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 Like, they would be our only canon of scripture, everything else would just be for historical reference, wisdom, or good advice, but we would be followers of Jesus ONLY.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?

[Miles]

The lack of convincing evidence for the existence of god.

Miles, I think everyone has a god-meaning an authority that you live by. For example, if someone told you to kill babies, would you do it? From your previous responses, I'd say that the authority (god) that you live by says no. There are obviously laws that control things in our world for example, the law of gravity. Is there a natural law ( God) that mankind is supposed to live by?

Prove it. Prove that there's "a god-meaning an authority that [ I ] live by." Heck! Simply prove there's any god at all. All I've seen are claims of his existence, and not a solitary piece of convincing evidence. Throw me a bone here: one solid, incontrovertible piece of evidence is all I ask


.

There are many gods. Most having to do with the worship of demons, the children of the heavenly watchers, who preach to eat the tree of the knowledge good and evil and determine between what is good and evil from their own twisted hearts. You can follow your false prophet, in the form of Marx, the false prophets Paul or Mohammad, but in the end, their authority rests with the state, whether the Muslim state, the Marxist state, or the Roman/Christian state, etc. In the current environment, the ruling authorities are leaning more in the godless Marxist realm, whereas the godless try and form the state into godless/lawless state, where in the end, they will all end in destruction. The proof is in the pudding. The more Progressive, lawless, godless, a state is, the closer they are to destruction, in terms of natural, or man-made events. The more Progressive, lawless, cities, such as Portland, Los Angelos, New York, the closer they are to collapse. On the other hand, one can repent and turn from lawlessness, and keep the Law given by God, and hope to "escape" the coming "destruction". When "destruction" comes, it is too late for the lawless to admit to their demented actions. The best they can hope and pray for is a quick end, but that is not assured (Revelation 9:6). I don't know what else I can tell you.

Yeah, I pretty much figured this would be too much to ask. Thanks anyway.


,

[JehovahsWitness]

DENEGRADING THE WORDS OF THE ALMIGHTY FROM CANON TO BEING NON-CANONICLE

• If Jesus refers to the Psalms, we go and read the Psalms. Fine, but we don't "canonize" the Psalms....

Jesus obviously didn't just cited the Psalms as the words of David, he quoted them as the authorative word of Almighty God. (compare Luke 20:17 , Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 28:16) . When God speaks can his words not be considered the ultimate standard of truth? How can somebody claim to worship God and consider anything He says as anything less than CANON as in, that which sets the standards of religious truth? (CANON: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms).

Jesus worsshiped God as a Jew and at no point indicated the Hebrew scriptures were wrongly viewed as part of Jewish canon. To thus no longer view them as CANON represents them bejng downgraded something Jesus never said or indicated would be the case.

DISMISSING DIVINE UTTERANCES AS IRRELEVANT

• It is irrelevant if Leviticus is the word of God or not.

Jesus most certainly did not view Hebrew scripture as "irrelevant" indeed how could he fulfill that which is irrelevant (Mat 5:17-19). Being a True Chrian means thinking and having the same attitude about things as Jesus. If Christs says "I hate it" then hate it. If Christ loves it, love it. Jesus showed in word and deed that the Hebrew scriptures set the standard for truth, those that claim to recognise God through Jesus, to "cannoise his life" but denegrade as uncanonicle what he elevated as canon are only fooling themselves.



VIEWING HEBREW PROPHECY AS DEAD HISTORY

• We have Jesus now; we don't really need Isaiah except as historical reference and biblical context.

That is not what Jesus taught. Jesus clearly regarded the books of the prophets as essential for Christians

MATTHEW 24:15 - English Standard Version

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)

Jesus was quoting the book of Daniel and speaking of future events. So rather than view Hebrew scripture as mere interesting history, he was indicating it had a relevance to the future.[/quote]

CONCLUSION :

One could argue whether we are really Christians at all. I'm not even sure.

Never has a truer Word been spoken!

RELATED POSTS

Should true Christians denegrade Hebrew scripture ?
viewtopic.php?p=1065096#p1065096

Should true Christians limit their canon to the gospels?
viewtopic.php?p=1065014#p1065014

What does it mean that the bible is "inspired of God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p867965

Who do bible writers claim gave them the words they penned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p840508

Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were NOT originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?
viewtopic.php?p=838822#p838822

How should we view Iraneus' and other early catalogues?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p923384

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLE CANON , BIBLICAL COMPILATION and ...THE APOCRYPHA

[JehovahsWitness]

JESUS LIFE AFTER HIS RESURRECTION

The gospels stop at Jesus resurrection but the book of Acts covers Jesus activities from his resurrection onwards, if you canonize Jesus" why do you accept the book of Acts that contain the activities of Christ ?

[Veridican]

One could argue whether we are really Christians at all. I'm not even sure.

Never has a truer Word been spoken!

Then quit judging my religion by your standard.

[Veridican]

JESUS LIFE AFTER HIS RESURRECTION

The gospels stop at Jesus resurrection but the book of Acts covers Jesus activities from his resurrection onwards, if you canonize Jesus" why do you accept the book of Acts that contain the activities of Christ ?

I already answered this. I'm not answering it again.

[JehovahsWitness]

One could argue whether we are really Christians at all. I'm not even sure.

Never has a truer Word been spoken!

Then quit judging my religion by your standard.

So, you don't consider yourselves followers of Christ? If not, thats fine! I have no problem with Muslims, Jews or atheists disregarding any part or all of the bible. If however you are proposing that such a position as yours in only accepting the gospels, revelation and a handful of apocrypha, properly represents what Jesus himself wanted , well there I take issue (see above).




JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[JehovahsWitness]

SHOULD TRUE CHRISTIANS REJECT THE BOOK OF ACTS AS NOT BEINGS PART OF THE BIBLE CANON?

Absolutely not! Not least because, like the gospels, The book of Acts contains the continued narrative of the life of Jesus. Not only does it outline his interaction and instructions to his Apostles, but it presents how he (Jesus) played an active role in the establishment of the Christian church.



Anyone that wants a complete picture of the ministry of Christ must recognise the value of the book of Acts, and since Jesus is "The Word" a true account of his words and actions must logically be included in Christian canon.



JW




RELATED POSTS

Should true Christians denegrade Hebrew scripture ?
viewtopic.php?p=1065096#p1065096

Should true Christians limit their canon to the gospels?
viewtopic.php?p=1065014#p1065014

[Veridican]

So, you don't consider yourselves followers of Christ?[/color]

I'v already explained this ad nauseum

[Veridican]

SHOULD TRUE CHRISTIANE REJECT THE BOOK OF ACTS AS NOT BEINGS PART OF THE BIBLE CANON?

Absolutely not! Not least because, like the gospels, The book of Acts contains the continued narrative of the life of Jesus. Not only does it outline his interaction and instructions to his Apostles, but it presents how he (Jesus) played an active role in the establishment of the Christian church.

Jesus had nothing to do with the World Church. There were, I'm sure, his Elect scattered throughout history, but the Church and its eras, as symbolized by the 7 churches in Revelation never repented. His church was never established on earth. Veridicanism is the true religion for the end-times, but it is not part of the Church Age.

[JehovahsWitness]

SHOULD TRUE CHRISTIANE REJECT THE BOOK OF ACTS AS NOT BEINGS PART OF THE BIBLE CANON?

Absolutely not! Not least because, like the gospels, The book of Acts contains the continued narrative of the life of Jesus. Not only does it outline his interaction and instructions to his Apostles, but it presents how he (Jesus) played an active role in the establishment of the Christian church.

Jesus had nothing to do with the World Church. There were, I'm sure, his Elect scattered throughout history, but the Church and its eras, as symbolized by the 7 churches in Revelation never repented. His church was never established on earth. Veridicanism is the true religion for the end-times, but it is not part of the Church Age.

None of this addressed the point about whether the book of ACTS should be accepted as biblical canon. I made several points as to why, in my opinon, it should. If you wish to address M'y argument with biblical counterargument feel free.




JW