2
2ndGen
Guest
Could you rephrase the question to me as if I’m a 2nd Grader? As is, I don’t understand it.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
I answered this, above.Could you rephrase the question to me as if I’m a 2nd Grader? As is, I don’t understand it.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Notice I didn’t say ALL scripture… The thing is, the books of the bible were written in the time of the original christians. So the bible did technically exist though not in it’s current form. I really do get tired of this ‘argument’ because it doesn’t hold water. The bible has ALWAYS existed with christianity from its inception forward. The scriptures don’t say anything about helicoptors but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
2
2ndGen
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
Then I have no idea what you were asking, either.Notice I didn’t say ALL scripture… The thing is, the books of the bible were written in the time of the original christians. So the bible did technically exist though not in it’s current form. I really do get tired of this ‘argument’ because it doesn’t hold water. The bible has ALWAYS existed with christianity from its inception forward. The scriptures don’t say anything about helicoptors but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The Bible consists of 73 books 46 in the Old Testament, which Jesus and the Apostles had available to them, and 27 in the New Testament, which were written between 50 and 95 AD. These books started off being in all different languages - different kinds of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to begin with.
The Bible was canonized and then gathered together into one codex and translated into Latin during the period between 382 and 430 AD.
There was no Bible before these things happened. Yes, there were holy books, and yes, people were reading the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles before they were incorporated into the Bible, but the thing that we call “The Bible” didn’t exist, yet. And hadn’t been completely written down, yet, in the time of Peter and Paul.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
If that scripture didn’t exist then the bible would not exist. You can’t have the bible if you don’t have that scripture so yes the bible did exist at that time, just not as it is now.
2
2ndGen
Guest
So you equate the word scripture to the word bible.
But both are not the same.
You can have scritpures in a bible,
but you can’t have bibles in a scripture.
The Bible is comprised “of” the Scriptures.
Both are different.
One means collection of books.
No collection of books (The Holy Bible or The Sanctified Collection of Books) existed until the 4th century.
The scriptures did, but not as a unified group of books from which Christian faith could be drawn in it’s fullness exist before the 4th century.
Most of Christianity was spread by word of mouth and by practices traditionally.
J
jmcrae
Guest
True. It is also true that if paint did not exist, then the painting Guernica by Pablo Picasso could not exist.
That’s like saying, “Paint was invented in 10,000 BC, therefore Guernica has existed since 10,000 BC.”
Just because the elements that make it up existed before, does not mean that the elements had already come together to make the form, yet. In any case, a great many of the books that make up the New Testament did not, in fact, exist during the lifetimes of St. Peter and St. Paul. The first generation of Christians not only didn’t have a Bible all in one language that they could read from, they didn’t even have the books in the original languages that they could read and translate from.
2
2ndGen
Guest
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
So then, lets take the scriptures apart and leave it at that.
The truth is, the argument that says ‘you don’t see the word bible in the bible so…’ just doesn’t hold water. Scripture is what counts no matter the form you have it in. It has always been inspired even before humans stated that it was. From the first moment that the ink formed those beautiful words of God’s it was inspired. I don’t need the bible, just the scripture it contains…
J
jmcrae
Guest
No - the Holy Tradition, which is what was always there, is what counts. The source of the Scriptures is the Holy Tradition - they were writing what they had been taught by word of mouth.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
I just don’t think that we need to throw scripture out… Word of mouth changes… First anybody outside the catholic church was going to hell, now they aren’t. Until the 1950’s Mary hadn’t ascended to Heaven - body and soul - but now she has.
Scripture hasn’t changed. That is why the Tradition was written down.
M
moondweller
Guest
You don’t take it as “chief shepherd” unless He say you are. The ONLY ONE called “Chief Shepherd” in Scripture is Christ Himself, and it is Peter who calls Him that.
Strange how you seem to know he knew this about himself, yet he NEVER referred to himself by this title. Nor did Jesus or any of the other Apostles. From where did you get this extra-biblical insight into Peter’s brain?
And you got all this “history” from what source?
Yet Paul, a fellow-Apostle, calls Jesus Head of the church. NEVER does he refer to Peter by that title - only Christ. So I don’t know who these “enemies and friends” of Peter’s you’re referring to are.
We don’t actually know how all the Apostles died. Tradition says Peter was crucified upside down. If he was crucified it was because he was not a Roman citizen. Tradition says Paul was beheaded. He would not have been crucified because it was unlawful to crucify a Roman citizen, which he was.
So far neither you nor 2ndGen have proven your assertion that Peter was both “Chief Shepherd” and “Head of the church” on earth (vicar of Christ on earth). You certainly demonstrate your belief in it. But your faith is not based on any real evidence. The Scriptures certainly don’t provide you with any support.
N
ncgolf
Guest
What does this mean … what other forms are there? Scripture, by defintion, means written doesn’t it.
How do you, personally, know what is inspired or not? None of us was there when any of the scriptures was written and quite possibly the person writing it had no idea that inspired text was being written. Many times only with hindsight can we see God working. Thousands of writings had to exist some inspired, some not. What do you rely on to let you know which writings are inspired and thus be trusted as the Word of God. I do not think it is a marking on the outside that says “Inspired Text Enclosed”. You have to rely on something … what is that something?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Their own words, as found in The Faith of the Early Fathers, which is the writings of the members of the Early Church, translated by William Jurgens.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Nobody is suggesting that we should. The challenge was meant to get you to think about the proper place of the Scriptures, though.
We know we have a Bible because Pope Innocent I told us so in 405 AD, and we have no other reason for believing it than his word on the subject. After the fact, we can look at it and say, “Yes, this moves my heart and teaches me about God,” but there is no way that you or I would be able to pick out the Scriptures from all the thousands of other books written at the same time, without knowing in advance which books we are looking for.
Not true; if you read the Catechisms (teaching books) that were standard at the time, you see that in the 1950s, they were teaching that someone who has no way of knowing about the Church is not bound by its precepts.
Really? And yet, Michelangelo painted a picture of this event in the Sistine Chapel during the 1600s, by command of the Pope of the time. It’s also mentioned in the Catechisms of the time, as well.
M
moondweller
Guest
So these “Early Fathers” actually talked to Peter who literally told them that when Jesus told him to “tend” and “shepherd” he understood Jesus to mean he was being appointed “Chief Shepherd” and “Vicar of Christ on earth?” Can you supply me with the quotes where they actually quoted Peter saying this?Their own words, as found in The Faith of the Early Fathers, which is the writings of the members of the Early Church, translated by William Jurgens.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Do you think that Peter entered a monastery and made a vow of silence after the Ascension? Of course he spoke to people, and of course they were aware that he was the leader of the Church, and identified him as such. They don’t go on at great length about the subject, but when they are writing to each other about other subjects, they are oriented towards asking his advice, checking in with him, making sure they have his approval on things, etc. He is not treated as “just one of the guys;” it’s quite clear that he is in charge.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
there are many baptist denominations and i’m sure many completely agree with each other.
protestant divisions is mainly a matter of administration, rather than doctrine.
M
moondweller
Guest
In other words, what you provided me with was only commentary, not “history.” And what you continue to give me is conjecture. Jesus never calls Peter "Chief Shepherd. Peter never refers to himself as "Chief Shepherd, but instead literally refers to Jesus by that title. And the Scriptures reveal only one “Head of the church” (either on earth or in heaven) and that’s Christ Himself (1 Pet. 5:4; Col. 1:18).
I understand your tenacious belief in it, but you must understand that your belief is based only on the authority of your church leadership (which claims it), not the Authority of divine revelation. Heaven is silent.
- Status