Canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura Style

[MrS]

Angainor:

Yes it is.

If the man interprets John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and only mean that, is the man’s interpretation his own subjective truth?

yes… he chose to interpret himself

he chose to believe what he interpreted

he chose to accept it as his own “truth”

That does not make it true.

I believe John 3:16 is true because I place my trust in Jesus, not in **my **interpretation. And when Jesus promised that I could get the actual meaning through the Church He founded… it was good enough for me.

The verse does not say “…whoever believes in some of Him…”
or “…whoever believes in his own version of Him…”

Instead, Jesus said… " he who hears you, hears me… he who rejects you rejects Me and the One Who sent Me…"

So, when the Church says no to sola scriptura,… you and all Christians in **all **ages for **all **times must either listen or reject… and you will have to answer to Jesus for not choosing to “…believe in Him…”

 

[Angainor]

MrS:

Angainor:

If the man interprets John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and only mean that, is the man’s interpretation his own subjective truth?yes… he chose to interpret himself

he chose to believe what he interpreted

he chose to accept it as his own “truth”

That does not make it true.

Finish the thought please.

You said the man chose “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” as his own “truth”.

Would you say he chose “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” as his own subjective truth?

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

Yes it is.

If the man interprets John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and only mean that, is the man’s interpretation his own subjective truth?

The only problem with what you quoted is that it is inaccurate.

What difference is between that and these (These are accurate renditions of John 3:16) and why is it that improtant?

16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, might not perish, but might have life everlasting.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Aaron_I]

Angainor:

I was half joking, but only half. I do not think it is not an insignificant fact.

I believe the Church is the pilliar and foundation of truth. Without even considering the historical context of the Bible, I can say that I would not expect the Church to allow a false scripture to survive 2000 years to end up on the shelf of the local bookstore.

And yet you do accept that the Church allowed a false scripture to survive for 1500 years? Is there really so much difference between 1500 years and 2000 years that you so casually accept the one and find nearly impossible the other?

I grant to you that the dueterocanon was on uncertain ground for many centuries, but “I do not think it is not an insignificant fact” that every Bible published from the fifth century until the 16th century contained those books. Besides, Revelations among other NT books, was also a topic of debate at the 4th century councils. Tell me, do you take that book with a grain of salt as well?

If your Lutheran Church is truly the pillar and foundation of all truth, why did it wait over 1000 years to remove the false scripture?

 

[Angainor]

Nicene:

The only problem with what you quoted is that it is inaccurate.

My apologies. I missed a footnote:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son*, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

*Or his only begotten Son

You are missing (or evading) the point.

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

My apologies. I missed a footnote:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son*, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

*Or his only begotten Son

You are missing (or evading) the point.

No, actaully I haven’t followed the discussion. I just saw what you posted as John 3:16. The only problem with it is this:

3:16 ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

The problem with the above is that over time it has been watered down and actually assumed the opposite of what it says. It went from may and might to should then to shall and in one version will have.

The biggest change came from should to shall, adjusting the meaning from a clouded semi persistant state to that of a guarantee. The greek does not offer that guarantee. It is inconsistant with the rest of the NT.

The last two are guarantees of a permanent state and smack of agenda.

Follow this link to see what I mean: scripturetext.com/john/3-16.htm

Ask yourself this as well. Who would wish to alter the meaning of this after 2000 years? Think spiritually.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Angainor]

Nicene:

No, actaully I haven’t followed the discussion. I just saw what you posted as John 3:16. The only problem with it is this:

3:16 ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

The problem with the above is that over time it has been watered down and actually assumed the opposite of what it says. It went from may and might to should then to shall and in one version will have.

I don’t know greek, but I followed your link (good website by the way).

The word you highlighted, μη, appears to be the “not” in “not perish” (μη is pronounced “may”). I don’t think you meant to highlight this word.

I don’t know for certain what word it is that is translated may/might/should/shall (much less the greek context), however, this word seems significant:

ινα in order that (denoting the purpose or the result) – albeit, because, to the intent (that), lest, so as, (so) that, (for) to.

 

[Angainor]

Nicene:

The biggest change came from should to shall, adjusting the meaning from a clouded semi persistant state to that of a guarantee. The greek does not offer that guarantee. It is inconsistant with the rest of the NT.

I did not say the man interpreted John 3:16 to read “guarantee”.

If a man interpreted John 3:16 (NAS) to mean:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Would this interpretation represent the man’s own subjective truth?

Or, if the man spole first century greek and interpreted John 3:16 to mean:ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

Would this interpretation represent the man’s own subjective truth?

 

[Angainor]

MrS:

Angainor:

If the man interprets John 3:16 to mean:

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and only mean that, is the man’s interpretation his own subjective truth?yes… he chose to interpret himself

he chose to believe what he interpreted

he chose to accept it as his own “truth”

That does not make it true.

I feel I have to ask…

Is what the man believes true or not?