N
NotWorthy
Guest
Soooooo, Timmy, you are saying the Christ left us with a less than ideal system for seeking the truth? Christ, Who is God, left us with a less than ideal system for seeking the truth?!?
- Status
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
Well, the Bible says it is!Yah, cyclic reasoning, I know.
However, we have Jesus agreeing that the OT is scripture. That is important. So, without anything else, He affirms that the OT is God’s word. Thus, we can start to see the correctness of the NT through comparison with the OT.
((OK, I have spent some time throwing words into a searcher, but cannot find the example I was after…the one where someone is telling people the Gospel, and their response was to check what he was saying with what the OT said…
will edit this if I find it later…))Who, today, has been given that authority? And how do we know that they have been given this authority?
I think you refer here to denominations, yes? If so, even RC has ‘denominations’, although they do not call them such. There are charismatic-Roman Catholics, liberal-Roman Catholics, maronite-Roman Catholics… We just acknowledge the differences a little more. After all, most of the differences are really not that great (that is, salvation-effecting).
You see, here is a good example of the problem. These verses say nothing about keeping God’s people (that is, his church) from speaking in err. Nothing.
What do you think are the essentials?
Personally, I think that:
- *](a) Jesus is the Christ;
*] He is part of the triune God;
*] the Bible is God’s word;
*] we all have sinned and gone against God; and
*] only through Jesus’ death and resurrection can we be made right with God.
are all pretty essential. I am sure there are a few more to add to that, but I also don’t think that Protestants disagree on these…
Hold up!
Luke 10:16 is talking about the apostles, in a very specific mission. Not about any succession.
2 Tim 2:2 says nothing about an apostolic succession, only about teachers teaching people who would also teach!
-hvg3
First of all, the OT never specifies what books constitute the NT. Moreover, there are many books not in the NT that are also supported by the OT.
Yah, cyclic reasoning, I know.
However, we have Jesus agreeing that the OT is scripture. That is important. So, without anything else, He affirms that the OT is God’s word. Thus, we can start to see the correctness of the NT through comparison with the OT.
And your source of Jesus agreeing that the OT is Scripture is still the NT, which means we must by default accept the NT to believe Jesus’ assertions regarding the OT. The same argument applies to your example using the Bereans. That story is in the Acts of the Apostles, whose inspiration we have not proven.
Still circular, only now, it’s two-way. We still need to show that the NT is inspired before anyone can even back up Jesus’ claims that the OT is Scripture.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I’m confused, where does the Bible say that it is inspired? You said that Jesus tells you to check the Scriptures. What Scriptures was Jesus talking about? Well, they included the Deuterocanonicals - what some faiths affectionately call the “Apochrypha”.
As I said, to even believe that Jesus regarded the OT as such, we look to the NT. Well, why should we? The NT has not been proven as inspired anyway.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Let me try to answer this question this way.
- If I was given a book (be it the Bible or something else) written about 2000 years ago, created in an culture totally different from ours, written in in an different language and consisting of various literary styles and I tried to read it with my 21. century glasses on and and while divorcing it from the ancient understanding, I have no idea what I would conclude. I don’t think the conclusion would be any good though.
- If the doctrene of Sola Sriptura is really relying on the the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then something is going terribly wrong. Either the Holy Spirit isn’t a good guide or the idea that we gain understanding of the truth by Holy Spirit is flawed. We have God knows how many protestant denominations that don’t disagree with each other on even such important issues such as the necessity of baptism.
Right, so how do we know what the Scripture is? The Bible doesn’t give us a list and if it says that it is inspired in one book then does it mean that whatever we consider as scripture will be inspired? No? So how do we know what Scripture is in the first place to be able to call it inspired in the second step? Furthermore, just because it claim that it’s inspired doesn’t make it so. But have you already acknowledged that this is circular reasoning.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But to put it even clearer. Jesus says check the Scriptures?
To the Sadducees, that means the Torah and ONLY the Torah. To the Pharisees, that means the Septuagint, which has more books than the Catholic Canon.
As you put it, nowhere does the NT say that it is inspired, at least as far as I know it. Revelation only talks about itself.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
And I think it is even more fallacious to think that, today, I can understand these same Scriptures more clearly than those that:
a) lived in the times and the culture of the writing of the books of the NT.
b) spoke the same language that the books were written in - no pesky mis-translations.
c) knew the writers of the authors, and tutored under them for numerous years.
d) Could ask those writers to clarifiy any questions I had regarding what they meant when they taught something.
I mean, don’t you think just once that Polycarp may have asked the Apostle John (in the more than 10 years he spent with him) ,“Hey John, what did Jesus really mean when he was giving the ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse”? Perhaps Ignatius may have asked Peter, “Did Jesus REALLY mean, 'This is my Body”???
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Sorry, this has nothing to do with denomination. They (Maronite, Byzantine, Greek, Latin etc. Catholics) are still the same Catholics and are not divided by disagreement relevant to faith. They are different rites which still have to follow the same and universal teaching of the Catholic Church. They believe in the same seven sacraments, Marian dogmas, the eucharist etc. The fact that Maronites use Arabic and Aramaic during their liturgy or that their churches use rather icons is a matter of culture and has no relevance to the divisions in Protestantism
The same goes to charismatic-Catholics, who simply prefer a different form of worship, which is however allowed by the Church.
As for liberal Catholics (it’s hard to tell what you mean for there could be many meanings - I’m gonna take a guess), they are simply those who disagree with the official teaching. It is no group but individuals. It has nothing to do with denominations.
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
Firstly, I must say I think you understand what a ‘summary’ is, if you think the four gospels are not summaries of Jesus’ teachings and ministry…summaries are not every little bit of information in the original. They are brief, they are concise. John 21:25 even says that there was much they could not write - but it is indeed a summary.
Secondly, you misunderstand what the “gospel”, or the “good news” is, if you think that the New Testament does not contain it fully.
Look at all the times that the term is used in the New Testament.
Do any of them sound as if they mean “the entire life and teachings, and every single word spoken by Jesus”?
Or are you talking about some other gospel? (Galatians 1:6-9)
So, what is the gospel then? Galatians 3:8 suggests that it has something to do with all nations being blessed through Abraham. Ephesians 3:6 tells us that through the gospel, gentiles become heirs with the Hebrews. How does Paul summarise the gospel? In 2 Timothy 2:8, he says “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David.” The gospel, the good news to all mankind, is that Jesus has died so that we may be reunited with God!
that is simply circular logic mixed together with a good dose of begging the question.Well, as far as large portions of it go -
2 Peter 3:16:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter calls Paul’s writings “Scripture”. Is Peter’s word good enough for you?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But which of Paul’s writings are Scriptures?2 Peter 3:16:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter calls Paul’s writings “Scripture”. Is Peter’s word good enough for you?
We know that Paul wrote at least 4 letters to the Church in Corinth. Which ones are Scriptural and which ones are not? Paul certainly didn’t indicate in his two that we accept as inspired that they are Scriptural.
No it isn’t and for the same reasons I’ve indicated. 2 Peter is part of the NT, which hasn’t yet been proven to be inspired. To prove Paul’s inspiration, you need to prove Peter’s inspiration.Firstly, I must say I think you understand what a ‘summary’ is, if you think the four gospels are not summaries of Jesus’ teachings and ministry…summaries are not every little bit of information in the original. They are brief, they are concise. John 21:25 even says that there was much they could not write - but it is indeed a summary.
Secondly, you misunderstand what the “gospel”, or the “good news” is, if you think that the New Testament does not contain it fully.
Look at all the times that the term is used in the New Testament.
Do any of them sound as if they mean “the entire life and teachings, and every single word spoken by Jesus”?
Or are you talking about some other gospel? (Galatians 1:6-9)
So, what is the gospel then? Galatians 3:8 suggests that it has something to do with all nations being blessed through Abraham. Ephesians 3:6 tells us that through the gospel, gentiles become heirs with the Hebrews. How does Paul summarise the gospel? In 2 Timothy 2:8, he says “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David.” The gospel, the good news to all mankind, is that Jesus has died so that we may be reunited with God!
Well, as far as large portions of it go -
2 Peter 3:16:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter calls Paul’s writings “Scripture”. Is Peter’s word good enough for you?
so no, “Peter’s” word is not good enough. Prove that the NT is inspired.
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
I find it most sad and disappointing that of all my post, you pick that out, and think it makes a worthy argument, as if the rest hinges upon that one idea.Why did you not answer about Mary and her other children? Why did you skip over the other two verses that went along with the 2 Tim 3:16 one?
Now, as to your question - did I claim that the verse said that we did not need Tradition? No!
What I said was with that verse (that is, knowing that God’s word is good and useful for those things), why do we need Traditions?
A parallel: With being served a roast dinner, why do we need mcdonalds? The question and verse in and of themselves were not condemning Tradition, but asking the reader to question why they would want Tradition when they have the Bible.
You may well say (as I have heard in response to a similar question regarding praying to God and the “saints”) “what is wrong with both?” (which does not answer the question, mind you). This is why I did not only reference one verse, but three.
In Matthew 15:2-6 it talks about the pharasees following tradition, even where it contradicts with scripture. I believe there are parts of RC Tradition that do contradict with scripture - for example, Mary and her kids. Thus, I ask again, why do we need Traditions? Especially when it contradicts the Bible!
In Colossians 2:8, well, I can not but help think that stuff such as “purgatory” and “praying to the saints” fits right into this warning.
So, I ask you again - why follow Tradition?
Because the thread is about Timmy Z’s points on Sola Scriptura. For the other issues, start other threads. Don’t change the subject.
Actually it does make a worthy argument for the purposes of this thread. The thread is on Sola Scriptura, which initially asserts that Scripture is inspired. But why lay that premise down just like that?
By the way, where is Timmy Z? It’s his assertions that we’re originally discussing here. He laid down the supporting premise without any foundation whatsoever.
So he must address the questions, which are valid ones. Prove That Scripture Is Inspired. Then we can discuss his points #2 and #3. Why is it so difficult to address only ONE SINGLE POINT?
As for your condemnation of Tradition, we can address that, but you are drawing your condemnations from the New Testament, which has not been shown to be inspired or authoritative.
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
Are you, or are you not a Roman Catholic? Your profile suggests that you are…
If that is the case, then I will happily move on. There is nothing to prove. We both believe it.
If you still, for some reason (I can only think “wasting time” is your main point here, but I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt…) want it proven, I will first ask you to prove that the Bible exists. And that you are actually a living being. And that these “computer” things we use are not just figments of our imagination.
I mean, I believe all that, but then, you believe the Bible to be inspired, do you not?
Go back and answer my mary/children dilemma then
Great! Coz we already agree on #1, and thus it is pointless to worry about proving it. And, as yet, you haven’t answered #2, so we have to assume it is also correct
Actually, more hinges on it than not. Simply - if it is not inspired, then we should all just go home. There is no Christianity (or even Judaism) without it being inspired. Just like I am going to assume you are a real person, and not some advanced AI forum-talking bot, so we all assume that Biblical Inspiration is given.
If you think otherwise, prove it
-hvg3
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
I would like some evidence to show that Jesus’ claims included the apocrypha. The only references to them in the bible that I know of is in James, and he doesn’t call them scripture. That makes them no more inspired than Paul quoting gentile poets makes them inspired.
Ah, now you are confusing “inspired” and “historically accurate”
Are you going to say that none of our historical books can be correct because they are not inspired? No, at its simple state, the NT are historical documents, which record Jesus calling chunks of the OT (the law, the prophets) Scripture. That alone means that He believed them to be God’s word.
If you disagree, then argue the point. Else, I am moving on
It is pointless to prove something both “sides” already agree on 
N
NotWorthy
Guest
For the sake of ending this part of the dance so we can continue…
hvg3akaek, our good and loyal Catholic friend Porthos is trying to get you to admit (and I have an inkling that you understand this, but prefer to dance…) that the reason you know that the NT is inspired is BECAUSE of Sacred Tradition.
That which you deny is one of the supporting structures of that which you believe.
hvg3akaek, our good and loyal Catholic friend Porthos is trying to get you to admit (and I have an inkling that you understand this, but prefer to dance…) that the reason you know that the NT is inspired is BECAUSE of Sacred Tradition.
That which you deny is one of the supporting structures of that which you believe.
Never mind that. I could be fallen-away or losing my faith for all you know.
These facts can be easily deduced through reason and the senses.
While in this thread, I don’t. But then I’m not the one making the assertions, Timmy Z did. That leaves the burden of proof on him, not me.
I don’t have to. I’m the one denying it. The burden of proof is on Timmy Z and you, if you continue to make the assertion. I’m taking the negative, so I don’t need to prove anything.If you think otherwise, prove it
-hvg3
However, you are right with one thing. If the Bible is not inspired, then that’s that. But no, I won’t buy your assumption that the Bible is inspired. How do YOU know that the Bible is inspired?
That leaves the question of authority. Whom should I believe? You? Timmy Z?
Because if you can’t convince me that the Bible is inspired, then you’re right. It’s all a waste of time and Sola Scriptura cannot be proven outside of the Bible itself, inevitably leading to circular reasoning.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Good point. My logic flowed from the following.
Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals.
There has been no acceptance of the OT Canon in the varous Church councils and synods that did not include the Deuterocanonicals. There were questions from Jerome, but he acquiesced to Church Authority (following that Tradition thing that helps to keep us One) and accepted them.
H
hvg3akaek
Guest
Well said! Fortunately, we do not have to read it simply with our “low-context” 21st C glasses on. People do know a lot about the culture back then, historians and scholars are continually delving deeply into the rich, “high-context” culture, and we can learn from this. Does that make their findings inspired? No, but they can still be accurate!Something has definitely gone wrong! Not the least would be people ignoring the warning in Colossians 2:8.
But lets look at your options:
Is that all? Really, I can think of a few more examples.
How about people simply do not listen to the Holy Spirit? Or people without the Spirit are trying to read and teach it? Or the context is important, and we are trying to read without it? Or simply, people are fallen, and want to interpret things how they like?
I do not think that your two options are the “only” ones.
(I think you meant “agree” not “disagree”, right? )
Baptism. Well, there’s a whole other thread of talk, but let me say - perhaps it is not as important as you make it out? Is it as important as acknowledging Jesus as our Lord? As accepting Him as God? As following him?
- Status