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

[thetazlord]

I don’t think any n-Cs really want to appeal to the writings of St. Augustine in this debate since we know he made the following statements.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
— St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own." —St. Augustine of Hippo

And Augustine lived in the fourth & fifth centuries. So, his writings are no more God-breathed that yours & mine are. He’s merely stating that he only believes the Gospel because the Catholic church “influenced” him. So Augustine’s “beliefs,” & reasons for them, have no bearing on the Protestant faith which is based on the Authority of God-breathed Scripture. So, what’s your point in bringing it up?

 

[benhur]

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?

I understand the terminology applied to scripture, even where He breathed on the apostles to receive the Holy Ghost and where we are living stones, but please explain ecclesia being God-breathed

Afterwards we still have the same problem, showing the then, first, God-breathed ecclesia to be what is the now CC , and not O or P, or all three.

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?

I am not sure we have settled the issue of the problems Luther saw, if they were just practice (abuse) of proper dogma, or was it deeper in the very fabric of some doctrine ?

I would think both.

 

[thetazlord]

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

I thought you said that you investigate everything yourself?

I do. But some things are an obvious fraud without having to “investigate” everything word-for-word, like the false “gospel” of the lots of Mary which I listed in the previous post. You seem to be having a real problem understanding criteria for something being God-breathed, even when it’s explained to you thoroughly. Same with the false infancy “gospel” of James (Proto-James). It’s an obvious forgery since the “alleged author” claims to be James the Just, who had been dead for around 150 years, & when you read it, the “Mary & Joseph” are similar to Scripture, but if you read the entire account, there are things that in it that conflict with the Mary & Joseph of Scripture, which is why it’s not in the NT canon, & not Inspired.

 

[thetazlord]

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!”

Because that’s not my argument. Something is true is if it doesn’t make false statements or conflicts with itself. The 39 books of the OT & 27 books of the NT doesn’t do that. The 7 Apocrypha books do. Plus, had we lived in the first century, we would have been around when Peter was alive who affirmed Paul’s epistles, which he was able to back up by performing genuine miracles & was an eyewitness to the Resurrection, & died for his faith without recanting. Likewise, Paul too did all these same things, plus affirmed the Gospel of Luke as being Inspired which quotes Jesus, who quotes “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Psalms” & calls them “Scripture” - the EXACT SAME grouping that the Pharisees recognized without the 7 Apocrypha books, which later Jews & Protestants also recognized. The Catholic OT canon includes these “additions” to Scripture that Jesus didn’t recognize that were NOT part of the OT Hebrew canon recognized & closed by Ezra at the “Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C.

 

[thetazlord]

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

I explained this to you in a previous post. In 1 Clement, he refers to the Phoenix - a bird that lives for 1,500 years & then rises from its own ashes - as a real-life animal. This is a false belief. Therefore, it’s not God-breathed, because God would not believe, nor state, that this imaginary animal actually exists.

 

[thetazlord]

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?

The Qur’an also makes false claims about the beliefs of Christians too, as well as other errors & contradictory statements. That’s what makes it not God-breathed. You are still having trouble understanding what qualifies as something to be & not be God-breathed, don’t you?

 

[thetazlord]

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?

Show me that verse in the Bible where it says “the Catholic church is God-breathed (theopneustos).”

 

[Tomoko]

I do. But some things are an obvious fraud without having to “investigate” everything word-for-word, like the false “gospel” of the lots of Mary which I listed in the previous post. You seem to be having a real problem understanding criteria for something being God-breathed, even when it’s explained to you thoroughly. Same with the false infancy “gospel” of James (Proto-James). It’s an obvious forgery since the **“alleged author” **claims to be James the Just, who had been dead for around 150 years, & when you read it, the “Mary & Joseph” are similar to Scripture, but if you read the entire account, there are things that in it that conflict with the Mary & Joseph of Scripture, which is why it’s not in the NT canon, & not Inspired.

Sorry to jump in late, it’s taken a while to read the whole thread. How do you deal with the claims of some scholars that some of the epistles were not written by their alleged authors? Also, in what year was the cut off point for God-breathed Scripture?

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

 

[thetazlord]

Sorry to jump in late, it’s taken a while to read the whole thread. How do you deal with the claims of some scholars that some of the epistles were not written by their alleged authors? Also, in what year was the cut off point for God-breathed Scripture?

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

These “scholars” have no evidence that they weren’t. So since they are making the assertive claim that they weren’t, the burden of proof is on them to prove their assertion. Paul & Peter affirms most of the NT, & Paul asserts his authorship in his epistles. I have no reason not be believe him.

Since authorship of the NT was on the author being a disciple of Christ (or a contemporary, like Mark or Luke), once the last apostle died (John), the canon was officially closed (Revelation 22:18-19). There’s more to it than that, but that’s the short answer.

 

[Tomoko]

I explained this to you in a previous post. In 1 Clement, he refers to the Phoenix - a bird that lives for 1,500 years & then rises from its own ashes - as a real-life animal. This is a false belief. Therefore, it’s not God-breathed, because God would not believe, nor state, that this imaginary animal actually exists.

What of the fire breathing leviathan of Job 41?

 

[benhur]

And Augustine lived in the fourth & fifth centuries. So, his writings are no more God-breathed that yours & mine are. He’s merely stating that he only believes the Gospel because the Catholic church “influenced” him. So Augustine’s “beliefs,” & reasons for them, have no bearing on the Protestant faith which is based on the Authority of God-breathed Scripture. So, what’s your point in bringing it up?

Augustine is very clear and succinct in his Confessions. He credits the following for His salvation and enlightenment: the superlative nature of scripture and the gospel therein, as expounded and preached by the Universal/Catholic Church, and lastly , the Lord Himself , the Teacher/Spirit behind Writ and preacher as in divine illumination.

He, thankfully, is still universal in his appeal, and can not be brought down to the Catholic/Protestant paradigm

As you rightly say, no bearing on future protestantism per say (at least not in his Confessions).

 

[Tomoko]

These “scholars” have no evidence that they weren’t. So since they are making the assertive claim that they weren’t, the burden of proof is on them to prove their assertion. Paul & Peter affirms most of the NT, & Paul asserts his authorship in his epistles. I have no reason not be believe him.

**Since authorship of the NT was on the author being a disciple of Christ (or a contemporary, like Mark or Luke) **, once the last apostle died (John), the canon was officially closed (Revelation 22:18-19). There’s more to it than that, but that’s the short answer.

Who set that criteria?

If the epistles are pseudepigraphs, they’re bound to assert authorship in that name aren’t they?

 

[benhur]

What of the fire breathing leviathan of Job 41?

hey man , they exited, oops I meant existed.

 

[stewstew03]

Because that’s not my argument. Something is true is if it doesn’t make false statements or conflicts with itself. The 39 books of the OT & 27 books of the NT doesn’t do that. The 7 Apocrypha books do. Plus, had we lived in the first century, we would have been around when Peter was alive who affirmed Paul’s epistles, which he was able to back up by performing genuine miracles & was an eyewitness to the Resurrection, & died for his faith without recanting. Likewise, Paul too did all these same things, plus affirmed the Gospel of Luke as being Inspired which quotes Jesus, who quotes “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Psalms” & calls them “Scripture” - the EXACT SAME grouping that the Pharisees recognized without the 7 Apocrypha books, which later Jews & Protestants also recognized.

But you haven’t demonstrated that the deuterocanonical writings make false statements!

The Catholic OT canon includes these “additions” to Scripture that Jesus didn’t recognize that were NOT part of the OT Hebrew canon recognized & closed by Ezra at the “Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C.

And you haven’t demonstrated that Jesus rejected the deuterocanonical writings.

All you’ve done is said – “well, a certain group of Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books, so Protestants decided to do that as well.”

By the way - are you aware that those Jews (not all, but some) rejected the “apocrypha” is to distance themselves from the early Christians? And isn’t it ironic that protestants now do the same?

 

[stewstew03]

I do. But some things are an obvious fraud without having to “investigate” everything word-for-word, like the false “gospel” of the lots of Mary which I listed in the previous post. You seem to be having a real problem understanding criteria for something being God-breathed, even when it’s explained to you thoroughly. Same with the false infancy “gospel” of James (Proto-James). It’s an obvious forgery since the “alleged author” claims to be James the Just, who had been dead for around 150 years, & when you read it, the “Mary & Joseph” are similar to Scripture, but if you read the entire account, there are things that in it that conflict with the Mary & Joseph of Scripture, which is why it’s not in the NT canon, & not Inspired.

Why do you reject Sirach?

 

[PRmerger]

Something is true is if it doesn’t make false statements

LOL!!

That’s a tautology if I ever heard one.

It’s like a student, being asked, “What is a federal bank?” Answering with: “It is a bank that is federal.” That student would get a big red “X” in my book.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...edcross.png/revision/latest?cb=20080913191502

But, let’s get back to the initial question, taz.

What are you comparing the Bible’s info to, to determine whether it contains true or false statements?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion here, taz.

But you certainly cannot prevent me, a Christian who also reads the Bible and has the Holy Spirit to guide me, from saying it means something totally different and contrary to what you believe it means.

That is, if you want to protect your paradigm that you don’t need any magisterium to tell you what the Bible means.

Except now you’re acting as a magisterium to me.

How is it that you get to tell people what the Bible means, but bristle when the Church, which actually gave you this Bible, tells you what the Bible means?

 

[PRmerger]

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

He also wasn’t including Proverbs, according to your paradigm. Since he didn’t mention them.

Do you exclude Proverbs from your Bible?

Incidentally, the deuterocanon fits quite nicely within the 3-fold division.

 

[PRmerger]

And Augustine lived in the fourth & fifth centuries. So, his writings are no more God-breathed that yours & mine are. He’s merely stating that he only believes the Gospel because the Catholic church “influenced” him. So Augustine’s “beliefs,” & reasons for them, have no bearing on the Protestant faith which is based on the Authority of God-breathed Scripture. So, what’s your point in bringing it up?

The point is his paradigm is exactly like yours: you wouldn’t believe the gospels were it not for the Catholic Church, which provided them for you.

The Bible is a Catholic book written by Catholics, for Catholics, and preserved for you and me by the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I do. But some things are an obvious fraud without having to “investigate” everything word-for-word, like the false “gospel” of the lots of Mary which I listed in the previous post.

How is it “obvious” that the text was written 1500 years ago?

Or are you simply accepting, without further investigation, what you read about it being written 1500 years ago?