Reason and Belief

[Richard_Kastner]

Okay, Richard, let’s tackle this from another angle:

Just list one to ten prophecies in just the New Testament of the Bible that prove 100% true. For myself, uneducated Catholic and Bible scholar that I may be, I find none that are verifiable or otherwise proven.

Please commence:

Why?

 

[joe370]

Why?

A question I often pondered as a former non-Catholic: the prophecies certainly assist in confirming the veracity of scripture and a reason for believing in the veracity of the bible, but do they confirm which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon?

If not then who did in fact make the authoritative decision as to which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon? Clearly scripture itself couldn’t have defined itself.

I eventually learned that it was the Catholic church that made that authoritative decision because the authenticity of 7 books of the NT were doubted by many in certain parts of the Roman Empire.

Can we trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT as well as the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

If so then perhaps the CC is another reason for believing in the veracity of the bible?

From that it seems rather logical to infer the following:

To trust in the veracity of holy scripture is to trust in the veracity of the CC - yes, no maybe?

If no then how can you be certain the CC didn’t get it wrong about the correct inclusion and exclusion, considering the fact that so many protestants believe they got it wrong about other things such as Mary’s sinless state, her perpetual virginity and purgatory, all things embraced by the very same 4th century catholic leaders that codified sacred scripture?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

A question I often pondered as a former non-Catholic: the prophecies certainly assist in confirming the veracity of scripture and a reason for believing in the veracity of the bible, but do they confirm which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon?

If not then who did in fact make the authoritative decision as to which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon? Clearly scripture itself couldn’t have defined itself.

I eventually learned that it was the Catholic church that made that authoritative decision because the authenticity of 7 books of the NT were doubted by many in certain parts of the Roman Empire.

Can we trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT as well as the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

If so then perhaps the CC is another reason for believing in the veracity of the bible?

From that it seems rather logical to infer the following:

To trust in the veracity of holy scripture is to trust in the veracity of the CC - yes, no maybe?

If no then how can you be certain the CC didn’t get it wrong about the correct inclusion and exclusion, considering the fact that so many protestants believe they got it wrong about other things such as Mary’s sinless state, her perpetual virginity and purgatory, all things embraced by the very same 4th century catholic leaders that codified sacred scripture?

Hi Joe

Consider this Joe

2Tim.3:16 says 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Right? Then in 2Pet.3 we see 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter says that Pauls writings are scripture and therefore would be inspired. One can only deduce that Peter also thinks of his own writings as scripture. So right here we have perhaps 2/3rd of th New Testament set much before the establishment of any CC council.

 

[joe370]

Richard Kastner;8452784]Hi Joe

Consider this Joe

OK…

2Tim.3:16 says 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Right? Then in 2Pet.3 we see 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter says that Pauls writings are scripture and therefore would be inspired. One can only deduce that Peter also thinks of his own writings as scripture. So right here we have perhaps 2/3rd of th New Testament set much before the establishment of any CC council.

Peter and Paul both confirm that their writings are inspired with out actually identifying them. Got it! That said, I thought I would put this out there again:

…the prophecies certainly assist in confirming the veracity of scripture and a reason for believing in the veracity of the bible, but do they confirm which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon?

If not then who did in fact make the authoritative decision as to which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon? Clearly scripture itself couldn’t have defined itself.

I eventually learned that it was the Catholic church that made that authoritative decision because the authenticity of 7 books of the NT were doubted by many in certain parts of the Roman Empire.

Can we trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT as well as the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

If so then perhaps the CC is another reason for believing in the veracity of the bible?

From that it seems rather logical to infer the following:

To trust in the veracity of holy scripture is to trust in the veracity of the CC - yes, no maybe?

If no then how can you be certain the CC didn’t get it wrong about the correct inclusion and exclusion, considering the fact that so many protestants believe they got it wrong about other things such as Mary’s sinless state, her perpetual virginity and purgatory, all things embraced by the very same 4th century catholic leaders that codified sacred scripture?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

OK…







Peter and Paul both confirm that their writings are inspired with out actually identifying them. Got it! That said, I thought I would put this out there again:

…the prophecies certainly assist in confirming the veracity of scripture and a reason for believing in the veracity of the bible, but do they confirm which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon?

If not then who did in fact make the authoritative decision as to which books should have been included in the canon and which books should have been excluded from the holy canon? Clearly scripture itself couldn’t have defined itself.

I eventually learned that it was the Catholic church that made that authoritative decision because the authenticity of 7 books of the NT were doubted by many in certain parts of the Roman Empire.

Can we trust that the CC, in the 4th century, got it right regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT as well as the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

If so then perhaps the CC is another reason for believing in the veracity of the bible?

From that it seems rather logical to infer the following:

To trust in the veracity of holy scripture is to trust in the veracity of the CC - yes, no maybe?

If no then how can you be certain the CC didn’t get it wrong about the correct inclusion and exclusion, considering the fact that so many protestants believe they got it wrong about other things such as Mary’s sinless state, her perpetual virginity and purgatory, all things embraced by the very same 4th century catholic leaders that codified sacred scripture?

Didn’t you read the texts I posted Joe? Most of the New Testament was set before any council of the CC supposedly set the canon.

 

[joe370]

Didn’t you read the texts I posted Joe? Most of the New Testament was set before any council of the CC supposedly set the canon.

Who set most of the canon before any council of the CC supposedly set the canon?

Who eventually set the entire canon?

 

[joe370]

Then as I asked. Are you unfamiliar with bible prophecy? If you can’t or won’t honestly answer this I see no reason to continue.

Richard, if fulfilled prophecy is the benchmark by which someone should embrace a particular body of work as being from God, then Christianity has a little competition. Quranic prophecies are considered quite genuine and true to Muslims; they even provide certain proof texts that are just as convincing as Isiah 7:14, claimed by Matthew, to be fulfilled by Mary. Does that prove the veracity of the Quran?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Joe

Consider this Joe

2Tim.3:16 says 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Right? Then in 2Pet.3 we see 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter says that Pauls writings are scripture and therefore would be inspired. One can only deduce that Peter also thinks of his own writings as scripture. So right here we have perhaps 2/3rd of th New Testament set much before the establishment of any CC council.

The passages that precede this statement include…

15

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Confirming that the Old Testament is Scripture. Paul adds to that in Romans…

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The word for Oracles is Logia and could include the Old Testament. There are some translastions that state “the utterances of Scripture”.

But Timothy is not talking about the New Testament because it did not exist when Timothy was a child. There is no way to know if Peter thought his writings were Scripture and as Joe has pointed out someone identified and clarified the canon of Scripture.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The passages that precede this statement include…

15

Confirming that the Old Testament is Scripture. Paul adds to that in Romans…

The word for Oracles is Logia and could include the Old Testament. There are some translastions that state “the utterances of Scripture”.

But Timothy is not talking about the New Testament because it did not exist when Timothy was a child. There is no way to know if Peter thought his writings were Scripture and as Joe has pointed out someone identified and clarified the canon of Scripture.

2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In this passage Peter is talking about Paul’s writings as well as others. He says they are scripture therefore inspired.

Are you saying that the New Testament is not scripture or inspired?

 

[CopticChristian]

2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In this passage Peter is talking about Paul’s writings as well as others. He says they are scripture therefore inspired.

Are you saying that the New Testament is not scripture or inspired?

Absolutely not. I am saying the Scripture and the passages used to suggest that Scripture authenticates Scripture like Timothy fail to prove that point.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Absolutely not. I am saying the Scripture and the passages used to suggest that Scripture authenticates Scripture like Timothy fail to prove that point.

What part of ALL do you not understand?

If you are saying that the New testament is not included in this ALL, you must be saying that it is either not scripture or not inspired.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, if fulfilled prophecy is the benchmark by which someone should embrace a particular body of work as being from God, then Christianity has a little competition. Quranic prophecies are considered quite genuine and true to Muslims; they even provide certain proof texts that are just as convincing as Isiah 7:14, claimed by Matthew, to be fulfilled by Mary. Does that prove the veracity of the Quran?

Joe check out this cite. islamacevap.net/Shamoun/false_prophecies.htm

 

[CopticChristian]

What part of ALL do you not understand?

If you are saying that the New testament is not included in this ALL, you must be saying that it is either not scripture or not inspired.

All in the context of the sentence and paragraph only relates to the New Testament because you want it to. You insult me because you realize that you have no way to resolve this conflict. This is ad hominem. You attack me because you want me to respond to your insult. It only means that you realize that you have no way of explaining that “all” only means to Timothy what was written at the time and that does not include the New Testament because it had not been completed yet.

What part of “All” do you want others to understand and believe. You should first convince yourself that you can discuss in an intelligent way that this “All” only refers to the Old Testament when Timothy was a child and then decide if you want to conceded that there is no point in insulting people.

Your insults only confirm your inability to “understand”. I suggest that you sit, pray, ask yourself what part of this “all” do I want to believe and what part of this “all” should I understand and then when you can not insult someone get back to me.

The all is not included in this statement true. I never said anything about the New Testament being Scripture. This would be considered true, true and not related. You are making an error in your thinking confirming the antecedent and concluding falsely.

Think again.

 

[CopticChristian]

Joe check out this cite. islamacevap.net/Shamoun/false_prophecies.htm

This is typical Protestant deflection. “LOOK, LOOK, attack Islam” and you fail to answer the question as to the Prophesy you stated and the surety of your beliefs. This is called stalling in answering the question. Let’s pretend that everyone concedes that this link has value…OK now Richard tell us about the original question in the original posting and let us hear from Richard…I’m waiting.

I understand you need time to rethink your proposition. I did not raise this as a means to be sure of beliefs, you did, and asked for another thread.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

All in the context of the sentence and paragraph only relates to the New Testament because you want it to. You insult me because you realize that you have no way to resolve this conflict. This is ad hominem. You attack me because you want me to respond to your insult. It only means that you realize that you have no way of explaining that “all” only means to Timothy what was written at the time and that does not include the New Testament because it had not been completed yet.

What part of “All” do you want others to understand and believe. You should first convince yourself that you can discuss in an intelligent way that this “All” only refers to the Old Testament when Timothy was a child and then decide if you want to conceded that there is no point in insulting people.

Your insults only confirm your inability to “understand”. I suggest that you sit, pray, ask yourself what part of this “all” do I want to believe and what part of this “all” should I understand and then when you can not insult someone get back to me.

The all is not included in this statement true. I never said anything about the New Testament being Scripture. This would be considered true, true and not related. You are making an error in your thinking confirming the antecedent and concluding falsely.

Think again.

Whoa, Cop I certainly did not mean to insult you and since you believe that I have I certainly do apologize. However, antecedents refer to pronouns. All is not a pronoun and the text in question makes no distinction between old and new testament, but merely states “all scripture”. My purpose in this whole exercise was to point out that Pauls writings were concidered inspired writings before any church council supposedly set the canon. So let me ask you this Cop, do you believe that Paul thought his writings were inspired?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This is typical Protestant deflection. “LOOK, LOOK, attack Islam” and you fail to answer the question as to the Prophesy you stated and the surety of your beliefs. This is called stalling in answering the question. Let’s pretend that everyone concedes that this link has value…OK now Richard tell us about the original question in the original posting and let us hear from Richard…I’m waiting.

I understand you need time to rethink your proposition. I did not raise this as a means to be sure of beliefs, you did, and asked for another thread.

What question are you talking about? You keep changing it. But let’s start with this that was brought out on the link

“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "

Pretty much what I said from the beginning.

"The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things. "

 

[JamestheOlder]

Richard,

I’m still waiting for New Testament prophecies that prove those Scriptures are inspired.
Please educate me. Please.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

I’m still waiting for New Testament prophecies that prove those Scriptures are inspired.
Please educate me. Please.

Huh! I’m afraid you lost me here what are we talking about?

 

[CopticChristian]

Huh! I’m afraid you lost me here what are we talking about?

The question to you was this…

What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God and you can trust what you can believe from this book?

Your answer was this.

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things. Why do you ask?

The Bible you and I believe to be the Word of God and that includes the New and Old Testament. What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God, putting your trust and belief in this book and your answer was the 100% accuracy of the Prophesies was the answer.

I asked you this

COLOR=“Red”]
Tell me about these prophecies that are 100% accurate.

That’s for another thread.

And I and others still wait for your answer in this thread that is another thread.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The question to you was this…

Your answer was this.

The Bible you and I believe to be the Word of God and that includes the New and Old Testament. What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God, putting your trust and belief in this book and your answer was the 100% accuracy of the Prophesies was the answer.

I asked you this

And I and others still wait for your answer in this thread that is another thread.

What do you want to know about them?