How do you know the Bible is the word of God

[po18guy]

well, I don’t disagree except that what Paul said in the Bible is the word of God, is the word of Christ, who is God (the son); it is the word of God through Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit (also God)

what Paul said outside the bible is not, but then we don’t have any of that, so we don’t have to worry about it

reminds me, we used to have an assistant minister who said something like “when it comes to Paul or Jesus, I will go with Jesus everytime.” I don’t think he had thought it out fully.

The words written to the Romans, etc. which we believe are written by Paul, are God’s words (as per above). Jesus, we know, never wrote anything in the Bible.The “red letter” text in the bible is what Mark said Jesus said, or what Mathew said Jesus said, etc. Jesus didn’t write any of it. But we believe – we know – when Mark wrote down what Jesus said it is accurate because Mark was guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was, and every other biblical author was, whether he was quoting Jesus or not. Because of the Trinity, they are ALL Jesus’ words.

That is one of the oddest views of God’s revealed truth that I have ever heard! You allege that what was not written does not matter? Really?

Jesus, or Paul? From the Apostle’s own mouth - even better, it is written proof:

1 Corinthians 1:11-15
King James Version (KJV)
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Question: are you from that denomination which holds solely to Paul’s writings to the Gentiles?

 

[Shibolet]

Also, the “trial” that condemned Jesus to be brought before Pilate in the first place was an illegal trial in the dead of night. No matter how you twist the words, it was the reaction of the Sanhedrin that lead to Jesus’ arrest and persecution. They did not have to react that way.

I twist the words! You guys never cease amazing me! You have said something true above
without being aware of what you said. “The trial that condemned Jesus to be brought before Pilate in the first place was an illegal trial in the dead of night.” You are absolutely right. No matter what, the Jewish Sanhedrin would never gather in the dead of night to deal
with a trial. It was forbidden and symbolical for a trial not to be performed in the dark of the night. It had to be done in the light of day. It means that it never happened. And then there
was no need for a trial. Jesus had been solemnly acclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province which was Israel at the time. That was an action that spelled crucifixion. Jesus had already condemned himself which would dispense all the balderdash of even that trial before Pilate also.

 

[Shibolet]

Well, this could and should be a thread all its own.

Yours is an interesting twist on scripture and history, and decidedly ironic. As Jesus entered Jerusalem, His disciples were shouting with joy - in an undignified way - almost Davidic in nature; see (2 Samuel 6:11-16). There, we see that David, for his exuberant joy in the presence of the Lord, earned only hatred from the daughter of Saul. The noise and lack of dignity that resulted form the singing and joyful praises undoubtedly upset the Pharisees, who were known for their orderly worship. I know of nothing in scripture to indicate that the Pharisees or Sadducees were ever joy-filled or exuberant. Scripture seems to portray both groups as rather pious.

We see very early in His ministry, while John son of Zechariah was still alive, that Jesus fled from Judea because the Pharisees (who rejected John’s baptism) knew that He was becoming more popular than John (John 4:1). Clearly, the Pharisees were jealous from early on. As well, the Pharisees were not a monolith - fractures appeared within their ranks during Jesus’ ministry (John 3, Acts 5:34-39). Some of the Pharisees did indeed go to Jesus - many instances exist - all were not opposed to Him.

To my way of thinking, it would be nonsensical for those who were singing His praises “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21:15) - the rightful and awaited heir to David’s throne - to suddenly turn and demand His death. See also from this verse that the scribes and chief priests were moved to indignation - jealousy - by the public clamor over Jesus. Such a momentous, dramatic and tragic turn of events would surely have been recorded for its cause - yet it was not. Remember that the High Priest Caiphas said that it was better that one man die than for the entire nation to perish (John 11:47-51, 18:14).

As to the crowd, look back a few verses to the end of Luke 22. There, we see that the crowd consisted of “the elders of the people, chief priests and scribes” - certainly not a secular crowd, to my way of thinking. It was that same crowd that took Jesus before Pilate, and then at Pilate’s insistence, before Herod.

Look elsewhere in scripture, and we see that the Pharisees and Sadducees had been searching for ways to kill Him (Mark 14:1, John 5:18, 7:1) Look at the makeup of the group who sought to killl him - it matches almost exactly with the group that took Him before Pilate and Herod:

Matthew 27:1
And when morning was come, all the chief priests and ancients of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death.

I would not try to interpret the scriptures so as to absolve the scribes, Pharisees and elders of guilt. Neither should we attempt to absolve the Gentiles of guilt - it took both, working in concert, and equally culpable, for Christ to be killed. After all, Christ came to save all men. He was sent to the Jews, being a Jew of the House of David. Even the blind men recognized Him as “Son of David” (Matthew 9:27). The “crowds” did as well (Matthew 21:15). But, upon His rejection - which Isaiah foretold - His salvation would be offered to the Nations as well. Hints of this come from His interaction with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4). And since Jesus was announced by Gabriel to “rule over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:32) take another look at where Jesus spoke salvation to the Samaritan: Jacob’s well.

Watch Poguy, with this post of yours above, you have unearthed a lot of contradictions within the gospels. Just to mention two of them, you say that Jesus was announced by Gabriel to “rule over the house of Jacob forever” and he didn’t rule for even a day. And the second is about Jesus speaking of salvation to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob.
According to Mat. 10:5,6 before sending his disciples on a mission to announce salvation
to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town. Then, as soon as the disciples left, he goes to have a chat with a Samaritan woman to speak to her about salvation? What happened? Was he behaving like the preacher that says: “Do what I say but not what I do because I am a sinner too?” To prevent exposing Jesus to such a fiasco, he is better off if we take that dialogue as a parable rather than a real event.

 

[jmcrae]

Watch Poguy, with this post of yours above, you have unearthed a lot of contradictions within the gospels. Just to mention two of them, you say that Jesus was announced by Gabriel to “rule over the house of Jacob forever” and he didn’t rule for even a day. And the second is about Jesus speaking of salvation to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob.
According to Mat. 10:5,6 before sending his disciples on a mission to announce salvation
to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town. Then, as soon as the disciples left, he goes to have a chat with a Samaritan woman to speak to her about salvation? What happened? Was he behaving like the preacher that says: “Do what I say but not what I do because I am a sinner too?” To prevent exposing Jesus to such a fiasco, he is better off if we take that dialogue as a parable rather than a real event.

Jesus told the Disciples to go to the Jews first, because the promise had been made to them, but Jesus Himself already knew that they would reject it and throw it to the “dogs” (the Gentiles and the Samaritans) so He was laying the groundwork for them to receive it after the Jews rejected it.

Jesus reigns as King of the Universe in Heaven - which I think also includes Judah.

 

[CopticChristian]

Watch Poguy, with this post of yours above, you have unearthed a lot of contradictions within the gospels. Just to mention two of them, you say that Jesus was announced by Gabriel to “rule over the house of Jacob forever” and he didn’t rule for even a day. And the second is about Jesus speaking of salvation to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob.
According to Mat. 10:5,6 before sending his disciples on a mission to announce salvation
to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, he forbade them to go to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town. Then, as soon as the disciples left, he goes to have a chat with a Samaritan woman to speak to her about salvation? What happened? Was he behaving like the preacher that says: “Do what I say but not what I do because I am a sinner too?” To prevent exposing Jesus to such a fiasco, he is better off if we take that dialogue as a parable rather than a real event.

Shib,

It would be best to recognize that you are focusing on one element of Scripture, that appears to be the literal…The Universal Catechism points out the senses of Scripture…

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;

The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

earlier in the Catechism you will read…

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

The Book is written so that the elements necessary for salvation might be known and since you are comparing and contrasting passages allow me to direct you here…you are not the first to compare and contrast passages…St Augusine of Hippo did as well and I would suggest did a more formidable job…

newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm

read the Preface here…

newadvent.org/fathers/1602101.htm

I suggest you compare and contrast your difficulties with Augustine…and I do point out that you are focusing on the Literal only and not the essence of the Scripture for which it was written…ie salvation, with the understanding that the only proper interpretive body being the Church and as the Catechism states…

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

You do seem troubled by not seeing harmony…Augustine saw it…you may learn from him…

 

[billt9]

Bill,

It is difficult to read answers within quotes.

You accept the notion that the Septuagint is the accepted norm, the original King James included the DC…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Bibles all contain these books as far as I know and Protestants in the 16th century as you say…suggest this is error.

Since there is no such thing as an infallible Protestant.or a Protestant Church…how is it you can say that this is infallbily correct or is your opinion on this fallible?

---

sorry, i was trying to tie my prior answer to each quote; anyway —

if I understand your question, no, my opinion is always fallible;
no, there is no such thing as an infallible protestant church

 

[CopticChristian]

---

sorry, i was trying to tie my prior answer to each quote; anyway —

if I understand your question, no, my opinion is always fallible;
no, there is no such thing as an infallible protestant church

Bill,

Thank you…then understand that to accept what you say and I believe to be

fallible opinion
no infallible authority as in Protestant church

and to trade that for what I believe that the OHCAC is the Church of the living God and declares the Bible in its fullness authoratitively to be the Word of God…for fallible opinion and fallible Protestant thought is a big leap…

thank you

 

[Shibolet]

Jesus told the Disciples to go to the Jews first, because the promise had been made to them, but Jesus Himself already knew that they would reject it and throw it to the “dogs” (the Gentiles and the Samaritans) so He was laying the groundwork for them to receive it after the Jews rejected it.

Jesus reigns as King of the Universe in Heaven - which I think also includes Judah.

All right Jmcrae, now, would you be so kind as to quote where in the gospels Jesus told his disciples to go to the Jews first? The opposite is rather true if you read Mat. 15:24. Here is what he said: “My mission is ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” Is only a synonym for first? Not in my grammar book. And there is something else: You imply above that Jesus would consider the Gentiles and Samaritans as dogs. Although you didn’t quote your assertion, I found it in Mat. 15:26, when he said that it was not fair to take the food of the Jews and throw it to the dogs. This was in answer to that Canaanite woman who begged of him to cure her daughter. Oh gosh! That was serious! Why would he address that mother as a dog? Was he testing her or try to convey a mysterious message?

 

[jmcrae]

---

sorry, i was trying to tie my prior answer to each quote; anyway —

You can always do multiple quotes. it’s way easier to read than putting your text into the quote box, which just makes it look like you quoted without responding.

if I understand your question, no, my opinion is always fallible;
no, there is no such thing as an infallible protestant church.

So then, shouldn’t we follow the infallible Church that Christ established, instead of a fallible man, or any fallible church? It makes no sense to trade an equal weight of gold for dross - why would anyone trade God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for any man-made church?

 

[fbl9]

---

sorry, i was trying to tie my prior answer to each quote; anyway —

you could put your answers in a different colour.
or

Highlight a section then click the wrap quotes button found on the top of the reply box.

 

[Shibolet]

Shib,

It would be best to recognize that you are focusing on one element of Scripture, that appears to be the literal…The Universal Catechism points out the senses of Scripture…

earlier in the Catechism you will read…

The Book is written so that the elements necessary for salvation might be known and since you are comparing and contrasting passages allow me to direct you here…you are not the first to compare and contrast passages…St Augusine of Hippo did as well and I would suggest did a more formidable job…

newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm

read the Preface here…

newadvent.org/fathers/1602101.htm

I suggest you compare and contrast your difficulties with Augustine…and I do point out that you are focusing on the Literal only and not the essence of the Scripture for which it was written…ie salvation, with the understanding that the only proper interpretive body being the Church and as the Catechism states…

You do seem troubled by not seeing harmony…Augustine saw it…you may learn from him…

Don’t worry CC, I have the “Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas. I have read it all and underlined almost all the most important issues. It covers all the points you have mentioned above from Augustine and the Catholic Catechism. BTW, I reviewed it before registering into this forum for discussions with Catholic posters for more enlightenment.

 

[jmcrae]

All right Jmcrae, now, would you be so kind as to quote where in the gospels Jesus told his disciples to go to the Jews first? The opposite is rather true if you read Mat. 15:24. Here is what he said: “My mission is ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” Is only a synonym for first? Not in my grammar book. And there is something else: You imply above that Jesus would consider the Gentiles and Samaritans as dogs. Although you didn’t quote your assertion, I found it in Mat. 15:26, when he said that it was not fair to take the food of the Jews and throw it to the dogs. This was in answer to that Canaanite woman who begged of him to cure her daughter. Oh gosh! That was serious! Why would he address that mother as a dog? Was he testing her or try to convey a mysterious message?

If you read the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts, you see where Jesus is sending the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, and the Church is realizing at that point that the Jewish rejection of the Gospel message means that the Gentiles are allowed to receive it in their place, and alongside those individual Jews who rebelled against their Jewish authorities and embraced faith in Christ. While Christ was on earth, HIs mission was to the Jewish people, to make known to them that He was their long-expected Messiah. Jewish authorities even today continue to reject Him, so the Gentiles continue to be evangelized and brought into His Church, because as Jesus said in the parable of the wedding feast, if the invited guests refuse to come, then others must take their places.

 

[CopticChristian]

All right Jmcrae, now, would you be so kind as to quote where in the gospels Jesus told his disciples to go to the Jews first? The opposite is rather true if you read Mat. 15:24. Here is what he said: “My mission is ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” Is only a synonym for first? Not in my grammar book. And there is something else: You imply above that Jesus would consider the Gentiles and Samaritans as dogs. Although you didn’t quote your assertion, I found it in Mat. 15:26, when he said that it was not fair to take the food of the Jews and throw it to the dogs. This was in answer to that Canaanite woman who begged of him to cure her daughter. Oh gosh! That was serious! Why would he address that mother as a dog? Was he testing her or try to convey a mysterious message?

Shib,

Chrysosotom in early in time said this…

It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to the dogs. Matthew 15:26

And when He vouchsafed her a word, then He smote her more sharply than by His silence. And no longer does He refer the cause to another, nor say, I am not sent, but the more urgent she makes her entreaty, so much the more does He also urge His denial. And He calls them no longer sheep, but children, and her a dog.

What then says the woman? Out of His own very words she frames her plea. Why, though I be a dog, said she, I am not an alien.

Justly did Christ say, For judgment am I come. John 9:32 The woman practises high self-command, and shows forth all endurance and faith, and this, receiving insult; but they, courted and honored, requite it with the contrary.

For, that food is necessary for the children, says she, I also know; yet neither am I forbidden, being a dog. For were it unlawful to receive, neither would it be lawful to partake of the crumbs; but if, though in scanty measure, they ought to be partakers, neither am I forbidden, though I be a dog; nay, rather on this ground am I most surely a partaker, if I am a dog.

With this intent did Christ put her off, for He knew she would say this; for this did He deny the grant, that He might exhibit her high self-command.

For if He had not meant to give, neither would He have given afterwards, nor would He have stopped her mouth again. But as He does in the case of the centurion, saying, I will come and heal him, Matthew 8:7 that we might learn the godly fear of that man, and might hear him say, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof; Matthew 8:8 and as He does in the case of her that had the issue of blood, saying, I perceive that virtue has gone out of me, Luke 8:46 that He might make her faith manifest; and as in the case of the Samaritan woman, that He might show how not even upon reproof she desists: John 4:18 so also here, He would not that so great virtue in the woman should be hid.** Not in insult then were His words spoken, but calling her forth, and revealing the treasure laid up in her./**

QUOTE]This is one way to see it:thumbsup:

 

[Shibolet]

If you read the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts, you see where Jesus is sending the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, and the Church is realizing at that point that the Jewish rejection of the Gospel message means that the Gentiles are allowed to receive it in their place, and alongside those individual Jews who rebelled against their Jewish authorities and embraced faith in Christ. While Christ was on earth, HIs mission was to the Jewish people, to make known to them that He was their long-expected Messiah. Jewish authorities even today continue to reject Him, so the Gentiles continue to be evangelized and brought into His Church, because as Jesus said in the parable of the wedding feast, if the invited guests refuse to come, then others must take their places.

By the time the book of Acts was written, Jesus had been gone for about 40 years. And that book was written by someone who never saw Jesus alive. And last but not least, Luke
the author was a Greek man and not Jewish.

 

[Shibolet]

Shib,

Chrysosotom in early in time said this…

This is one way to see it:thumbsup:

 

[stewstew03]

… Do you think a Catholic would compromise the Church? He would rather compromise the truth.

What does this mean?

 

[billt9]

you could put your answers in a different colour.
or

Highlight a section then click the wrap quotes button found on the top of the reply box.

thanks, didn’t know that

 

[joe370]

CopticChristian;10110718:

Shib,

Chrysosotom in early in time said this…

Well, that’s a very common phenomenon: Everyone interprets a text according to his or her preconceived notions. Do you think a Catholic would compromise the Church? He would rather compromise the truth

.

Neither…Do you think a non-Catholic would compromise the Church? He would rather compromise the truth?

How is doctrinal truth even knowable in the protestant sphere considering the fact that the holy bible via private interpretation, is model adopted and used? For example, are Christians belonging the the Lutheran church correct about the Eucharist or are Evangelical Christians correct about the commemorative, symbolic nature of the Eucharist?

 

[billt9]

That is one of the oddest views of God’s revealed truth that I have ever heard!

Surely you are aware that Protestant doctrine is that only the written holy scriptures are inerrantly authoritative. I know you don’t agree, but to act like you have never heard it before seems “odd.”

You allege that what was not written does not matter? Really?

I was trying to make the point, apparently not very well, that not every word uttered by paul, or peter, or John was scripture. Isn’t Catholic doctrine also that not everything ever said by a pope is inerrant holy tradition?

Jesus, or Paul? From the Apostle’s own mouth - even better, it is written proof:

Not sure I understand this correctly, but — There is not one human alive on the face of the earth who has ever heard one word from the mouth of Jesus or Paul or Peter, etc. There is not one either who has ever heard a word from the mouth of an apostolic father about “holy tradition”

It is all based on written documents, often very old written documents, including written documents recording holy or oral tradition.

the OT is written. I don’t think the Christian Church accepts the “oral tradition of the Jews” about the OT, which “oral tradition” is of course written

Question: are you from that denomination which holds solely to Paul’s writings to the Gentiles?

Where is that from? I said every word of the Bible, not just the red letter quotes of Jesus words, were the word of Jesus, God the Son.

PS trying to master this colored text way to respond more clearly

 

[jmcrae]

PS trying to master this colored text way to respond more clearly

Please use separate quote boxes for each; that way we don’t lose your responses when we try to reply.