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

[stewstew03]

… So, my faith wasn’t based on anyone’s “tradition.” It was based on comparing their “claims” of the Inspiration of Scripture, by actually READING Scripture.

Actually, isn’t your faith based on someone’s translated copies of scripture? You’re not claiming to have read the originals, are you?

 

[Gorgias]

So I think his context is that when one does not believe the oral or written gospel, you will have your fanciful, personal belief’s.

Hence don’t think it applies to us.

Well, if you really want the context, check out the entire paragraph – and the correspondences to our conversation in this thread will be evident!

Augustine:

The apostle, speaking in the Holy Spirit, tells us that such teachers * would arise. With reference to such, he says to believers: “If any man preaches to you another gospel than that you have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:9 If no one can say what is true of Christ unless he has himself seen and heard Him, no one now can be trusted. But if believers can now say what is true of Christ because the truth has been handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard, why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall be born after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John.

… Your idea is, that John should have recorded this saying of the Lord, as he was present on the occasion. As if it might not happen that, since it was impossible to write all that be heard from the Lord, he set himself to write some, omitting this among others. Does he not say at the close of his Gospel: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written”? John 21:25 This proves that he omitted many things intentionally. But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them.

… Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.*

Since Faustus disbelieved apostolic teaching, Augustine asserted that he did “not believe the gospel of Christ.” Augustine explicitly appeals to non-Scriptural authority (that is, John 21:25 – the unwritten things that Jesus did) and claims that John’s authority to what Christ said – even if John didn’t write it down – is believable.

In other words, in this case (as in the case of SS), Augustine’s words can be interpreted to mean that non-Scriptural apostolic teaching (e.g., John’s, which may have given rise to Matthew’s writing) is authoritative.

 

[Tolkien13]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

 

[benhur]

Well, if you really want the context, check out the entire paragraph – and the correspondences to our conversation in this thread will be evident!

Since Faustus disbelieved apostolic teaching, Augustine asserted that he did “not believe the gospel of Christ.” Augustine explicitly appeals to non-Scriptural authority (that is, John 21:25 – the unwritten things that Jesus did) and claims that John’s authority to what Christ said – even if John didn’t write it down – is believable.

In other words, in this case (as in the case of SS), Augustine’s words can be interpreted to mean that non-Scriptural apostolic teaching (e.g., John’s, which may have given rise to Matthew’s writing) is authoritative.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

We disagree on some scripture, so i am sure we disagree on what is plainly before us here.

**No one is denying the oral gospel and it’s authority. **

A paragraph before your quote says John can believed also from what he did write on the matter at hand (Christ came to fullfill the Law). He gives scripture from the Gospel of John to support what Matthew wrote.

Have not heard any SS proponent say Matthew(not present at “I came to fulfill” comment), Mark or Luke are spurious because they were not eyewitnesses, and only had oral teaching from apostles ,which is “tradition”, therefore defunct ???

Augustine , like Chyrsostomos, says Christ ,or the Holy Spirit may well have told Matthew to write about the discourse, though Matthew was not there.

SS and this talk is pretty much a Catholic/reformation paradigm dialogue. I would not try to fit it to previous history, as this one between Augustine and Faustus.

Augustine plainly states Faustus disbelieves the Gospels, written and oral.

 

[benhur]

So why was doctrine changed?

Which doctrine(s) ?

As far as some, maybe because the “practice” was not going to change. The CC was sticking to it’s guns, even bad fruit on indulgences , before Luther. He was “cornered”.

Perhaps Luther began to see that sometimes it is hard to separate the fruit from the tree, or branch that it came from. Not sure. A lot of history to study.

Ask a Lutheran. Not my strength.

 

[Abu]

benhur #295
I see no problem in having a supreme authority of our “new” Law/covenant, and it’s teachers and expounders, nor in Him keeping His promise for these green pastures. But also to be aware of false teaching/doctrine or practices from any expounder in that pasture.

The good is mixed in with the bad, like in Jesus’ time. Those in the Chair can give both good and bad.

The “supreme authority” having been created by God Himself, how generous to “see no problem”! God having founded His Church and guaranteed St Peter as His Supreme Authority, as post #31 factually shows, imagined “false teaching/doctrine" is impossible, unless from the one imagining himself as greater than God.

Thus unlike all of the surmises, there never has been, and never can be, false doctrine nor dogma from the Magisterium.

 

[thetazlord]

Actually, isn’t your faith based on someone’s translated copies of scripture? You’re not claiming to have read the originals, are you?

No, I study the Hebrew & Greek, not just the translated English.

 

[thetazlord]

Interestingly, I just saw on Facebook that there’s another ancient Christian text that’s been discovered.

livescience.com/49673-newfound-ancient-gospel-deciphered.html

The Gospel of the lots of Mary.
**
Taz: ** you are going to have to read this, study it, and discern whether it is really, truly theopneustos, aren’t you?

And, you are going to have to take no one else’s word/scholarship/research on the subject but come to a discernment, on your own, whether it is the inspired Word of God.

Are you willing to, after your personal study, come back here and tell us whether you,* of your own authority,* are going to declare it to be theopneustos or not?

Without even having to read it, the article states that it was written 1500 years ago & in Coptic, as opposed to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Plus it couldn’t have been written by an apostle of God, nor a disciple of Christ (or their contemporaries), since it was written 500 years after the last book of the Biblical canon was written. So, without even reading it, just what we know about it disqualifies it as being Inspired. I’m afraid you are grabbing at straws now.

 

[thetazlord]

You see how you have backed yourself into another corner, taz.

Are scientific and historical errors necessarily a criterion for dismissal from the Word of God?

If yes, then you have to omit the Gospel of Mark. (No one can deny that it’s FALSE that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds).
If no, then you have to admit the Epistles of Clement.

Let me put it this way. Since Scripture is God-breathed, then it can’t say something that is false, because that would be like saying God says false things, which is impossible. If a particular piece of writing says something false, then it’s not God-breathed. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t say anything false. And regarding your mustard seed argument, I’ve explained this to you already. It sounds like you’re not comprehending “how” that passage from Mark’s Gospel isn’t an error. However, 1 Clement DOES make false claims about reality. 2 Clement was written long after the NT was completed, & long after Clement died.

(Did you ever limn what these historical errors are? Haven’t caught up with all the posts yet.)

I’m assuming you meant “list.” Are you referring to the errors in the Apocrypha? If so, I’d be happy to post a link for you from my Web site.

A predicament for those who assert that they have read all of the ancient Christian texts and discerned, of their own authority, what is theopneustos and what is not.

If you want to “believe” I haven’t, that’s your issue.

I suppose you could say, “Historical errors nix. Scientific errors are ok” but that would be a very peculiar assertion and no one with a reasonable mind could accept.

No, scientific errors are not “ok.” I don’t now where you are assuming that. All your other posts, I’ve answered in one way or another. So, forgive me if I don’t repeat myself.

 

[PRmerger]

Without even having to read it, the article states that it was written 1500 years ago & in Coptic, as opposed to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

So you do accept some things just because someone told you. Interesting…

I thought you said that you investigate everything yourself?

 

[PRmerger]

Let me put it this way. Since Scripture is God-breathed, then it can’t say something that is false, because that would be like saying God says false things, which is impossible. If a particular piece of writing says something false, then it’s not God-breathed.

The problem is, taz, you can’t know if something is false if you don’t already have the gospel, the Truth, the Word of God.

Where do you get the Truth, if it’s not from the Bible?

You can’t use the Bible, which you don’t have yet (since you’re discerning whether something belongs in the Bible) to determine if it’s supposed to be in the Bible.

See how your position is circular?

“I know something is True because it’s in the Bible!” and “I know it’s in the Bible, therefore it’s True!”

 

[PRmerger]

However, 1 Clement DOES make false claims about reality.

Still waiting for the “historical error” you claim it made*.

2 Clement was written long after the NT was completed, & long after Clement died

How long is too long for something to be considered theopneustos?

And where do you get this criterion from? What Bible verse is it that says that something has to be written within [X] number of years to be considered worthy of placement in the NT canon?

And unlike the Inspired NT Scripture, 1 Clement as historical errors in them, which disqualifies it as being God-breathed.

This is my 4th request for you to limn what these “historical errors” are in Clement.

 

[Gorgias]

PRmerger:

Did you ever limn what these historical errors are?

I’m assuming you meant “list.” Are you referring to the errors in the Apocrypha? If so, I’d be happy to post a link for you from my Web site.

Shh! Don’t critique PR’s use of the obscure word ‘limn’, or else she’ll put you on her ignore list!!!

 

[benhur]

The “supreme authority” having been created by God Himself, how generous to “see no problem”! God having founded His Church and guaranteed St Peter as His Supreme Authority, as post #31 factually shows, imagined “false teaching/doctrine" is impossible, unless from the one imagining himself as greater than God.

Thus unlike all of the surmises, there never has been, and never can be, false doctrine nor dogma from the Magisterium.

Understand. Thank You. I also understand the orthodox and protestant view of CC’s claim of dogma non-error.

 

[benhur]

[The “supreme authority” having been created by God Himself, how generous to “see no problem”!

Right, like Jesus saw no problem either during His time on Earth, with the Pharisees , the Sanhedrin, even with the One True pillar of truth at the time (Jewish nation) ?

“Absolute power absolutely corrupts” may have been penned after the papal office was finally deemed above councils (1500’s ?)

There is always a challenge with power and authority and needs the constant grooming of the Lord of the fields.

Thank you, and understand you see no problem either.

Blessings.
[/QUOTE]

 

[stewstew03]

No, I study the Hebrew & Greek, not just the translated English.

That’s irrelevant. You don’t have original manuscripts, do you? If so, please alert the media.

So, given that you don’t have original manuscripts, your faith is in the early Christians that copied (and translated) the text correctly.

This is my 4th request for you to limn what these “historical errors” are in Clement.

Let me put it this way. Since Scripture is God-breathed, then it can’t say something that is false, because that would be like saying God says false things, which is impossible. If a particular piece of writing says something false, then it’s not God-breathed. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t say anything false.
…

Let me get this straight… your evidence that scripture is God-breathed is that it says that scripture is God-breathed? How do we know that the scripture that says it is God-breathed is actually God-breathed?

 

[PRmerger]

stewstew03:

Let me get this straight… your evidence that scripture is God-breathed is that it says that scripture is God-breathed? How do we know that the scripture that says it is God-breathed is actually God-breathed?

Indeed. The Koran says it’s inspired as well.

And what if a member of CAFs declares that his postings here are God-breathed?

**Taz: ** would you include the Koran and any other self-advocating God-breathed writings into your Bible?

 

[zz912]

Let me put it this way. Since Scripture is God-breathed, then it can’t say something that is false, because that would be like saying God says false things, which is impossible.

The Church is God-breathed. So using your criteria, you will immediately submit your obedience to the Catholic Church, which cannot say something false. Right?

Which doctrine(s) ?

As far as some, maybe because the “practice” was not going to change. The CC was sticking to it’s guns, even bad fruit on indulgences , before Luther. He was “cornered”.

Perhaps Luther began to see that sometimes it is hard to separate the fruit from the tree, or branch that it came from. Not sure. A lot of history to study.

Ask a Lutheran. Not my strength.

No, I’m asking you, since you hold to doctrines different from the Catholic Church. So why do you hold to different doctrines, if doctrine was not “carpet” standing up?

 

[thetazlord]

The first two, ironically, are NOT FOUND in a single page of Scripture.

Re: the last one–very Catholic, that.

*Incidentally, regarding Faith Alone…the only place these 2 words, “faith alone” are found together is…

wait for it…
wait for it…

when it is preceded by the words “NOT BY”.

See James 2:24, taz.

Boy, you really like to quote-mine Scripture out of context, don’t you. When James says “not by faith alone,” he’s not talking about salvific faith, but about phony, uncommitted “faith” that is not DEMONSTRATED BY works, which you find out by going to the beginning of that passage in James 2. But he’s not saying that works+faith LEAD to, or is the cause of, salvation. Rather, James is saying that one’s genuine, committed faith is demonstrated by works (James 2:18). So, just as the WORD “Trinity,” isn’t in the Bible, the concept of it is taught (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Likewise, even though the WORDS “faith alone” isn’t in the Bible - in terms of salvific faith - the concept of it is taught (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). The problem is that you belief (or unbelief) in what people teach & believe is the result of you taking a SINGLE verse from Scripture, or a fragment of what someone says, & lifting it completely out of context, without understanding what’s actually being said. And before you say, “you do the same thing with Scripture & what other people say,” that’s not true, because I don’t just “quote-mine” a single passage or fragment of a person’s quote. Rather, I examine EVERYTHING related to that passage or person’s quote, & in terms of Scripture, examine the meaning from the original language, & don’t impute a preconceived religious or personal belief into the text or quote that’s not there. I’m afraid that is what you do, such as quote-mining James 2:24 to make it say that a person’s salvation is “not by faith alone,” when in reality, that’s not what James is saying, nor what the Biblical doctrinal concept of “faith alone” in Scripture is referring to.

 

[thetazlord]

Because he was asserting that there’s a 3-fold division in the OT: Prophets, the Law, and the Psalms.

The 7 books from the deuterocanon fit quite nicely into these 3 divisions.

Sorry, no they don’t. The Catholic church divides the 7 Apocrypha books in with the OT Hebrew Scriptures in a FOUR-fold division, not a THREE-fold division:

Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

The THREE-fold division of the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms is what the Pharisees recognized (which is who Jesus addressed & even CA Jimmy Akin affirms), & what later Jews recognized in their TaNaKh that does not include the 7 Apocrypha books:

Torah (“Teaching” – Five Books of Moses)
• Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Nevi’im (“The Prophets”)
• The ‘Major Prophets’
o The ‘Former Prophets’ – Joshua, Judges, (I & II) Samuel, (I & II) Kings
o The ‘Latter Prophets’ – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel
• The ‘Minor Prophets’ (1 Book)
o Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Ketuvim (“The Writings”)
• The ‘Poetic Books’ – Psalms, Proverbs, Job
• The ‘Five Rolls’ (‘Megilloth’) – Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
• The ‘Historical Books’ – Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, (I & II) Chronicles

Sorry, historically & Scripturally, by Jesus referring to “the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms,” He wasn’t including the 7 Apocrypha books.