I think ALL Christians Can Unite On This!

[PRmerger]

OK. Now go back further - HOW did they know the kerygma was a message from GOD?

Because it came from the Apostles, and then their successors.

Did you answer the question about where Jesus is mentioned in 3 John? Is that another criterion you’re using to say whether something is inspired or not? Are you now saying that something has to

• talk about miracles/prophesies,
• have an eyewitness verifying it,
• and also mention Jesus’name

in order to be theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

There you go questioning my intelligence again.

Nope. Never made a single reference to your intelligence.

I think you never considered, prior to coming to this forum, where the Bible came from. But saying you’ve never questioned something, and that you took something for granted, is not the same as saying you’re stupid.

 

[PRmerger]

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.**

Ok, schaick. So if I can produce a writing that talks about “new miracles and prophesies”, are you ready to declare that it is theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

**HOW does anyone know when an Apostles is a messenger from GOD? **Anyone can preach anything about salvation and say it is GOD breathed.

I think you set yourself up for this one, schaick.

How did anyone know when an Apostle is a messenger from God?

wait for it…

wait for it…

Because…

they were a bishop in the Church, a successor to the Apostles, ordained and anointed by someone who had been ordained and anointed by the Apostles, who had been ordained and appointed by Christ.

See? You now have set yourself up for understanding the priesthood and the sacred order, or hierarchy, of the Church.

 

[schaick]

Because it came from the Apostles, and then their successors.

Did you answer the question about where Jesus is mentioned in 3 John? Is that another criterion you’re using to say whether something is inspired or not? Are you now saying that something has to

• talk about miracles/prophesies,
• have an eyewitness verifying it,
• and also mention Jesus’name

in order to be theopneustos?

*It allows us to introduce to you a concept that has, thus far, been so foreign to you…

wait for it…

wait for it…

wait for it…*

**HOW did the Apostles know the kerygma was from GOD?

HOW did their successors know the kerygma was from GOD?**

Sorry that was probably confusing - No the name Jesus being in a letter is not really a criteria about for a letter being inspired but whether it fits with the Gospel message which is all about Jesus.

In other words **why even consider a letter might be inspired if it doesn’t speak of Jesus, contains a historical error or doctrinal error, is written too late. **

 

[PRmerger]

**HOW did the Apostles know the kerygma was from GOD?

HOW did their successors know the kerygma was from GOD?**

St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that they knew when they were being inspired because, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”

Thus, when they proclaimed something that was the* kerygma, *they knew it. When they were proclaiming something such as, “It’s going to be a bad harvest this year” they knew it wasn’t.

And I think if you answer the question, “How did Paul know what to write down in his epistle to the Romans?” you’ll have the answer to your question. If they knew something was from God and wrote it down, they also knew something was from God and proclaimed it orally.

Sorry that was probably confusing -

Not a problem.

No the name Jesus being in a letter is not really a criteria about for a letter being inspired but whether it fits with the Gospel message which is all about Jesus.

Exactly, schaick.

Again, you have given a great argument for Tradition.

What you have proposed above is exactly what the bishops in the Catholic Church used to discern whether something was theopneustos–whether it was consonant with the Oral Teaching of the Apostles.

Remember, there was no Bible for 400 years. That’s a lonnnnggg time. Like the time from the Pilgrims arriving in Plymouth Rock to present day. Imagine all of US history without a constitution! That’s how long the Christian Church existed without a codified set of inspired texts.

In other words **why even consider a letter might be inspired if it doesn’t speak of Jesus, contains a historical error or doctrinal error, is written too late. **

Is there a verse in Scripture that says this is how you discern whether something is inspired or not?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Fair enough.

What about the Protoevangelium of James? That was extant around the first century, talks about Jesus, describes miracles and prophesies.

Why do you not consider that to be inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

In other words **why even consider a letter might be inspired if it doesn’t speak of Jesus, contains a historical error or doctrinal error, is written too late. **

As I’m sure you’re coming to realize, the above criteria, in addition to not being found as a directive in Scripture and are therefore a man-made tradition, are completely arbitrary.

Another Christian may declare, “Why even consider an letter might be inspired if it doesn’t speak of God’s covenant, be written by an Apostle, and be written in Greek?”

Another Christian may declare, “I believe that something is inspired only if it contains references to the Trinity (that is, it must mention the Father, the Son, *and *the Holy Spirit), mentions Galilee, and was found within a 10 mile radius of Jesus’ tomb.”

And yet another Christian may proclaim, “Well! That’s not what makes something inspired. What makes it inspired is if it causes me to change my life!” (That actually is an argument that was proferred here on the CAFs by a Protestant.) Of course, this prompts the questions: if a reader reads Philemon and is not moved by it, does that then make it NOT inspired? And, conversely, if a reader reads the Odes of Solomon and comes to accept Jesus as his Lord and savior because of that text, does that mean the Odes of Solomon are inspired?

 

[schaick]

St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that they knew when they were being inspired because, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”

Thus, when they proclaimed something that was the* kerygma, *they knew it. When they were proclaiming something such as, “It’s going to be a bad harvest this year” they knew it wasn’t.

And I think if you answer the question, “How did Paul know what to write down in his epistle to the Romans?” you’ll have the answer to your question. If they knew something was from God and wrote it down, they also knew something was from God and proclaimed it orally.

Not a problem.

Exactly, schaick.

Again, you have given a great argument for Tradition.

What you have proposed above is exactly what the bishops in the Catholic Church used to discern whether something was theopneustos–whether it was consonant with the Oral Teaching of the Apostles.

Remember, there was no Bible for 400 years. That’s a lonnnnggg time. Like the time from the Pilgrims arriving in Plymouth Rock to present day. Imagine all of US history without a constitution! That’s how long the Christian Church existed without a codified set of inspired texts.

Is there a verse in Scripture that says this is how you discern whether something is inspired or not?

That is no answer- they knew it? HOW?

*The prophets are in control of their spirits *simply means:

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

the others should weigh carefully what is said.:
HOW do they weigh carefully what is said?

HOW did they know something was from GOD and worthy of oral tradition?

LOL! there was no Bible as we know it today,** but the letters, codices were circulating very early soon, a few decades after Jesus’ ascension. **

Very funny that the “heretic” Marcion knew what Books should be in the New Testaments in early 100AD and Clement did not!!. Marcion’s problem was not understanding the connection of Jesus and GOD with the Old Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

That is no answer- they knew it? HOW?

I am sorry you don’t like the answer–because, again, it ruffles your feathers to consider the fact that you’re beginning to understand that you’ve been submitting to an authority outside of Scripture all this time–but not liking an answer is not the same as “no answer”.

But, again, I will refer you to Paul, when writing, say, Romans. Do you think he knew when he was* writing* that epistle that he was* writing* under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

How?

If you can answer that question, then you can answer how the Apostles, and their successors, knew that they were speaking under the inspiration of the HS.

 

[PRmerger]

*The prophets are in control of their spirits *simply means:

Ah. So here we have another great deficiency in the Protestant paradigm.

If you believe that Scripture is the final authority, and you proclaim that a verse “simply means” and another person proclaims that a verse “simply means” , then in your paradigm, there is no recourse. You can only say, “You have a right to your own private interpretation of Scripture, I guess, because there is no church that I can go to that will authoritatively resolve this disagreement.”

 

[schaick]

I am sorry you don’t like the answer–because, again, it ruffles your feathers to consider the fact that you’re beginning to understand that you’ve been submitting to an authority outside of Scripture all this time–but not liking an answer is not the same as “no answer”.

But, again, I will refer you to Paul, when writing, say, Romans. Do you think he knew when he was* writing* that epistle that he was* writing* under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

How?

If you can answer that question, then you can answer how the Apostles, and their successors, knew that they were speaking under the inspiration of the HS.

LOL! No ruffled feathers simply can’t believe you aren’t connecting the dots, still missing the beauty of what GOD has done for us thinking it is the result of man’s efforts and not GOD’s.

The kerygma 3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him]:
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

How did the Diciples know Jesus was from GOD? Jesus fufilled prophecies and performed miracles.

How was Paul moved by Jesus on the roal to Damascus? Miracles

Hebrews 2
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! No ruffled feathers simply can’t believe you aren’t connecting the dots, still missing the beauty of what GOD has done for us thinking it is the result of man’s efforts and not GOD’s.

No, schaick. All of the above is not the result of “man’s efforts and not God’s.”

Once you can get over this hurdle, you’ll be able to abolish your objection to Catholicism.

Each and every time I talk about the Catholic bishops discerning for you the canon of Scripture it is not saying they did it of their own accord. Of course it was only through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit that they were able to do this.

So if you can understand that the Catholic Church does not proclaim that they did this independent of God, then you’re on your way!

 

[PRmerger]

Very funny that the “heretic” Marcion knew what Books should be in the New Testaments in early 100AD and Clement did not!!. Marcion’s problem was not understanding the connection of Jesus and GOD with the Old Testament.

This shows a deficient understanding of the Magisterium, as well as Sacred Tradition, schaick.

To the degree that any priest/bishop has divorced himself from the kerygma, is the degree that he has separated himself from the Church.

So if an individual bishop were to proclaim “Mary is now to be considered part of the Trinity!” he would have no authority and his flock would not be obligated to follow this.

 

[PRmerger]

How did the Diciples know Jesus was from GOD? Jesus fufilled prophecies and performed miracles.

How was Paul moved by Jesus on the roal to Damascus? Miracles

Hebrews 2
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Amen! This is very Catholic of you to say!

See? You’re getting closer and closer!

 

[schaick]

Fair enough.

What about the Protoevangelium of James? That was extant around the first century, talks about Jesus, describes miracles and prophesies.

Why do you not consider that to be inspired?

What exactly about the salvation message in Protoevangelium of James? Isn’t it really much more about Mary?

Miracles maybe but what proof do we have they actually occured? Eyewitnesses? No written too late.

Are there any other writings that claim this unknown writer was GOD inspired?

So we have no udea whether the miracles really happened.

When in Judiasm did they keep virgins in the Temple?:
2 And when she was twelve years old, there was a council of the priests, saying: Behold Mary is become twelve years old in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her ? lest she pollute the sanctuary of the Lord

 

[schaick]

Amen! This is very Catholic of you to say!

See? You’re getting closer and closer!

LOL! I have been repeating this for days now and you are finally accepting it!

So then you agree - people know something is from GOD because of miracles, prophecies fufilled and eyewitnesses to those miracle and fufilled prophecies as we are told in:

Hebrews 2
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

 

[PRmerger]

What exactly about the salvation message in Protoevangelium of James?

Are you now adding ANOTHER criterion for deciding whether something is theopneustos? Now the text to be considered has to talk about salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

In other words why even consider a letter might be inspired if it doesn’t speak of Jesus, contains a historical error or doctrinal error, is written too late.

Sorry if you answered this question already: but where is Jesus spoken of in 3 John?

I’m pretty sure he’s not mentioned at all.

So by your criterion above you would have to say that 3 John is not inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Miracles maybe but what proof do we have they actually occured? Eyewitnesses? No written too late.

Ok. So thus far we have your criteria that something has to be inspired is if it’s

• written by eyewitnesses, but it has to be not “too late”. What is the correct time frame for it to be considered “early enough”?
• contain miracles, but it has to be a proven miracle. * Do you know how it was proven that Jesus walked on water?*
• contain Jesus’ name. * But 3 John doesn’t fit this criterion.*
• discuss salvation. Where does Scripture state that this is a requirement for it to be considered theopneustos?

Is that a correct summary of how you know something to be inspired?

Oh, and you just added this one:

Are there any other writings that claim this unknown writer was GOD inspired?

So it also has to be talked about in other writings by early Christians who claim it was inspired?

It seems as if you keep adding and adding to your arbitrary list, each time I bring up another non-theopneustos text that fits your arbitrary criteria.

Because it came from the Apostles, and then their successors.

Did you answer the question about where Jesus is mentioned in 3 John? Is that another criterion you’re using to say whether something is inspired or not? Are you now saying that something has to

• talk about miracles/prophesies,
• have an eyewitness verifying it,
• and also mention Jesus’name

in order to be theopneustos?