Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[AmateurPianist]

The Ethiopian eunuch had infallible scriptures, yet he could not understand them on his own. He had to have an authority from the infallible Church preach Jesus to him.

First of all, you are taking an event and making it into a rule. If one were to consistently apply this in interpreting Scripture, we would all be snake handlers.

Second of all, infallible means incapable of being incorrect. There is a difference between being correct and incapable of being incorrect. Phillip of course correctly explained the Scriptures. The issue is whether Phillip is incapable of being incorrect because only then could Phillip be an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

I do observe that even per Catholicism Phillip was never a pope and never had the gift of being incapable of being incorrect.

Third of all, none of us should disagree that there are a need of teachers in the body of Christ. We agree that Phillip was functioning in a role of teacher. And we agree that Phillip was correctly teaching the Word of God. The issue is whether Phillip was incapable of being incorrect. We should both agree that he was not.

Now, rather than claim someone is going off topic,

You are the ones making the claim that an infallible document is useless without an infallible interpreter. I am making no claims in this thread except that this statement is nonsense to me (it obviously makes sense to you but I don’t understand why for the life of me). But anyway, since you all are the ones making the claim, the burden of proof is on you here.

try addressing the promises of Christ to be with His Church until the consummation of the world. Address why the God inspired word tells us the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?

I have addressed all of these in threads that I have started on topics that pertain more to these questions. The conversation lasted several pages. I do not want to go off topic, particularly since you are the ones making the claim.that an infallible document without an infallible interpreter is useless.

Because there has to be an infallible source to interpret the scriptures so that we are of the same mind and judgement, as the infallible scriptures tells us to be.

So let me get this straight, because Scripture tells us to be of one mind and judgment (which it does we agree), therefore it is impossible to be of one mind and judgment unless there is an interpreter that is infallible. Therefore keeping this commandment is impossible unless there is an infallible interpreter.

Now you can’t prove this one way or another of course.

Now I know how you will respond. You Protestants have 30,000,000,000,000 denominations (or some other made up number), look how well no infallible interpreter has worked for you all. You know something, I will say guilty as charged. We have not modelled this very well for you.

But just because we have not modelled this commandment well to you, it does not necessarily mean it is impossible to do. There is a difference between very, very, difficult to do and impossible to do.

I do notice that on a small scale it is possible for a group of people to be of one mind and one accord. Anything that is possible on a small scale is possible on a large scale.

I also notice that even with an (alleged) infallible interpreter, the Catholic church is not perfectly of one mine and one accord either. If it were, you would not have Catholics for Free Choice…or Catholics proclaiming a geocentric while most Catholics disagree…or Catholics disagreeing about the Catholic Charismatic movement…or…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes but I have read their letters. Let me ask you a question and it might be hypothetical. Would you agree that in the writings themselves we cannot ascertain that they held the Marian dogmas? We cannot ascertain that they prayed to saints and view the word any differently from its NT usuage. We can go down the same list of the 50 or so things that seperate us.

If something as specific as Matthew 16 is discounted, surely I can see automatic rejections to the writings of the early Church fathers. Protestants don’t accept that beliefs were widely believed and was thought to be unnecessary to document, until beliefs became endangered. It seems to be a double standard, in that we must provide categoric lists of events or our beliefs are false, while Protestants can tell us the Bible is the ONLY authority, everyone should interpret scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit with many different interpretations possible, without even an implication of such a belief in scriptures, or in writings preceding the 15th century.

Another example of the ‘double-standard’ I’m told to stay on topic, yet at any opportunity a Protestant can throw out any other objections they feel like.

Listen, this thread is directed at Protestants. It is another attempt to get us to convert to Catholicism. It was started by a Catholic to show how we are wrong. Thats what its intention is. Do not act like we should just sit in a corner while you guys throw your stuff at us.

Many times I’ve explained that I respond, as dependent on scriptures as possible, to show Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures, even if you disagree with the interpretation. I am often amazed on how that is too much to ask, as the largest majority of Protestants can’t even admit that.

Now, let’s find out why Protestants are all over a Catholic forum? We are Christians, why are we being evangelized? Oh I know, ‘we’re only here to learn about Catholicism.’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available in book stores and is available at no cost on websites. It specifically states what Catholics believe.

Of those truly not trying to evangelize, they don’t miss an opportunity to say, ‘oh that’s not true’, ‘I don’t believe that’ or simply ‘that’s wrong’.

It is the smallest of percentage of Protestants who are here to discuss what we have in common, others are here to evanglize and others simply think it’s proper to bash what they don’t understand.

Men never decided what went in the Bible. They recognized what God had already done. Even the earliest local synods held in the late 300’s do the same. They do not assert something that was not known before hand.
Before 180 AD, all but four books of the NT were referred to as scripture. That does not mean the four were not. We just do not have the documentation.

How does a belief without documentation develop?

Fundamentalists do not believe that councils determined the OT scriptures but that the early church still recognized them as authoratative. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and what they say about the OT. They did not need a council to tell them that they held authority. Peter calls Paul’s letters scripture long before any council. The Catholic apologist would have you to believe that the early church was divided about this. There were not. There were some books that people read but they fell out of favor.

You seriously don’t believe that, or you’re misinformed. Even some of the writings of the early Church fathers was considered, but rejected for whatever reason. There were many ‘forgeries’, or writings that could not be verified as authentic.

Since you believe as you stated above, do you accept the 7 books which were a part of the Old Testament until Martin Luther decided to use the Hebrew Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament that does not include those books?

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you are refering to some of the non-canonical “scripture”, these books did not merely fall out of favor, but did not meet the criteria of the Holy Spirit-led council(s) of books to be included.

Please provide the *criteria *that these early councils used and the proof they discussed non-canonical writings. Prove your statement or retract it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If something as specific as Matthew 16 is discounted, surely I can see automatic rejections to the writings of the early Church fathers. Protestants don’t accept that beliefs were widely believed and was thought to be unnecessary to document, until beliefs became endangered. It seems to be a double standard, in that we must provide categoric lists of events or our beliefs are false, while Protestants can tell us the Bible is the ONLY authority, everyone should interpret scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit with many different interpretations possible, without even an implication of such a belief in scriptures, or in writings preceding the 15th century.

Another example of the ‘double-standard’ I’m told to stay on topic, yet at any opportunity a Protestant can throw out any other objections they feel like.

Many times I’ve explained that I respond, as dependent on scriptures as possible, to show Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures, even if you disagree with the interpretation. I am often amazed on how that is too much to ask, as the largest majority of Protestants can’t even admit that.

Now, let’s find out why Protestants are all over a Catholic forum? We are Christians, why are we being evangelized? Oh I know, ‘we’re only here to learn about Catholicism.’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available in book stores and is available at no cost on websites. It specifically states what Catholics believe.

Of those truly not trying to evangelize, they don’t miss an opportunity to say, ‘oh that’s not true’, ‘I don’t believe that’ or simply ‘that’s wrong’.

It is the smallest of percentage of Protestants who are here to discuss what we have in common, others are here to evanglize and others simply think it’s proper to bash what they don’t understand.

How does a belief without documentation develop?

You seriously don’t believe that, or you’re misinformed. Even some of the writings of the early Church fathers was considered, but rejected for whatever reason. There were many ‘forgeries’, or writings that could not be verified as authentic.

Since you believe as you stated above, do you accept the 7 books which were a part of the Old Testament until Martin Luther decided to use the Hebrew Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament that does not include those books?

The seven books were not part of the Old Testament. Nice try and I am willing to bet you think you can prove it. I hope you try.
If you can provide a single Jewish source that refers to these seven as being part of their canon from say…250 AD to 200 AD…go right ahead. I want primary sources. Oh, I did notice your use of the term Palestinian canon. Care to ALSO provide primary sources that prove this very popular theory of yours? Spend a couple of months looking…because I did. You will find Christians who accept them in varying degrees culminating in Hippo and Carthage but good luck on finding primary sources who state the Old Testament of Christ contained them…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First of all, you are taking an event and making it into a rule. If one were to consistently apply this in interpreting Scripture, we would all be snake handlers.

It’s taking an example, from scriptures, and showing that scriptures alone cannot be understood. Nehemiah 8 shows that the priests had to explain scriptures so they people could understand. Christ even preached scriptures to those on the road to Emmaus and opened scriptures for them. Those men knew scriptures but didn’t understand them until Christ opened them to them.

But, then there I go using scriptures to support a view. That’s something I haven’t seen from Protestants in this discussion.

Second of all, infallible means incapable of being incorrect. There is a difference between being correct and incapable of being incorrect. Phillip of course correctly explained the Scriptures. The issue is whether Phillip is incapable of being incorrect because only then could Phillip be an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

I do observe that even per Catholicism Phillip was never a pope and never had the gift of being incapable of being incorrect.

Third of all, none of us should disagree that there are a need of teachers in the body of Christ. We agree that Phillip was functioning in a role of teacher. And we agree that Phillip was correctly teaching the Word of God. The issue is whether Phillip was incapable of being incorrect. We should both agree that he was not.

Philip was an authority from the Church and He preached the same message as the others. Once a truth is infallible, it can be taught by those of authority.

You are the ones making the claim that an infallible document is useless without an infallible interpreter. I am making no claims in this thread except that this statement is nonsense to me (it obviously makes sense to you but I don’t understand why for the life of me). But anyway, since you all are the ones making the claim, the burden of proof is on you here.

So, it’s acceptable to have many different interpretations? Would you please provide scriptures that even imply this?

I have addressed all of these in threads that I have started on topics that pertain more to these questions. The conversation lasted several pages. I do not want to go off topic, particularly since you are the ones making the claim.that an infallible document without an infallible interpreter is useless.

So let me get this straight, because Scripture tells us to be of one mind and judgment (which it does we agree), therefore it is impossible to be of one mind and judgment unless there is an interpreter that is infallible. Therefore keeping this commandment is impossible unless there is an infallible interpreter.

Now you can’t prove this one way or another of course.

Again, please provide the examples from scriptures that show it’s acceptable to have different interpretations, therefore different teachings?

Now I know how you will respond. You Protestants have 30,000,000,000,000 denominations (or some other made up number), look how well no infallible interpreter has worked for you all. You know something, I will say guilty as charged. We have not modelled this very well for you.

But just because we have not modelled this commandment well to you, it does not necessarily mean it is impossible to do. There is a difference between very, very, difficult to do and impossible to do.

I do notice that on a small scale it is possible for a group of people to be of one mind and one accord. Anything that is possible on a small scale is possible on a large scale.

I also notice that even with an (alleged) infallible interpreter, the Catholic church is not perfectly of one mine and one accord either. If it were, you would not have Catholics for Free Choice…or Catholics proclaiming a geocentric while most Catholics disagree…or Catholics disagreeing about the Catholic Charismatic movement…or…

Oh look, there are Catholics weak in the faith that don’t agree, therefore it’s perfectly alright for Protestants to go off in any direction we want and be of whatever mind and judgment we want.

Distorted numbers, smoke screen explanations, exaggerated examples of explanations provided with scriptures, but no scriptures to support your view yet…it speaks loud and clear.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The seven books were not part of the Old Testament. Nice try and I am willing to bet you think you can prove it. I hope you try.
If you can provide a single Jewish source that refers to these seven as being part of their canon from say…250 AD to 200 AD…go right ahead. I want primary sources. Oh, I did notice your use of the term Palestinian canon. Care to ALSO provide primary sources that prove this very popular theory of yours? Spend a couple of months looking…because I did. You will find Christians who accept them in varying degrees culminating in Hippo and Carthage but good luck on finding primary sources who state the Old Testament of Christ contained them…

Are you denying that Martin Luther chose the Hebrew Palestinian Canon over the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon that was in use prior to the reformation?

Does this mean we can’t depend on New Testament references to the Old Testament anymore, or just those references to the 7 books?

Heb 11:35, “…Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.” The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29. The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2 Kings 4:36.

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.

Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sir 2:18.

Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay…" Found in Wis 15:7

1Pet 1:6-7, “…gold which is tried by fire…” See Wis 3:5-6

Rom 1:20-23, “For since the creation of the world…” Found in Wis 13:1-7

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…” Extension of Tob 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, “I was hungry and you gave me food…I needed clothes and you clothed me.” Based on Tob 4:16.

Rev 21:18, “And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass.” See Tob 13 end.

Mt 13:43, “Then the just will shine forth…” Found in Wis 3:7

Mt 27:42, “…if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross…” See Wis 2:18-20.

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2 Macc 3:26.

Rom 11:33, “…How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways.” Found in Judith 8:14.

1 Cor 10:20, “…they sacrifice to demons, not to God…” Found in Baruch 4:7.

 

[tweetymom]

Christ appointed the 12. He said so.

**Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. **

Paul spoke of one he appointed to an authoritative position through the imposition of hands.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

Acts tells us of appointments of positions through imposed hands of the Apostles.

**Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
Act 6:5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor, and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them. **

The Protestant approach to the Bible is confusing to me to say the least. Everything you question must be specifically spelled out, and all inclusive. But, it appears this is only on Catholic beliefs. When we ask for things specifically spelled out, or even implied, we receive no response to our requests.

Because all the scriptures are the same only thing is you believe they only apply to the CC. Jon 15:16 He choose me I did not choose Him and I am thankful eternally that6 He choose me.

 

[tweetymom]

Right, do not see any laying on of hands here though. Don’t change the topic.

Shudder. Sorry hate that translation. Ignore what? The gift which was given by prophecy as they had hands laid on them. By people that hands laid on them by the Apostles? Does not say that.

But once again, it never says the apostles had hands laid on them and it never says that only apostles can do this as the other verse you used just showed this as well.

Whatever. I will say it again. There is no verse in the Bible supporting your view. And you know what…you know it. Its not confusing. You just dont like that I am right.

Amen to that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because all the scriptures are the same only thing is you believe they only apply to the CC. Jon 15:16 He choose me I did not choose Him and I am thankful eternally that6 He choose me.

Yes, Christ told His Apostles He chose them and He appointed them, they did not choose Him in John 15:16, ahh but there I go again, reading in context.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Check the King James Version, they use ‘ordained’ as opposed to ‘appointed’, but both are the same definition of the Greek word used, ‘tithēmi’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Amen to that.

Amen to rejecting an authority set by Christ? :tsktsk:

 

[SyCarl]

Philip was an authority from the Church and He preached the same message as the others. Once a truth is infallible, it can be taught by those of authority.

Did the Ethiopian eunuch even know who Philip was to accept him as authoritative? I think most people would recognize that while revelation is going on scripture alone doesn’t apply and no one denies that the truth can be given orally without involving some special Tradition. As the Old Testament did not tell Jesus’ story, it was necessary for someone to tell him the story. Once Scriptures were written this could then be learned from them.

So, it’s acceptable to have many different interpretations? Would you please provide scriptures that even imply this?

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had different interpretations and beliefs. Did Jesus treat them as any less Jewish as a result?

 

[tweetymom]

Yes, Christ told His Apostles He chose them and He appointed them, they did not choose Him in John 15:16, ahh but there I go again, reading in context.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Check the King James Version, they use ‘ordained’ as opposed to ‘appointed’, but both are the same definition of the Greek word used, ‘tithēmi’.

well I am sorry for you, but Jesus choose me and that I bear fruit this verse is for all beleivers not the elect few. Tjhay is why I do not post Scripture, because you think they are for a select few and brother they are for all believers to read and understand. I have an infalliable teacher and His nameis the Holy Spitit. Now donnot start with me about 30.0000000 different churches, cause I do not believe that either. God Bless we all have access to the Holy Spirit sometimes we need to ask and I do so daily.

 

[polgas733]

to Dokimas
I really find it funny that you said that the church is it’s members, because you are supporting apostolic succession. Sorry,*** I don’t follow your logic.***
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)

Now ofcourse you wouldn’t

If you actually read the verse it says there that
“19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”

therefore if the Church is it’s members it must be apostolic

 

[polgas733]

well I am sorry for you, but Jesus choose me and that I bear fruit this verse is for all beleivers not the elect few. Tjhay is why I do not post Scripture, because you think they are for a select few and brother they are for all believers to read and understand. I have an infalliable teacher and His nameis the Holy Spitit. Now donnot start with me about 30.0000000 different churches, cause I do not believe that either. God Bless we all have access to the Holy Spirit sometimes we need to ask and I do so daily.

Do you know how the people rejected Jesus that he had to leave the village?
You’re doing the same now, you refuse to accept the fact that there are approximately 38,000 christian denominations

and yes we all have access to the Holy Spirit in Search for TRUTH
you should let him in.

and your “Infallible teacher, Holy Spitit”
might be an infallible teacher of another
38,000 others different from what he taught you
think about it

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Did the Ethiopian eunuch even know who Philip was to accept him as authoritative? I think most people would recognize that while revelation is going on scripture alone doesn’t apply and no one denies that the truth can be given orally without involving some special Tradition. As the Old Testament did not tell Jesus’ story, it was necessary for someone to tell him the story. Once Scriptures were written this could then be learned from them.

The Apostles had the authority and were commissioned to go out and preach the Gospel.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

It was not based on anyone knowing their authority, but they themselves knowing they had that authority.

Also, Philip was told to go to the area the eunuch was in, he was not told, go tell your authority and start preaching.

**Act 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert.

Act 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot. **

It was the same for the Bereans. Paul taught with authority, then they checked the Old Testament scriptures to see and some believed when comparing the scriptures with what Paul had taught them

The two on the road to Emmaus certainly knew Christ and yet He had to open the scriptures to them and it wasn’t until the breaking of the bread that they recognized Him.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had different interpretations and beliefs. Did Jesus treat them as any less Jewish as a result?

He admonished them for not knowing the scriptures and He corrected them on several occasions.

**Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.**

**Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. **

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ar

Does this mean we can’t depend on New Testament references to the Old Testament anymore, or just those references to the 7 books?

Heb 11:35, “…Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.” The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29. The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2 Kings 4:36.

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.

Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sir 2:18.

Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay…" Found in Wis 15:7

1Pet 1:6-7, “…gold which is tried by fire…” See Wis 3:5-6

Rom 1:20-23, “For since the creation of the world…” Found in Wis 13:1-7

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…” Extension of Tob 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, “I was hungry and you gave me food…I needed clothes and you clothed me.” Based on Tob 4:16.

Rev 21:18, “And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass.” See Tob 13 end.

Mt 13:43, “Then the just will shine forth…” Found in Wis 3:7

Mt 27:42, “…if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross…” See Wis 2:18-20.

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2 Macc 3:26.

Rom 11:33, “…How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways.” Found in Judith 8:14.

1 Cor 10:20, “…they sacrifice to demons, not to God…” Found in Baruch 4:7.

References. Its taken me awhile. I have only done the first ones. I want everyone to read this because you just wasted my time.

First so called reference

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

28 So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.
27 But Judas Maccabeus with nine others, or thereabout, withdrew himself into the wilderness, and lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts, with his company, who fed on herbs continually, lest they should be partakers of the pollution.

Hbr 11:38
They wandered in deserts and mountains, [in] dens and caves of the earth.

Okay so the connection is that both passages use mountains? Do you have any idea how often that phrase appears in the OT? This is your idea of literary dependence? I hope you are joking. In one passage they wander in the mountains. In one they fled into the mountains. In the other one they lived in the mountains. Wow stunning connection. Mountains. Maybe the next one will be better.

Second so called reference

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.
Yes it is. That particular book has plenty of historical information. But this is not a citation of the book or proof of its canonicity. The feast of dedication was well known. No one has ever EVER said that the 7 do not have historical value. That is why we have them in our Bible in a seperate section.

3rd so called reference
Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sir 2:18.

Jhn 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Sir 2:18 Saying, We will fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men: for as his majesty is, so is his mercy.

Okay, so what were you thinking? That I would not bother to look all these up? Horrible.
THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

well I am sorry for you, but Jesus choose me and that I bear fruit this verse is for all beleivers not the elect few. Tjhay is why I do not post Scripture, because you think they are for a select few and brother they are for all believers to read and understand. I have an infalliable teacher and His nameis the Holy Spitit. Now donnot start with me about 30.0000000 different churches, cause I do not believe that either. God Bless we all have access to the Holy Spirit sometimes we need to ask and I do so daily.

How many times do I have to say, all scriptures are for all believers, but we have to read things in the context. We can learn through examples and we can understand the teachings of those with authority, but we cannot assume an authority for ourselves, and we shouldn’t reject those He gave authority too. Christ appointed men and sent them out and said, ‘He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.’

**Luk 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.
Luk 10:2 And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he send labourers into his harvest.
Luk 10:3 Go: Behold I send you as lambs among wolves.
Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 Into whatever house you enter, first say: Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it shall return to you.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house, remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Remove not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into what city soever you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein and say to them: The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, going forth into the streets thereof, say:
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city that cleaveth to us, we wipe off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand.
Luk 10:12 I say to you, it shall be more tolerable at that day for Sodom than for that city.
Luk 10:13 Woe to thee, Corozain! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.
Luk 10:15 And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell.
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. **

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay…" Found in Wis 15:7

Rom 9:21
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

7 For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.

LOL!!! Once again I bet you thought I would not look up your so called references. I do believe that the Apocrypha might reference Jeremiah though…So any verse dealing with Potter and his clay you thought you could pull out??

Jer 18:4
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it].
Jer 18:6
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter’s hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

1Pet 1:6-7, “…gold which is tried by fire…” See Wis 3:5-6

1Pe 1:7
that the genuineness of your faith, [being] much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ

,
First of all the gold is not tried by fire, the FAITH is.

6 As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering.

A deliberate changing of the words of 1st Peter it appears.
Oh because you might now know, Wisdom is actually referring to Proverbs.

Pro 17:3
The fining pot [is] for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.
Pro 27:21
[As] the fining pot for silver, and the furnace for gold; so [is] a man to his praise.

Rom 1:20-23, “For since the creation of the world…” Found in Wis 13:1-7

Rom 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Wisdom 13: 1-7 SURELY vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster;
2 But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world.
3 With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them.
4 But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them.
5 For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen.
6 But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.
7 For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen.

Help me on this one please. I don not see your connection at all. Lets stop on these and let you defend your references. And yes, I am not happy you wasted my time for your made up references except for one historical reference which does not prove literary dependence but does prove the Apocrypha has some very good history…which it does.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

References. Its taken me awhile. I have only done the first ones. I want everyone to read this because you just wasted my time.

First so called reference

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Okay so the connection is that both passages use mountains? Do you have any idea how often that phrase appears in the OT? This is your idea of literary dependence? I hope you are joking. In one passage they wander in the mountains. In one they fled into the mountains. In the other one they lived in the mountains. Wow stunning connection. Mountains. Maybe the next one will be better.

Second so called reference

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.
Yes it is. That particular book has plenty of historical information. But this is not a citation of the book or proof of its canonicity. The feast of dedication was well known. No one has ever EVER said that the 7 do not have historical value. That is why we have them in our Bible in a seperate section.

3rd so called reference
Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sir 2:18.

Okay, so what were you thinking? That I would not bother to look all these up? Horrible.
THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

I was thinking you can’t see, what you don’t want to see.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I was thinking you can’t see, what you don’t want to see.

WHAT? They both use mountains. Right? How does John 14:23 and Sirach 2:18 have ANYTHING to do with one another.

No one can see that connection. Why did you waste my time???