“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightlydivide said:
Oh no. It was not post-Christ, there is no proof of your view. My stance has more patristic support and naturally biblical support.
Click to expand...
Could you please cite your support? Maybe you already did, and I missed it?

In an article in This Rock magazine, (The Council That Wasn’t - September 2004), does not agree with your position. The two main arguments that I have seen most often about the canon are the council of Jabneh and the one that rejects the Catholic books because there are not ones written in hebrew.

The council of jabneh, whether it actually happened or not, has no bearing on those who follow Christ for that council happened (if it happened), in 90 AD. There are those who claim that council never happened, but it doesn’t really matter if it did or not. If it happened, it was led by those who rejected Christ. It would have no binding effect on those were are faithful followers of Christ. They deliberately rejected many of the books that were being used to great effect in showing the truth about Christ.

As for the argument that it was not in hebrew, (the council and Luther’s argument), have been shown to be false with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.

But I do not know what your argument was and the nor the patristic support you claim. Sorry if I missed it. About which post was it or could you please provide it?

Sincerely,
Maria
 
elvisman said:
Oh, it WAS post-Christ according to one of the most respected Protestant scholars, Norman Geisler:
The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of heir own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha. [Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, *Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 169.]
Click to expand...
**Now, I know you’ll tell me that you don’t **believe in what Geisler says and that is your right as a splintered, seperated Protestant. You don’t have to adhere to what any other Protestant says because the Holy Spirit has guided you all to "differing truths" . . .

As for the Fathers, they didn’t all agree on a canon until the end of the 4th century. This is ONE of the reasons that the Catholic Church rejects your false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Oh - by the way - most of the Fathers DID adhere to one or more of the Deuteros as well as some non-canonical books like Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, the Epistles of Barnabas and so on. Many of these books were used up to the end of the 4th century. It was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit who declared the canon of Scripture to end the confusion - not each individual Father.

Boy - it’s a GOOD thing that Jesus gave full authority to the Church to make such decisions like the Canon of Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-16, 20:21-23).
Without that authority - we would have the same thing you have: the confusion of the tens of thousands of bickering, constantly-splintering Protestant sects . . . :rolleyes:

I am such a slow typer!
 
Rightlydivide said:
Tell you what…how could Paul have written what he did if the people did not know what scripture was? Then we will go some more into the overwhelming evidence to support my view. The first one of which was Josephus, the most prominant and respected Jewish historian who said that they had a canon they all agreed with. Listen, when it comes to believing what occured with the Jews, should I believe Josephus or you? Paul or you?
IF you can answer those questions, or even if you don’t I suppose, then I will present new evidence. But first, lets address what Saint Paul said shall we. Because you have not presented a rebuttal.
See your basic presuppositions is wrong. When Peter called Paul’s writings scripture, Peter knew that Paul was accepted as such. He was not making a new statement was he? The biblical pattern does not support a single person or group of people officially setting a canon. That is not even what Catholicism officially teaches. You believe the authority was subsequent. Its in your infallible documents…according to your beliefs anyway.
Click to expand...
And I’ll tell you what? How could Paul KNOW what the canon was,if different Jews accepted different books. The Pharisees included more than the Pentateuch as oppose to the Sadducees. Likewise,the Essenes had their own selection of books.

Case in point, prior to the canon of the NT,different communities used different books/letters.Corinth also considered Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians as scripture. Some communities the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and some communities accepted others. Guess what? There was NO FIXED canon,so your so-called overwhelming evidence is NOT overwhelming evidence at all. Precisely why it took centuries to form a FIXED canon because there existed literally hundreds of different letters.

You are not going to go anywhere with your false belief a fixed canon already existed prior to Jesus because there is NO empirical evidence to support your position.

AGAIN…Josephesus IS NOT OVERWHELMING evidence because his reference is not pointing to or even remotely discussing a FIXED canon. WHAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?
 
elvisman said:
Nice try (above, in red) hoping that I’ll just go away now. * Ain’t* gonna happen, my spiritually prideful friend.

Up until now, your whole argument about the Deuteros is that they were NOT quoted or referred to by NT writers.
NOW, you’ve changed your story and have created this new dynamic, whereby the NT writers DO quote the Deuteros, but not as truth - Uhhh . . . they’re not actual quotes, but sort of. That’s what is known as a “cop out”.
Neither Jesus nor Paul make references to anything but God-inspired Truth in the NT in these passages.

Like I’ve said many times before, you have to do some pretty impressive Scriptural acrobatics to arrive at the opposite side of the truth of the Catholic Church . . .

NOW - you still haven’t addressed the “Armour of God” reference from Eph. 6:13-17 and the same thing being spoken of in Wis. 5:17-20. You BARELY addressed the other reference - but at least you’ve been exposed.

PLEASE simply address the isse without copping-out and resorting to your newly-invented tactic . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I believe you have not followed my arguments well then. It has been a long thread and that is certainly understandable.
Here is what I have said in order to see if I have changed my perspective (hint: I have not):
No, these so called examples are horrible enough. Most of those phrases are found in earlier books from the OT prior to the DC being written like the one about hell is a direct quote from the OT prophet ISAIAH and not Judith. The only person who would be persuaded by this list did not actually look at their OT. Post 227
Click to expand...
I would agree that sometimes DC authors do indeed use some of the same words post 230
Click to expand...
Do any of the rest of your list also quote earlier works?
Click to expand...
They are not quoted. They are referenced in a few places but not as scripture. The Bible does indeed reference several verses as being scriptural if you will. Perhaps you will want to explore that and I can teach you some things about it.

I did address the Armour of God question in post 250 if you wish to reread it.
Thanks as always
 
elvisman said:
Oh, it WAS post-Christ according to one of the most respected Protestant scholars, Norman Geisler:
The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of heir own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha. [Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, *Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 169.]
Click to expand...
**Now, I know you’ll tell me that you don’t **believe in what Geisler says and that is your right as a splintered, seperated Protestant. You don’t have to adhere to what any other Protestant says because the Holy Spirit has guided you all to "differing truths" . . .

As for the Fathers, they didn’t all agree on a canon until the end of the 4th century. This is ONE of the reasons that the Catholic Church rejects your false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Oh - by the way - most of the Fathers DID adhere to one or more of the Deuteros as well as some non-canonical books like Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, the Epistles of Barnabas and so on. Many of these books were used up to the end of the 4th century. It was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit who declared the canon of Scripture to end the confusion - not each individual Father.

Boy - it’s a GOOD thing that Jesus gave full authority to the Church to make such decisions like the Canon of Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-16, 20:21-23).
Without that authority - we would have the same thing you have: the confusion of the tens of thousands of bickering, constantly-splintering Protestant sects . . . :rolleyes:

The canon was not set at Jamnia. No one argues that anymore. Geisler certainly does not either.
I have never argued that Jamnia set the canon. Perhaps you are confused because you do believe that Jamnia set the Jewish canon???
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
In fact, in the footnote, what does Mr. Gesler say, for more recent scholarship see Beckwith. Geisler is recounting popular arguments against the Apocrypha and is certainly not endorsing that view.
 
MariaG said:
Could you please cite your support? Maybe you already did, and I missed it?

In an article in This Rock magazine, (The Council That Wasn’t - September 2004), does not agree with your position. The two main arguments that I have seen most often about the canon are the council of Jabneh and the one that rejects the Catholic books because there are not ones written in hebrew.

The council of jabneh, whether it actually happened or not, has no bearing on those who follow Christ for that council happened (if it happened), in 90 AD. There are those who claim that council never happened, but it doesn’t really matter if it did or not. If it happened, it was led by those who rejected Christ. It would have no binding effect on those were are faithful followers of Christ. They deliberately rejected many of the books that were being used to great effect in showing the truth about Christ.

As for the argument that it was not in hebrew, (the council and Luther’s argument), have been shown to be false with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.

But I do not know what your argument was and the nor the patristic support you claim. Sorry if I missed it. About which post was it or could you please provide it?

Sincerely,
Maria
Click to expand...
What do you believe my position to be before you assert that it is wrong? If you are basing that upon Elvisman’s incorrect view of my position, it is understandable. I have never said a council set the OT canon.
Thank you
 
Rightlydivide said:
Tell you what…how could Paul have written what he did if the people did not know what scripture was? Then we will go some more into the overwhelming evidence to support my view. The first one of which was Josephus, the most prominant and respected Jewish historian who said that they had a canon they all agreed with. Listen, when it comes to believing what occured with the Jews, should I believe Josephus or you? Paul or you?
IF you can answer those questions, or even if you don’t I suppose, then I will present new evidence. But first, lets address what Saint Paul said shall we. Because you have not presented a rebuttal.
See your basic presuppositions is wrong. When Peter called Paul’s writings scripture, Peter knew that Paul was accepted as such. He was not making a new statement was he? The biblical pattern does not support a single person or group of people officially setting a canon. That is not even what Catholicism officially teaches. You believe the authority was subsequent. Its in your infallible documents…according to your beliefs anyway.
Click to expand...
When the reference here is to “scripture” you must remember that they were only referring to the OT. Even Jesus referred to “scripture”. Paul was a Pharisee and would be fully versed in the same. Josephus would have only known the OT though he could have known parts of what we refer to as the NT. So Peter could NOT be referring to Paul’s writings as scripture but rather what already was in existence- the OT.
 
elvisman said:
It doesn’t matter - he’ll simply formulate a new way of dancing around the issue anyway . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No. I will not. I know you are seeing red at tiimes and possibly feeling blue about this exchange but rest assured I will answer all questions as best as I can.
 
Nicea325 said:
And I’ll tell you what? How could Paul KNOW what the canon was,if different Jews accepted different books. The Pharisees included more than the Pentateuch as oppose to the Sadducees. Likewise,the Essenes had their own selection of books.

Case in point, prior to the canon of the NT,different communities used different books/letters.Corinth also considered Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians as scripture. Some communities the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and some communities accepted others. Guess what? There was NO FIXED canon,so your so-called overwhelming evidence is NOT overwhelming evidence at all. Precisely why it took centuries to form a FIXED canon because there existed literally hundreds of different letters.

You are not going to go anywhere with your false belief a fixed canon already existed prior to Jesus because there is NO empirical evidence to support your position.

AGAIN…Josephesus IS NOT OVERWHELMING evidence because his reference is not pointing to or even remotely discussing a FIXED canon. WHAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?
Click to expand...
Of course it is a set canon. Paul and Jesus never had any confusion about what was scripture and what was not. Josephus said the Jews all had the same books. I believe him. You seem to believe some other primary source you have not mentioned just yet.
But I am an optimist.
As far as many of your next assertions, lets address them
Who specifically said that Corinth thought Clement was canonical? Are you going to use the passage in Eusebius? That is not what it says. They read it and held it in high esteeem as you can imagine but scripture? Give a source for that statement.
Yes, some communities accept the Shepherd but fortunately prior to all of those councils, and why did they have so many if the Pope settled it in 382 after his declaration (hint: the list and source of the Council of Rome indicates a later dating)?
You never dealt with Paul and how he could make the statement he did. How can I get you to do a little exegesis of the passage?
 
Padrej said:
When the reference here is to “scripture” you must remember that they were only referring to the OT. Even Jesus referred to “scripture”. Paul was a Pharisee and would be fully versed in the same. Josephus would have only known the OT though he could have known parts of what we refer to as the NT. So Peter could NOT be referring to Paul’s writings as scripture but rather what already was in existence- the OT.
Click to expand...
But Peter did reference Paul’s writings as scripture. Thats in the Bible Bishop Padrej.
 
Rightlydivide said:
The canon was not set at Jamnia. No one argues that anymore. Geisler certainly does not either.
I have never argued that Jamnia set the canon. Perhaps you are confused because you do believe that Jamnia set the Jewish canon???
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
In fact, in the footnote, what does Mr. Gesler say, for more recent scholarship see Beckwith. Geisler is recounting popular arguments against the Apocrypha and is certainly not endorsing that view.
Click to expand...
And Beckwith is now a Catholic who finally saw the light and believes in the Catholic canon, isn’t he?

**Let’s not forget - it was the Protestant scholars who called upon Jamnia (Jabneh) to prover their claims against the Catholic Canon of Scripture - not the other way around. **

Respected scholars like, Giesler, Ralph Martin and Jimmy Swaggart were the ones who claimed the Rabbinical authority at Jamnia. This was neither an authoritative council nor was it even an official “gathering”.

The Jewish canon that is adhered to today is a POST-Christ, POST-Temple canon. Christians have NO business accepting what the Jews rejected AFTER Christ as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

**PS - For the 10th time - are you ever going to address the “Armour of God” reference from Eph. 6:13-17 and the same thing being spoken of in Wis. 5:17-20. You will do ANYTHING to dodge my questions . . . :rolleyes:
**
 
elvisman said:
And Beckwith is now a Catholic who finally saw the light and believes in the Catholic canon, isn’t he?

Let’s not forget - it was the Protestant scholars who called upon Jamnia (Jabneh) to prover their claims against the Catholic Canon of Scripture - not the other way around.

Respected scholars like, Giesler, Ralph Martin and Jimmy Swaggart were the ones who claimed the Rabbinical authority at Jamnia. This was neither an authoritative council nor was it even an official “gathering”.

The Jewish canon that is adhered to today is a POST-Christ, POST-Temple canon. Christians have NO business accepting what the Jews rejected AFTER Christ as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

PS - For the 10th time - are you ever going to address the “Armour of God” reference from Eph. 6:13-17 and the same thing being spoken of in Wis. 5:17-20. You will do ANYTHING to dodge my questions . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No the Jewish canon was before Christ. I answered your question in post 250. You may not have seen that. Please go back and read. In fact, you even commented on my answer.
Thanks again
 
Post 250
Whether Hebrews or Ephesians is immaterial. The dating of Wisdom to possibly the late 1st century means that it cannot be ascertained if it is a reference.
 
Rightlydivide said:
How about a nice link to help clarify?
theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1572454.htm
Click to expand...
You think that a link to a site run by a Professor at John Mac Arthur’s Masters Seminary will clarify things??

I have read volumes of MacArthur’s articles and heard tapes of sermions concerning the Catholic Church and he is a bald-face liar.
Why on earth would I trust one of his cronies??

Thanks - but I’ll stick to the Church established by none other than Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church, which is the very same Church he identified his very self with in Acts 9:4-5. The same one that Paul referred to as the “Pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
 
Rightlydivide said:
Post 250
Whether Hebrews or Ephesians is immaterial. The dating of Wisdom to possibly the late 1st century means that it cannot be ascertained if it is a reference.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought - and that’s why I told MariaG:
**He’ll simply formulate a new way of dancing around the issue . . . **
To your credit - some people simply run and hide. At least you were crafty enough to formulate up this line of "non-answer" answers.
Ignorance must really be bliss . . .
 
elvisman said:
That’s what I thought - and that’s why I told MariaG:
He’ll simply formulate a new way of dancing around the issue . . .
To your credit - some people simply run and hide. At least you were crafty enough to formulate up this line of "non-answer" answers.
Ignorance must really be bliss . . .
Click to expand...
Which noncanonical reference would you like me to address now?
 
elvisman said:
You think that a link to a site run by a Professor at John Mac Arthur’s Masters Seminary will clarify things??

I have read volumes of MacArthur’s articles and heard tapes of sermions concerning the Catholic Church and he is a bald-face liar.
Why on earth would I trust one of his cronies??

**Thanks - but I’ll stick **to the Church established by none other than Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church, which is the very same Church he identified his very self with in Acts 9:4-5. The same one that Paul referred to as the “Pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Click to expand...
You need to deal with the content of it. Which part in particular do you disagree with?
 
Rightlydivide said:
You need to deal with the content of it. Which part in particular do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
**When you properly address the questions I have asked you ad nauseam - without your dodge tactics - then I will entertain the thought of answering your questions. **
Quid pro quo, my spiritually pridefule friend - quid pro quo. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top