I guess we do. Finished means perfect, complete. That includes the delivery of the true faith. The faith is delivered once from the lips of the Lord Himself. He said nothing of someone else picking up after Him. The same thing with Revelation. If Christ is the fullest revelation of God, why is there a "sequel?".
If all Christ did with His life was make it possible for us to save ourselves by doing enough works, then I consider it a cheap death
That's not what the Orthodox/Catholics believe. Our works are a reflection of our faith. We do works because, as you said yourself, God left us work to do. Being restored to the likeness of God is not accomplished with a magic wand.
The fullness of God's revelation could be expressed as Christ Himself, plus the Holy Spirit, plus the Scriptures, plus creation itself, and perhaps other things...
The NT, more precisely, the Gospels, are the narratives of God's revelation to man in His human nature. Without that, Christianity is meaningless because it would worship an unknown, distant deity which our human minds cannot conceive. In Christ, we can relate to God through His human nature, as use His humanity as our standard of what humans ought to be like.
The rest of the scriptures are either hints leading to the Gospels, or after-the-fact human interpretation and imitation of His teachings and life as witnessed by the Gospels. The book of Revelation is not even that. It's more like a de novo prophesy as if Christ did not fulfill the law and the prophets. It suggests that Christ did not reveal all that was to be revealed. And it flies in the face of the Great Commission that the Apostles are to teach what has been revealed, and not to invent or add to His revelation by some heavenly Internet "downloads."
Anyway, the full revelation of God is certainly more than one group of men's interpretation of the Gospels alone.
Yes, but nothing can top the Gospels.
Kosta: Ancient usage of quotes is not verbatim transcription of someone's utterances, but what the author believed that someone intended to say. This flies in the face of usage of quotes just as our terminology (coming from OT) is given Christianized meaning which differs from that in Judaism.
FK: That can't be. NT quotes of OT statements are VERBATIM.
Excuse me?!? And what evidence do you have that they are? Let me guess: the OT, right? LOL!
If you'd bother to look up the issue, you'll find that ancients did not quote verbatim but when they do quote "verbatim" they expressed what the author believed the person would have said. That is just a historical and literary fact and style.
It is satan who misquotes scripture, as he did when he lied to Eve about what God said
No one is talking about "misquoting" here, counsellor. I am saying that alleged quotes (which the Greeks and Jews don't use) are not verbatim quotes. In many instances, they simply can't be. Such as what Jesus said on the Cross. Except for John, all other Apostles were far away, hiding, to hear anything being said there. And please don't tell me the HS "told them." The get-out-of-all-dead-end-corners-about-the-Bible card. LOL!
Under what you are saying your reverence for the Gospels would have to be thrown out if all it amounts to is the "best efforts" to remember specific conversations from decades earlier. Nobody could do that in such detail (on his own).
Well, they copied from Mark, who was never there, and who heard it from Peter, who was hiding. That much is known. And they used the same source (narrative, oral tradition otherwise known as the "Q"), plus they added a little of their own personal twist to their concordance. John,on the other hand, writes 60 years after Christ and his Gospel doesn't resemble anything close to the other three.
That's not throwing out reverence for the Gospel; it's simply not making the Gospels what they are not. They are narratives according to their human authors, motivated moved by ("inspired:) by their faith. That doesn't mean they are perfect and free of human errors.
God does not have a magic wand?...
When did this happen?..
He said let there be light... and there was..
He said let there be a man from mere dirt and there was..
He even said after being born you MUST be born again.. and some were..
He even spit on some dudes eyes and created eyeballs..
All from a magic wand.. now thats magicterial..
If you get my drift...
I guess we do. Finished means perfect, complete. That includes the delivery of the true faith. The faith is delivered once from the lips of the Lord Himself. He said nothing of someone else picking up after Him. The same thing with Revelation. If Christ is the fullest revelation of God, why is there a "sequel?".
I don't know who you mean by "someone else" and I'm not sure what "sequel" means. Christ finished His role on earth toward the salvation of the elect. All of their sins were then paid for in full (within time). All of His actions were predestined by God, just as all the elect are predestined to believe and be saved. Jesus said He came to save, but under Apostolic thought no one was saved because He came. Therefore, Christ's work could not have been finished. We say His work on earth WAS finished as to salvation.
Our works are a reflection of our faith. We do works because, as you said yourself, God left us work to do. Being restored to the likeness of God is not accomplished with a magic wand.
Being restored to the image of God is what we call sanctification and happens after salvation is already sealed by grace through faith. Since God's grace is not earned, for us, and it comes only from God, I suppose it could be compared to a magic wand. IOW, God doesn't need our help to get what He wants done. If He really loved and wanted His elect to be saved, He would not roll the dice and leave it in the hands of men.
The NT, more precisely, the Gospels, are the narratives of God's revelation to man in His human nature. Without that, Christianity is meaningless because it would worship an unknown, distant deity which our human minds cannot conceive. In Christ, we can relate to God through His human nature, as use His humanity as our standard of what humans ought to be like.
I would agree with everything except to say that it applies to the WHOLE Bible, not just the Gospels. Do you really learn nothing about the nature of man outside the Gospels? I mean, it starts with Genesis! :)
The rest of the scriptures are either hints leading to the Gospels, or after-the-fact human interpretation and imitation of His teachings and life as witnessed by the Gospels.
Then I shutter to ask what your opinion is of the OT. But even with the NT, if you throw human interpretation into the writing of it, then you must not have much use for it since human interpretation is always subject to error. I have always said that your side has little regard for Paul, and the response is always that he was right but we misinterpret him. Now you are confirming what I said since you are saying that he was making it up (or "could have been") through his own interpretation. That's not something anyone can be sure of.
[continuing:] The book of Revelation is not even that. It's more like a de novo prophesy as if Christ did not fulfill the law and the prophets. It suggests that Christ did not reveal all that was to be revealed. And it flies in the face of the Great Commission that the Apostles are to teach what has been revealed, and not to invent or add to His revelation by some heavenly Internet "downloads."
In written form, Christ did reveal all that He intended to reveal in the form of the Bible, not just the Gospels. If you think that everything outside of the Gospels is just sort of extra, that may or may not be true, then I don't understand why your side has fought so hard in defending the Deuterocanonicals. If they're not the Gospels, then what's the big deal? I mean, they probably have as much error as Paul's personal interpretation in his writings, right?
Yes, but nothing can top the Gospels.
Nothing needs to top the Gospels. All scriptures are equally true.
FK: That can't be. NT quotes of OT statements are VERBATIM.
Excuse me?!? And what evidence do you have that they are? Let me guess: the OT, right? LOL! If you'd bother to look up the issue, you'll find that ancients did not quote verbatim but when they do quote "verbatim" they expressed what the author believed the person would have said.
So, when we see the NT quoting verbatim from the OT, that tells you NOT that the Bible is God-breathed and without error, but rather that the OT must be wrong because you know that the ancients did not quote verbatim? Your view does appear to be very focused, I'll give you that. :)
I am saying that alleged quotes (which the Greeks and Jews don't use) are not verbatim quotes. In many instances, they simply can't be. Such as what Jesus said on the Cross. Except for John, all other Apostles were far away, hiding, to hear anything being said there. And please don't tell me the HS "told them." The get-out-of-all-dead-end-corners-about-the-Bible card. LOL!
You're only laughing at the words of Jesus Himself IN the Gospels:
Matt 10:19-20 : 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say , 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Mark 13:11 : Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say . Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 12:49 : For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
If it's good enough for Jesus, I would think it was good enough for the authors of the Scriptures. :)