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

[PRmerger]

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.

How is it that you have discerned Hebrews to be theopneustos, then?

Also, could you please cite your Bible translation which states your version of 2 Corinthians 5:8?

(There are a lot of questions being thrown at you, and you are doing a fine job at responding, but you haven’t responded yet to that one. I suspect that you actually never read that in a single page of the Bible, but are simply accepting, on faith, what your pastor said it said. But, if you can show me where your Bible actually says, “it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord”, I will retract. )

All the Bible translations I read say that we “prefer” or are “willing” to be absent from the body.

At any rate, even if it does say that it’s “better to be absent” that doesn’t necessarily mean that when we are absent from the body we NECESSARILY are at home with the Lord. I could say, “It’s better to be absent from work and at home with my family” but that doesn’t mean that when I am absent from work I can’t be at the grocery store, right?

since as Paul states, "it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord.

 

[Abu]

benhur #319
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 ?

How could Luther or anyone else have any authority against Magisterial doctrine or dogma – created by Christ in and through His Supreme Authority in St Peter and the Twelve?

Such a supposition is precisely what has spawned all of the thousands of differing sects that have discarded so much of Christ’s teaching, the priesthood, and sacramental life.

 

[Church_Militant]

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?

It was to point out that Augustine, who is indeed an early church father and that was the point that Benhur asked about. he sought to use Augustine as support for his n-C position…I provided the statements of his in order to indicate that no one should mistake Augustine for thinking as you n-Cs so often do today.

Again…case in point.
“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

He also lived during the time when the canon of scripture was discerned and decided and in fact was influential in affirming to St. Jerome that he should include the Deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate translation…which is pertinent to the discussion at that point.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s an obvious forgery since the “alleged author” claims to be James the Just, who had been dead for around 150 years,

Whose word are you taking that its alleged author claims to be James the Just and that James had been dead for around 150 years?

Did you investigate this yourself, or are you simply accepting someone else’s word on this on faith?

How do you know he had been dead already? Whose word are you accepting on this on faith?

 

[thetazlord]

What of the fire breathing leviathan of Job 41?

Scripture isn’t clear exactly what Leviathan was. Just that it was very large, breathed fire, & lived in the sea. Some have surmised it to have been an extinct species of water dinosaur, like the plesiosaur that is now extinct. Whatever it was, it’s not important the actual term that’s used to describe it (like Trinity or Triune God, or dragon or dinosaur), but on the fact that Leviathan was at one time a real life animal that Job eyewitnessed himself, as well as other writers of Inspired Scripture (such as Psalm 104:26), who Jesus affirmed their writings as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45). Here are a couple of articles regarding Leviathan:

gotquestions.org/leviathan.html

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3882&t=NASB

 

[thetazlord]

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

I’ve had to wait to receive permission from a moderator to post a non-catholic Web site that’s not “anti-catholic,” nor attempts to proselytize Catholics, since that would be a violation of forum rules, which I’m desiring to obey. If you go to this link, there are Bible study notes in the upper right hand corner of the screen, which you can view for free, which lists the verses from the 7 Apocrypa books & contrasts them to previous & later Inspired Scripture which shows the errors & contradicts in them:

vernisage.us/SteveChristie/22/index.html

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.”

Actually, I have. Jesus affirmed a THREE-fold division of the OT Scriptures (“the Law…the Prophets…and the Psalms”)(Luke 24:44-45). The Catholic OT, subdivides their OT canon into a FOUR-fold division (“the Law, the Wisdom books, the Prophets, & the Historical books”). The “group of Jews” who closed the OT canon didn’t “reject” the 7 Apocrypha books, because they weren’t written yet. This is what Jesus, & later Protestants, recognized, which is why Jesus phrased the canon that way, instead of simply “the Law & the Prophets” like He does elsewhere in Scripture.

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?

In the first century, even during Jesus ministry, the Jews didn’t all agree on the Apocrypha, let alone the Prophets (like the Sadducees). That’s why we have to appeal to the words of Jesus, Who let’s us know that not only the writings of the Law, and not only the writings of the Prophets are Inspired Scripture, but also the “Writings” of “Psalms”, which was the first group of writings in the “Writings” - which is the THIRD division of the the OT canon that Jesus references (which includes Proverbs, Job, the Megillioth, etc) that are separate from “the Prophets.”

 

[thetazlord]

Whose word are you taking that its alleged author claims to be James the Just and that James had been dead for around 150 years?

Did you investigate this yourself, or are you simply accepting someone else’s word on this on faith?

How do you know he had been dead already? Whose word are you accepting on this on faith?

Do you know anything at all about Church history??? Do you bother to even READ pseudoepigraphical writings, or do you just trust what your church leaders tell you? Do yourself a favor, look up the the Pseudoepigraphical “gospel” of James on the Internet, which is available even on Catholic Web sites. You’ll find your answers there. And taking this on “faith” has nothing to do with sola scriptura, which deals with issues related to Inspired Scripture vs. extra-biblical “tradition,” not determining the Inspiration of Scripture. Once again, you are unnecessarily blending the two, & getting confused to what sola scriptura is about.

 

[thetazlord]

It was to point out that Augustine, who is indeed an early church father and that was the point that Benhur asked about. he sought to use Augustine as support for his n-C position…I provided the statements of his in order to indicate that no one should mistake Augustine for thinking as you n-Cs so often do today.

Again…case in point.
“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

He also lived during the time when the canon of scripture was discerned and decided and in fact was influential in affirming to St. Jerome that he should include the Deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate translation…which is pertinent to the discussion at that point.

But what Augustine personally “believed,” has no bearing on whether the 7 Apocrypha books are Inspired or not, even though he lived during the inclusion of them with the already recognized Inspired OT Hebrew Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16; Luke 24:44-45). You also have to admit that Augustine did have contradictory theology in certain areas, not only among his fellow ECF’s & Church historians - including Jerome - but also himself. That’s why although I completely respect him, as well as other ECF’s & early Christian writers, because their writings aren’t Inspired, we have take what these fallible men say with a grain of salt, & compare what they wrote & believed TO Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

How is it that you have discerned Hebrews to be theopneustos, then?

Also, could you please cite your Bible translation which states your version of 2 Corinthians 5:8?

(There are a lot of questions being thrown at you, and you are doing a fine job at responding, but you haven’t responded yet to that one. I suspect that you actually never read that in a single page of the Bible, but are simply accepting, on faith, what your pastor said it said. But, if you can show me where your Bible actually says, “it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord”, I will retract. )

All the Bible translations I read say that we “prefer” or are “willing” to be absent from the body.

At any rate, even if it does say that it’s “better to be absent” that doesn’t necessarily mean that when we are absent from the body we NECESSARILY are at home with the Lord. I could say, “It’s better to be absent from work and at home with my family” but that doesn’t mean that when I am absent from work I can’t be at the grocery store, right?

The Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 5:8 is “eudokeō” which can be translated “prefer”:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2106&t=NASB

So, it’s not based on a particular translation, but rather based on the Hebrew, not the translated English. And in context, Paul is telling his readers that when he had been “caught up” to the “third heaven,” he is affirming that when his spirit left his body (or his body went with him, since “he didn’t know”) that he was IMMEDIATELY “at home” in Heaven with the Lord. So, although for OT Israel when the righteous died & went to the temporary place of the dead (Sheol/Hades), for the Church there is no temporary place of the dead. They IMMEDIATELY go to Heaven in the presence of the Lord, just as Paul did. If there was some kind of “intermediary” spiritually “holding place” before Heaven when the righteous died, Scripture would have mentioned such a place, just as it did with the righteous Israelites. But it doesn’t.

 

[Tomoko]

Scripture isn’t clear exactly what Leviathan was. Just that it was very large, breathed fire, & lived in the sea. Some have surmised it to have been an extinct species of water dinosaur, like the plesiosaur that is now extinct. Whatever it was, it’s not important the actual term that’s used to describe it (like Trinity or Triune God, or dragon or dinosaur), but on the fact that Leviathan was at one time a real life animal that Job eyewitnessed himself, as well as other writers of Inspired Scripture (such as Psalm 104:26), who Jesus affirmed their writings as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45). Here are a couple of articles regarding Leviathan:

gotquestions.org/leviathan.html

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3882&t=NASB

I know, I read for myself what leviathan was.

My question was; under your criteria, you exclude a writing that refers a Phoenix as a “real” animal, yet you are happy to admit a book that includes a fire breathing sea monster as a real animal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for its existence. Don’t you see a contradiction there?

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord.

You were asked about adding “new Scripture”.

Being “without error” isn’t good enough for a letter to be considered “inspired”. You and I (I think) would agree on that.

If an archeologist found a scroll that had only written on it . . . .

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8

. . . . and that were ALL it had we wouldn’t fall all over ourselves saying:

“Why this is without error! It MUST be inspired! Why this is no less than Sacred Scripture!”

No. The document would be “without error” but you and I both know the document would not qualify for God-breathed Sacred Scripture.

**But you never really addressed the principle **adequately to draw a clear picture of what you think should occur if the debate came up for serious consideration (and certainly cited no Scripture verse as to how to sort out this EXTREMELY IMPORTANT issue out).

You went on about how your personal interpretation and details of this or that alleged “gospel” exclude it, but you seemed to evade the principle of the question.

What if an archeologist claimed to find the (what I will call) PRE-1st Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians?

You know that St. Paul wrote at least THREE letters to the Corinthians I am sure. Maybe more.

1st CORINTHIANS 5:9-11 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber–not even to eat with such a one.

So I would be interested in WHAT authority you would submit to; to assert that this theoretical brand new archeological find is or isn’t Sacred Scripture? (and how you can be sure)

A. I submit to my own authority—me. I’ll read it and if it proverbially burns in my bosom and is consistent with my interpretation of Scripture I will add it to the Canon.

B. If my Protestant pastor asserts it as “Scripture” I will submit to him (or her) as he (she) oversees my very soul.

C. I will refuse to accept it (and here is my verse why). Even if it WAS from St. Paul and even if the whole letter is in harmony with Scripture nobody now has authority to ADD to the Bible.

D. I would look to the authority of the Catholic Church and affirm CCC 73 even though this teaching is not based upon a Scripture passage.​

CCC 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

Which is it thetazlord. A, B, C, or D?

 

[Cathoholic]

I suppose I could add to my last post . . . .

CCC 66a “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit . . . .

 

[thetazlord]

I know, I read for myself what leviathan was.

My question was; under your criteria, you exclude a writing that refers a Phoenix as a “real” animal, yet you are happy to admit a book that includes a fire breathing sea monster as a real animal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for its existence. Don’t you see a contradiction there?

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

“…as well as other writers of Inspired Scripture (such as Psalm 104:26), who Jesus affirmed their writings as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45).”

I really wish people who read EVERYTHING I wrote, & not just quote-mining “sections” of what I write.

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord.

You were asked about adding “new Scripture”.

Being “without error” isn’t good enough for a letter to be considered “inspired”. You and I (I think) would agree on that.

If an archeologist found a scroll that had only written on it . . . .

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8

. . . . and that were ALL it had we wouldn’t fall all over ourselves saying:

“Why this is without error! It MUST be inspired! Why this is no less than Sacred Scripture!”

And if you bothered to ever read what I’ve written - numerous times - authorship by an prophet of God or disciple of Christ (or a contemporary of them, like Mark or Luke) is also a criteria for Inspired Scripture. Plus, your theoretical scroll makes no declaration of anything that has to do with the God of Scripture. It’s a really bad argument.

You went on about how your personal interpretation and details of this or that alleged “gospel” exclude it, but you seemed to evade the principle of the question.

I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” In fact, it’s the same argument that the Catholic church gives, yet doesn’t follow when it comes to the 7 Apocrypha books.

What if an archeologist claimed to find the (what I will call) PRE-1st Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians?

You mean like all the archaeologists & “scholars” that find “lost gospels,” who “claim” to have been written in the first century, but later is found out to have been written centuries later? Sorry, but you’re asking a theorectical question in the same way that a Muslim would ask you “what if an archaeologist found a PRE-1st Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians that said that Jesus was really a Muslim”? Would you then believe Jesus was really a Muslim?

You know that St. Paul wrote at least THREE letters to the Corinthians I am sure. Maybe more.

And the fact that it was never circulated in the early churches, & that God didn’t preserve it to be included in the NT canon (ie: it is “lost”) then the argument is moot. Just because something is written by a disciple doesn’t “automatically” make it God-breathed.

So I would be interested in WHAT authority you would submit to; to assert that this theoretical brand new archeological find is or isn’t Sacred Scripture? (and how you can be sure)

The same Authority I’ve been telling you for over 200 posts - the Authority of God’s Word. The NT has been completed for nearly 1,900 years. There is no reason to believe that God would would “add” to it.

A. I submit to my own authority—me. I’ll read it and if it proverbially burns in my bosom and is consistent with my interpretation of Scripture I will add it to the Canon.
​

B. If my Protestant pastor asserts it as “Scripture” I will submit to him (or her) as he (she) oversees my very soul.

C. I will refuse to accept it (and here is my verse why). Even if it WAS from St. Paul and even if the whole letter is in harmony with Scripture nobody now has authority to ADD to the Bible.

D. I would look to the authority of the Catholic Church and affirm CCC 73 even though this teaching is not based upon a Scripture passage.

Your arguments & choices are fallacious, because that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia, & you’re using the same bad argument that non-christians would use. That is why the Authority of the Word of God, not fallible men, is - and should - be the Christian’s ultimate Authority, which is why when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, he corrected them WITH SCRIPTURE.

CCC 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

So, why did God give us His God-breathed NT, if the Son was the “Father’s definitive Word; so **there will be no further Revelation after him”? The OT Inspired Scriptures foreshadowed Christ, & the NT Inspired revealed the fulfillment of them.

Which is it thetazlord. A, B, C, or D?

E: the Authority of the Word of God.**

 

[Tomoko]

“…as well as other writers of Inspired Scripture (such as Psalm 104:26), who Jesus affirmed their writings as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45).”

I really wish people who read EVERYTHING I wrote, & not just quote-mining “sections” of what I write.

I have, and I’m trying to understand it, which would be easier if you fully answered the difficult questions rather than keep accusing people of quote-mining you (1 Pet 3:15, maybe?).

1. Who decided that the canon of Scripture closed after the death of the last apostle?
2. Who decides on the ‘correct’ interpretation of ambiguous Hebrew and Greek words?
3. Who decides which textual variant is correct when ancient MSS differ?
4. What authority do you have to decide that the phoenix is a false belief, but seriously believe in fire-breathing sea monsters? (The Hebrew behind KHOL (sand) in Job 29:18 could also be rendered phoenix: I shall multiply my days like the phoenix). Would that make the phoenix a real bird?
5. Who set the criteria that you had to be an apostle etc. to contribute to the NT?
6. If the OT insists that nothing be added, should we disregard the NT?
7. If Jesus sets aside OT teaching (MK 7:19, Mt. 5:38-48), should we disregard the OT?
8. Should we still walk around in clothes made of unmixed fabrics? (Deut 22:11) Or plant only one type of seed in a field? (Lev 19:19) Who gets to decide which of the OT laws that Jesus didn’t explicitly mention and in, and which are out?
9. Would I be allowed to ask these questions to my priest, or should I wait to get home as it’s disgraceful for a woman to speak in church? (1 Cor 14:34f)

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Ah. So no HISTORICAL errors.

What you meant is that it has a *fanciful *story.

How would you then respond to a someone who says that Acts can’t be theopneustos because it also contains fanciful stories of people being healed by a shadow or a handkerchief?

Or the gospels which contain an “imaginary” story of a man walking on water.

Remember, you can’t know that it actually happened, since you’re evaluating whether these gospels are actually theopneustos or not.

The circular “I know it happened because it’s in the gospels” and “It’s in the gospels therefore it happened” doesn’t work because you’re still trying, in this context, to figure out whether the gospels/Acts actually belong in the Bible, right?

Remember, you’re saying you don’t just accept what the CC told you: the 4 gospels and Acts are inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

The Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 5:8 is “eudokeō” which can be translated “prefer”:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2106&t=NASB

Yep. That’s what I said.

Not what you said. You said that it’s “better”.

All the Bible translations I read say that we “prefer” or are “willing” to be absent from the body.

since as Paul states, "it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord.

Not a big deal. You just heard your pastor (or someone else presumably) say it, without actually looking it up

And in context, Paul is telling his readers that when he had been “caught up” to the “third heaven,” he is affirming that when his spirit left his body (or his body went with him, since “he didn’t know”) that he was IMMEDIATELY “at home” in Heaven with the Lord

That ADDING to Scripture, taz.

He simply says, as you (now) acknowledge, that he PREFERS to be with the Lord.

I PREFER to be at home when I am absent from my job, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that when I leave my job I will be IMMEDATELY at home.

I could be in purgatory (here: read “in line at the license bureau” )

If there was some kind of “intermediary” spiritually “holding place” before Heaven when the righteous died, Scripture would have mentioned such a place, just as it did with the righteous Israelites. But it doesn’t.

Is there a Bible verse that says Scripture mentions everything we’re supposed to believe?

No? You simply heard a (fallible) man say that and accepted it without seeing it in the Bible? Then…that’s a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, taz.

Incidentally, if God wanted us to know that there are 27 books in the NT, Scripture would have mentioned it. But it doesn’t.

Yet you believe it.

Curious.

If God wanted us to know that altar calls are necessary, wouldn’t He have put it in the Bible? Yet altar calls aren’t in the Bible.

If God wanted us to have Monday evening Bible studies, wouldn’t He have put it in the Bible? Yet Bible studies aren’t in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I know, I read for myself what leviathan was.

My question was; under your criteria, you exclude a writing that refers a Phoenix as a “real” animal, yet you are happy to admit a book that includes a fire breathing sea monster as a real animal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for its existence. Don’t you see a contradiction there?

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

That’s exactly right.

The bottom line is this: we have shown that all the criteria that have been listed for inclusion and exclusion to the canon are arbitrarily applied.

It’s acceptable to have scientific errors (a mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed in the kingdom), but also not acceptable to have “historical” errors ( still not sure what historical error taz was referencing).

It’s acceptable to have mythical creatures (a leviathan) but also not acceptable (phoenix).

It’s acceptable to have fanciful stories (people walking on water, rising from the dead, being cured from a passing shadow) but also not acceptable (the phoenix again).

It’s acceptable to have authorship be apostolic or a student of the apostles, but also acceptable when authorship is not known (Hebrews).

The conclusion we must draw from this is, despite protests to the contrarty: the ONLY way anyone knows that something is theopneustos is because…

he has given his tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

There is NO OTHER WAY to know that:

• Hebrews is inspired but Clement is not
• the Gospel of Mark is inspired but the Gospel of Barnabas is not
• Job is inspired but Clement is not
• 3 John is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

 

[PRmerger]

The same Authority I’ve been telling you for over 200 posts - the Authority of God’s Word. The NT has been completed for nearly 1,900 years. There is no reason to believe that God would would “add” to it.

Firstly, who declared that it was complete?

(Here, I mean the NT being complete. Not Jesus saying that his salvific mission was complete. The NT and Jesus’ salvific mission are not one and the same–remember, when Jesus said, “It is finished” there WAS NO NT).

Secondly, what Bible verse says that God would never “add” to the NT?

No Bible verse?

Well, then you get that idea from the Church…from Sacred Tradition.

Which means you are not a Bible Alone advocate. You believe this (plus a whole lot of other things, including the 27 book canon of the NT) because of Sacred Tradition.
[SIGN]
“There will be no further revelation” comes from the Catholic Church. Not the Bible.[/SIGN]

 

[clem456]

And the fact that it was never circulated in the early churches, & that God didn’t preserve it to be included in the NT canon (ie: it is “lost”) then the argument is moot. Just because something is written by a disciple doesn’t “automatically” make it God-breathed.

Which brings us back to the question that you avoid because it melts your assertions.

What makes it God-breathed? You say God-breathed is not automatic. So there is a process with criteria. What is it?
Specifically.
Not vaguely with wiggle room please…