since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[PRmerger]

You’re confusing the criteria for a writing to be Inspired, with the Scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura. Using an extra-biblical source to know that Mark was the writer of his Gospel doesn’t violate sola scriptura, because SS is about traditions, doctrines, dogmas, etc that “ADD” to Scripture/U] that are not found in Scripture. Knowing that Mark was the author of his Gospel, even though he’s not mentioned by name, doesn’t have anything to do with Church doctrine or dogma.

Fair enough.

But then you’re actually trusting in some other entity…which would be…

the Catholic Church, which told you that the Gospel of Mark is written by an apostle.

And you’re also still in deep trouble with Hebrews…whose authorship is NEVER assigned.

How can you know it’s theopneustos if you don’t even know the author met Christ, saw Him resurrected, talked with the apostles?

And why is Barnabas not inspired, nor Clement?

 

[PRmerger]

Um…really? Do you realize what you just asked? Inspired means “GOD-breathed.” You are saying that something GOD Authored can be in error, even historically? Think about that for a minute, because that is what you are insinuating.

This is called begging the question, taz.

You can’t say, “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” while also saying, “It’s in the Bible, therefore it’s inspired”.

And you also can’t say: “Historical errors makes something NOT inspired” while also saying “It doesn’t matter if something has a scientific error because it’s inspired”.

Do you see how your claim to have studied every single Christian text to discern, on your own, whether something is theopneustos or not is really astounding?

You have some arbitrary criteria “It has to be written by an apostle or one of their disciples” which would include lots of not inspired books (Clement, Barnabas), while excluding some inspired books: Hebrews.

And…“It can’t have historical errors” but “scientific errors are ok”.

Whatever criteria you use are going to include some of the non-inspired books while excluding the inspired books.

It’s a tricky predicament you’ve backed yourself into, taz.

 

[PRmerger]

BZZZT!!! No, that’s not why. They may have been the ones who “initially” informed me of this, since I never learned any of this from the CC, but unlike when I was Catholic, I was encouraged to research it for myself, which I did, which was something I was never, nor would ever been, encouraged in my years as a Catholic.

Interesting.

So you researched for yourself that the Gospel of Mark was written by the apostle Mark?

How, exactly, did you do this?

And what convinced you, on your own,*** without taking anyone else’s word for it***, did you determine it was written by an apostle?

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you keep saying “your”? Again, I’m not basing it on “my criteria,” but upon reading Hebrews, as well as the rest of the NT, I found that ALL of them had the EXACT SAME godly criteria that the OT had for being God-breathed (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc, etc) that aren’t found in any other religious or secular text.

I’m just wondering if you are only reserving for yourself the right to do this, while objecting to others doing the same thing you have?

For example, if someone studies, using the same criteria you do, the 27 books of the NT and comes to the conclusion that some of the books are not inspired, do you object to his conclusions?

There are, in fact, some folks who claim that the Pauline epistles are NOT inspired.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Are you going to act like a magisterium and tell them: you can’t decide that!

 

[thetazlord]

I’m not really going to get into your whole rebuttal, but this part made me scratch my head. Are you really trying to convince us that the feminine form of συγγενής – that is, συγγενίς – means something different than its masculine form? That’s ludicrous. Yes, Elizabeth is συγγενίς – that is, a ‘kinswoman’ – because she’s a woman.

Also, are you really suggesting that the usage ‘cousin’ (as found in the New American Bible – which is the English-language translation provided on the Vatican website) is authoritative simply because it’s found on the Vatican’s site? How, then, would you explain the other translations in other languages there? How would you explain the translation ‘kinswoman’, found in the RSV-CE? How would you explain the translation ‘cognata’ (‘relative’) found in the Latin Vulgate?

You’re really grasping at straws with this one.

Because I’m not basing it on a particular translation. Translators use what they think are the “best” translations, but they don’t always get it right, because “sometimes” a particular word is ambiguous. I use numerous Hebrew & Greek lexicons & concordances. Here is an example of the slight differences between “syggenes” & “sygennis,” where the latter (exegetically) “can” be translated “cousin,” while the former doesn’t, but merely “relative” or “kinsmen”:

blbclassic.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=cousin*+G4773&t=KJV

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G6080

Plus, it doesn’t change the fact that Vatican.va does refer to Elizabeth’s relationship with Mary as “cousins,” not merely “relatives” or “kinsmen,” because they realized this slight distinction between “syggenes” & “syggenis.” The whole point I was making with CM is that “if” the “adelphos” were actually Jesus’ “syggenes” or “syggenis,” rather than His younger half-brothers, the Gospel writers would have used one of these available Greek words, just as they did elsewhere in the Gospels. A Christian who can see that demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is giving him (or her) that discernment that he (or she) couldn’t see on his (or her) own.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, in the past, the “theory” of Limbo WAS part of “Sacred Tradition,” just not an official dogma. But it WAS taught as “Tradition” (capital “T”) in the past. The same with the extra-biblical Marian dogmas & “Traditions” such as Purgatory, etc previously mentioned.

Ah. Purgatory.

You believe in purgatory, taz, if you believe the Scriptures which state that “nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev. 21:27)

If you* have had an impure thought since accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then you have some cleaning up to do before you stand before the Godhead. That impure thought defiled your clean soul…and it has to be cleaned up before you meet the King of Kings.

If you died tonight, with this stain on your soul, you couldn’t go to heaven. You’d have to be cleaned up first.

Of course, you may believe that dirty things can be in heaven…but that would be contrary to Scripture.

Or, I suppose, you can believe that your soul is lily-white…but that seems contrary to logic. How can someone who’s had impure thoughts have a pure soul??? That doesn’t seem possible, no?

So…how does someone get purged of this stain on his soul if he’s going to meet the Lord of Lords?

How, indeed…

*You, here, is a rhetorical you. Not a personal you.

 

[thetazlord]

Can you expand on this assertion a bit? I’m confused about what you are implying with respect to ‘Scripture defending doctrine’.

Because, as you continue to blithely ignore, Jesus was correcting one particular tradition “that nullified the word of God”. He didn’t say that all traditions nullify the word of God – in fact, He completely ignores the one that the Pharisees mentioned, in order to address the one that was bothering Him – but rather, simply points out what could be wrong in a tradition of the Pharisees.

When Jesus corrects the Pharisees - not just in this particular isolated verse - but throughout His ministry, He ALWAYS goes back to the Scriptures, never extra-biblical “traditions.” The fact that He does the former & not the latter, demonstrates that Jesus’ source of Authority were His Scriptures, because He was the Author of them, because they wrote about Him. Jesus recognized that extra-biblical “traditions” were man-made, & not from God.

Because he’s already asserted the veracity of non-Biblical teaching! He says, in 2 Tim 3:14 “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it”. Take a look at the cross-references in your Bible. He’s referring to 2 Tim 2:2 – “And what you heard from me through many witnesses”. You see, what Paul is actually doing here is making recourse to his own teaching of the people – before he appeals to the inspiration of the Scriptures! Thanks for helping us demonstrate to you the weakness of your own case.

Actually, 2 Timothy 3:14 is more specifically in reference to 2 Timothy 1:5. Timothy’s “source” of what he had learned were the “Sacred Writings” (2 Timothy 3:15)(not extra-scriptural “Sacred Traditions”) which he learned from his mother & grandmother from his youth. And what those sacred writings taught that he had learned from were about the future promised Messiah, which was fulfilled in Jesus, which is what the “many witnesses” he had heard from (2 Timothy 2:2). They didn’t “teach” Timothy anything different that wasn’t already taught in the OT written Scriptures.

We’ve shown you many “extra-biblical traditions” that aren’t refuted by the Scriptures, and even shown that Jesus practiced them. Clearly, they’re “mentioned”. The ones that get our attention are the ones held up for scrutiny. Nevertheless, this is all a red herring. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that a “human tradition” (e.g., hand washing) is not what’s meant by the Church in its term “Sacred Tradition”, which simply refers to Apostolic Teaching. Until you do so, you can continue to tilt at your “human traditions” windmill all you like – but you’re not addressing Catholic teaching at all.

I’m afraid what you’re not getting is that what makes those “extra-biblical traditions” no different than the “extra-biblical traditions” of the “sacred handwashing” is that both of them “exceed” or “add to” Scripture. So, why do you believe Jesus would rebuke one kind of extra-biblical tradition which were being taught by the Pharisees who were placed in the position with teaching “the oracles of God” yet exceeded them, but not believe Jesus would exceed other extra-biblical traditions for the same reason?

 

[thetazlord]

And this means we exclude Sirach and Wisdom from the same category as Proverbs…why?

You seem to be making some weird arbitrary division (which Christ doesn’t make)…which means you are ADDING to Scripture (something you seem to reserve for yourself but object to in others)…by saying, “When Jesus says Psalms, he also means Proverbs, but not Sirach and Wisdom.”

Where, exactly, does Jesus say this?

Nowhere?

Well, then that’s ADDING to Scripture.

I’m afraid you’re not comprehending what I’m getting across. There was a THREE-fold division of the OT Scriptures prior to the time of Jesus (the Law of Moses, the Prophets, & the Psalms). During the intertestimental period, the Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated into the Targums (the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). The Torah was translated first, followed by the Prophets. The writings occured last. The Writings included the Psalms & Proverbs, but no Sirach & Wisdom, because Sirach & Wisdom were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were written during the intertestimental period. It was this THREE-fold division Jesus is referring to (“the Law…the Prophets…the Psalms”). What Catholics are unable to do is account for “why” Jesus separated the Psalms from the Prophets, even though elsewhere Jesus simply refers to the OT canon as simply “the Law & the Prophets.” This is the reason why. BTW, “adding” historical reasons why certain books are included in the OT canon & not others doesn’t have anything to do with sola scriptura, which deals with the sole authority of Scripture for Christian doctrine. It doesn’t deal with “why” the canon is the way it is. So, it doesn’t violate sola scriptura. You are unnecessarily blending the two issues.

 

[thetazlord]

Fair enough.

But then you’re actually trusting in some other entity…which would be…

the Catholic Church, which told you that the Gospel of Mark is written by an apostle.

And you’re also still in deep trouble with Hebrews…whose authorship is NEVER assigned.

How can you know it’s theopneustos if you don’t even know the author met Christ, saw Him resurrected, talked with the apostles?

And why is Barnabas not inspired, nor Clement?

You’re still confusing the intent of sola scriptura with the determination of the Biblical canon. The two are not related. The one is not the same as the other.

The Gospel of Mark is Inspired because it contains no errors or contradictions with previous or future Inspired Scriptures. 1 Clement believed the Phoenix (a bird that lived for over 1000 years, died, then rose from its own ashes) was a real life animal, which is historically false, which is why this false belief (& therefore this epistle) is not in the NT canon, among other reasons. The Epistle of Barnabas (not to be accused with the later “gospel” of Barnabas) was probably not written by the Barnabas of the NT. Plus it is more of a theological “tract” rather than an epistle:

ntcanon.org/Epistle_of_Barnabas.shtml

 

[thetazlord]

This is called begging the question, taz.

You can’t say, “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” while also saying, “It’s in the Bible, therefore it’s inspired”.

First, it’s not begging the question. I was commenting on your comment:

And where does the Bible state that historical errors means it’s not inspired?

As a Catholic, if you “truly” believe the Bible is the Word of God, which would mean the Word of God would lack historical errors, then why would you ask this question? Also, am demonstrated - numerous times - this kind of circular reasoning you used is not why I believe the Bible is errorless, nor how I determine error. I’ve read the Bible, & it contains ZERO errors & contradictions in it - both historically & theologically, even among the books themselves. You comment only demonstrates your misunderstanding for “why” I believe the Bible is inerrant, not just because I “believe” it’s inerrant.

And you also can’t say: “Historical errors makes something NOT inspired” while also saying “It doesn’t matter if something has a scientific error because it’s inspired”.

And what does “Inspired” mean? GOD-breathed. Can God make a historical error? No He can’t. Therefore, if a writing does, then it’s not God-breathed. No offense, but this is common sense. And I never said “It doesn’t matter if something has a scientific error because it’s inspired.” I don’t know where you got that.

Do you see how your claim to have studied every single Christian text to discern, on your own, whether something is theopneustos or not is really astounding?

When you understand that “actual” reason I use to discern if something is God-breathed or not, it makes perfect sense. So, far you have misrepresented & misunderstood me.

You have some arbitrary criteria “It has to be written by an apostle or one of their disciples” which would include lots of not inspired books (Clement, Barnabas), while excluding some inspired books: Hebrews.

This is an example of you “quote-mining” me out of context. Apostolic authorship is one of the criteria used to discern legitimate authorship Inspiration - not the ONLY one. I also included inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc. 1 Clement & the Epistle of Barnabas don’t qualify. Please read EVERYTHING I wrote, not just “pick & choose” fragments of what I wrote. I will help alleviate confusion & aid in the conversation.

And…“It can’t have historical errors” but “scientific errors are ok”.

Again, I never said the latter. You are confused.

Whatever criteria you use are going to include some of the non-inspired books while excluding the inspired books.

No, they won’t. See above.

It’s a tricky predicament you’ve backed yourself into, taz.

No, it’s a Scripturally-supported one…at least if you have a proper understanding of what I actually said.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m afraid you’re not comprehending what I’m getting across. There was a THREE-fold division of the OT Scriptures prior to the time of Jesus (the Law of Moses, the Prophets, & the Psalms). During the intertestimental period, the Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated into the Targums (the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). The Torah was translated first, followed by the Prophets. The writings occured last. The Writings included the Psalms & Proverbs, but no Sirach & Wisdom, because Sirach & Wisdom were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were written during the intertestimental period. It was this THREE-fold division Jesus is referring to (“the Law…the Prophets…the Psalms”). What Catholics are unable to do is account for “why” Jesus separated the Psalms from the Prophets, even though elsewhere Jesus simply refers to the OT canon as simply “the Law & the Prophets.” This is the reason why. BTW, “adding” historical reasons why certain books are included in the OT canon & not others doesn’t have anything to do with sola scriptura, which deals with the sole authority of Scripture for Christian doctrine. It doesn’t deal with “why” the canon is the way it is. So, it doesn’t violate sola scriptura. You are unnecessarily blending the two issues.

All of the above, while interesting, is a nonsequitur, taz.

You still haven’t addressed how Jesus would be tacitly including Proverbs in this 3-fold division, while excluding Wisdom.

You know that Jesus, when he talked about Psalms, also meant Proverbs…how?

 

[PRmerger]

1 Clement believed the Phoenix (a bird that lived for over 1000 years, died, then rose from its own ashes) was a real life animal, which is historically false, which is why this false belief (& therefore this epistle) is not in the NT canon, among other reasons.

But if it’s inspired, you have to believe it, right?

What you are proposing is that fanciful concepts cannot be inspired.

But that would mean…well, the biggest fanciful concept EVER–the resurrection of a dead man–cannot be inspired as well.

Is that really what you are proposing? If a book contains something unbelievable (like people touching an apron and getting healed), it automatically gets disqualified from the canon?

See how this gets you into trouble, taz?

 

[PRmerger]

Plus it is more of a theological “tract” rather than an epistle:

Where does the Bible state that epistles are inspired but not “tracts”?

Book, chapter and verse, please!

Or is this another case of ADDING to Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve read the Bible, & it contains ZERO errors & contradictions in it - both historically & theologically, even among the books themselves.

Well, having ZERO errors presupposes that you received the kerygma first, prior to reading the Bible, and then were able to compare the Bible to what you received orally to determine if there were ZERO errors in it, right?

And that…taz…is a testament to…

your belief in…

Sacred Tradition.

You can’t read something to see if it’s correct, unless you already know what’s correct, yes?

If you read a book that says: “this is the alphabet” but it excluded the letter X, you’d know it had an error.

But ONLY if you already knew what the alphabet was…because your mama (here: read “The Church”) had told you what the alphabet was.

 

[PRmerger]

And what does “Inspired” mean? GOD-breathed. Can God make a historical error? No He can’t. Therefore, if a writing does, then it’s not God-breathed. No offense, but this is common sense.

And also very Catholic of you to say.

And I never said “It doesn’t matter if something has a scientific error because it’s inspired.” I don’t know where you got that.

So something can have a scientific error and still be inspired–i.e. the Gospel of Mark declaring the mustard seed to be the smallest seed.

But something can have a historical error (what is this historical error again in the epistles of Clement?) but that means it’s not inspired?

How is this logical?

 

[thetazlord]

You typed that you “didn’t” but I’m going to assume that’s a typo and that you did look into things for yourself.

Shannon, yes, that was a typo. (My bad! ) And, yes, I did look into it myself.

What would have happened with your n-C brethren had you come to a conclusion that was completely opposite of what they held?

That’s a genuinely fair question. It depends on “what” the issue was. If it was something non-essential, like the frequency of receiving communion, then it’s something I could remain in fellowship with them. If was something that involved salvation or another essential Christian doctrine, then if they wouldn’t listen, then - Scripturally - I would have to break fellowship with them. But I would still love them & pray for them, as I would hope they would me.

A thought experiment:

I read John 6:53 and conclude that Jesus really wants us to eat someone’s (the Son of Man) flesh and drink His blood.

You read the same thing and say “Nahhh, it’s a metaphor.”

How are we to determine who is right? You keep bringing up abortion and homosexual unions, when everyone here knows that most Christian denominations are opposed to those things. But by participating in the thought experiment above, we’re looking at an issue that happens daily, i.e. two conflicting beliefs from the same text.

Regarding John 6:53, again, employing sola scriptura (which prevents one’s personal views from being imputed into the text that isn’t in there) you get your answer. The words Jesus uses (“bread,” “eat,” “drink,” “body,” “blood,” etc) even in the Greek has numerous different meanings & definitions. Christians who read this fall into 2 camps. One camp chooses to read it literally, while discounting the other meanings & definitions of the words, as well as discounting the entire passage, as well as other related passages in both the OT & NT. Plus, whatever view you take can’t conflict with rest of the Word of God. First, communion isn’t occurring in John 6:53. If you read earlier in the text, the breaking of bread occurred earlier & in a different location. Second, Jesus never describes any sort of “transubstantiation” of the communion elements (which, again, aren’t even there) like the way it’s understood & taught in the CC. Third, if Jesus was talking literally there, in the absence of communion food, in order for His disciples to be obedient, they would have to start literally eating Him & drinking His literal blood right then & there. Fourth, since the OT Law was still in effect, Jesus would not have commanded them to break the Levitical Law that He commanded to refrain from eating the blood of “any flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14), not “just” not the blood of animals. Fifth, Jesus states that “UNLESS one eats the flesh of the Son of Man & drinks His blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” If Jesus is speaking literally here, then ANYONE who doesn’t literally eat & drink Him, would end up in Hell, which would include baptized babies who die (as well as unbaptized babies who die) & small children or anyone for that matter, those “invincibly ignorant,” those “baptized by desire,” “baptized of blood” (martyrs), because they didn’t literally “eat” & “drink” Jesus literal body & blood. Sixth, the key to understanding what Jesus meant is with sola scriptura - such as going back earlier in the passage & reading John 6:35, which is clear that Jesus is speaking in figurative, spiritual terms, not literal. If fact, when many of His disciples walked away, Jesus said that His words were spiritual, not meant to be literal. And this is why they walked away - they believed Jesus “was” speaking literally, & didn’t want to break Levitical Law. And since Jesus knew their hearts, this is why He didn’t call them back & correct them. No matter what He said, or explained, because of their hardness of hearts, they wouldn’t have accepted Him anyways. So, it’s not that I’m just saying “Nah! It’s a metaphor,” because sola scriptura doesn’t allow for that kind of “non-answer.”

Let me ask you, is agreeing with the (correct) stance of the CC that God does not approve of abortion & gay “marriages” & gay/female “pastors” solely based on your “agreement” with them? Or is it because you are able to make this determination from Scripture alone? IOW, do you “need” the CC to tell you they are wrong, or can you discern this solely on Scripture?

Now, I would like to ask again, where did you get the authority to proclaim your definition, and no matter what you say, post 50 is YOUR definition (because there are others) is more right than any other one floating around out there?

From Scripture alone: [Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19] Scripture never states “do not add nor take away” from extra-biblical tradition.

 

[thetazlord]

I’m just wondering if you are only reserving for yourself the right to do this, while objecting to others doing the same thing you have?

For example, if someone studies, using the same criteria you do, the 27 books of the NT and comes to the conclusion that some of the books are not inspired, do you object to his conclusions?

There are, in fact, some folks who claim that the Pauline epistles are NOT inspired.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Are you going to act like a magisterium and tell them: you can’t decide that!

They are wrong, not because “I say so,” because they are not able to discern that the 27 books of the NT are inerrant & lack contradictions, as well as the other godly criteria previously mentioned for Inspiration. Plus, Scripture alone states that ALL of Paul’s epistles are God-breathed (2 Peter 3:15-16), which are also inerrant & lack contradictions. So, I think I’ll place my faith in what Inspired Scripture says about Inspired Scripture, & not “some folks” who have no authority from God.

 

[thetazlord]

Ah. Purgatory.

You believe in purgatory, taz, if you believe the Scriptures which state that “nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev. 21:27)

That’s not talking about Purgatory. Of course nothing “unclean” can enter Heaven. That’s why Scripture states we are “cleansed” by the shed blood of Christ, not the non-existent fires of Purgatory. In fact, that verse doesn’t even describe Purgatory in the way the CC teaches it.

If you* have had an impure thought since accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then you have some cleaning up to do before you stand before the Godhead. That impure thought defiled your clean soul…and it has to be cleaned up before you meet the King of Kings.

Yes, & that’s why we need a Savior to “cleanse” us from our sins. Just because a person accepts Jesus as Savior & Lord doesn’t mean we won’t sin. The the sin that eternally separates us from God is the original sin passed down from us from Adam. Jesus’ shed blood cleansed us from that sin, because Jesus was the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” But when we do sin, we have an Advocate between God & man, that the unrepentant doesn’t have. But if we commit a sin, but don’t get the chance to repent of that particular sin before we die, that isn’t going to prevent us from immediately entering Heaven, since as Paul states, "it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord. Paul never describes any kind of “intermediate” place for Christians between earth & Heaven.

If you died tonight, with this stain on your soul, you couldn’t go to heaven. You’d have to be cleaned up first.

This “belief” is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

Of course, you may believe that dirty things can be in heaven…but that would be contrary to Scripture.

By “dirty” if you mean the unrepentant, inherited “sin of the world” that eternally separates us from God, then yes that’s Biblical. But if you mean a sin you commit after genuine repentance, I’m afraid you’re not. Jesus said there is only ONE “unpardonable” sin - the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit - attributing the salvific works of Jesus to Satan, which in the Church age is rejecting Christ for a different “gospel” (Galatians 1:6-9).

Or, I suppose, you can believe that your soul is lily-white…but that seems contrary to logic. How can someone who’s had impure thoughts have a pure soul??? That doesn’t seem possible, no?

I don’t believe that I can make my soul “lily-white.” It’s “white as snow” because Christ cleansed it with His shed blood. So, you’re “assumption” of what I believe about myself is wrong.

So…how does someone get purged of this stain on his soul if he’s going to meet the Lord of Lords?

Through genuine repentance, which involves the “turning away” from one’s willful lifestyle, & “turning towards” Christ as not only one’s Savior, but also one’s Lord, & by believing IN Him (John 3:16). When you do this, you become a “slave of Christ.” Unlike a servant, a slave is owned, & can never “quit” being a slave. This occurs at repentance & accepting Christ as your Master (ie: Lord). This is why Jesus refers to the lives of genuine believers as “eternal” (John 3:16), who will never be “taken away” (John 10:27-29; cf. Romans 8:38-39).

 

[thetazlord]

All of the above, while interesting, is a nonsequitur, taz.

You still haven’t addressed how Jesus would be tacitly including Proverbs in this 3-fold division, while excluding Wisdom.

You know that Jesus, when he talked about Psalms, also meant Proverbs…how?

My previous post explained this - historically. I can’t help you don’t understand this, or don’t believe it. Let me ask you then, “why” did Jesus separate “the Psalms” from “the Prophets” in Luke 24:44-45), rather than simply referring to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets.”

 

[thetazlord]

But if it’s inspired, you have to believe it, right?

What you are proposing is that fanciful concepts cannot be inspired.

But that would mean…well, the biggest fanciful concept EVER–the resurrection of a dead man–cannot be inspired as well.

Is that really what you are proposing? If a book contains something unbelievable (like people touching an apron and getting healed), it automatically gets disqualified from the canon?

See how this gets you into trouble, taz?

You’re getting WAY of topic, & by your comments, still not understanding what I’m saying. Sorry, I don’t think I can help you.