And you thought you had me pegged.

James 1:27
27" Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.."

This is how God defines pure religion...it doesn't say your church has the copyright on it. Many protestant's can abide by this description and be found pleasing to God....so you can stop patting yourself on the back.......

Hmm, oh... what does someone have to abide by in the first place?

Try and answer my often dodged questions to find out:

Where in Scripture does it say James is Scripture and belongs in the Bible?
Where in Scripture verses that say all Christian teaching is in the Bible alone?

Also, you better drop that "no religion" label before you start to confuse others. Unless you are saying you not a part of the pure religion that St. James talks about.

Jesus is in the Bible.
Jesus is infallible. He would not choose/ reference fallible words/ writings in establishing his kingdom. In fact the focus of much of what he said was in reference to the correct interpretation of what had been written in scripture ... he often referenced scripture in arguments with the Jewish leaders ... and then rejected the writings and interpretations of the Jewish leaders in favor of the true/ perfect intention of the words. His biggest complaint toward the Leaders was that they were twisting the truth of Scripture to justify themselves... he called them whitewashed tombs.

This is his endorsement of the writings to which you refer:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

Jesus assumed that the Law and the Prophets were settled authority. He often referred to the OT in establising the points he used to verify his own authority... and to establish his ministry.

Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.
The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 of the Old Testament Books.
One quote or reference endorses the entire writing.

You can't prove all 4 Gospels are to be considered Scripture using Scripture alone, that is the point. If you could then you can point us to Scripture that says Matthew is inspired and point to other Scripture that gives us a list of what books belong in the Bible.

What about the ones that New Testament does not quote? How about the fact, in it's Protestant form, the book of Esther doesn't even mention God?

Jesus never assumed a defensive position. He assumed that he was the truth and gave clear/ simple instructions on how the hearer can prove truth.
He never tried to convince anyone. He told the Jewish leaders they were hypocrites because they refused to listen to the truth. He assumed that they, and everyone, have that innate ability.
... the same ability that he used to speak the truth is in the hearer... to hear the truth.
Jesus assumed that conscience (the Holy Spirit) trumped everything.

Jesus said... "I only do what I see" (know) John 5: 19
Based on his obedience to God the Father ...Jesus assumes infallibility ipso facto. He also assumes that people have the ability to choose to see the truth of his words and those that he endorses ... or not.... again ipso facto.

Jesus said: "If you obey my words you will know" John 8:32

He said clearly " I have the words that produce life"...
But ... putting the weight of proof/responsibility on the hearer ... he said:
"when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

When he sent the 72 disciples out he said ... "Speak" ... if they reject you ... shake the dust off and leave. Because of obedience... The words themselves had convincing power. Jesus, who has all power in heaven and earth... Knew how to communicate the gospel ...he assumed that the hearer also had power Ipso facto...to accept or reject, ... and the responsibility was on the hearer.
--------
If you begin to question the voracity of Scripture... It follows that the voracity of all Christianity comes into question.

This is some of the most fascinating eisegeisis I have ever read........no insult intended, it's extremely creative....it also does violence to your claim that you simply 'take scripture at its word', but it's very creative. In fact, it is so creative that I think it is an excellent reminder of why Jesus did not leave us spiritual orphans but instead left us his Church to guide us.


And who the hell said anything about 'questioning the veracity (nor voracity) of scripture? It is a ridiculous leap of logic to claim that 'not accepting this doctrine that was invented in the 16th century = believing the scriptures are in error'.....that doesn't even make any sense. So it is your contention that no one believed in the scriptures before Martin Luther came along?

Not when you realize the reality that the Scriptures themselves presupposes the Church. The Scriptures are authoritative precisely because of the witness of the Church, not because of any individual believer who read it on his own and decided subjectively that it was true.

Huh.....suddenly a lot of fundamentalist theology which before was completely incoherent to me now makes sense. They really do believe that the scriptures are self attesting don't they? That all one has to do is 'read the scriptures with an open heart and mind' and they will magically be convinced of the truth of Christianity, and magically arrive at all of the correct doctrines and interpretations without any effort on anyone's part, don't they? So this is why the Gideon's are running around giving people copies of the Bible and thinking that is all they have to do? They really think that just picking up a Bible and reading it is enough, that's all you have to do, and if you come up with a different interpretation than their own, it is because their 'heart and mind were not truly open' or they didn't pray their right prayer, or the Holy Spirit didn't entire their heart. And they really do think that in the early Church, the sole evangelizing that was done was handing out copies of the scriptures and everyone magically figured it out for himself, magically arriving at the same interpretations? And if someone reads the Bible and comes up with a different interpretation, the only possible explanation is that such person is simply a bad person, or he didn't 'read the Bible with an open heart'. This explains why they think all they have to do is just quote a couple Bible verses and we'll fall to their feet repenting of our evil Romish ways and wanting to join their sect. Wow, a great big light bulb just turned on illuminating everything.

You seem to support bringing the validity of Scripture into question ... and then arbitrarily change the subject ... using Scripture as the foundation to support what you believe to be settled fact.

See below...

That's what I was taught when I was young and going to evangelical services and Sunday morning bible school. Just read the Bible and the Holy Ghost will guide you and direct you to the truth, with a little direction of course from your Sunday school teacher.

"No on ever spoke like this man (Jesus) ... with authority." John 7:46

The purpose o the Church is to establish the words of Jesus and to prove, through his words... that he is the way, truth and life... not to establish itself.
The word of the Lord is like fire, like a hammer... that shatters the rock. Jer 23:29

Wow, as if to confirm the validity of what I wrote you respond by quoting a Bible verse.....do you GET how ironic that is?

About that authority....Jesus said ...'he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me'.....guess what THAT means? Could it possibly be more direct or explicit? It means that Jesus' authority was passed down to others, and if you don't follow the ones whom he passed his authority down to, you are not a follower of Jesus. Now, WHO did Jesus pass his authority down to? Is there any indication in the text that this authority was something that would disappear in a generation or two?

Do you realize that every time you come up with these elaborate arguments contradict your claim to simply 'take the Bible at face value?'

I mean, it sends a very confusing, mixed message to on the one come up with these elaborate arguments and then on the other hand argue that you are simply allow the Bible to speak for itself.

Revelation 3 covers that question/ concern.

Editorializing and labeling has no validity.

Not when you realize the reality that the Scriptures themselves presupposes the Church. The Scriptures are authoritative precisely because of the witness of the Church, not because of any individual believer who read it on his own and decided subjectively that it was true.[/quote]


You seem to support bringing the validity of Scripture into question ... and then arbitrarily change the subject ... using Scripture as the foundation to support what you believe to be settled fact.[/quote]

Not at all. I know the validity of Scripture, because I know of the authority of the Church. That the Bible stands as witness to the Church's authority should compel you to look to the Church as well.

I don't need the Scripture to know the authority of the Church, because the Church is a historical fact: it really does exist.

You want proof from the Scripture of the Church's authority. It is there. That ought to be enough for one who claims to hold the Scripture in such regard.