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

[PRmerger]

Please list out the criteria for how one determines whether a writing is inspired or not. And please list the support for how these criteria are determined and we can know they are infallible for determining a writing is inspired or not.

And I would add, when you say, as a criterion: “A document has to have no errors for it to be inspired”…

please explain how you know what is correct and what is erroneous.

Because isn’t your position that you get your data from the Bible (and the Bible ONLY)?

So if there’s something that’s in this document that’s never been written before ("Yet we are courageous, and we would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord")), how do you know if it’s in error?

Also, how do you know that Gnosticism is in error?
Because it’s not in the Bible?

Well, what if the Gnostic texts belong in the Bible? How do you know they don’t?

Because…

it’s not in the Bible?

#circular

 

[clem456]

This is the part you’re not getting. The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text.

#hypocrisymuch?
#cripplinglackofselfawareness

 

[PRmerger]

Also, how do you know that Gnosticism is in error?
Because it’s not in the Bible?

Well, what if the Gnostic texts belong in the Bible? How do you know they don’t?

Because…

it’s not in the Bible?

#circular

I am going to make a prediction here: an answer is forthcoming which will state something to the effect of “How in the world can you say that Gnosticism is part of God’s revelation? If that’s what you want to believe, go for it, but no real Christian considers the Gnostic texts inspired!”

Of course, we can see how the issue isn’t addressed, at all, in the above comment.

The issue remains: how do you know that the Gnostic gospels are not inspired?

Because it’s not in the Bible?

How do you know that?

Because they have errors?

How do you know that?

What’s the ORIGINAL message to which we compare all the other texts for errors?

 

[clem456]

What’s the ORIGINAL message to which we compare all the other texts for errors?

The original message is Christ’s love for humanity, coming into flesh to be one with us, giving us a share of himself. To disregard this prayer from scripture would be an error.

The High Priestly Prayer

  1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3“This is eternal life, that they may **know You**, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4“I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
  6“I have manifested Your name **to the men **whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. **(before the New Testament was written in a book)**7“Now **they have come to know **that everything You have given Me is from You; 8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9“I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11“I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

The Disciples in the World

  13“But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent **them** into the world. 19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

  20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Their Future Glory

  22“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, **that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me**, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24“Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

  25“O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

 

[PRmerger]

The original message is Christ’s love for humanity, coming into flesh to be one with us, giving us a share of himself. To disregard this prayer from scripture would be an error.

Indeed.

And this message was given…

to the CHURCH.

It is the kerygma, which was the Word of God proclaimed ORALLY through SACRED TRADITION.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book.
But he did leave us a Church.
Men who, under the assistance of the HS, were guided into creating a book.

Thus, each and every time taz quotes from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired words of God, he is giving his tacit submission to the authority of these MEN, (*Catholic *men, Catholic bishops to be specific) to decalre for him what is theopneustos.

And, he believes the Church was able to do this infallibly…at least as far as the canon of the NT is concerned.

Which means he does believe that men can be infallible.

 

[Cathoholic]

I was re-reading the thread and I saw I posted (here):

Quote from thetazlord:

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion”

My reply was:

I give thanks thetazlord, that at least now it seems you are not continuing using “His Word” to be equivalent to Sacred Scripture ONLY. And that is a step towards Truth.

Readers might not understand why I said this, so I wanted to clarify.

Thetazlord COULD have said: “‘His Word’ means the Bible ONLY”.

But thetazlord (fortunately) did NOT say that. (He implied it earlier but not here in this post)

This leaves the door open for thetazlord to at least recognize “the Word” does not mean “the Bible Alone”. (It implicitly at least recognizes Jesus as “the Word” made flesh).

In fairness, thetazlord always has asserted Jesus’ Divine nature implicitly here.

But in practicality, thetazlord earlier was using “the Word” in the context of “Scripture ALONE”. This paradigm contradicts himself when using “the Word” to try to exclusively mean “Scripture ALONE”.

Now thetazlord has switched to merely denying Oral Tradition (at least in its fullest sense).

And thus I am going to take this as a step in the right direction.

Now when thetazlord asserts the existence of an authoritative Oral Tradition that is held equal to Scripture that will be even better.

VATICAN II (DEI VERBUM 9a, c) Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. . . . Therefore **both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence **[6].

 

[thetazlord]

Now using the standard you set here, explain what these verses mean, and using ONLY the standard you set above.

Luke 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

1 Cor 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

First, you don’t quote-mine individual verses, by isolating them out of the context of the surrounding passages, & ignoring the rest of the message of Scripture. Plus, you have to remember that like in English, the original Greek that the NT was written in, words like “bread,” “body,” “eating,” etc have numerous meanings that have to be taken into consideration. Plus, these passages don’t say anything about the “substance” of the bread “transforming” into the actual body of Jesus. Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do. Also, Jesus hadn’t died yet, so the “bread” couldn’t have been His actual “body,” because then Jesus would to “eating” Himself, plus His body hadn’t been broken yet, nor His blood spilled yet. Lastly, the intent of the Last Supper was uttered by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 - “give thanks” & “do this in remembrance of me.” Our Lord gave us His Church two ordinances - baptism, which symbolizes our spiritual death when we repent & believe in Jesus as our Savior AND Lord, & communion, when we* remember* when Jesus died & shed His blood for us on the cross, which is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

 

[thetazlord]

Thus, each and every time taz quotes from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired words of God, he is giving his tacit submission to the authority of these MEN, (*Catholic *men, Catholic bishops to be specific) to decalre for him what is theopneustos.

No, I’m giving submission to the Holy Spirit who USED these men, but not the actual men themselves - a point I keep repeating to you over & over & over, which you still are not getting.

 

[thetazlord]

Circular reasoning starts with a premise and ends with premise.

So, here’s an example of circular reasoning: I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because it’s in the Bible. And I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because it talks about miraculous events, such as Jesus rising from the dead.

See?

The problem is that is not my premise. Jesus was a REAL historical Person Who REALLY died on a cross, confirmed - not just by the Bible, but ALSO extra-biblical non-inspired historical records - Christian, as well as non-christian. He also REALLY rose from the dead - again, confirmed by Biblical AND non-biblical records. But I don’t trust Jesus rose from the dead simply because these extra-biblical records agree with Scripture, but because unlike them, the 39 book canon of the OT & the 27 book canon of the NT contains NO ERRORS NOR CONTRADICTIONS, as well as being written by the apostles of God, or the disciples of Jesus or their contemporaries, as well as the other godly criteria previous mentioned - NUMEROUS times to you. Plus, the eyewitness accounts of Jesus are confirmed by them dying martyrs deaths without recanting, like James the brother of John (Acts 12:2) - something they wouldn’t have done if it wasn’t true, because they would have KNOWN it was a lie. So, I’m afraid you are making another false assumption about “why” I believe what I believe - something that I think YOU are basing YOUR belief on, & transferring that on me.

 

[thetazlord]

Ok. Then please tell me how you know whether something is Inspired or not?

Remember, you don’t have the Bible to compare whether something is “correct” or not.

So let’s say you’re evaluating the Gospel of Mark. How do you know that the things in it are “correct”–where did you get the correct info from initially?

I think the best way for us to digest this is for you to answer the above in bold first.

Please don’t be vague with some abstract answer like: it came from God.

How is it, exactly, that God gave you the “correct” data, by which you can compare all of the over 400 ancient manuscripts?

This has been explained to you - NUMEROUS times. If you haven’t been able to understand it by now, repeating myself isn’t going to help you comprehend.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m giving submission to the Holy Spirit who USED these men, but not the actual men themselves - a point I keep repeating to you over & over & over, which you still are not getting.

Well, that’s nothing more than the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do.

So is a symbolic violation of the command ok? We can drink blood symbolically because that’s actually not contravening the OT precepts of God?

Where does the Bible say that we are permitted to break the commands of God, as long as it’s just a symbolic violation?

Also, Jesus hadn’t died yet, so the “bread” couldn’t have been His actual “body,” because then Jesus would to “eating” Himself, plus His body hadn’t been broken yet, nor His blood spilled yet.

What, exactly, is the problem with Jesus “eating” himself? Is he not God? He can create the world ex nihilo, but you’re saying that God is limited in this manner?

Muslims would have a field day with this, taz! “Some alleged Christians who profess that Christ is divine don’t want to call his mother the ‘Mother of God’, and they also don’t want to believe that he can hold himself in his hands!”

Lastly, the intent of the Last Supper was uttered by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 - “give thanks” & “do this in remembrance of me.” Our Lord gave us His Church two ordinances - baptism, which symbolizes our spiritual death when we repent & believe in Jesus as our Savior AND Lord, & communion, when we* remember* when Jesus died & shed His blood for us on the cross, which is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that is not my premise. Jesus was a REAL historical Person Who REALLY died on a cross, confirmed - not just by the Bible, but ALSO extra-biblical non-inspired historical records - Christian, as well as non-christian. He also REALLY rose from the dead - again, confirmed by Biblical AND non-biblical records. But I don’t trust Jesus rose from the dead simply because these extra-biblical records agree with Scripture, but because unlike them, the 39 book canon of the OT & the 27 book canon of the NT contains NO ERRORS NOR CONTRADICTIONS, as well as being written by the apostles of God, or the disciples of Jesus or their contemporaries, as well as the other godly criteria previous mentioned - NUMEROUS times to you.

Again, how do you know what’s an ERROR and what’s NOT, unless you already received the blueprint?

Let’s say you’re given a page that lists “The capitals of the world”. You want to know if it has any errors in it.

You have to already have a book that has all the capitals of the world listed.

See, taz?

That’s what we keep asking you.

Where did you receive this Book, to see if the gospels/manuscripts/documents/epistles “contain any errors”?

 

[PRmerger]

This has been explained to you - NUMEROUS times. If you haven’t been able to understand it by now, repeating myself isn’t going to help you comprehend.

Yeah. You do keep repeating yourself about the manuscripts not contradicting themselves and not being erroneous.

But you haven’t answered–NOT EVEN ONCE–where you get the original message from, in order to compare the manuscripts.

Think about that, and then come back with an answer to the above.

If you can.

#seedplantedforsure

 

[benhur]

No. I think you have only a partially true view of the Pharisees and their teaching. The Pharisees had some teachings quite right (under certain circumstances).

Hi Holic,
Yes, the Pharisees had some right teachings. I hope one would when expounding on Scripture. They also had some wrong teachings, doctrine. Jesus called this their “leaven”. They were also hypocrites, as you state and explain quite well.

So I would be careful about dismissing out of hand the Pharisees teaching. Some things you CAN dismiss to be sure, but some things the people were bound to.

Agreed. Who determined what to “dismiss” and what to be" bound to" ?

But again, under certain circumstances, the Pharisees DID teach correctly. That’s WHY Jesus can ALSO say . . .

Agreed. Good teaching, from the “Law” should be obeyed for its own sake (God), above from whom expounds or voices God’s Word.

 

[benhur]

INDENT]**
MATTHEW 23:1-3** 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. [/INDENT]

This passage implicitly shows at least two Oral Traditions that are authoritative here.

One Authoritative Oral Tradition Implied

In some sense and some circumstances the Pharisees teach so that the people at least for now, MUST do what the Pharisees tell them! What circumstances are these?

We don’t know from Scripture ALONE do we?

But there ARE circumstances when Jesus said the people were bound to obey the Pharisees.

A Second Authoritative Oral Tradition Implied

Why?

WHY are even Jesus own “disciples” bound to do “whatever” the Pharisees tell them (under these undefined circumstances)?

Fortunately Jesus tells us. Because the Pharisees sit on the “Cathedra” or “seat” of Moses.

The Cathedra of Moses in this authoritative usage, is something else that is not in the Old Testament explicitly. Yet Jesus matter-of-factly asserts it without any need to explain it.

All the people knew what Jesus was talking about in both of these circumstances. That’s why Jesus would have no need to define them.

Yet neither of these aspects are in the Old Testament. They are not to be explicitly found from Scripture ALONE. Yet Jesus binds the people to this.

Yes that is the Catholic proposition. Unfortunately you must know I disagree. My reasoning is that the Chair of Moses is in the OT Exodus 18:13. Moses gave the Law as received from God. This part ceased. Expounding, judging from that Law did not . Moses did give the authority for selected folk to help him “judge” but not to “make”. So we do know what circumstances to be bound by when spoken from the “law”.

This figurative chair, found in scripture, was followed in many synagogues , where the rabbi/pharisee would stand and read Scripture, then sit and expound/judge, from what was written. Not sure how you get "oral "out of that .

The only thing that might be considered “tradition” is the evolving of the Scribes and Pharisees to be the experts (and not the priests nor the high priest).

The other scriptural tradition is that apparently there was no other supreme authority to determine the rightness or wrongness of their (Pharisees) pronouncements. Jesus, if anything, would support not only scriptural authority from which all other is based on, but also personal accountability and discernment to be applied. He tells His disciples to “beware” .That is to discern, personally. We, as their disciples, are to do the same. I see it no other way.

 

[benhur]

Now, the CC teaching that Scripture is not the ONLY means of revelation is NOT circular because it comes from the mouths of the apostles.

Hi PR. If I may butt in, in reading stuff about Moses chair it became evident that one thing is giving the Law, as received from God, as Moses did both, and it is another to expound, judge from it. Moses gave authority, not to “make” Law but only to declare (read out) and or expound on it. In Jesus day, interpretive power was not institutionalized or centralized. The Pharisees were a "sect/school’'but were unofficially acknowledged as the “experts”, above rabbis, priests, or high priest etc.

I think the apostles and their disciples received and gave the New Law, and we are to read/declare once written and expound on it, with no “new laws”. I am not sure the bishiops were to “interpret” but declare and hold fast what was given them (first oral of course , then written).

 

[PRmerger]

I think the apostles and their disciples received and gave the New Law, and we are to read/declare once written and expound on it, with no “new laws”. I am not sure the bishiops were to “interpret” but declare and hold fast what was given them (first oral of course , then written).

Very Catholic, this, ben!

 

[stewstew03]

No, I’m giving submission to the Holy Spirit who USED these men, but not the actual men themselves - a point I keep repeating to you over & over & over, which you still are not getting.

Oh. So kinda like when Catholics go to confession and receive absolution. It’s not the men who forgive sins, but Jesus Christ himself (who conveyed this authority to his Apostles, and the Church).

 

[zz912]

Yes that is the Catholic proposition. Unfortunately you must know I disagree. My reasoning is that the Chair of Moses is in the OT Exodus 18:13. Moses gave the Law as received from God. This part ceased. Expounding, judging from that Law did not . Moses did give the authority for selected folk to help him “judge” but not to “make”. So we do know what circumstances to be bound by when spoken from the “law”.

The judges and their rule was ended with the enactment of the kingdom and the consecration of Saul.