P
PRmerger
Guest
How does one get to be “proven to be from GOD”?
- Status
S
schaick
Guest
I have told you why I believe Philemon is Scripture-reread my comments.Ok.
And how do you know that Philemon is theopneustos?
And what about this verse: “my breath is offensive to my wife.”
Who told you that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is inspired?
The only way you know this is because of an OUTSIDE authority. An authority NOT FOUND in Scripture.
It was the authority of the Catholic Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit of course, that discerned for you that Philemon is inspired. And that the OT books that state, “my breath is offensive to my wife” and “Saul went into a cave to relive himself” are to be included in your Bible.
[SIGN]You would not know it any other way, except by the authority of the CC.[/SIGN]
So you think Hebrews isn’t - you are actually questioning that is is Scripture? Going against the Catholic Church? Interesting!
Why did the early church fathers continue to write about, reference the books that were confirmed as canon by the church in 367AD?
Why did it take so long to confirm what everyone already knew from around 100AD?
Coptic Christian - Doesn’t the Coptic Church use the very same Bible as the non-catholic churches? Where we place books into apocrphya you label them historic, not inspired but worth reading.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because someone else–the Catholic Church--discerned for you that it was* theopneustos,* right?
For you would not know it any other way.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
This question has nothing to do with why I believe Hebrews belongs in the bible. The question is why do you believe it belongs in the Bible. You dodged the question.
Concerning the deuterocanonicals or apocrypha/means hidden, you say not inspired but worth reading, please add “in my opinion”.
Why do you believe Hebrews belongs in the bible?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where does it say that? Please quote the chapter and verse. Thanks.
Does your church consider the footnotes to be part of the inspired word of God?
At any rate, any type of reference to the OT is wonderful, but what does that have to do with proving something is inspired?
Also, could you please cite the chapter and verse that says that a book of the NT had to be written by a witness of Jesus. Thanks.
That’s also wonderful, schaick. But how does that prove that it’s inspired?
Schaick, I know you were addressing another poster, CopticChristian, that you “have not dodged the question”, but could you please answer the questions I posted in the above post? Thanks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So if someone wrote something in the earliest days of Christianity that stated that were an eyewitness to Christ, that makes his writings inspired?
Firstly, where does the Bible say that this is a requirement?
And if it is indeed a criterion, then why isn’t the Signs Gospel considered by you to be inspired? He claims to have been an eyewitness.
And take a look at the Gospel of Thomas. He claims to be an eyewitness too. Why do you not consider this gospel to be theopneustos?
Here’s why you don’t…
wait for it…
wait for it…
Because the CC discerned for you, way back in the 4-5th centuries, that those writings were not inspired, but that other ones were.
S
schaick
Guest
lol!! What is the deal? You read only some of my post?How does one get to be “proven to be from GOD”?
My complete post was:
*If this is your arguement you have no leg to stand on.
Mohammad can not be proven to be from GOD. **Mohammad performed no miracles nor fufilled or stated any prophecies. There were no eye witnesses to Gabriel visiting Mohammad, no voice heard, no dreams, etc. ***What was heard and seen are the symptoms of Temporal Lobe Seizure. We know from history that people caring for him thought he was having seizures at a young age.
The Quran contains no miracle or prophecies that were not taken originally from the Bible. The Quran has been shown to be historically and scientifically incorrect.
Another point to think about- Was Mohammad an eyewitness to what he was writing about?
S
schaick
Guest
*Does your church consider the footnotes to be part of the inspired word of God? *
No
At any rate, any type of reference to the OT is wonderful, but what does that have to do with proving something is inspired?
You would rather trust your Catholic Church then the Apostles and Jesus?
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 23
35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Luke 24
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Also, could you please cite the chapter and verse that says that a book of the NT had to be written by a witness of Jesus. Thanks.
LOL! Why in the world would you trust something written hundreds of years later when the chance of errors to enter the story is so much greater then an eyewitness or his student?
*That’s also wonderful, schaick. But how does that prove that it’s inspired? *
If what Polycarp says is true that the letter was written by Paul- no problem. A student of Paul’s - no problem. Obviously a student of an eyewitness but which one?
Good direct references to the Old Testament writings not some of those round about ones used to try and prove apocrypha. No doctrinal errors, clearly shows Jesus is the mediator and high Priest.
Why does your Catholic Church think it is inspired?
S
schaick
Guest
lol! Found too late - 1800 [fragments], 1940’s [complete] to be considered by Catholics when canon finally finalized for the last time after the reformation! It was never in any of the many lists of canons.So if someone wrote something in the earliest days of Christianity that stated that were an eyewitness to Christ, that makes his writings inspired?
Firstly, where does the Bible say that this is a requirement?
And if it is indeed a criterion, then why isn’t the Signs Gospel considered by you to be inspired? He claims to have been an eyewitness.
And take a look at the Gospel of Thomas. He claims to be an eyewitness too. Why do you not consider this gospel to be theopneustos?
Here’s why you don’t…
wait for it…
wait for it…
Because the CC discerned for you, way back in the 4-5th centuries, that those writings were not inspired, but that other ones were.
Early church fathers didn’t quote from it. Did they even know it was in exitence? It was written later 150-200AD.
It included pantheistic ideas.
The Gospel of Thomas never refers to Jesus as the Christ or our Lord. Written too late - gnostic**-“secret sayings”** So true understanding of the Gospel of Thomas could only come if you had direct, personal contact with GOD.
*These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke
and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
- And He said, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these
sayings will not experience death.”*
Ever going to answer any of my questions? How did the Catholic Church figure out that Signs Gospel was not inspired? ** What was their criteria?**
If you had been in charge back in the day what would have been your criteria? What things would you used to verify the Old Testament? Gospel and New Testament?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You have no ability to convince me why I should depart from the Catholic Faith, The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, to reason as you do and be evasive would not suit reality for me. I believe based on how you present yourself…I see no reason for me or anyone else to believe that joining what you believe would provide any surety of anything…You never answer a direct question. You dance with bible verses. I could never do that. I believe you have proved why I could never be Protestant.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, schaick, you’ll have to provide some verse that says that having eyewitnesses to something makes it inspired.
Secondly, you are begging the question when you state that the Koran has to have miracles or prophesies taken originally from the Bible to make it inspired. It’s circular.
You’re trying to prove that the Bible is inspired without any other authority but the Bible. That’s your argument. So you can’t use the Bible as the criterion for the Koran, until you prove that the Bible is inspired. See?
Thirdly, you’ll have to provide some verse that says that miracles and prohesies are a citerion to make something inspired.
The Koran declares it to be inspired. It talks about miracles. It has eyewitnesses.
According to your arbitrary criteria, it’s inspired.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Source for this please, esp. with regard to the Gospel of Thomas. Thanks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you answer the above question about the authorship of Hebrews?
Does it seem strange to you that you are accepting a book as God-breathed because it says that it contains an announcement by the Lord?
Do you not realize how dangerous that is, schaick? Some ancient text could appear that *says *it bears witness to the testimony of Christ and talks about seeing a miracle or two performed by Jesus, and you’re going to have to say that it was inspired! :bigyikes:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you tell me where Jesus is mentioned in 3 John?
P
PRmerger
Guest
These are some very, very good questions, schaick, and I am heartened that you have asked them.
It allows us to introduce to you a concept that has, thus far, been so foreign to you. I doubt that, prior to coming to the CAFs, you ever gave a single thought to the concept, “Where does the Bible come from?”
I know you didn’t believe that it just fell from heaven, leather-bound, and in the KJ translation
, but I doubt you ever gave much thought to it beyond the fact that it was on your bedside table and you believed it to be the inspired word of God somehow.Coming here on this thread has ruffled your feathers a bit, but I am glad that you are asking these questions…
P
PRmerger
Guest
So now to address these questions:
IOW: those texts that reflected Sacred Tradition were then considered inspired. As St. Paul wrote: * So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
*
That is, if a text included teachings on salvation that was consonant with what the Apostles had been preaching orally, then it was considered to be God-breathed.
Soooo, Tradition is the source for what is Scripture.
And if I had been in charge I would have, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, included the writings that were in union with the Faith given, once for all, to the Apostles and excluded the writings that had divorced themselves from this One Faith. And I would have used the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used–the Septuagint.
The answer to “what was their criteria” is: it was the kerygma that served as their criteria–that is, the oral proclamation and Sacred Tradition, handed on through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that served as the criterion for discerning whether an ancient text was inspired or not.
IOW: those texts that reflected Sacred Tradition were then considered inspired. As St. Paul wrote: * So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
*
That is, if a text included teachings on salvation that was consonant with what the Apostles had been preaching orally, then it was considered to be God-breathed.
Soooo, Tradition is the source for what is Scripture.
And if I had been in charge I would have, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, included the writings that were in union with the Faith given, once for all, to the Apostles and excluded the writings that had divorced themselves from this One Faith. And I would have used the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used–the Septuagint.
S
schaick
Guest
Did I say I was trying to convince you to leave the Catholic faith?You have no ability to convince me why I should depart from the Catholic Faith, The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, to reason as you do and be evasive would not suit reality for me. I believe based on how you present yourself…I see no reason for me or anyone else to believe that joining what you believe would provide any surety of anything…You never answer a direct question. You dance with bible verses. I could never do that. I believe you have proved why I could never be Protestant.
This thread about how Christians can agree- I WAS the one trying to show that Christians agree on many things. Many Catholics seem to never be happy with that though. Which I find interesting because in any given parish we have seen that many Catholics have differing beliefs even as wide a range of non-catholic Christians.
I have answered every question- go back and read what I have written.
CLUE - the Bible verses ARE the answer!!
LOL! Besides that I was asked for the Bible verses!!
If you were to seriously study and answer my questions you would see that the very same way the early church fathers decided something was from Scripture is the very same way we today can discern the scripture is from GOD.
You believe it is because the Catholic Church. I believe it is because they saw that the writers were eyewitnesses to miracles and prophecies fufilled** - signs from GOD.**
I have shown that GOD had more of a hand in the whole process then you think. Giving GOD the glory HE deserves. **How is that trying to convince you to leave the Catholic Church? **
S
schaick
Guest
There you go questioning my intelligence again.These are some very, very good questions, schaick, and I am heartened that you have asked them.
It allows us to introduce to you a concept that has, thus far, been so foreign to you. I doubt that, prior to coming to the CAFs, you ever gave a single thought to the concept, “Where does the Bible come from?”
I know you didn’t believe that it just fell from heaven, leather-bound, and in the KJ translation
Coming here on this thread has ruffled your feathers a bit, but I am glad that you are asking these questions…
Why do you think I became and remain a Christian, I’ll tell you, GOD’s Word. LOL! It is not beacause I have allowed some institution to do my reasoning for me! LOL!
I am not ruffled because I have the Word of GOD proving itself without the help of any living people, institution. What has ruffled my feathers is the rudness of people, people not reading my posts completely, asking the same questions repeatedly, etc.
OK. Now go back further - HOW did they know the kerygma was a message from GOD?
Think about your statement- if a text included teachings on salvation that was consonant with what the Apostles had been preaching orally, then it was considered to be God-breathed.
Consistant with Apostles preaching - **HOW does anyone know when an Apostles is a messenger from GOD? **Anyone can preach anything about salvation and say it is GOD breathed.
HOW did the Apostles know the message they were preaching was from GOD?
HOW does something become a tradition that you know is right with GOD?
What is the SOURCE of tradition? What signs from GOD confirm it is GOD breathed?
S
schaick
Guest
You misunderstand terribly - Eyewitness accounts verify that a miracle or prophecy occurred as stated - not that an event is inspired. It is the miracle and prophecy fufilled that prove something is from GOD.Again, schaick, you’ll have to provide some verse that says that having eyewitnesses to something makes it inspired.
Secondly, you are begging the question when you state that the Koran has to have miracles or prophesies taken originally from the Bible to make it inspired. It’s circular.
You’re trying to prove that the Bible is inspired without any other authority but the Bible. That’s your argument. So you can’t use the Bible as the criterion for the Koran, until you prove that the Bible is inspired. See?
Thirdly, you’ll have to provide some verse that says that miracles and prohesies are a citerion to make something inspired.
The Koran declares it to be inspired. It talks about miracles. It has eyewitnesses.
According to your arbitrary criteria, it’s inspired.
Can you think of any other way we know a message is from GOD besides miracle and prophecy fufilled?
LOL! Speaking of circular reasoning you were the one that asked for Bible verses.
Mohammd had no eyewitnesses to confirm that in fact any angel made revelations to him. It was just Mohammad’s word that he was a prophet. So in fact very much a sel proclaimed prophet.
The Quran’s miracles and prophecies are copies of those already stated in the Bible-already confirmed. The Quran and Mohammad produced no new miracles or prophecies.
S
schaick
Guest
There are many sites that speak of the Gospel of Thomas. You could google the history of the Gospel of Thomas or discoveries at Nag Hammadi.
- Status