Hello fellow believers!

[VineBranch]

As to original post... "I feel crazy"--my experience exactly. Could it be true that God is not mad and resentful of us His fallible creation? Praise God He will save all.

Not only could be, but I think you'll find most of us know it to be a truth:  as delicious as a chocolate sundae with peanuts you can eat with dentures.

[marie glen]

Gosh! This is about the cozillionth time or more I've wished there was a "like" button here! And it let's people know you liked their post(s)!  And, or thread! :smile:

Would something like this  :goodpost: work? Or maybe :goodone: ?  I'm working on one that says 'VineBranch you are the best and you're darned cute as well'.  Keep your eye out for it.

:goodone:  :rolllol:

[marie glen]

Say! I just discovered how you can "insert quotes" in one post! So I can insert a bunch of quotes, maybe shortened, and post all the  :thumbsup: or  :iagree: etc, without having to do individual posts all over the thread! kool  :thumbsup:

[eaglesway]

Welcome, J Berton!  We're like the yeast that leavens the whole loaf...well someday it will all be leavened.  In the meantime, the yeast is scattered among the flour and water.  I'm just glad we have sites like this.  Hang around, share, discuss, and tell us a bit about yourself.  We don't bite.  :friendstu:

beautiful laz.

[eaglesway]

Every now and then someone gets bit tho........really...... I mean....we try to keep it in love around here but you know, as James says, we all stumble in many ways ;o)

[ded2daworld]

That's how we know it is the spirit of God which perfects us. The forum MAY help but it sure won't perfect :Peace2:

[mplsfitter539]

That's how we know it is the spirit of God which perfects us. The forum MAY help but it sure won't perfect :Peace2:

:gimmefive: :iagree:

[jbertonbounds]

I am so enjoying this forum.  I do feel a little frustrated at times with the rule of discussing only UR stuff.  Sometimes I want to begin a discussion on something that is on my mind and I would like to know what other like-minded believers believe, but I don't know if I should bring it up because I don't know if it would be considered to be related to UR.  I just want to know how other UR folks believe on some of the non-UR topics, like eschatology (sp?), 6-day creation, God-friendly evolution, what is considered scripture, etc.  :dunno2: On the other hand, I do understand and respect rules.  :thumbsup:

[redhotmagma]

Its when the outside discussions take away from the main focus of UR that the big stick gets broken out  :thewife:

UR impacts every area of our life, including our theology so with that in mind go for it. 

[jbertonbounds]

Thank Red.  I'll try to keep it reasonable.

[mplsfitter539]

I am so enjoying this forum.  I do feel a little frustrated at times with the rule of discussing only UR stuff.  Sometimes I want to begin a discussion on something that is on my mind and I would like to know what other like-minded believers believe, but I don't know if I should bring it up because I don't know if it would be considered to be related to UR.  I just want to know how other UR folks believe on some of the non-UR topics, like eschatology (sp?), 6-day creation, God-friendly evolution, what is considered scripture, etc.  :dunno2: On the other hand, I do understand and respect rules.  :thumbsup:
[/quote
I say go for it I didn't see any topics there that UR can't overcome. I especially like your point about what is scripture. Most  need to be shown what is not scripture.

[jbertonbounds]

Fitter,
What do you consider not scripture?

[mplsfitter539]

Fitter,
What do think about what is scripture?  I mean, there are many writings from ancient times, but who decided what was scripture and what wasn't?  Who decided what was valid and what wasn't?  Why did they throw out the Septuagint in the 1800's?  Do you consider Paul's letters scripture?

Wow that is a lot of difficult to answer questions.
What is scripture= the original inspired Word of God
Who decided which scripture= the Catholic church elders/fathers
Why did they throw out Septuagint= when did it get "thrown out"
Are Paul's letters scripture= Paul's letters are scripture

[jbertonbounds]

OOPS!  I said "Septuagint."  I meant to say "Apocrypha."  :doh:  To my understanding, the Apocrypha was printed in earlier editions of the KJV, but was eliminated from printings in more recent years.  I actually deleted that reply you quoted because I didn't feel good about questioning all those things.  The questions were actually rhetorical, so I was not actually seeking answers.  I do wonder about those things from time to time.  I believe we should question all things, not to doubt God, but to come to a fuller understanding of Him, as in "ask, seek, knock."

[Lazarus Short]

All Scriptures are profitable, but some are more profitable than others.  I never ( :2c:) saw much value in Esther or the books of the Maccabees, for instance.  I don't think as highly of the book of Jasher as I once did.  :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c:

[mplsfitter539]

All Scriptures are profitable, but some are more profitable than others.  I never ( :2c:) saw much value in Esther or the books of the Maccabees, for instance.  I don't think as highly of the book of Jasher as I once did.  :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c: :2c:

I have to agree with this statement with the exception of the book of Enoch. Enoch dovetails nicely into Genesis. I read Jasher and was not impressed either. 

[jbertonbounds]

I understand the Apocryphal books were written between Old testament times and Jesus' time.  I have not yet studied them much but they are supposedly valuable for deepening one's understanding of the other testaments. 

[marie glen]

..and Israel's history.. :smile:

[marie glen]

This looks like a good link on who decided the books of the Bible.. :Chinscratch:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I know the Davinci Code is notorious for suggesting in the 4th century there was a council called to sort through the writings and accept some but dismiss others because they did or didn't conform to a political agenda. But many if not most seem to believe the New Testament was assembled very early - within one hundred years of the documents being written, saying that all the books of the NT were referred to by church fathers in their writings as authority by the mid second century.. Polycarp (c AD 150), Justin Martyr (c. AD 140), Irenaeus (c.AD 170), and something called the "Muratorian Canon" (AD 170). [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment ]

and that church historian Eusebius, in very early 4th century (320's) lists the books as authentic in his "Church History volume III", chapters 3 to 25. The belief being that at Nicea (325) the New Testament (canon) had been pretty well established for over a century.

We can of course tell Old Testament books were widely recognized as Scriptural long before Jesus day, for He said "all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44). In Matthew 23:35 He uses the phrase "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" referring to martyrs whose murders were recorded in the first and last books (Zech 1:1 next to last prophet writings)of the Old Testament. The apostles, hand-picked by Jesus were the surest link to Him. As we know, Peter wrote,  2 Pet. 3:16 - "Paul, also, in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" and encouraged his letters be circulated to other churches for learning.

And of course, Jesus promised His disciples that they would, after His departure, receive the Holy Spirit and "'He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. ... He shall guide you into all the truth...and He shall declare to you the things that are to come' (John 14:26;16:13). I'm not so sure further clarification was needed from an ancient/prehistoric source. It would be interesting to have an estimate of when the Book of Enoch was written, likely seen from references in the writing?..
:2c: :smile:

[eaglesway]

Peter seemed to know what the scriptures were when he wrote of Paul's writings. this is very early, pre 70 AD when the church was still in Jerusalem. Of the letters and histories assembled in the New Testament, all are from persos who would have written previous to John's revelation, purported by some to have been written between 60 and 70, by others to have been written around 90.

Paul writes of the conference that was held between he and his associates and Peter James and John 14 years after he had begun his apostlolic ministry. In acts we read that Paul was anointed into the apostolic ministry while John was still functioning from Jerusalem, coming over to Antioch to anoint Paul and Barnabas and train them, assisting in their first outreach. As of Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas are amng the prophets and teachers and not yet anointed as apostles. This occurs in Acts 13 and they set out immediatley under the guidance of the Holy SPirit to declare the gospel in a town called Paphos, where a Jewish sorcerer held the whole town under a spell by false miracles and the twisting of scripture.

How can we assume that these apostles did not meet together from time to time, agreeing to preserve certain letters and books and acknowledging them among one another and too the churches at large as scripture?

I personally believe the scriptures were more or less complete by the time the first generation of apostles were gone and Timothy and Titus and some of the other apostles mentioned by paul had taken the batton.......but that is just one man's opinion :o)