Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

Just in case you missed it the first time…

av1611.org/niv.html

Sampling of words removed in the NIV:

Acts 23:9, “let us not fight against God”

What you say here is true, but what you imply is not.
Dynamic and literal translations result in different wording, but not necessarily in different meaning, and thus do not necessarily result in different interpretation and understanding.
I would think that it is the meaning which is important, not the specific wording.
I don’t have time to go through all the passages you quoted, and as you are the one who believes this to be a great source of error, maybe the task falls to you to verify what what you claim, but I selected one at random (truly) and this is what I find.

Acts 23:9

New King James Version (not approved by the Catholic Church)
“Then there arose a loud cry. And the scribes of the Pharisees party arose and protested saying, ‘We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God’”.

New International Version (the NIV you accuse of deliberately falsifying Scripture)
“There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. ‘We find nothing wrong with this man,’ they said. ‘What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’”

New Jerusalem version (Catholic Church approved)
“The shouting grew louder, and some of the scribes from the Pharisees’ party stood up and protested strongly, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?’”

Now to your point, which was ……?

You see, the words “let us not fight against God” may be simply an inference, given that a spirit or angel would only speak with the authority of God. The inclusion or otherwise does not change the meaning of the text, and without knowing the original Greek or Latin, these disputed words may simply be an addition for clarification.

Just so you don’t miss the point, a Catholic approved version of the Bible does not contain the words that you accuse the editors of the NIV of removing.

I can only encourage you to “test everything” before you accept what you read, no matter how authoritative you may think the source to be.

Your thoughts ?

 

[tabcom]

WayneTalbot . . . I do appreciate your comments. I’d like to move the discussion into a new direction.

With respects to . . .

Mythology – Part 1

Another reason people favour a broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura is the Catholic practice of blending mythology with tradition (small ‘t’). The problem is that once started, this blending leads the less discerning to accept the mythology as truth, even though the Church does not claim it to be truth, but the adherents are nonetheless allowed to develop a devotion to events that may never have happened.

I don’t understand why the Catholic Church both introduces and encourages mythology

From zeitgeistmovie.com:

“The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, [S194] [S195] [S196] and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. [S197]”

[S194] - Allegro, John - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books, 190-203
[S195] - Massey, Gerald. : Lectures- Gnostic amd Historic Christianity,Cosimo Classics, p. 73-104
[S196] - Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p 89-110, 253-256
[S197] - Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.340-342

/////////////////////*
My thoughts are, in order to refute this claim, a valid historical record from antiquity that Jesus, the man, ever existed needs to be established.

 

[2ndGen]

Yes, I will correct you, you are wrong, that is not my whole paragraph, and I’ll assume that your truncation of the paragraph was unintentional.
The assertion, in full, was “Yes, they were needed as interpreters, but the reason has to do with the culture and understanding of the recipients of the time, a factor that does not apply to us removed by some 2000 years.”

Your removal of the first sentence removed the context, and I hope that you did not do that with intent.
The paragraph relates to the Apostles’ role as interpreters, not to their wider role in spreading the Gospel. This is very different to the meaning you convey by taking my words out of context.
I’ll stay with what I said, that the “interpreter” role has changed, because removed by culture and time, our understanding of Jesus’ message is not constrained by the prior beliefs of the people at the time, particularly the Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Gentiles.

Yes, I will correct you, you are wrong, that is not my whole paragraph, and I’ll assume that your truncation of the paragraph was unintentional.

ACTUALLY, THAT WAS THE PART OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT “YOU” LEFT OUT WHEN I RESPONDED TO YOU. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL POST, YOU’LL SEE THAT I JUST HAPPEDED TO INSERT, WHAT “YOU” LEFT OUT.

SINCE I WAS QUOTING YOU, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I USED THE WHOLE THING (I JUST SHOWED AGAIN, WHAT YOU LEFT OUT, NOT ME).

The assertion, in full, was “Yes, they were needed as interpreters, but the reason has to do with the culture and understanding of the recipients of the time, a factor that does not apply to us removed by some 2000 years.”

AND THAT WAS MY POINT…THAT YOU SEEMED TO STATE THAT HOW THEY TAUGHT DIDN’T APPLY TO US ANY LONGER.

Your removal of the first sentence removed the context, and I hope that you did not do that with intent.

NO, I WAS RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION AND I USED THE PART WHERE YOU SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT WHAT WAS TAUGHT THEN IN “HOW” IT WAS TAUGHT, WAS NOT NECESSARY ANYMORE.

The paragraph relates to the Apostles’ role as interpreters, not to their wider role in spreading the Gospel. This is very different to the meaning you convey by taking my words out of context.
I’ll stay with what I said, that the “interpreter” role has changed, because removed by culture and time, our understanding of Jesus’ message is not constrained by the prior beliefs of the people at the time, particularly the Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Gentiles.

ALL WELL AND FINE, BUT IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. HOW THEY TAUGHT (ACCORDING TO YOU) ONLY APPLIED TO THOSE THEY WERE TEACHING AND NOT TO US TODAY, THAT THERE’S BEEN SOME GREAT GROWTH IN HUMAN INTELLECT THAT DOESN’T NECCESITATE THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING AUTHORITY.

(WOW, IT’S GREAT TO BE BACK ON THE SUBJECT! )

 

[2ndGen]

Brilliant!

Remember to apply this to all noncatholic “clergy”,ministers, youth ministers and people who guide those faith gatherings, as well. “by their fruits you shall know them”. Remember we are to avoid hypocrisy.

There aren’t many noncatholic christian faith communities that are without fault at the ministeral level. “Many” is a gift. There are none…

Now are you able to see how priest, bishops and popes are human as well? I don’t need to point out individual failing, like you did, do I?

The difference… God protects the Catholic Church by not allowing the gates of hell to prevailing against it.

That is the difference…

When a noncatholic minister falls to human error and is not longer effective that church fails, the ideology stops and transfers, people move away The faith can remain in the people but the church fails. When a priest falls to human error, the Church prevails regardless of the failings of the local shepard. It goes on being a Church, Christ’s Church. The ideology remains the same, just as it has since the time of Christ.

AKA…The sum being greater than it’s parts.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Brilliant!

Remember to apply this to all noncatholic “clergy”,ministers, youth ministers and people who guide those faith gatherings, as well. “by their fruits you shall know them”. Remember we are to avoid hypocrisy.

I do, and if you read my previous posts, you will see that I reject hypocrisy from any denomination, and individuals, including myself. Just because I criticise Catholic Church behaviour should not be interpreted as criticising ONLY Catholic behaviour.

There aren’t many noncatholic christian faith communities that are without fault at the ministeral level. “Many” is a gift. There are none…

Agree.

Now are you able to see how priest, bishops and popes are human as well? I don’t need to point out individual failing, like you did, do I?

I am well aware that all are human, and do not point out individual failings to criticise individuals per se. I point out individual acts to demonstrate the systemic behaviour of Catholic Popes over centuries, and as unfortunate as it may be, one is unable to demonstrate systemic behaviour without relating individual acts, otherwise one has to revert to generalisations without substantiation.
That you choose to see this as personal attacks is unfortunate, but it is not my intention, and I would be more than willing to change if you can advise me of how to identify systemic behaviour in another manner.

The difference… God protects the Catholic Church by not allowing the gates of hell to prevailing against it.

That is the point in contention, and stating it as an assertion does not help. You assert that the Scripture passage supports the Catholic view of the special position of the Catholic Church, but others content that the church that Jesus established is not the Catholic Church, but the community of the faithful who believe on Him. Your rejection of my contention regarding systemic behaviour is founded on the assertion you make as quoted above, while I contend that the evidence points to your assertion as not being true.

That is the difference…

When a noncatholic minister falls to human error and is not longer effective that church fails, the ideology stops and transfers, people move away The faith can remain in the people but the church fails. When a priest falls to human error, the Church prevails regardless of the failings of the local shepard. It goes on being a Church, Christ’s Church. The ideology remains the same, just as it has since the time of Christ.

Christ’s church, the community of the faithful, continues no matter how many denominational churches rise and fall. That the Catholic Church continues is evidence perhaps more of its secular nature, its wealth, its power and influence, and the way it deals with dissidents, than its spiritual doctrines.
The ideology that Christ gave us, Jesus as our Salvation, continues irrespective of denominations or named churches.

 

[WayneTalbot]

ALL WELL AND FINE, BUT IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. HOW THEY TAUGHT (ACCORDING TO YOU) ONLY APPLIED TO THOSE THEY WERE TEACHING AND NOT TO US TODAY, THAT THERE’S BEEN SOME GREAT GROWTH IN HUMAN INTELLECT THAT DOESN’T NECCESITATE THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING AUTHORITY.

(WOW, IT’S GREAT TO BE BACK ON THE SUBJECT! )

I said nothing about the growth in human intellect, and made no such suggestion.
I said that our understanding was not constrained by historical baggage, and I would welcome your thoughts on why that is not so.

 

[WayneTalbot]

WayneTalbot . . . I do appreciate your comments. I’d like to move the discussion into a new direction.

I would welcome your new direction, but I don’t understand where you are leading us.
Could you clarify that for me?

 

[2ndGen]

What you say here is true, but what you imply is not.
Dynamic and literal translations result in different wording, but not necessarily in different meaning, and thus do not necessarily result in different interpretation and understanding.
I would think that it is the meaning which is important, not the specific wording.
I don’t have time to go through all the passages you quoted, and as you are the one who believes this to be a great source of error, maybe the task falls to you to verify what what you claim, but I selected one at random (truly) and this is what I find.

Acts 23:9

New King James Version (not approved by the Catholic Church)
“Then there arose a loud cry. And the scribes of the Pharisees party arose and protested saying, ‘We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God’”.

New International Version (the NIV you accuse of deliberately falsifying Scripture)
“There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. ‘We find nothing wrong with this man,’ they said. ‘What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’”

New Jerusalem version (Catholic Church approved)
“The shouting grew louder, and some of the scribes from the Pharisees’ party stood up and protested strongly, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?’”

Now to your point, which was ……?

You see, the words “let us not fight against God” may be simply an inference, given that a spirit or angel would only speak with the authority of God. The inclusion or otherwise does not change the meaning of the text, and without knowing the original Greek or Latin, these disputed words may simply be an addition for clarification.

Just so you don’t miss the point, a Catholic approved version of the Bible does not contain the words that you accuse the editors of the NIV of removing.

I can only encourage you to “test everything” before you accept what you read, no matter how authoritative you may think the source to be.

Your thoughts ?

Well, firstly, it’s a Protestant who states that those verses are missing and he does it in reference to the King James Bible.
(That’s why I posted the website)

Secondly, I’d argue that a good 90% of all biblical versions match.

But look at the havoc that Martin Luther caused when he misleadingly added the word “alone” to the phrase “saved by faith”, creating a new doctrine (the Lutheran [not Christian, because it didn’t come from Jesus, but from Martin Luther] belief of Sola Fide).

That’s all it takes…something as small as one word can completely turn a belief around and cause division.

Add unto that, removing complete books from The Holy Bible at their whim.

Meanings…I agree 101% that the meaning of the text is more important than the text itself, but when the text is literally changed to change “meaning”, that’s the most dangerous of all.

And thus, millions of Christians were led into error.

 

[2ndGen]

I said nothing about the growth in human intellect, and made no such suggestion.
I said that our understanding was not constrained by historical baggage, and I would welcome your thoughts on why that is not so.

Yes, you didn’t say it, but it’s implied (a perfect example of your own post on the meaning being more important than the text which I agree with).

Just to get this out of the way, when you mentioned the whole 2,000 years ago teaching method “not” applying to us, did you mean that the Apostles were only need then because they (those particular disciples) were unusually stupid?

That the Bible didn’t need to be interpreted, oh wait!

That’s right!

The Bible didn’t exist when the Apostles were teaching (so how can their manner of interpreting scripture be more/less important than ours today).

They were “creating” scripture.

Their teaching, their martyrdom, their lives were scripture.

 

[tabcom]

I would welcome your new direction, but I don’t understand where you are leading us.
Could you clarify that for me?

Did Jesus, the man, even exist?

I’ve been wrestling with this during the Christmas season:

Earliest Christianity - G. A. Wells (1999)

"It is almost universally accepted that Jesus lived in the opening decades of the first century, taught certain doctrines in Galilee, worked there what were at any rate taken for miracles, and died in Jerusalem, at the behest of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

I have reiterated that none of this is told of Jesus in the extant Christian epistles (Pauline and other) which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them. This discrepancy is particularly striking when behaviour or teaching ascribed to him in the gospels has obvious relevance to the concerns being persued by the writers of these epistles. The New Testament scholar Professor Graham Stanton frankly calls it ‘baffling’ that Paul fails to ‘refer more frequently and at greater length to the actions and teaching of Jesus’, particularly at points where ‘he might well have clinched his argument by doing so’.

There is, then, a discrepancy between the earliest documents (additionally to the genuine Paulines, three post-Paulines ascribed to Paul (2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians) and also the letter to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the first epistle of Peter, the three epistles of John and the book of Revelation.) that should not be brushed aside."

George Albert Wells (b. 1926), is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the theory that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

 

[2ndGen]

Did Jesus, the man, even exist?

I’ve been wrestling with this during the Christmas season:

Earliest Christianity - G. A. Wells (1999)

"It is almost universally accepted that Jesus lived in the opening decades of the first century, taught certain doctrines in Galilee, worked there what were at any rate taken for miracles, and died in Jerusalem, at the behest of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

I have reiterated that none of this is told of Jesus in the extant Christian epistles (Pauline and other) which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them. This discrepancy is particularly striking when behaviour or teaching ascribed to him in the gospels has obvious relevance to the concerns being persued by the writers of these epistles. The New Testament scholar Professor Graham Stanton frankly calls it ‘baffling’ that Paul fails to ‘refer more frequently and at greater length to the actions and teaching of Jesus’, particularly at points where ‘he might well have clinched his argument by doing so’.

There is, then, a discrepancy between the earliest documents (additionally to the genuine Paulines, three post-Paulines ascribed to Paul (2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians) and also the letter to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the first epistle of Peter, the three epistles of John and the book of Revelation.) that should not be brushed aside."

George Albert Wells (b. 1926), is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the theory that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

To doubt Jesus’ existance would be to say that his “myth” would’ve been the greatest gag ever played on the human race. From our calender’s planning, to our judicial system, to the religions that His story has spawned.

Supposedly, Josephus, a first century historian mentions him. If that alone is the only evidence that there is, if we take away all of the legend of Christ and completely disregard everybody else’s opinions, if we throw away the impact that He had on some of the world’s greatest leaders (especially on Constantine The Great), we’d still have that one mention by a non-religious secular figure that holds alot of respect in historical terms.

 

[jcrichton]

So answer me this: where did you get the idea that " all Protestants agree not to visit"?
Who told you that?
How can you possibly believe that Protestants, who place more faith in Scripture than Catholics, would deliberately ignore the teachings of Paul, and the practice of the Apostles, some of whom were married?
How can you believe that it is Protestants who “agree not to visit” a subject on which they allow personal choice, just as Scripture tells us, when it is the Roman Catholic Church that is intransigent on the subject and allows no choice, and allows no discussion on the subject?
Honestly, you frustrate and yes, infuriate me with your obdurate adherence to Catholic doctrine, to the point where you are either woefully ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
It goes beyond faith, it verges on fanaticism.
I am not usually given to being personal, but in all conscience, I believe that you are much in need of reproof, correction, and instruction.
Think on this, in all conscience, where did you get that idea?
Did you not consider the position of the Catholic Church on celibacy, did the paradox of Paul expressing a desire and the Church enforcing a law not occur to you?
For one brief, shining moment, stay on topic and consider this one issue in isolation.
Where did you get the idea that Protestants won’t visit the topic, and if you have any understanding of the Protestants devotion to Scripture, the very topic of this thread, what motivated you to believe this absurd idea that if examined in the light of Scripture, is more a difficulty for Catholics than Protestants?
I sincerely pray that you reconsider the way you address these issues.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I speak from my experience with many who profess to be Christian; since they are not Catholic I should, from now on, refer to them as non-Catholic Christians… one of their greatest challange is that the Church forces celibacy upon Priests and they do not “visit” Paul’s own determination to remain celibate. It is this selective reasoning that I cite because non-Catholic Chrisitans are quick to point to Paul on everything but his desire to serve God completely in his celibate state and he invites others to do the same. Hence, there should be no obstinant stance against the Church’s desire to serve God in a celibate state. Yet, time and again this particular practice has been referred to by those non-Catholic Christians that I have encountered as a negative action.

In the past Priests were allowed to serve and be married; the Church determined that celebacy was the best way to serve so the discipline was changed–Bishops (and Priests) kept personal wealth and family territories, this practice too was changed; just as that old custom of Bishops (from wealthy and powerful families) keeping personal armies. None of these changes subtract from serving the Lord; rather, they enhance the commitment of the servants.

Fanaticism is defending one part of Scripture while blatantly ignoring or dismissing that which does not appeal to the reader.

The Church does not demand that you leave your wife for Christ; the Church does demand that you give yourself fully, in the Priesthood; denying you the right to serve as a husband. If any man reasons that he wants to marry then he can. But if another reasons that he wants to serve the Lord in a celibate state than he is welcomed to do so–both are free to choose and to serve in their determined state.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I speak from my experience with many who profess to be Christian; since they are not Catholic I should, from now on, refer to them as non-Catholic Christians… one of their greatest challange is that the Church forces celibacy upon Priests and they do not “visit” Paul’s own determination to remain celibate. It is this selective reasoning that I cite because non-Catholic Chrisitans are quick to point to Paul on everything but his desire to serve God completely in his celibate state and he invites others to do the same. Hence, there should be no obstinant stance against the Church’s desire to serve God in a celibate state. Yet, time and again this particular practice has been referred to by those non-Catholic Christians that I have encountered as a negative action.

In the past Priests were allowed to serve and be married; the Church determined that celebacy was the best way to serve so the discipline was changed–Bishops (and Priests) kept personal wealth and family territories, this practice too was changed; just as that old custom of Bishops (from wealthy and powerful families) keeping personal armies. None of these changes subtract from serving the Lord; rather, they enhance the commitment of the servants.

Fanaticism is defending one part of Scripture while blatantly ignoring or dismissing that which does not appeal to the reader.

The Church does not demand that you leave your wife for Christ; the Church does demand that you give yourself fully, in the Priesthood; denying you the right to serve as a husband. If any man reasons that he wants to marry then he can. But if another reasons that he wants to serve the Lord in a celibate state than he is welcomed to do so–both are free to choose and to serve in their determined state.

Maran atha!

Angel***

Jesus said it best when He spoke of people who were called to remain celibate, or some that have been called to celibacy from birth (and besides, if a person gives up wife in order to follow Jesus, this is good…He literally said that the man who would’nt leave behind his wifre to serve Him was not worthy to do so…);

Matthew 19:
10.
His disciples said to him, “If there is such commitment between husband and wife, we should not get married.”*
11.
He told them, however, "This manifestation does not go down well* for everyone, except for the ones that it applies.
12.
“For there are celibates that were born from their mother’s womb like this, and there are celibates who became celibate from humanity, and there are celibates who became celibate of their own free will,for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can do without it, let them be without it.”

 

[2ndGen]

And Wayne,

So that this doesn’t get lost in the mix,
I thoroughly enjoy our discussions.
If I ever get sarcastic,
it’s all toungue and cheek.

I appreciate your presence here greatly,

Pax

 

[jcrichton]

So back to the question: what were the things that Jesus had to say to them but were too much for them to bear at the time?
Were they some un-named mysteries, or were they simply explanations of His Gospel that they were incapable of understanding at the time?
Jesus, of the House of David, his royal lineage securing his claim to the eternal throne promised to King David, His miracles pointing to the presence of God’s kingdom in the person of His Messiah, Jesus’ teachings sounding the invitation to the kingdom and laying down its demands, His sacrificial death atoning for the sins of those who would otherwise be condemned at the consummation of the kingdom, and finally, the resurrection of Jesus establishing Him as the Son whom God the Father has appointed the Judge of the world and the Lord of the coming kingdom.
Years later, no longer subject to the Mosaic covenant, being for all practical purposes unaware of that culture, it is easy for us to understand the Gospel, but for the Apostles, still living that culture, and still in the presence of the Jesus they had been following, such understanding would have been beyond them.
One might conjure up all sorts of imaginary mysteries to which Jesus may have been referring, but an understanding of the historical and cultural context would suggest something far simpler.
From my own studies, and these have been nothing other than studying the views and writings of scholars and historians from many persuasions, the latter conclusion seems far more probable.
As with many beliefs, it is our personal circumstances which favour one over the other.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

These un-named mysteries did come to the Apostles as revelations that were not in the Holy Scriptures… had this not been so then Jesus was simply show-boating and the other Paraclete would have been superfluous.

Though you did touch on some of those mysteries… relinquishing the hold that the old economy had on them is something akin to modern man’s inability to stop smoking cigarettes; they needed to put into practice that which they new from Christ’s Teachings; they needed to give up the synagogue and establish the Church; they needed to understand that Jesus’ Second Coming was imminent in God’s Plan but not necessarily in man’s temporal time frame; they needed to profess that the Holy Spirit was God and that He, along with Yahweh and Jesus, was the only One God… the function of the Holy Spirit in the Church can be seen as the Apostles continued to grow in their understanding. But not everything was found in Scriptures and not everything that was taught was made specificly part of the Holy Scriptures.

We find Paul attesting that Jesus was the Rock that followed Israel in the desert and provided the poeple of God with water–but this is a mere mention of something that is clearly understood by the Apostles. Then there’s Jude speaking about a battle for Moses’ body between the Archangel Michael and the Devil; also, Jude speaking about Enoch’s prophecy; John’s revelation that the Word was God shows a definite maturity of understanding that he did not have while learning from Jesus… these are revelations of the Holy Spirit, and as Jesus promised He came to remind the Apostles about Jesus’ Teachings and He also came to reveal the total Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[WayneTalbot]

(Barbara syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All Scripture is God breathed
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

Most of us are truth seekers here…I am…and I’m open to reading responses from “Scripture sufficient believers” and/or Catholics to show us where in Scripture does it say that, “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…which is the negation of the Major premise.

Romulus, old chap (I’m assuming that you are a chap, not a chapesse, but my apologies if you are not),
Sorry, I have been fielding responses on a number of subjects and simply haven’t returned to yours. I am somewhat confused by this iteration of the syllogism, and while I continue to be in that state, I will try to be less so. As you are probably aware, I do not share your enthusiasm for this form of logic in this context, somehow I sense that that the issue is more complex than can be addressed by single focus syllogisms, but I can’t prove that understanding, nor can I adequately articulate it.
Nonetheless, out of respect for you and your efforts, I shall try to contribute.

I cannot immediately answer you in this post, I need further clarification of the scope and meaning of the Major Premise.

All God breathed things are insufficient – what is included here?

God breathed things would include direct communication by God, such as God speaking to Moses or Jesus speaking with the Apostles, communication from angels to people, inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and any writings that can be shown to be, or accepted as, a recording of those things just listed.
Anything else?
God spoke the world into existence: is the world and all creation included in God breathed things?

Please provide a reasonably comprehensive list of those things that you include in the set, “God breathed things”, but don’t go overboard. I accept that “Scripture” meets the rules of distribution in this syllogism, but I don’t know what else the Major Premise accounts for. Without knowing that, I cannot accurately apply Scripture (or even research it for that matter).

All God breathed things are insufficient – what does this mean?

Does this mean that:
a. Not any are sufficient.
b. Not all are sufficient, i.e. you have to have all to achieve sufficiency; or
c. All are not sufficient, i.e. even if you have all, it is still not sufficient.

I think that we previously agreed on (c), but I wanted to make sure.

You state your negation of the Major Premise as “Some God breathed things are sufficient”.
This to me is a negation of (b) above, restated as,
Major Premise: You have to have all to achieve sufficiency (b).
Negation: No, you can achieve sufficiency with less than all, i.e. some.

A negation of (c) would be restated as:
Major Premise: Even if you have all, it is still not sufficient (c).
Negation: No, if you have all, it is sufficient.

Could you clarify these for me?
Many thanks, Wayne.

 

[jcrichton]

Angel,
I wish to apologise unreservedly for the above quoted post.
The tone was unacceptable, unwarranted, unethical, and decidedly un-Christian.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the personal nature.
The content I will stay with, but the tone and the attitude that it implied I wish to withdraw.
Sincerely,

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I understand completely… I get just as frustrated and as fumed… it’s been my experience that when we near Christmas the Joy of the World is not the only thing that surfaces… I am glad that you caught yourself; we are fighting a spiritual battle and our enemy will use every opportunity to undo what Christ has done–if we are not careful!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[WayneTalbot]

And Wayne,

So that this doesn’t get lost in the mix,
I thoroughly enjoy our discussions.
If I ever get sarcastic,
it’s all toungue and cheek.

I appreciate your presence here greatly,

Pax

May I return the sentiment, and thank you very much.
I may have to bail out shortly, or at least, be a little more selective regarding what I respond to.
There are several concurrent sub-threads in this thread, and I’m up against a time limit, preparing for a trip to Israel on January 9th.
If I seem to be ignoring you, I may not be doing so intentionally, but then again … ?

 

[2ndGen]

May I return the sentiment, and thank you very much.
I may have to bail out shortly, or at least, be a little more selective regarding what I respond to.
There are several concurrent sub-threads in this thread, and I’m up against a time limit, preparing for a trip to Israel on January 9th.
If I seem to be ignoring you, I may not be doing so intentionally, but then again … ?

Israel?

Vaya con Dios…Go with God!

Lucky you!

I know how it gets when posting.
I get carried away too.

Whenever you have the time,
I will too.

Pax.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Did Jesus, the man, even exist?

I’ve been wrestling with this during the Christmas season:

I shall try to find a summary of the most accepted proofs for the existence of Jesus as a man, but in the meantime, I would recommend the following books if you have not already read them.
I should warn you that the authors are mostly Protestant, not Catholic, but that should not make a difference in this context.
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
Case for Christ, by C.S.Lewis
The Case against Christ, by John Young
Evidence for Jesus, by Ralph Muncaster
Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by Simon Greenleaf
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell
The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable, by F.F.Bruce
The Third Day - the Reality of the Resurrection, by Hank Hanegraaf
The Works of Josephus, by William Whiston (very heavy, not for the faint hearted)
The Christ Files - How Historians Know What They Know about Jesus, by John Dickson
This latter book may be the easiest to start with, and is more concise than the others. It deals with Christian, Jewish, Roman, and pagan sources that point to the existence of Jesus.
The others deal with this and a range of related issues, and provide the evidence for the reliability of Scripture itself.
One of the most compelling questions, to my mind, is this: can anyone offer a defendable hypothesis that Jesus did not actually exist, given that some dumb fishermen, and tax collector, and a doctor managed to somehow concoct an incredibly complex but cohesive story, correctly quoted OT Scripture, a Pharisee persecuted them, then swapped sides, everyone got persecuted and died, thousands more contemporaries who could have seen through or otherwise disproven the myth were persecuted and died, all for someone who did not even exist?
How did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John manage to get their stories so straight, a remarkable feat at a time when communication was difficult. And why would they have done it anyway - what did they get out of it, apart from torture and death?
How did they get away with writing and preaching in Jerusalem about some non-existent person when the Jewish Sanhedrin were perfectly placed to refute the story? How did they convince the Jews in Jerusalem to not consult with the Sanhedrin and to accept Jesus Christ, when it was so easy to prove otherwise at the time?
There is much more in the books listed above, and without being able to prove it, I understand that the questioning of Jesus’ existence is not taken seriously by scholars, academics, and historians today, irrespective of their theological leanings.
I can particularly recommend Simon Greenleaf’s book. Greenleaf, a professor of law, who with one other professor, is largely responsible for the pre-eminence of Harvard Law School, who wrote the definitive work on evidence still in use by law schools today, examined the case from the perspective of legally acceptable evidence, and concluded that the case was proven.
Bit hard to argue with a chap with those credentials.
I hope this helps.