was written compared to what they knew about Jesus and the birth and expansion of the church.

How do you like to say it?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is clear that you are missing my point. The point is not how some common words become "elevated" to the become scripture. Rather, I am questioning whether there are words being written now that we can make any assertion concerning them being scripture.

And even if you think that there could be current writings that are "scripture," on what basis would you assert that they are?

Trick question (whether you considered it that way or not). In one sense, the answer is "yes" because if it was inspired by God for the purpose of being scripture, then it was at its writing. And in another sense, the answer is "no" because it was not immediately accepted by all as authoritative.

So there is a problem in giving a simple answer. From God's perspective, it is what it is. But from man's perspective, they had to consider its heritage and see what was written compared to what they knew about Jesus and the birth and expansion of the church.

How do you like to say it?

The simple answer would be "YES". What Luke wrote was scripture. It is in the Bible. We accept the Bible as scripture and thus Luke is scripture. But you detect a trick. A trick question. Surely all questions are a trick, intended or not. The Word is thrown to the ground and becomes a question or a serpent. We must take questions up by the tail. So here's the trick. If you say Luke writing is scripture, then I ask, was it scripture when he wrote it? You seem to answer that in that you think some later men who did not write scripture had authority to discern what is scripture and what is not. You seem to think these men had authority to elevate what others wrote to the level of being called "Scripture". I do agree that the Lord used them to separate what was needed and call it the Bible. But I also know that all that had faith, had an oracle of God. When they wrote the scripture announced the glad tidings to them. Their motive in writing was their love for the Word. As they handled the unspeakable give, He taught them how to overcome in their present environment. As they wrote they separated holy angels from evil ones. By their writing they brought the holy ones to bear in their environment. They loved to write because the Word is God and they had faith. They didn't write a aspiring to make it in the Bible selection. As they wrote they found their names written in the book of life and they were fulfilled.

I strongly declare that when Luke wrote He knew he was writing scripture, but I don't know that he thought it would be chosen to be in the Bible. The BIble is separated by the Lord to be a witness and instruction to the scribes of this generation. (And to be door into the holy land of scribes) In attending to the Word there are various degrees of development and maturity in the writing.

Now, that the Jews could write scripture is one thing, but that a gentile as Luke could write is firstfuit of the right hand of fellowship sown in the slave Paul. In Luke we find the method of all the scribes called from the gentiles. Luke wrote to one other gentile! All of Luke and all of Acts is written to one gentile lover of God. We have Lukes writing, but also when Theophilus entered Lukes method and wrote, his Word was also scripture. It was God at hand to him and surely it ministered to the Word and to Luke when Theophilus wrote. They had entered the fellowship of the people of the Book. As they wrote they found their names written in the Book.

So then you ask, are such Words being written today. Do you have faith when you write that the Word is God? Do you believe how you measure it is being measured to you by your own hand? Do you believe the hand of the Lord is upon you? And if not you, do you then believe His hand is upon none, and none can handle the unspeakable gift, none can write script? And none ever will? Do you believe the Word shall tabernacle among His people but never branch hand to hand? Or do you believe He shall not dwell with men. And if you believe all this, why write and why read any writing , for all is vain, for none are consecrated and none are saints.


O Michael, Scribes faith is found in the Word and His coming to dwell in man. Join Word and join faith and scripture comes. As man daily takes up his cross and writes, scripture comes.


The Word is in the world but the writers know Him not. And His own rejected Him. But as many as believe into the Word know Hoim as living at hand, guiding to all victory.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

The simple answer would be "YES". What Luke wrote was scripture. It is in the Bible. We accept the Bible as scripture and thus Luke is scripture. ... If you say Luke writing is scripture, then I ask, was it scripture when he wrote it? You seem to answer that in that you think some later men who did not write scripture had authority to discern what is scripture and what is not. You seem to think these men had authority to elevate what others wrote to the level of being called "Scripture". I do agree that the Lord used them to separate what was needed and call it the Bible.

You do not seem to understand what I wrote. I clearly indicated that what Luke wrote was scripture from its very writing. The part about the judgment of man does not change whether it actually is or is not scripture. But if it is not recognized, then it is ignored and not treated as scripture (even though it is). But if it is not recognized and treated as scripture, then it is not acting as scripture and might as well not be scripture.

So in a different sense, what is scripture is partly the dictates of man. The issue is faith. Do we have faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, will move in men to have their eyes opened to see that which truly is scripture.

Originally Posted by Scribe

But I also know that all that had faith, had an oracle of God. When they wrote the scripture announced the glad tidings to them. Their motive in writing was their love for the Word. As they handled the unspeakable give, He taught them how to overcome in their present environment. As they wrote they separated holy angels from evil ones. By their writing they brought the holy ones to bear in their environment. They loved to write because the Word is God and they had faith. They didn't write a aspiring to make it in the Bible selection. As they wrote they found their names written in the book of life and they were fulfilled.

"all that had faith, had an oracle of God." How do you "know" this?

None of these things cause the words written to be scripture. The issue is inspiration. And saying "inspiration" is itself a problem.

Inspiration can be used in a way that seems consistent when it is not. We may be inspired with something, even something from God. But if we put it in writing, that does not mean that God inspired that writing to be treated as scripture. I think of this as similar to what we may be lead to practice by the Holy Spirit. Some may be lead to refrain from the consumption of any alcohol. Others may not. But scripture does not take a definite stand on the subject. If I accept that the person who feels to refrain was truly lead and inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit, that is to them how they should live. But if they put it in writing, even though the leading was "inspired," it is not scripture to others simply because it is writing that springs from the inspiration of God. It must spring from the inspiration of God for the purpose of becoming a record from God to be directive as scripture.

Now there are many who talk these days of "writing scripture with our lives." And I do not disagree with their statements. But when they say that, they are not saying that this current "writing" is new and instructive, but, like Acts, is a continuation of the story of the church. From the aspect of the telling of the story of the church, it is always ongoing. But from the aspect of revealing new truths about God, especially that stand as different from what is already recorded, this kind of "scripture" is not the same thing. We can be loose with the term and call it all "scripture," but it is not the same.

Originally Posted by Scribe

I strongly declare that when Luke wrote He knew he was writing scripture, but I don't know that he thought it would be chosen to be in the Bible. The Bible is separated by the Lord to be a witness and instruction to the scribes of this generation. (And to be door into the holy land of scribes) In attending to the Word there are various degrees of development and maturity in the writing.

You can strongly declare all you want, but there is no evidence that Luke had any idea that he was recording anything that would be God's word rather than just his "reporter on the scene" account of events. Any claim of certainty can only be viewed as unsupported and based on supposition.

Originally Posted by Scribe

So then you ask, are such Words being written today. Do you have faith when you write that the Word is God? Do you believe how you measure it is being measured to you by your own hand? Do you believe the hand of the Lord is upon you? And if not you, do you then believe His hand is upon none, and none can handle the unspeakable gift, none can write script? And none ever will? Do you believe the Word shall tabernacle among His people but never branch hand to hand? Or do you believe He shall not dwell with men. And if you believe all this, why write and why read any writing , for all is vain, for none are consecrated and none are saints.

I can only say that if you are being loose with the term "scripture" and using it as a flowery word for "writing," then you can have a lot of scripture. Otherwise, it is not such an open thing.

Alternately, we can agree that there are many things written by many over the centuries that help us in our understanding of the Bible. If you want to call that scripture, that is your privilege. But the beginning of this discussion was to discuss "scripture" as it relates to the book we call the Bible. If you have been intent upon turning anything written by anyone who has received inspiration and revelation into that kind of scripture, then we cannot agree on what is scripture. If you have instead decided to use the term in a different manner so that "writing" becomes "scripture," then we are at odds on how to apply the word, but not because we misunderstand each other. In this case, the problem becomes one of equivocation.

It is equivocation because when I use the term "scripture," I am referring to that body of writings that we call the Bible. I treat them as a synonym. If you want to use "scripture" as merely any writing that arises from the mind of someone inspired to write, then there is probably a definition of "scripture" in which that would be true. But it is not the definition that I am using. And if you are suggesting that some of these contemporaneous writings (scripture) can be taken as additive to the Bible (also scripture) then it would not only be a different definition from the one I am using, but at odds with the one I am using.

So depending on your response to this, I may need to be more specific when I would otherwise say "scripture" since there may be a level of equivocation at play. I may need to specify the Bible so as to clarify my source of "scripture." Never thought I would need to do that in a discussion inside any kind of Christian context.

[Scribe]

Mike,
The reality of the Lord's table is found in the writing and the speaking. Writing in the revelation of the oath is the bread, testifying upon it is the wine. Today the world is drunken on the wine because the bread is not in hand. The church is a holy society of scribes. I will continue to show this whether you can see or not. If you don't see now, prehaps tomarrow you will. I surely didnt start out seeing.

The son of man in the sign on Revelation one has taken the angels in hand by writing in the anointing that is the Word of the oath. Only this can produce signs that wake up the Jews to the writing on the left hand. The reality of the laying on of hands is the transfer of the mystery of the oath, granting us the sanctifying Word.

Scribe

[Scribe]

1 John 1:1-4

1That which was from [the] beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life;
2(and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us
3that which we have seen and heard we report to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship [is] indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we to you that your(our) joy may be full.

The apostle declares the Word that is from the beginning. They have heard with their ears and seen with their eyes and handled with their hands. This is the normal christian progression. We hear the Word, we read the Word, we write the Word. The Word that is life becomes manifested and they have seen and bear wtiness and write the report to us that we may have the same fellowship with them. This holy writing is the fellowship of the Father and Son. After this, John contrast those that write in the faith with those that merely speak. He goes on to show that this is the anointing that teach us all things and whoever writes in it needs no one to teach them. This writing is Jesus coming in the flesh and all spirits are proved hereby. Those that deny Jesus coming in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist. That spirit ha one goal: to keep the believers from hearing , seeing and writing and thereby becoming saints.


Why would you think that the Lord would entrust Israel with the holy writing and then take it away and never entrust again?

You can argue with people that don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and they may never believe. All their argument convince them they are right. But we know oppose their own self. Lifewise, I can argue that the Word desires to tabernacle in us, making us saints in holy writing. I can show that He is not exclusive, but entrusts Himself to the hando of all His saints. But only He can reveal it and the wonder of a walk measured in the Word.

O blessed is the day that the Word so matures in a believer that he begins to discover his hands.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

They have heard with their ears and seen with their eyes and handled with their hands. This is the normal christian progression. We hear the Word, we read the Word, we write the Word.

So you think that "handled with their hands" means writing? Have you run this by anyone else? On what do you base this notion?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

So you think that "handled with their hands" means writing? Have you run this by anyone else? On what do you base this notion?

Yes....writing. The Word is handled when our hands handle.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Also the right hand of Galations 2:9...."and recognising the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas [the] right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the nations, and they to the circumcision;"
means right hand. Paul brought the right hand of the oracles to us, the gentiles. Israel then was put into sacrifice on the left and cannot awaken until the right hand bears fruit in us. The sign in Revelation one, is that fruitation returning. Until we, with the right hand of the fellowship can write in a way that produces signs upon the Jews, they sleep on the left.

Scribe

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

So you think that "handled with their hands" means writing? Have you run this by anyone else? On what do you base this notion?

The kings in the OT were required to copy the Bible. Copying would certainly be one form of "handling" the word. It has been shown that it involves much more of the brain than just reading and helps you get the word deeper into your brain. Copying is certainly not as involved as writing, so from a pedagogical standpoint I would think this has merit.

Also, is it true that all of the apostles wrote?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The kings in the OT were required to copy the Bible. Copying would certainly be one form of "handling" the word. It has been shown that it involves much more of the brain than just reading and helps you get the word deeper into your brain. Copying is certainly not as involved as writing, so from a pedagogical standpoint I would think this has merit.

Copying is not "writing" new scripture. And writing new scripture is not exercising your brain concerning what is already there.

The notion of writing being "handling the word" is too contemporary to be taken seriously. If this were a reasonable interpretation of the verse, it should have been understood well by those of the first century and thereby at least placed into the debates of the early years. But it is instead a new thing. We may find that we have lost touch with parts of the gospel of Christ, but we are not finding anything "new." Just new to us. But where is this thought so that it can be "echoed" today?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, is it true that all of the apostles wrote?

There is evidence that some did — or at least something was written that was attributed to them. I don't know about "all."

[Scribe]

Beloved fellow believers and lovers of our Lord Jesus Christ, peace to you in your ministry to Him. Presently some desire to debate with me concerning the Word. Some are strong to say that God cannot be touched. He cannot be handled, they think. Somehow it seems to them that if I say I touch Him, I lie, or I have done something illegal as if He doesn't desire all His church to touch Him! Truly, coming out of the long age of the baptism it is impossible to imagine we can touch Him, apart from His overwhelming revelation which tears down the strongholds of our mind. He must break us in His hand before we can receive the unspeakable gift of touching Him!

Ponder- you who are married, do you speak love to your spouse? You say "I love you". But then do you touch? And if in that relationship touching is most intimate,(even more than speaking), how much more in our relationship with the covenant God? Do not think that our Father used His hands to form us with hands for less reason than that we could touch God!

What immense pleasure men had in writing in the fellowship with the God who is the Word! Men enjoyed to write, for they touched Him. They even saw their writing as ministry to Him.

How sad for us if the Bible is just like a window to look at their joy, but we have no way to touch, to handle, to intimately know He who is the Word. Sad for us. More sad for God!

O joy! I reject all such nonsense in this time of supreme mercy and grace.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

Presently some desire to debate with me concerning the Word. Some are strong to say that God cannot be touched. He cannot be handled, they think. Somehow it seems to them that if I say I touch Him, I lie, or I have done something illegal as if He doesn't desire all His church to touch Him!

This is a total misrepresentation of what we have said. There has been no claim by anyone that God cannot be touched.

Originally Posted by Scribe

What immense pleasure men had in writing in the fellowship with the God who is the Word! Men enjoyed to write, for they touched Him. They even saw their writing as ministry to Him.

The portions they I skipped from your post are like music to the ears of those who want to be told that their Christian experience is all about words. And while there surely are words, it is the action based upon those words that is more important.

What you are "preaching" is ignoring the need for obedience and jumping straight to worship. It is a sort of sacrifice rather than obedience.

The writers of the OT "poetry" — like the Psalms — did not arise from simply reading the law and then writing about it. It came from experiencing life given to living the law. But when you come to a verse about being "doers" of the word, you dismiss it in favor of "authoring" or writing. That is to dismiss obedience to the word and instead write your own. It is an excuse for disobedience.

We will come to know the God of the Bible much better through reading, prayer, and obedience than through any kind of worship undertaken in the place of obedience. We touch God through our reading, our prayer, and our obedience. If you skip obedience, and try to go straight to worship in any form — even your alleged writing — it is hollow. True worship, even bringing the "sacrifice of praise" as the praise chorus says, does not arise because we get together in an atmosphere that is conducive to such things. It happens because we have lived in the experience of true obedience to His will and can gladly proclaim that He does change our lives.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a total misrepresentation of what we have said. There has been no claim by anyone that God cannot be touched.

So now are you confessing that the Word is God in your hand?

Scribe

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

We will come to know the God of the Bible much better through reading, prayer, and obedience than through any kind of worship undertaken in the place of obedience. We touch God through our reading, our prayer, and our obedience. If you skip obedience, and try to go straight to worship in any form — even your alleged writing — it is hollow.

I assumed that most who read here have laid the foundation of the beginning of the ORACLES of God and are ready to be brought on to maturity. Hebrews 6.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

So now are you confessing that the Word is God in your hand?

The Word is God. If I am holding it, it is in my hand. But you can hold the Word in your hand and not "touch God." You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

This is lunacy. While I might agree with the statement, that is not what I was saying. You jump all over the place. You find a word and try to make every possible use be something constant. It is not always so.

So I assert that no one said God could not be touched and you reply by saying that I have "confessed" that a very particular thing not otherwise mentioned anywhere is true.

Be glad this is not a court of law. Or an English or linguistics class. Your kind of reasoning would fail in all cases.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

The Word is God. If I am holding it, it is in my hand. But you can hold the Word in your hand and not "touch God." You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

This is lunacy. While I might agree with the statement, that is not what I was saying. You jump all over the place. You find a word and try to make every possible use be something constant. It is not always so.

So I assert that no one said God could not be touched and you reply by saying that I have "confessed" that a very particular thing not otherwise mentioned anywhere is true.

Be glad this is not a court of law. Or an English or linguistics class. Your kind of reasoning would fail in all cases.

You don't answer. "If", you say. The Word is God you confess and then say if you are holding "it". "it" is in your hand. Then you confess what must be the lunacy you write of in the next paragraph. You say. "you can hold the Word in your hand and not 'touch God'". Obviously when you say the Word and when I say the Word we mean totally different things. Apples and oranges, you say. The Word is God. He is a living person, not an "it". And there is no way to hold Him and not touch Him.

As to your English accusation, this is classic LSM tactic. Find weakness and attack, so as to cause paralysis by condemantion. You imply that my weakness in the English language negates the revelation. That is silly. He choses the bright and the not so bright. He choses the educated and the uneducated. He gives revelation to whomsoever He choses and that is not based English efficiency.

As to standing in court, we are all in the trial in the court of Jesus Christ. Anyone who attempts to bear witness without the measures of the oath in hand, is not true. It is the revelation of the oath in hand that is the reality of all scripture. I refer you back to the beginning of my witness:

My witness in the local church-1

This world is a great court room, and we all, who have come here, have come by subpoena of the Most High Judge of all. We are sent to watch and bring forth our witness in the trial.

The court is governed by the Word of the oath. The oath is the logos that must be written. The true witnesses must speak within the bounds of their writing. This establishes God as the Word in the court. All that a mouth speaks must pass under the rod of the handling of the oath. No witness is true that does not come under the hand of the oath. Thus the Word of the oath was given to Israel and is Israels superiority over the gentiles in the trial. And from Israel, Paul was sent to bring to us the right hand of fellowship that we could enter the court and bear witness in truth. So we write.

Coming to the local church is to take our place on the witness stand. Each of us has a testimony of how we came to the church. Each stands or falls based upon their own testimony. We write our own judgment in how we judge the church and then in how we judge Israel. So I write as scribe. All saints are scribes. This term "saint" is used carelessly by most. The way it is used would be better said as "believers". A saint is one who handles the unspeakable gift of the Word. (John 17:17-20). By daily writing the scribe is being sanctified. And the daily writing is the scribes consecration.

In this way I write my witness.

Scribe

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Scribe

You don't answer. "If", you say. The Word is God you confess and then say if you are holding "it". "it" is in your hand.

Actually, I answer very clearly.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Then you confess what must be the lunacy you write of in the next paragraph. You say. "you can hold the Word in your hand and not 'touch God'". Obviously when you say the Word and when I say the Word we mean totally different things. Apples and oranges, you say. The Word is God. He is a living person, not an "it". And there is no way to hold Him and not touch Him.

Yes, the Word is God. But it also is the written Word that we do hold and handle.

This started with a comment from you in #25 where you said “Yes....writing. The Word is handled when our hands handle.” Are you suggesting that our hands actually “handle” God? There may be metaphorical uses like this. But your statement was about “writing” and that it tangible. Then you went straight to “the Word is handled when our hands handle.” If you mean this in other than a literal sense, they you should rephrase. Bouncing back and forth between literal and metaphorical meanings is a form of equivocation — even if unintentional. And the fact that a word can have a rich metaphorical meaning does not always imbue its literal use with that meaning. They are more like two different words sounding alike but with different meaning.

Then in #29 you said “Presently some desire to debate with me concerning the Word. Some are strong to say that God cannot be touched. He cannot be handled, they think.” And my response in #30 was “This is a total misrepresentation of what we have said. There has been no claim by anyone that God cannot be touched.” You then reply in #31 “So now are you confessing that the Word is God in your hand?” And while I can come up with alternate ways to read that last line, the most direct understanding would be that you have asserted that the written Word of God being held in your hand is to “touch God.”

And my answer would be “only with more qualifiers.” Why? Because merely holding any book in your hand, even the Word of God, is not touching God in any meaningful sense. “Touching God” is about making meaningful contact. In the natural realm, it would be like going into Barnes & Noble, picking up any random book, and consider it to be somehow “touching” the author. If I actually read the book, understand its words, am moved by its premises, etc., then it might be said that I have “touched” the mind of the author. Of course this strictly earthly example is not fully comparable with our ability to “touch” God, but it is quite possible to pick up and even read a little from scripture and not really “touch God.”

If you are simply meaning that the fact that the Word is God, and therefore by picking up a copy of that Word that is in written form you are touching God, then while it might be technically true, from the perspective of the common use of “touch God” in the Christian context, it is not true.

Originally Posted by Scribe

As to your English accusation, this is classic LSM tactic. Find weakness and attack, so as to cause paralysis by condemnation. You imply that my weakness in the English language negates the revelation.

There you go again.

You presume that disagreement is an attack. And since you seem to presume that your position is, without question, correct, everything that does not simply agree with you will be an attack. On the other hand, while much of your talk seems (to me) to be rambling and jumping between literal and metaphorical use of words — a practice that often leads to incorrect conclusions — I do not read your posts simply looking for errors. I read from many authors, even those I do not whole-heartedly agree with, to find things worthy of consideration. My understanding of God and the Christian life has changed dramatically in the past few years, heavily as the result of being open to consider ideas that I once would have rejected without a second thought. I have not accepted all such ideas. But I no longer think I have it figured out. But I have the hardest time being open to those who seem to think they have it figured out and are here to show everybody else the way.

Originally Posted by Scribe

The true witnesses must speak within the bounds of their writing. This establishes God as the Word in the court. All that a mouth speaks must pass under the rod of the handling of the oath. No witness is true that does not come under the hand of the oath. ... So we write.

It is paragraphs like this that make your writing difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to consider worthy of more consideration. I realize that I did not quote the entire paragraph. But it seems as if our testimony is the oath that is written. And this “establishes God as the Word in the court”? While I might be able to squeeze something that resembles a claim that “God is the Word in the court” no matter who is testifying and how they are testifying, this sequence seems to suggest that “God as the Word” is somehow predicated upon the fact that we are there “writing” our testimony/oath. Without even considering how I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, can you supply anything that is evidence of the truth of these statements of yours? I don’t mean to find evidence of the word “God” or evidence that “God is the Word” but rather anything about this court; about it being “governed by the Word of its oath”; about “true witnesses ... speak[ing] within the bounds of their writing”; about any of this “establish[ing] God as the Word” in any context.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Coming to the local church is to take our place on the witness stand. Each of us has a testimony of how we came to the church. Each stands or falls based upon their own testimony.

And the final question. Please define in terms that are common to everyone (and not just those who have learned the lexicon of Nee and Lee) what you mean when you say “local church.” Do you include every group that calls itself a church (we will ignore true cults such as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Are some excluded for some reason(s), and if so, what are those reasons.

[OBW]

I will keep out of your blog. But I have some questions that you might want to answer. Or not.

“Through Enoch's writing the heavens were able to pour out on Noah to separate him from Cain.” Where does this come from?

“The speaking of Adam was now a wine test in Noah.” What is a “wine test”?

“...the staff is the shadow of the pen.” Where does this come from?

“In Egypt world slavery came as Pharaoh filled their hands with Cain style work. They could not handle the Word, they grew weak therefore.” Where do you get this?

“The thornbush is a realm wherein the branches do not bear fruit, but abort into thorns. If any fruit is found, it is picked at the cost of thorn wounds. Such is a man without revelation of the Word in hand.” Who came up with this?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will keep out of your blog. But I have some questions that you might want to answer. Or not.

“Through Enoch's writing the heavens were able to pour out on Noah to separate him from Cain.” Where does this come from?

Genesis

Originally Posted by OBW

“The speaking of Adam was now a wine test in Noah.” What is a “wine test”?

The test for Adam was found in the speaking of the mouth. The test of Noah is wine. This is development of the witness of man's mouth into the wine of the Lord's table. The world is presently drunken on the wine of the speaking of the great harlot.


“.

Originally Posted by OBW

..the staff is the shadow of the pen.

Originally Posted by OBW

” Where does this come from?

Genesis to Revelation

“

Originally Posted by OBW

In Egypt world slavery came as Pharaoh filled their hands with Cain style work. They could not handle the Word, they grew weak therefore.” Where do you get this?

Genesis and Exodus

Originally Posted by OBW

“The thornbush is a realm wherein the branches do not bear fruit, but abort into thorns. If any fruit is found, it is picked at the cost of thorn wounds. Such is a man without revelation of the Word in hand.” Who came up with this?

I wrote that to you and others who watch.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I answer very clearly.

Yes, the Word is God. But it also is the written Word that we do hold and handle.

The Word is God, but becomes "it" when written by your hand. He remains "He" in mine.

Originally Posted by OBW

This started with a comment from you in #25 where you said “Yes....writing. The Word is handled when our hands handle.” Are you suggesting that our hands actually “handle” God? There may be metaphorical uses like this. But your statement was about “writing” and that it tangible. Then you went straight to “the Word is handled when our hands handle.” If you mean this in other than a literal sense, they you should rephrase. Bouncing back and forth between literal and metaphorical meanings is a form of equivocation — even if unintentional. And the fact that a word can have a rich metaphorical meaning does not always imbue its literal use with that meaning. They are more like two different words sounding alike but with different meaning.

I am not just suggesting that we actually touch God, I am declaring it. The bouncing from "literal" and "metaphorical" you write of is from the tree of good and evil. This problem is solved when we stretch out our hand to the tree of life.

Originally Posted by OBW

Then in #29 you said “Presently some desire to debate with me concerning the Word. Some are strong to say that God cannot be touched. He cannot be handled, they think.” And my response in #30 was “This is a total misrepresentation of what we have said. There has been no claim by anyone that God cannot be touched.” You then reply in #31 “So now are you confessing that the Word is God in your hand?” And while I can come up with alternate ways to read that last line, the most direct understanding would be that you have asserted that the written Word of God being held in your hand is to “touch God.”

Yes

Originally Posted by OBW

And my answer would be “only with more qualifiers.” Why? Because merely holding any book in your hand, even the Word of God, is not touching God in any meaningful sense. “Touching God” is about making meaningful contact. In the natural realm, it would be like going into Barnes & Noble, picking up any random book, and consider it to be somehow “touching” the author. If I actually read the book, understand its words, am moved by its premises, etc., then it might be said that I have “touched” the mind of the author. Of course this strictly earthly example is not fully comparable with our ability to “touch” God, but it is quite possible to pick up and even read a little from scripture and not really “touch God.”

Holding a book in hand, even the Bible is not to touch God. Surely what God and others have written may touch you in reading, but you are not touching the author thereby. I am not declaring our being touched by Him, though He must touch us before we can touch Him. So we agree, to pick up a book in hand is not what I mean by "touch God".

Originally Posted by OBW

If you are simply meaning that the fact that the Word is God, and therefore by picking up a copy of that Word that is in written form you are touching God, then while it might be technically true, from the perspective of the common use of “touch God” in the Christian context, it is not true.
There you go again.

Again. Picking up the Bible in hand, reading it and being touched by it is not what I mean by "touching God."

Originally Posted by OBW

You presume that disagreement is an attack. And since you seem to presume that your position is, without question, correct, everything that does not simply agree with you will be an attack. On the other hand, while much of your talk seems (to me) to be rambling and jumping between literal and metaphorical use of words — a practice that often leads to incorrect conclusions — I do not read your posts simply looking for errors. I read from many authors, even those I do not whole-heartedly agree with, to find things worthy of consideration. My understanding of God and the Christian life has changed dramatically in the past few years, heavily as the result of being open to consider ideas that I once would have rejected without a second thought. I have not accepted all such ideas. But I no longer think I have it figured out. But I have the hardest time being open to those who seem to think they have it figured out and are here to show everybody else the way.

When you debate the doctrine it is not an attack persay. But when you go after a person it is an attack. You attack English lit. and grammer in another place. That is an attempt to discredit the messenger not the message. I am not preaching myself. So read, what I post and enjoy or hate, receive or reject, agree or not, but leave personal attacks out of it.

Originally Posted by OBW

It is paragraphs like this that make your writing difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to consider worthy of more consideration. I realize that I did not quote the entire paragraph. But it seems as if our testimony is the oath that is written. And this “establishes God as the Word in the court”? While I might be able to squeeze something that resembles a claim that “God is the Word in the court” no matter who is testifying and how they are testifying, this sequence seems to suggest that “God as the Word” is somehow predicated upon the fact that we are there “writing” our testimony/oath. Without even considering how I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, can you supply anything that is evidence of the truth of these statements of yours? I don’t mean to find evidence of the word “God” or evidence that “God is the Word” but rather anything about this court; about it being “governed by the Word of its oath”; about “true witnesses ... speak[ing] within the bounds of their writing”; about any of this “establish[ing] God as the Word” in any context.

It took years and many dealings for the revelation of the oath to begin to be ministered to me. So if you really desire to see what I write, be patient. I seek how to lay out the oath so that some could see here.

Originally Posted by OBW

And the final question. Please define in terms that are common to everyone (and not just those who have learned the lexicon of Nee and Lee) what you mean when you say “local church.” Do you include every group that calls itself a church (we will ignore true cults such as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Are some excluded for some reason(s), and if so, what are those reasons.

When I say local church I mean the city by name and all the believers and saints in it, plus the angel that is over the city. Those that keep the oneness in the city will come to the revelation of the Word that can take up the angel of the city in hand. Then we are able to place our Word in such a way that it shines forth in signs to the John Jews in our city. We become a golden lampstand for he return to the Lord and His holiness.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Hebrews 6:13For God, having promised to Abraham, since he had no greater to swear by, swore by himself,

14saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee;
15and thus, having had long patience, he got the promise.
16For men indeed swear by a greater, and with them the oath is a term to all dispute, as making matters sure.
17Wherein God, willing to shew more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath,
18that by two unchangeable things, in which [it was] impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us,
19which we have as anchor of the soul, both secure and firm, and entering into that within the veil, 20where Jesus is entered as forerunner for us, become for ever a high priest according to the order of Melchisedec.


In the book of Hebrews we are in the holiest part of the court. Here we find all things reduced to two sure things. These two things are unchangeable. In them it is impossible for God to lie. These two are 1. the promises spoken by mouth and 2. the oath that is written. The oath and the promises are equal to the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus in the Revelation. The promises are confirmed by the oath. The oath puts it in writing. The oath anchors the promises. The oath makes both sure. God intervenes into His creation by the measures of the oath.

16For men indeed swear by a greater, and with them the oath is a term to all dispute, as making matters sure.

This Word "swear" is the same as oath. It is the Hebrew Word "Sheba'. It means to seven yourself. This sevening makes matters sure and ends all dispute.

17Wherein God, willing to shew more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath,


God intervenes by sevening Himself. The son of man in the local churches in Revelation one is laying hold of the oath intervening God. The son of man moves by leaning upon the Word of the oath in his hand. This makes his steps sure and his direction clear. All who write in tune with God in the oath, have living scripture at hand to announce the glad tidings to them in their present world. This is the anointing that teaches us all things.

And the scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham. Galations 3:8. This was his faith and this is his faith today in his seed.

Scribe

[OBW]

Before you read these, when I say "scripture," I mean words found in the 66 books that we have assembled into the Bible. I am not including the writings of anyone else, whether of people otherwise named in the Old or New Testaments, or any writer since that time. That includes you and me. We don't count.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Genesis

You need to be a little more specific. Otherwise, you might as well have made it up.

Originally Posted by Scribe

The test for Adam was found in the speaking of the mouth. The test of Noah is wine. This is development of the witness of man's mouth into the wine of the Lord's table. The world is presently drunken on the wine of the speaking of the great harlot.

I am assuming that this is your metaphorical creation to explain something about Adam and Noah? In other words, it is your analysis expressed in metaphor and you are not able to give it foundation in the existing scripture.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Genesis to Revelation

This is worse than the first. I am granting that there is possibly an actual verse, or verses that contain something that says what you said. When I ask for the reference, I am not asking you to simply say that it exists. If that is all you are going to do, don't bother.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Genesis and Exodus

More of the same non-responses.

Originally Posted by Scribe

I wrote that to you and others who watch.

So it is not from the Bible, but from your pen?

At this point, there is no evidence that you have said anything that can be clearly attributed to God. Maybe you really do have some actual verses. But it might just be some of your own writing. And while I will not state categorically that it is not from God, unless it can be based from the scripture that is available to all in written form (specifically the 66 books of the Bible), I have no basis to accept that it actually is from God. And since I have already determined that others before you who have claimed to have new revelation were ultimately false, I need more than your word to make it so.

[Scribe]

"according to the measure of the rule which the God of measure has apportioned to us, to reach to you also. "


"with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you." Matthew 7:2.


2 Corinthians 10


1But I myself, Paul, entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ, who, as to appearance, [when present] [am] mean among you, but absent am bold towards you;
2but I beseech that present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I think to be daring towards some who think of us as walking according to flesh.
3For walking in flesh, we do not war according to flesh.
4For the arms of our warfare [are] not fleshly, but powerful according to God to [the] overthrow of strongholds;
5overthrowing reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God, and leading captive every thought into the obedience of the Christ;
6and having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled.
7Do ye look at what concerns appearance? If any one has confidence in himself that he is of Christ, let him think this again in himself, that even as he [is] of Christ, so also [are] we.
8For and if I should boast even somewhat more abundantly of our authority, which the Lord has given [to us] for building up and not for your overthrowing, I shall not be put to shame;
9that I may not seem as if I was frightening you by letters:
10because his letters, he says, [are] weighty and strong, but his presence in the body weak, and his speech naught.


The apostle wrote powerful letters to the Corinthians, but then when he came physically to them, he appeared weak. He wrote strong Words but then when he came he did not speak. His letters they say are strong, but his speah was not. Paul came and had no liberty to speak. His instrution was his silence and his writing. Among them there were strong speakers. They spoke what their hands had not written! This is contrary to the right hand of the glad tidings.


11Let such a one think this, that such as we are in word by letters [when] absent, such also present in deed.
12For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves; but these, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are not intelligent.
13Now *we* will not boast out of measure, but according to the measure of the rule which the God of measure has apportioned to us, to reach to you also.
14For we do not, as not reaching to you, overstretch ourselves, (for we have come to you also in the glad tidings of the Christ


Paul shows that the practice of his glad tidings is to write then speak. Frist the bread and then the wine. Corinth had those that spoke beyond what their hands had measured. They were the problem in Corinth and thus he came among them in silence but with strong writing. He and those in his fellowship come in measures of the glad tidings of the anointing.


15not boasting out of measure in other people's labours, but having hope, your faith increasing, to be enlarged amongst you, according to our rule, yet more abundantly
16to announce the glad tidings to that [which is] beyond you, not to be boasting in another's rule of things made ready to hand.

The whole christianity became a speaking that was upon anothers writing. None had faith to handle the Word. But now the Word arises in the right hand of the saints. Each writes his measure from the Lord and pours out his speaking in those bounds. None go beyond what they have written.


17But he that boasts, let him boast in the Lord. 18For not *he* that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.


Scribe