P
PRmerger
Guest
I am quite serious.
Jesus, as you know, wrote not a single word.
So it’s curious to see you say that He did.
Not true at all.
What He did do was leave…not a book. Not any holy writ.
He left…
a Church.
- Status
Jesus, as you know, wrote not a single word.
So it’s curious to see you say that He did.
Not true at all.
What He did do was leave…not a book. Not any holy writ.
He left…
a Church.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, it came from those “called out”. It does not say truth rested upon Peter’s chair, or this bishop or that, or this council or that one, though all of these are considered, with some variances, as part of the ecclesia.
For by the foolishness of preaching God chose men should be saved.
Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God and that by a preacher, as one who is part of the called out ones, who in turn “called me out”…
When I was young I drank milk (predigested food from others) but was made to grow in Him and eat meat, and digest for myself.
“He teaches us” (God), as per Augustine.
It is not that simple as you suggest that I accept someone elses word or just needs a backdrop maybe.
Everything above was in place way before I believed (Writ, Church, Preacher Tradition, Community, Body etc) . I was all around it ,even in it, yet I did not believe, even came to reject Truth. They do not revive anyone in themselves.
This fight against “individualism”, or caricature of “alone” distorts this one on One we have to have with the Creator, that revives the inner man. This is the efffectual, authoritative calling, which places us with others (ecclesia/church). This is the ultimate, God and God in us, where we now come to love Writ and preacher and church and tradition and brethren . It is not , “Oh, I am Catholic, or I am Baptist, or I got saved by Billy Graham, or by Fulton Sheen”.
So the church is a body of God’s personally, individually called out folk.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
And you believe that these men who were “called out” were prevented from erroneously including some texts and erroneously including some texts, yes?
C
clem456
Guest
Serious question?
I’ll bite.
In Scripture, which was written decades after Christ’s earthly mission came to an end, we hear the oral story of a Person who started a community. This story was recorded into scripture by that community. Right? The persons that Christ -the person- breathed the Holy Spirit into… then proclaimed the Sciptures.
A community is persons. Please someone correct me if am in error that a community is composed of persons. Christ is the foundation of this community. Christ is a person. Second Divine Person of the Trinity breathed into flesh. Scripture is God-breathed because the community that Christ breathed the Spirit into authoritatively proclaims it. Without the authority of the community you have absolutely nothing else God-breathed.
Christ, who was born of a woman into human flesh, is the Word Incarnate (made flesh). Christ is a person.
And yes, it does go around in circles, because we know this due to the written word, which was informed by Tradition, which proclaimed the person of Christ as the Word of God.
To say that only Scripture is God-breathed is just silly.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, I first received it (faith) as milk (belief that there were evidences), then as meat ( actually discerning those evidences, much in the same fashion of first church).
C
clem456
Guest
So you believe there is, or was, a charism of authority, but you don’t believe it exists in any real and substantial and exercisable way. The Church is called out folk, but it’s just called out folk. If it was called out folk united to Christ, then we would have legitimate authority. Christ does not seem to be part of your equation.
Seems to me we at least agree it did exist, but you don’t believe it exists now in any real and substantial way.
It was lost along the way. Right? The called out folk are almost a metaphorical body
with no visible sign (sacramental presence).
Which leads us to the durability of Christ and his promises which are “eh, maybe, we’ll see what happens”. We blew it and Christ withdrew the charism of authority from his Ecclesia.
B
benhur
Guest
Not sure of specific meaning of God breathed and because I have heard that there is a difference from an inspired writing, and a God-breathed writing.
You have some good universal stuff here. Would you agree that the community has authority because the individual has authority, not withsanding giftings, offices and levels of maturity ? (Authority to proclaim the how and why of his encounter with the Creator of the universe, his one on One “calling out” that placed him in the “community”)
C
clem456
Guest
I have never heard of that distinction. Never really heard of God-breathed until just a short time ago. It seems they mean the same thing.
God breathed:
Inspira, breath, The Holy Spirit, the creative breath of God.
"He (the person) breathed on them and said: “receive the Holy Spirit”.
If God-breathed in regard to scripture is meant as God using a human being as an automaton, and “forcing them” to directly write Scripture…obvious problems with human free will there.
C
clem456
Guest
You mean “the individual” in the generic way? As in each individual is priest, prophet, and king?
Yes we all have gifts in common, but we are unique. God gifts individuals not in an individualistic way, but uniquely, in ways that mutually build up the community.
Consider Mary the Mother of God, who shares humanity with Christ and all of us, but who was profoundly gifted in a unique way and “uses” that gift not in an individualist way, but to point the whole community to Christ.
Lebron James can jump like 13 feet in the air. Pilots don’t need glasses. Some people are effortlessly eloquent. We all share certain gifts (life) but we are uniquely gifted by God.
I don’t have the gift of authority in the Church. I have a type of authority over the RCIA candidates, but not like Peter.
Christ, as the unique God/man, gifts all humanity by becoming one of us. His person ensures that his gifts are durable. They are as durable as his living person, which for me as a Christian, is the very definition of durable.
So yes, there are living human beings who serve Christ, who proclaim Christ, and I owe my assent of faith, as expressed by them. (or by Christ, through them)
B
benhur
Guest
Of course not the latter. Not sure myself. How about this , one may indeed be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this or that, Pilgrim’s Progress or the Didache, or even a post here and there on CAF. Is there a difference between that inspiration and that of say Luke writing Luke or Acts ?
I am all for giving credit as much as possible for anything good anywhere in and about the Church or us as God-breathed graciousness.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent!!! :extrahappy:
So then you do believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.
At least as it applies to the canon, yes?
I would like you to remember this each and every time you quote from the NT–you are giving your submission to some men, some men who discerned for you and me,* infallibly*, that this quote is actually theopneustos.
See what happens when you hang around Catholics, here on the CAFs?
A
Abu
Guest
A cataclysmic difference, for the Christ proved that he is God by His many miracles and His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. His Church is founded on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar with the Apostles.
The Sacred Scriptures themselves lucidly teach:
Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42).
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).
“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).
In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”
1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).
“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).
It is too easy to be fooled as the Sacred Scriptures attest above, so only Christ’s Catholic Church, founded by Him, has that fullness of truth which we all need.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Do we also need to throw out Genesis as the description of heavebs (a bowl-like covering) has been proven to be not true?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s a good point, sally.
I suspect that a response is forthcoming that will limn the fact that people already PRESUPPOSE that Genesis is inspired, so whatever it says, we accept.
But that leads to the question: how does one know that Genesis is inspired? Who told him it was? The New Testament? Well, that PRESUPPOSES that the NT is inspired.
There is NO OTHER ANSWER to the question as to how one knows what’s inspired and what’s not…
except that he is giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Wait…this could be the same thing that I can say about you TL.
Okay…I’m good with that…the case is closed then.
And I don’t believe there is any contradictory theology, but that’s irrelevant to this topic.
I just think that you cannot admit that there is sufficient historical evidence that the early church accepted them.
It’s also irrelevant to the issue as to whether the Bible anywhere lays claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice.
I’m still waiting for you to show me specifically how each of the verses that you cited prove that. If it’s true then you should be able to do so…
T
thetazlord
Guest
T
thetazlord
Guest
[CONTINUED…PART 2]
Again, these things applied to ISRAEL, not the Church. The NT explicitly instructs the Church commands that our Lord expects us to follow, including commands that carried over from the OT, such as “you shall not murder,” which is why Scriptural Authority (sola scriptura) is so important, rather than the extra-scriptural “traditions” of men (Matthew 15:9).
Thanks again for the post. If you go back several verses, this pertains to preventing disruption in the church. If a woman questions something, rather than disrupt the pastor’s sermon, to wait silently & ask their husband later. Of course, you can bring it up to your priest - just not yelling it out during the service & disrupting it.
Grace to you.
T
thetazlord
Guest
This has been explained to you - several times. By “fanciful,” if you’re referring to miracles in Acts, that is believable, because they were proven by eyewitness accounts! Plus, Paul himself, who saw the risen Christ & performed miracles to prove it, affirmed Luke’s writings as being Inspired. The same isn’t true of 1 Clement believing that the Phoenix was a real historical person. Unlike Scripture writers & Jesus who affirmed claims of other Inspired writers, there are ZERO Inspired writings legitimizing 1 Clement’s “beliefs” of a phoenix being a real live animal - ever. Nor is there any secular evidence for it being true - ever. I see you are still using strawman arguments, & not getting what makes something Inspired or not.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
thetazlord. You said (here)
QUOTE:
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.
How do you know THAT criteria thetazlord? What verse (or set of verses) is that from?
And assuming you could crank out a verse saying these criteria, HOW do you know (FROM THE BIBLE) that Matthew was written by Matthew (a “disciple of Christ or a contemporary of them”) instead of merely CLAIMING this (OUTSIDE of Scripture)?
Sooner or later you will have to quit pretending, and affirm you are dependent authoritatively, upon a person IN ADDITION to Bible writings.
And once you admit that, the discussion will change to WHICH people and WHY. And you know that is where the discussion is headed and this will dismantle the sola Scriptura definitionS that are put forth by various followers of the different flavors of this tradition of men.
But you can’t get that far in the discussion yet thetazlord because you are blinded by following after the tradition of sola Scriptura.
You also said (concerning my math example here):
QUOTE:
Plus, your theoretical scroll makes no declaration of anything that has to do with the God of Scripture.
OK. What if we found the same scroll only it also had “God is love” in addition to the math? And if you want, you can add “this was written by Paul of Tarsus” to this text.
This is why I said, you are evading the principle of the question. (I think you HAVE TO)
You also said (concerning Scripture authorship, authority to decide what is and isn’t in Scripture, and closure of Divine revelation):
QUOTE:
I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” In fact, it’s the same argument that the Catholic church gives,
OK. So you are either . . . .
. . . .following after the Church (kudos to you if you are thetazlord but it is only PART of the reason), or . . .
or following after someone else (who is it), (this would then be their personal interpretation). or . . .
or you have a VERSE (or set of verses) at the ready. . . or
or you are inventing this in your mind (back to your personal interpretation).
I’ll assume you have a verse (since you are sola Scriptura follower and this principle is extended to other Scripture texts) so please go ahead and cite it (them).
Which one is it?
You also said concerning the closing of Divine revelation:
QUOTE:
“I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” In fact, it’s the same argument that the Catholic church gives,”
But is that WHY you affirm it thetazlord (because the Church does)?
If not WHY do you affirm it (that Divine Revelation is closed)?
I am asking you for your principles and you keep evading addressing these principles that I am asking about (and you HAVE TO because the Bible does not teach what you are saying Taz).
You said regarding St. Paul’s initial letter to the Corinthians (PRE first letter that he himself discusses):
QUOTE:
You mean like all the archaeologists & “scholars” that find “lost gospels,” who “claim” to have been written in the first century,
No. I mean like the principle of St. Paul’s initial letter to the Corinthians that St. Paul himself alludes to in 1st Corinthians (and you are again evading the principle of the question—this time with a straw man).
I asked about the Canon as it related to St. Paul’s initial letter (that he himself discusses), and you reply . . . .
QUOTE:
The same Authority I’ve been telling you for over 200 posts - the Authority of God’s Word.
If by your reply (“the Authority of God’s Word”) thetazlord, you mean Scripture, and ONLY Scripture, prove it.
Now is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.
**Now you can show me WHAT VERSE (or set of verses) gives us the Canon of Sacred Scripture and defines “the Word of God” to mean ONLY Scripture. **
You have been “telling me” for over 200 posts, now quote the verse (verses) to me.
QUOTE:
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.
This is non-sense thetazlord. I want to know WHY “that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia”.
I am asking you to answer WITH SCRIPTURE (NOT MORE OF YOUR OPINION) . . . . WHY this is the case.
Incidentally. My “arguments” for what is and isn’t in the Canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church (non-Christians DON’T appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church).
You are going to say your authority rests on Scripture and ultimately Scripture ALONE—and I am still asking for one verse (or set of verses and WHOSE “interpretation”).
You said:
So your “E” is another circular argument thetazlord. I am not buying it.
What you really mean by “the Word of God” thetazlord, is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Sacred Scripture.
QUOTE:
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.
How do you know THAT criteria thetazlord? What verse (or set of verses) is that from?
And assuming you could crank out a verse saying these criteria, HOW do you know (FROM THE BIBLE) that Matthew was written by Matthew (a “disciple of Christ or a contemporary of them”) instead of merely CLAIMING this (OUTSIDE of Scripture)?
Sooner or later you will have to quit pretending, and affirm you are dependent authoritatively, upon a person IN ADDITION to Bible writings.
And once you admit that, the discussion will change to WHICH people and WHY. And you know that is where the discussion is headed and this will dismantle the sola Scriptura definitionS that are put forth by various followers of the different flavors of this tradition of men.
But you can’t get that far in the discussion yet thetazlord because you are blinded by following after the tradition of sola Scriptura.
You also said (concerning my math example here):
QUOTE:
Plus, your theoretical scroll makes no declaration of anything that has to do with the God of Scripture.
OK. What if we found the same scroll only it also had “God is love” in addition to the math? And if you want, you can add “this was written by Paul of Tarsus” to this text.
This is why I said, you are evading the principle of the question. (I think you HAVE TO)
You also said (concerning Scripture authorship, authority to decide what is and isn’t in Scripture, and closure of Divine revelation):
QUOTE:
I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” In fact, it’s the same argument that the Catholic church gives,
OK. So you are either . . . .
. . . .following after the Church (kudos to you if you are thetazlord but it is only PART of the reason), or . . .
or following after someone else (who is it), (this would then be their personal interpretation). or . . .
or you have a VERSE (or set of verses) at the ready. . . or
or you are inventing this in your mind (back to your personal interpretation).
I’ll assume you have a verse (since you are sola Scriptura follower and this principle is extended to other Scripture texts) so please go ahead and cite it (them).
Which one is it?
You also said concerning the closing of Divine revelation:
QUOTE:
“I said no such thing that is was “my personal interpretation.” In fact, it’s the same argument that the Catholic church gives,”
But is that WHY you affirm it thetazlord (because the Church does)?
If not WHY do you affirm it (that Divine Revelation is closed)?
I am asking you for your principles and you keep evading addressing these principles that I am asking about (and you HAVE TO because the Bible does not teach what you are saying Taz).
You said regarding St. Paul’s initial letter to the Corinthians (PRE first letter that he himself discusses):
QUOTE:
You mean like all the archaeologists & “scholars” that find “lost gospels,” who “claim” to have been written in the first century,
No. I mean like the principle of St. Paul’s initial letter to the Corinthians that St. Paul himself alludes to in 1st Corinthians (and you are again evading the principle of the question—this time with a straw man).
I asked about the Canon as it related to St. Paul’s initial letter (that he himself discusses), and you reply . . . .
QUOTE:
The same Authority I’ve been telling you for over 200 posts - the Authority of God’s Word.
If by your reply (“the Authority of God’s Word”) thetazlord, you mean Scripture, and ONLY Scripture, prove it.
Now is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.
**Now you can show me WHAT VERSE (or set of verses) gives us the Canon of Sacred Scripture and defines “the Word of God” to mean ONLY Scripture. **
You have been “telling me” for over 200 posts, now quote the verse (verses) to me.
QUOTE:
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.
This is non-sense thetazlord. I want to know WHY “that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia”.
I am asking you to answer WITH SCRIPTURE (NOT MORE OF YOUR OPINION) . . . . WHY this is the case.
Incidentally. My “arguments” for what is and isn’t in the Canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church (non-Christians DON’T appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church).
You are going to say your authority rests on Scripture and ultimately Scripture ALONE—and I am still asking for one verse (or set of verses and WHOSE “interpretation”).
You said:
And I asked you earlier to define “the Word of God” and you gave me a link with verses that began talking about ORAL transmission of the “Word of God” and ignored what I said about Jesus being the “Word of God”.
So your “E” is another circular argument thetazlord. I am not buying it.
What you really mean by “the Word of God” thetazlord, is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Sacred Scripture.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Once again, you are confusing the godly criteria that establish what is, and what is not, Inspired Scripture, with sola scriptura that doesn’t have anything to do with establishing the canon of Scripture. Catholics here really have a hard time discerning between the two on this thread. The latter has nothing to do with the former. It’s a strawman.
Again, Matthew’s authorship of his Gospel has nothing to do with sola scriptura that deals with traditions that affect Christian doctrine.
Sooner or later (hopefully) you’ll begin to understand the difference between sola scriptura & the godly criteria that establishes Inspired Scripture, and the two don’t have anything do with each other, and that your arguments are strawman.
The Scriptural tradition that is solidly supported & taught in the Word of God.
Again, what if you found a scroll that said “Jesus is a Muslim” and if you want, you can add “this was written by Paul of Tarsus.” Would you then believe that Jesus was a Muslim, since this was written by Paul of Tarsus? The short answer to your question is, if God had intended anything more to be included in the canon of Inspired NT Scripture, He would have made sure to include it, not have it “lost” to be “theoretically” found nearly 2 millennia later. Don’t you think God has this ablility? And before you say, “then why did the Protestants remove those 7 books from the Bible?” Because ALL of them have historical and/or theological errors & contradictions between previous & later Inspired Scripture.
I already have. Please refer back to that post. In fact, I believe you’ve read it already.
No, I’m merely mentioned it that since the Catholic church also affirms to same NT canon, the whole argument of the NT canon is a moot point. I think I’ve demonstrated - numerous times - that that is NOT the reason I believe in the 27 book canon as being Inspired. For you to make that comment demonstrates you are either not reading what I’m writing, forgetting what I wrote, or making desperate attempts to falsify what I actually said out of context.
This too has been explained already. The rest of your questions have been answered too. Do some research & refer back to my previous posts. I’m getting a little tired of repeating myself over & over, just for people to keep asking me the same questions.
It’s not strawman, because if this third epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was God-breathed & meant to be included in Scripture, God has the power to make sure it wouldn’t have been “lost.”
Again, I have for over 200 posts. I can’t help if you are having difficulty understanding the verses I provided for you that do indeed support sola scriptura. The problem is that based on your responses, I don’t think you have a good grasp of what it actually is, despite numerous attempts to explain it in the simplest manner.
Again, you’re confusing the godly criteria for establishing Scripture, with sola scriptura. If you haven’t understood this by now, I’m afraid you won’t.
[CONTINUED…]
- Status