I think ALL Christians Can Unite On This!

[PRmerger]

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.

Yes, schaick. That’s one way Christians knew that Jesus was from God.

But as for using that to be a criterion for determining whether something is inspired, well, schaick, that puts you in a precarious position.

For what miracle is in Philemon? Or Titus? or 3 John?

By your very own criterion you would have to eliminate those books.

 

[schaick]

Yes, schaick. That’s one way Christians knew that Jesus was from God.

But as for using that to be a criterion for determining whether something is inspired, well, schaick, that puts you in a precarious position.

For what miracle is in Philemon? Or Titus? or 3 John?

By your very own criterion you would have to eliminate those books.

Why? The books no one has ever questioned contain the needed proof and are sufficient-they contain the Gospel message.

Read back I have answered for Philemon and Titus. 2 and 3 John is inspired if it was written by John who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ miracles, fufilled prophecies and teachings of Jesus.

 

[schaick]

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

No, but why would one take it under consideration as a New Testament Book, inspired if it doesn’t in some way connect with the Salvation message that Jesus preached? There is no reason to see if it fits any criteria.

 

[PRmerger]

Why? The books no one has ever questioned contain the needed proof and are sufficient-they contain the Gospel message.

Read back I have answered for Philemon and Titus. 2 and 3 John is inspired if it was written by John who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ miracles, fufilled prophecies and teachings of Jesus.

Ok. So you’re saying that any of the ancient Christian texts only need to fulfill ONE of the criteria you (arbitrarily) assigned. That’s fine. 3 John was written by an eyewitness but does not mention Jesus at all. But you declare it to be inspired because it was written by an eyewitness.

So that means that the Protoevangelium of James must be inspired because it was written by an eyewitness.

And that means that the Apocalypse of Peter is also inspired, according to your criterion?

See, schaick, you can’t apply only ONE criterion to the books that the Catholic Church discerned for you to be inspired–that is, say that since 3 John was written by an eyewitness it’s inspired, even if it doesn’t mention Jesus…

but then say, "Well, this book ISN"T inspired because, even though it was written by an eyewitness, because it doesn’t .

If you assign canonicity to one book, such as 3 John, because it fulfills only ONE criterion, then you have to allow only ONE criterion for the other non-inspired books, right?

 

[PRmerger]

No, but why would one take it under consideration as a New Testament Book, inspired if it doesn’t in some way connect with the Salvation message that Jesus preached? There is no reason to see if it fits any criteria.

Fair enough.

But you’ve assigned a bunch of arbitary criteria–NONE, BTW, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS BEING NECESSARY TO DECLARE SOMETHING THEOPNEUSTOS–which are a man-made tradition.

So, you must at least acknowledge, when it comes to discerning the canon of Scripture, you are following a man-made tradition.

And, as you use Scripture as your final authority, and there is no Scripture verse to back up your criteria, you cannot argue with another Christian who says, “Well, I think that something has to mention the Trinity in order for it to be inspired”. That’s HIS criterion, and you can’t argue with him.

Catholics, however, will be able to provide a reasoned argument against someone who says that he will only consider something inspired if it talks about the Trinity.

Also, did you ever address my question as to how late is too late for an ancient text to be considered not inspired?

 

[schaick]

Ok. So you’re saying that any of the ancient Christian texts only need to fulfill ONE of the criteria you (arbitrarily) assigned. That’s fine. 3 John was written by an eyewitness but does not mention Jesus at all. But you declare it to be inspired because it was written by an eyewitness.

So that means that the Protoevangelium of James must be inspired because it was written by an eyewitness.

And that means that the Apocalypse of Peter is also inspired, according to your criterion?

See, schaick, you can’t apply only ONE criterion to the books that the Catholic Church discerned for you to be inspired–that is, say that since 3 John was written by an eyewitness it’s inspired, even if it doesn’t mention Jesus…

but then say, "Well, this book ISN"T inspired because, even though it was written by an eyewitness, because it doesn’t .

If you assign canonicity to one book, such as 3 John, because it fulfills only ONE criterion, then you have to allow only ONE criterion for the other non-inspired books, right?

There you go giving credit to man again. I didn’t assign it GOD did
Eyewitness accounts confirming message for thier students-
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

Wonders, signs and miracles- if you didn’t realize prophecies fit into this -
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Actually I said -
*** 2 and 3 John is inspired if it was written by John who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ miracles, fufilled prophecies and teachings of Jesus.* You are stuck with the Catholic Canon- I am not.

You are not understanding the value of an eyewitness- someone that walked with Jesus, saw the miracles and fufilled prophecies. Of course that hold great weight. That person witnessed the miracles and fufillment of the propheciesbut it doen’t need to be mentioned over and over again. We know from other eyewitnesses who was present at the events.

So you are saying that the writer of the Protoevangelium of James was an eyewitness to the conception and birth of Mary? How does this relate to the salvation message? Are you saying every writing should be considered as a possible message from GOD whether if addresses the salvation message or not?

 

[schaick]

Apocalypse of Peter:
Isn’t it too early to be from Peter? A mid 2nd century writing. There are 2 versions are either complete?

 

[schaick]

Fair enough.

But you’ve assigned a bunch of arbitary criteria–NONE, BTW, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS BEING NECESSARY TO DECLARE SOMETHING THEOPNEUSTOS–which are a man-made tradition.

So, you must at least acknowledge, when it comes to discerning the canon of Scripture, you are following a man-made tradition.

And, as you use Scripture as your final authority, and there is no Scripture verse to back up your criteria, you cannot argue with another Christian who says, “Well, I think that something has to mention the Trinity in order for it to be inspired”. That’s HIS criterion, and you can’t argue with him.

Catholics, however, will be able to provide a reasoned argument against someone who says that he will only consider something inspired if it talks about the Trinity.

Also, did you ever address my question as to how late is too late for an ancient text to be considered not inspired?

You misunderstrand Scripture Alone.

One more time the criteria to be used is mentioned in Scripture::
Followers of eyewitnesses:
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

Miracles and sgns [prophecy fufilled]:
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word. I have had this discussion on this forum with catholics before. What in the world do they teach you in Catholic school?

 

[CopticChristian]

You misunderstrand Scripture Alone.

One more time the criteria to be used is mentioned in Scripture::
Followers of eyewitnesses:
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

Miracles and sgns [prophecy fufilled]:
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word. I have had this discussion on this forum with catholics before. What in the world do they teach you in Catholic school?/QUOTE]

The truth, respect, Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord, and they build on Faith, Hope, Charity. The greatest of these is Charity.

 

[PRmerger]

There you go giving credit to man again. I didn’t assign it GOD did.

Well, schaick, I amend my comment about you. It seems you do believe that God just sent Christians the bible from heaven (maybe delivered by a dove?) leather bound and in book form?

If you don’t believe that, then you must believe that God used men to discern for you the canon of Scripture.

And it was Catholic men who discerned this for you. Catholic bishops to be specific.

 

[PRmerger]

You misunderstrand Scripture Alone.

One more time the criteria to be used is mentioned in Scripture::
Followers of eyewitnesses:
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

Miracles and sgns [prophecy fufilled]:
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

[SIGN1]Neither of these 2 passages speaks about knowing how to discern whether something is inspired or not, schaick.[/SIGN1]

And, again, even if it did, that will rule out a lot of books of the Bible that don’t speak about miracles/prophesies (Philemon) or whose authorship is questionable (Hebrews) and include a lot of other apocryphal books that **do **talk about miracles/prophesies (Protoevangelium of James) or claim to be written by eyewitnesses (the Didache).

While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word.

Amen. This is very Catholic of you to say!

I have had this discussion on this forum with catholics before.

So we are agreed that all things we believe theologically need not be explicitly found in Scripture.

What in the world do they teach you in Catholic school?

What type of provocative question is this?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word. I have had this discussion on this forum with catholics before. What in the world do they teach you in Catholic school?

The Trinity is not defined in Scripture however. Just like the Incarnation isn’t defined in Scripture. People have interpreted verses that show these concepts differently however. (and I agree with you because they are in Scripture)

But private interpretation doesn’t work.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying that the writer of the Protoevangelium of James was an eyewitness to the conception and birth of Mary? How does this relate to the salvation message? Are you saying every writing should be considered as a possible message from GOD whether if addresses the salvation message or not?

And are you saying that Matthew was an eyewitness at the Transfiguration?

And that Mark was present here:
At once the Spirit drove him out into the desert,and he remained in the desert for forty days, tempted by Satan. He was among wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him.

And that Luke was an eyewitness to this: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1:19&version=NASB

And that John was present in the praetorium with Pilate and Jesus in John 19?

Please answer yes or no to all of the above, and how you know they were present/eyewitnesses despite the Scriptures saying nothing about their presence at these events.

 

[schaick]

PRmerger:

Wow. So now you’re opening the criteria to secondary sources.

Okay. Then that opens up these ancient texts: Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of the Hebrews, Shepherd of Hermas.

Why are they not theopneustos?

(Here’s the answer: because the CC discerned for you that they weren’t. That’s the ONLY way you know.)

You consider Jesus a secondary source? I have said all along the Disciples could be trusted. You asked how far removed- the students of the eye witnesses-Disciples can be believed along with students of Paul.

**What I am trying to get my head around is that you can’t believe the Disciples of Jesus. ** Those that heard the stories directly from Christ yet you believe a very far removed entity that has no proof of a specific teaching.

Epistle of Barnabas seems a bit anti-jewish compared to the Gospels. Would GOD have allowed it to be included? Maybe too late no one can decide, do we have any idea who wrote it?

Gospel of the Hebrews my understanding is that we don’t have the complete writing and the date of the writing can not be pinned down. It might be late 150AD.

Shepherd of Hermas - Written too late 150 AD.

 

[schaick]

The Trinity is not defined in Scripture however. Just like the Incarnation isn’t defined in Scripture. People have interpreted verses that show these concepts differently however. (and I agree with you because they are in Scripture)

But private interpretation doesn’t work.

Incarnation:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
…
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The above also shows the relationship between the Father and Son.

I have seen in the past the hang up for Catholics is knowing the Holy Spirit is GOD through Scripture:
Acts 5
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

We see in Scripture that Jesus always called the Holy Spirit a him and not an it- so a person or being with a separate identity yet still the very GOD. We also know that it is the Father that sends the Holy Spirit to us and Jesus:
Acts 2
33 … he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit …

Do you need me to list all the verses that support the idea that the Father is GOD, Jesus is GOD?

 

[PRmerger]

Apocalypse of Peter:
Isn’t it too early to be from Peter? A mid 2nd century writing. There are 2 versions are either complete?

Firstly you’ll have to answer the question I asked previously: how late is “too late” to be excluded from the canon of Scripture? That is, if an ancient text was written 10 years after the death of Christ, does that give it legitimacy to be considered? What about 50 years? Or 30 years?

And if you state, "It must have been written within <example: 15 years> after the death of Christ, where does the Bible tell you this is a criterion? Chapter and verse, please.

 

[PRmerger]

You consider Jesus a secondary source? I have said all along the Disciples could be trusted. You asked how far removed- the students of the eye witnesses-Disciples can be believed along with students of Paul.

Since there were a multitude of disciples (some 3 thousand eyewitnesses, yes?), and even if each disciple related the Gospel to (let’s be conservative here) 10 folks, that leaves tens of thousands of secondary witnesses that could have written something that you say could be theopneustos!!

What I am trying to get my head around is that you can’t believe the Disciples of Jesus.Those that heard the stories directly from Christ yet you believe a very far removed entity that has no proof of a specific teaching.

:extrahappy::dancing::clapping:

This, schaick, is HUGE, and I knew you would come to this, even without realizing it.

The above comment you made is the PERFECT DEFINITION OF SACRED TRADITION. You have just given a testament to the fact that you do NOT believe in Scripture Alone, but in the infallible vehicle of God’s Revelation called SACRED TRADITION–the relaying of the Gospel, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of “the stories directly from Christ”!!!

:bounce::extrahappy::tiphat::yup:

 

[schaick]

Since there were a multitude of disciples (some 3 thousand eyewitnesses, yes?), and even if each disciple related the Gospel to (let’s be conservative here) 10 folks, that leaves tens of thousands of secondary witnesses that could have written something that you say could be theopneustos!!

:extrahappy::dancing::clapping:

This, schaick, is HUGE, and I knew you would come to this, even without realizing it.

The above comment you made is the PERFECT DEFINITION OF SACRED TRADITION. You have just given a testament to the fact that you do NOT believe in Scripture Alone, but in the infallible vehicle of God’s Revelation called SACRED TRADITION–the relaying of the Gospel, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of “the stories directly from Christ”!!!

:bounce::extrahappy::tiphat::yup:

Not quite. There are 2 things going on. Oral tradition of the scripture is a very different thing then the Sacrad Tradition of the Catholic Church.

No Christian that I know of is bothered by an oral tradition that became Scripture within the lifetime of the eyewitness or his student. Recorded- put into concrete form so it could be studied. A person could before the original writings were lost study, check, make sure nothing had been changed. ** Sacred Tradition is some type of gnostic-type knowledge that has been floating around for hundreds to a thousand years that shows up in new doctrines- I say gnostic-type because it is supposedly know only to those special people with an inside track in the Catholic Church.

Christ Church was to be catholic-universal knowledge for all. We have that with Scripture. There is no concrete evidence to prove that in the early Church there was a pope, infallibility, etc.

You also forget that the Gospel message was told in the Old Testament.

Sorry but you still must go back to question - How did the Disciples know that Christ was a messenger from GOD?

Do I need to post the verses again?!

You asked about my question - *What type of provocative question is this? * I am curious as to what you learned. I know from the experience of my Catholic friends and family that in Catholic School they learned very little Bible history or stories. The religious education for them consisted of Catholic doctrine, Catholic Saints - everyting Catholic but no Scripture.

Please explain to Swiss Guy “future Catholic in elca”:
While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word. LOL! I could ask what in the world do they teach in elca? Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? I am an ELCMS.

 

[PRmerger]

Not quite. There are 2 things going on. Oral tradition of the scripture is a very different thing then the Sacrad Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Absolutely not.

You acknowledged, right here on this thread, that you accept as God’s Word “those that heard the stories directly from Christ.” That’s exactly what Sacred Tradition is, schaick.

You may not call it Sacred Tradition–you actually have no term for it–but that’s what it is.

It’s like when you’re trying to evangelize to a Muslim, and he’s been recusant to your *apologia *for months, and then he finally says, “Well, yes, God could have become man, and in fact He did this in Jesus Christ, but that is a very different thing from the Incarnation.”

Ok. If the Muslim doesn’t want to call it the “Incarnation” but believes that God did become a man and this man is Jesus Christ, well, then, you can pat yourself on the back (along with giving props to the Holy Spirit, of course! ) for being able to convince this Muslim of the truth, even if he doesn’t acknowledge use of the word. He has conceded that concept, and that’s HUGE!

 

[CopticChristian]

Not quite. There are 2 things going on. Oral tradition of the scripture is a very different thing then the Sacrad Tradition of the Catholic Church.

No Christian that I know of is bothered by an oral tradition that became Scripture within the lifetime of the eyewitness or his student. Recorded- put into concrete form so it could be studied. A person could before the original writings were lost study, check, make sure nothing had been changed. ** Sacred Tradition is some type of *gnostic-type ***knowledge that has been floating around for hundreds to a thousand years that shows up in new doctrines- I say gnostic-type because it is supposedly know only to those special people with an inside track in the Catholic Church.

Christ Church was to be catholic-universal knowledge for all. We have that with Scripture. There is no concrete evidence to prove that in the early Church there was a pope, infallibility, etc.

You also forget that the Gospel message was told in the Old Testament.

Sorry but you still must go back to question - How did the Disciples know that Christ was a messenger from GOD?

Do I need to post the verses again?!

You asked about my question - *What type of provocative question is this? * I am curious as to what you learned. I know from the experience of my Catholic friends and family that in Catholic School they learned very little Bible history or stories. The religious education for them consisted of Catholic doctrine, Catholic Saints - everyting Catholic but no Scripture.

Please explain to Swiss Guy “future Catholic in elca”:
While the word Trinity is not in Scripture the concept is from Scripture GOD’s Word. LOL! I could ask what in the world do they teach in elca? Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? I am an ELCMS.

Protestants believe in Sacred Tradition or rather the products of Sacred tradtion as follows…

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revela

**Can the Catholic Church list all the teachings given to the apostles by divine revelation and contained in Sacred Tradition? **

A good example of why this is so can be found in the Monothelite controversy. The Monothelites were seventh-century heretics who claimed that Jesus had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Jesus also has a human will which is distinct from but never in conflict with his divine will. This position was infallibly defined at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).

Neither the Bible nor the writings of the earliest Church Fathers explicitly stated that Christ has a human will distinct from but in harmony with his divine will. That doctrine was not handed on from the apostles in explicit form, but it was handed on in implicit form.

The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.

All of this is recognized even by Protestants. They acknowledge that the doctrine of the two wills of Christ must be accepted as something coming to us from the apostles, even though it did not come in explicit form. It was a legitimate doctrinal development that emerged when a heresy struck and the Church was sought a deeper, more explicit understanding of what it already implicitly knew.