C
cfrancis
Guest
Based on the logic of that passage, how does one prove the Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God?
Because it’s in the Bible? That’s circular, and the gospel itself makes no such claim.
- Status
Because it’s in the Bible? That’s circular, and the gospel itself makes no such claim.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
If no one mentioned a “Gospel of Matthew” for 400 years, I would not expect them to believe it either.
C
cfrancis
Guest
OK, then the next question is, why is 400 years your cutoff?
No one used the word Trinity for, what, 300 years or so?
No one had all the books of the Bible gathered into one volume for what, 350+ years?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
All the books? Yes, that is about right. There is a level of reasonableness. Of course it is subjective. I have read the Ante-Nicene fathers like you I am sure. You know as time goes on, people do talk more about Mary. I do not think you will find people who disagree with that assessment. But it is also clear that no one talks about what this site mentioned. It WOULD have been the second most incredible thing to ever happen to the church.
Proof beyond proof for the doubters and we know there are lots of doubters. Think about how applicable it would have been to all the discussions about Mary. Her role as Mother of God and etc. But no. Nothing
C
cfrancis
Guest
Given the importance of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, one would think thes issues would have been clearly defined and stated right at the beginning, to preclude the rise of heresy (see Arias and Nestorius).
Instead, we read the development of these crucial Christian doctrines.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
If no one had mentioned that Jesus was God in the Bible, or for 400 years, I do not think you would get many takers.
C
cfrancis
Guest
But we’re back at the same point: no one in the Bible mentions the canon of Scripture.
And why should someone accept a canon laid out 350+ years later. Just because a book is mentioned by a patristic author does not make it part of the canon (it may indeed be evidence but by itself, it is not compelling).
Had no one mentioned anything about, say, 2 Peter, for 450 years, would such remove its canonicity?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Isn’t the Council of Nicea (325 AD) generally considered to be the first explicit mention of the divinity of Christ?
It is alluded to obliquely in the Bible (Jesus says “I AM” this or that, but doesn’t come right out and say, “I am the I AM, which is God.”)
The closest we get is the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which can and has been interpreted to mean that God sent Jesus; not that God is Jesus.
C
cfrancis
Guest
JM, RD’s point is that because there is mention in the Bible of Christ being God, it is easy to accept the decisions of the latter councils as to the nature of God and Christ. Conversely, because there is no mention of Mary and her assumption for over 400 years, it is not easy to accept that doctrine.
Isn’t the Council of Nicea (325 AD) generally considered to be the first explicit mention of the divinity of Christ?
It is alluded to obliquely in the Bible (Jesus says “I AM” this or that, but doesn’t come right out and say, “I am the I AM, which is God.”)
The closest we get is the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which can and has been interpreted to mean that God sent Jesus; not that God is Jesus.
My point has been the 400 years time-frame is artificial and illogical.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The funny thing is Catholics officially and I agree on why scripture is scripture. As it has already been mentioned today, Vatican One states that scripture is scripture and the authority is subsequent. If you want to discuss the canon, it will take a little while longer to be sure.
But I can.
Yes. I would think they were full of poo.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
Mary’s Assumption is alluded to in the Book of Revelation, and I don’t see how it’s any less clear than Jesus saying “I am the bread of life,” to mean that He is God.
I agree with this part.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Yes, the writings eventually included in the canon were Scripture from the time they were penned (or is it “quilled”?). The issue becomes determining which ones are Scripture.
So, 2 Pt was Scripture from iota 1; and even if no one mentioned it for 500 years, it would still be Scripture and have a rightful place in the canon.
The Authority comes into play in picking the Roses from the poo!
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
No one mentioned Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide for 1500 years. Do you then reject those doctrines?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The history of dissenting groups from 400 onwards is long. What is your overall familiarity prior to beginning the conversation?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Lets go backwards a bit to encompass the whole of the Bible. Perhaps that would help. Certainly starting at the beginning as any dispensationalist would.
Let us take…the time of the Judges. Would you agree that there existing scripture that was authoratative?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
It is absolutely not alluded to. The woman who appears is pregnant. She appears. The Greek word is used countless times and never means “assumed”
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Do you accept or reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? A simple yes or no will do.
Overall familiarity with what?
And we still have people 2000 years later who reject Jesus as the Messiah. The presence of dissent has no bearing on Truth.
Overall familiarity with what?
C
cfrancis
Guest
Yet, I am not a dispensationalist.
What “Scripture” existed at the time of Judges?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Of course you are not. I am just establishing the presuppositions to make the conversation flow.
Well for certain we have the first five books of the Bible. But lets assume Samuel’s authorship of Judges and the references unless we have reason not to.
What “authority” made them scripture? Backing up and taking it slow but I have a point. I believe the same thing that made something scripture in 1020 BC makes it scripture in 400 AD. I know you disagree, but why do you disagree?
- Status