Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[thetazlord]

Do you realize how many books contain no errors and contradictions?

There is 0 proof on who wrote Hebrews.

Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, some in the Early Church (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria) believed the Book of Enoch was part of Scriptures.

Again, lack of authorship doesn’t disqualify a piece of writing as being Inspired, just as quoting from non-inspired texts like 1 Enoch doesn’t make 1 Enoch Inspired either. All it means is that particular quote is Inspired. The writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, & Clement of Alexandria aren’t Inspired either. In fact, if you read their writings there are things they disagree on, even theologically. So, using non-inspired sources neither proves, nor disproves, a piece of writing as being Inspired or not. Otherwise, 1 Enoch & 1 Clement, & other non-inspired writings would be in the NT canon, but they aren’t. That is why you have to look internally at the texts themselves, which is what the early Church did, as early as the SECOND century which recognized “unofficially” the SAME 27 NT books as being Scripture, and as early as the MID-FIRST Century for most of these same 27 books by the apostles Paul, Peter, & John.

Mark - other than Tradition from the Church, there is no other evidence that Mark wrote it.

Again, that doesn’t disqualify it as being Inspired.

Clement was not only contemporary of the Apostles, he learned from them and succeeded in the See of Rome. Your Phoenix claim is not credible. How about Jesus mention of the mustard seed? Does that not fall under your same conditions?

You are really comparing the Clement of Rome to the Son of God??? Jesus backed up His claims by rising from the dead. Clement didn’t. Clement was clearly in error about the Phoenix (unless you can show me some proof - either in the Word of God or outside of it that the Phoenix was a real historical bird that lived for 1,600 years, died, & then rose from it’s own ashes - can you provide me some evidence for that?) And, again, in context Jesus mentioning the mustard seed as the “smallest seed,” in context, Jesus was referring to seeds in ISRAEL at that time, not the entire world.

It is really baffling how Clement I is not in the New Testament.

It’s only “baffling” if you entertain the idea that a bird can live for 1,600 years, die, & then suddenly rise from its own ashes. With all due respect to Clement, he was clearly wrong in this error, and one of the reasons why 1 Clement is not in the NT. Otherwise, it might have been, but God did not will it for that & other reasons. Error cannot be in the Word of God, because God cannot be in error nor contradict Himself, even though people like PRmerger believes God “can” contradict Himself.

 

[thetazlord]

(Edited)

You have never, NOT EVEN ONCE, answered the question as to how you know what is correct or erroneous.

Actually, your accusation is false. I’ve explained it to you NUMEROUS times. You just aren’t learning or comprehending. And the “reasons” you “think” I give are equally false. So, there’s no point repeating myself - again. It concerns me from your question though that outside of people you trust telling you what is true & what is false, you are unable to discern for yourself if something is true or not. This is one thing I have to give the Catholic church credit for when I was attending parochial school as a child - they encouraged me when I got out into the “real world” to not simply believe what I was being taught was true, but to “test every spirit” to “see if they are from God” (1 John 4:1) - which was long before I realized that that came from Scripture. So, to my Catholic upbringing for that.

 

[fasolislithuan]

In order for something to be an error, you either have to have a basis for it, or if something claims something to be true but there’s not support for it, then it’s an error. If you compare Hebrews & 3 John to the rest of Scripture, there are ZERO errors in it - neither from the OT, nor the NT. Plus, neither text conflicts with anything we can “prove” from secular history. However, in 1 Clement, who believes the Phoenix was a real historical animal who Clement believed existed in his own time, there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that such an animal existed - either from the OT, nor the NT. There is also ZERO evidence from credible secular history that it ever existed either.

Well, I think you look not understand what is the real problem. The trascendence is not what is the procedure to establish some book has (or hasn’t) errors. The real question is: who does determine and apply such procedure? I’ve asked you WHO says Hebrews or 3John haven’t errors and 1Clement does, not how do you know. The procedure can be arbitrary (or not) but we need to know the exact authority to determine what is the procedure and how is applied. Therefore I again ask the same question to you: WHO does say they both contain no errors but 1Clement it does? Perhaps you?

PD: Your argument about the phoenix to discard 1Clement is quite obviously a weak argument, has been refuted in my previous message (you conveniently has dodged it). You’ll need to find something more solid.

 

[thetazlord]

Do you have a citation?

I’m sure if you combed through the EWTN Web site, you could find a citation, but I heard it on EWTN itself. However, in my great-grandmother’s New Catholic Version Bible, the Intro to Judith refers to Judith as “that illustrious woman, by whose virtue, fortitude, & prayer, the children of Israel were preserved from the destruction threatened them by Holofernes & his great army. It finishes with her canticle of thanksgiving to God.”

So, the writer of Judith “does” believe that she was a real person, as well as the writer of the Intro. Yet, in the Intro to that Catholic Bible, the entire book is referred to as “a piece of edifying fiction.” An entire book that is purely “fictional” is different that a parable that tells a story of a greater spiritual or heavenly truth.

Of course it’s a story. You don’t think that the authors and those who preserved the book for years didn’t notice some of the things you’ve pointed out? In fact, even the NAME “Judith” means “Lady Jew.”

Catholicism teaches that the entire Bible is true, but also that one must discern the genre of the literature.

But it doesn’t change the fact that since there are errors in Judith that conflict with the Hebrew OT, as well as the Greek NT, fiction or not, even those stories can’t contradict Scripture, otherwise, the book itself isn’t Inspired but merely stories. You don’t find this kind of writing in the Hebrew OT books. Even Job, as well as the events of Job, were believed by later writers to be an actual person & actual events, not just “fictional” stories. These, as well as other reasons, is why Judith is not Inspired, & not part of the Protestant OT canon.

 

[thetazlord]

Gotta agree with you here.

I was looking for the alleged “contradictions” in Sirach, and found what looks like an argument that, while Sirach says alms-giving atones for sins, this supposedly contradicts the NT.

Except that it doesn’t.

Alms-giving is a form of loving your neighbor. So much so that we use the word “charity” to describe alms-giving when it literally means “love.”

Compare this with
1Pe 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.

I guess 1Peter isn’t theopneustos, either, according to “Steve Christie”.

Except that the words “covers” & “atones” are two completely different words. “Covers” doesn’t mean “forgives” or “does away with” like “atones” does. In context, Peter is referring to the genuine type of agape love that Jesus showed us when He “atoned” for our sins, loving our neighbor in this same way shows a similar kind of love when people sin against us, just that it doesn’t “atone” for their sins - only Jesus’ shed blood on the cross did that. “Atoning” through almsgiving is clearly anti-biblical, & therefore, not Inspired. Once you understand the difference, it’s quite obvious that Sirach is not Inspired. The verses pointed out from those study notes “should” have been obvious. Almsgiving does nothing in terms of atonement.

 

[thetazlord]

There is a curiosity respect the mention of the “phoenix” in 1Clement 25. Some scholars think this practice mentioning phoenix of some Church Fathers as Clement or Tertullian derives from the Sacred Scriptures. The reason is because in some manuscripts Job 29,18 renders:** “Then I said: ‘I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the** phoenix****.’”

The hebrew term* chol* is translated in three ways:
1, sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree

And if you continue reading Job, it’s painfully obvious that it means “sand” not “Phoenix.” The phrase “multiple my _____ as the sand” is a common expression in the OT to refer “multiplying” descendants (like those of Abraham) to the “sands” of the desert. Plus, that Hebrew word “chol” is used 23 times in the OT, which is ALWAYS is translated “sand” - NEVER “Phoenix.” Otherwise, you couldn’t trust Jesus & the NT writers that Job, and the events of Job, were real. However, in 1 Clement it’s unmistakably clear that he’s referring to fictional bird.

 

[PRmerger]

As I’ve mentioned MANY times to you, just because something is “fanciful” like miracles, doesn’t make it not true. The lack of any objective evidence - Scriptural or otherwise - is what determines if something is historically true or not.

Sure. But you’re not reading Clement to see if it’s historically true. Or scientifically true.

You’re reading it to discern if it’s theologically true.

And the question remains: how do you know if it’s theologically true if you don’t have the Bible to use?

It certainly sounds as if you’re advocating that there’s some OTHER source of info that you can use to determine if something is theopneustos or not.

What is this OTHER source, taz?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Again, that doesn’t disqualify it as being Inspired.

I’ll make it simple for you:

When and Where was the Protestant Canon established? Who has the authority to determine the Canon of Scriptures?

You are really comparing the Clement of Rome to the Son of God??? Jesus backed up His claims by rising from the dead. Clement didn’t. Clement was clearly in error about the Phoenix (unless you can show me some proof - either in the Word of God or outside of it that the Phoenix was a real historical bird that lived for 1,600 years, died, & then rose from it’s own ashes - can you provide me some evidence for that?) And, again, in context Jesus mentioning the mustard seed as the “smallest seed,” in context, Jesus was referring to seeds in ISRAEL at that time, not the entire world.

Are we moving into absurd argumentation? To even consider such a comparison from my statement requires a significant amount of negligence…

I said:

Does that not fall under your same conditions?

How you went from your conditions to a Jesus/Clement comparison is nonsensical.

It’s only “baffling” if you entertain the idea that a bird can live for 1,600 years, die, & then suddenly rise from its own ashes. With all due respect to Clement, he was clearly wrong in this error, and one of the reasons why 1 Clement is not in the NT. Otherwise, it might have been, but God did not will it for that & other reasons. Error cannot be in the Word of God, because God cannot be in error nor contradict Himself, even though people like PRmerger believes God “can” contradict Himself.

Which is why only that which is from God can determine what is from God. The Church, being the pillar and bullwark of truth is the only medium to declare a canon. Because nowhere in Scriptures does it say a list of what are the books to be considered Scriptures.

Unless you would rather rely on secular way to determine this… then we know it is not from God.

Further, in the absence of the original writing of the Apostles, ALL we have is the Church to confirm if the writings are consistent with the Faith.

Or do you know of public revelation from God as to Scriptures?

 

[thetazlord]

Can you show me where scripture says that all the teachings of Jesus were written down in the canonical NT books?

Yes, at the end of the Gospel of John it says so - by an eyewitness - John the Beloved. But the things that were not written down, nowhere does it say the Church was to follow them, because we don’t know what those things He said were, nor if He commanded the Church to follow them.

Not necessarily true.
For instance, Jesus in Luke was quoting Deuteronomy.

If I quote a section of Deuteronomy which St. Paul calls scripture, will you consider MY writings theopneustos?

Did you live during the first century? Did you see Jesus rise from the dead? Did you perform miracles in the first century to back up that your writings were Inspired? No offense, but this is a weak strawman argument that non-christians use.

Actually, the etymology of the English word, “priest” IS presbyteros.

No, it’s “hiereus” not “presbyteros”:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2409

Scripturally, the kind of priesthood of the OT doesn’t exist in the NT Church age, because Jesus is our “High Priest” which is why we go through HIM to get to the Father (John 14:6), rather than a human “priest.”

True enough.

But this part is a non-sequitor.

How can it be true, & not connected to what we’re discussing at the same time? It’s completely relevant to what we previously discussed. You are the one bringing up about priests being the same elders in the Church. One of the specific functions of the priesthood in the OT, specifically the High Priest, was to act as a go-between - an “intercessor” - between God & man in the Holy of Holies in the Temple which housed the ark of the covenant which was separated from the rest of the Temple by a thick curtain. When Jesus died, the curtain was torn in two, which meant the “separation” between God & man was gone. Therefore, there was no need for the OT priesthood anymore to act as an “intercessor” between God and man, because Jesus is our Intercessor. Thus, there is no need for priests (“hiereus”) in the NT age, which is what the writer of Hebrews is addressing, because we - the Church, the body of Christ - are ALL part of a “royal priesthood” - not just the clergy. And the Church - both the clergy AND the congregation - can go before God through Jesus - not through a man, to have our sins “absolved,” because Scripture states:

“Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16)

 

[thetazlord]

Sure. But you’re not reading Clement to see if it’s historically true. Or scientifically true.

You’re reading it to discern if it’s theologically true.

And the question remains: how do you know if it’s theologically true if you don’t have the Bible to use?

It certainly sounds as if you’re advocating that there’s some OTHER source of info that you can use to determine if something is theopneustos or not.

What is this OTHER source, taz?

No, 1 Clement is neither historically true, not theologically true. Since YOU are the one who believes the Phoenix “could” have been real, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don’t have to prove a negative. So, if it was real, where is your proof? And if it was real, then “why” isn’t 1 Clement in your NT canon then? All this time, you’ve been asking me “why” I don’t accept 1 Clement, which I’ve explained both historically AND theologically - but you haven’t explained YOUR reason for not accepting 1 Clement, other than “because I was told it’s not Inspired.” BTW, I agree with the Catholic church for it not being Inspired Scripture & not being part of the NT canon (otherwise it would be), but I think you’d be surprised that the reasons I’ve been giving you (that you’re not accepting) are the same reasons the Catholic church would give you. IOW, the Catholic church would agree with me “why” those early Christians rejected 1 Clement. So, if you don’t accept what I tell you, why don’t you ask them? I think you’ll be surprised that they’ll actually agree with the reasons I gave.

 

[PRmerger]

If we can’t find evidence for the existence of the concept of the Phoenix, neither in Scripture,

Remember, taz, you’re trying to discern what’s Scripture or not. (Since you claim to not take the word of the CC on this). So you don’t know what’s Scripture yet.

So you can’t use evidence “from Scripture” to determine whether something actually exists.

Since Jesus & the NT writers of Inspired Scripture acknowledge that he Behemoth & Leviathan as actual living animals, then we can trust them, otherwise, we are saying they are lying, which they aren’t, because Jesus proved it by rising from the dead.

What extra-Biblical sources document Jesus rising from the dead? We would, of course, need first hand witnesses of this event.

Same with people being healed by handkerchiefs in Acts. Paul acknowledged Luke’s writings (which includes Acts) as Inspired Scripture, & Peter backed up Paul by acknowledging Paul’s, which they both were able to back up by performing miracles. But nobody backed up Clement’s claims of the Phoenix - either secularly, nor Scripturally.

But if you reject something because it’s not real, you have to reject people being healed by handkerchiefs, because that doesn’t’ happen in reality.

Mentioning the Name “Jesus” isn’t a criterion for making a writing Inspired, nor did I EVER even insinuate that, let alone state that. So, I don’t know “where” you got that idea - you are really out in left field on your own on that one!

I’m just saying that it’s as arbitrary a criterion as what you’ve declared.

You again seem to be reserving for yourself something you object to in others: “Taz gets to decide what criteria make something inspired, but PRmerger doesn’t get to do that!”

Why is this?

 

[thetazlord]

Ahh, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jude, Peter, James, and whoever wrote Hebrews are wrong?

After all, they “added to” scripture.

That’s not what “adding to” Scripture (sola scriptura) means - something I’ve noticed that Catholics, in general, completely misunderstand that concept. The writers of the NT didn’t “add” anything to the OT that conflicted with it. Rather, what they wrote was a fulfillment of the OT in the Person of Jesus Christ. So, to give in context to what I was saying (which you took completely OUT of context:

“You are free to disagree all you want, & it wouldn’t prevent you from worshiping there are get you “excommunicated” from the church. Just keep in mind that, obviously, one (or both) of what two of your disagree on “might” be wrong, since you both can’t be right. And the way you can know who is right is by comparing what the two of you “believe” TO Scripture. And whoever is “adding to” Scripture is wrong.”

The context was about two Christians who disagree with each can worship together in fellowship without the threat of excommunication from the church. But because you disagree with each other, obviously you can’t both be right, since you disagree with you. So, logically, at least one of you is wrong - the one who is “adding to” Scripture is wrong. No offense, but this should have been obvious from what I wrong. And the writers of the NT didn’t write anything that “added to” the OT that conflicted with each other. Nothing Peter, Paul, Luke, etc, “added” anything that conflicted with previous OT Inspired Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

No, 1 Clement is neither historically true, not theologically true.

Ok.

What’s your source for determining if it’s not “theologically true”? Isn’t your source for what’s “theologically true” the Bible?

And yet, remember, you don’t have the Bible yet. You’re still trying to figure out what belongs in the Bible. Because, remember, you’re claiming you don’t need the CC to tell you what’s theopneustos. You evaluate each (of the over 400) manuscripts on its own merit.

You don’t take anyone else’s word for it–that’s your theme here.

 

[fasolislithuan]

And if you continue reading Job, it’s painfully obvious that it means “sand” not “Phoenix.” The phrase “multiple my _____ as the sand” is a common expression in the OT to refer “multiplying” descendants (like those of Abraham) to the “sands” of the desert. Plus, that Hebrew word “chol” is used 23 times in the OT, which is ALWAYS is translated “sand” - NEVER “Phoenix.” Otherwise, you couldn’t trust Jesus & the NT writers that Job, and the events of Job, were real. However, in 1 Clement it’s unmistakably clear that he’s referring to fictional bird.

Not, is obvious for you, but is evident is not obvious. If were obvious there would be an unanimous rendering, not different renderings in different Bibles (not only christians but jewish). So it’s far to be painfully obvious as you claim.

And if were obvious there would be no an early Jewish exegetical tradition to use the “phoenix” as relative to this verse. Three examples:

Rashi, on Job 29:18: *“It is a bird whose name is chol, and death has no power on it, because it did not taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge. At the end of thousand years it renews itself, and returns to his youth.” *

In the Midrashim , in Bereshit Rabbah (19:5) there is a commentary to Genesis 3:6: *“[Eve] gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of it *. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol *” (Job 29:18). **

Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Sanhedrin (108b) speaking about Noe’s ark:
As for the phoenix, my father discovered it lying in the hold of the ark. “Dost thou require no food?” he asked it. “I saw that thou wast busy,” it replied, “so I said to myself, I will give thee no trouble.” “May it be (God’s) will that thou shouldst not perish,” he exclaimed; as it is written, ‘Then I said, I shall die in the nest, but I shall multiply my days as the chol [phoenix].’ ”

So your obviousness is not obvious at all.*

 

[thetazlord]

Well, I think you look not understand what is the real problem. The trascendence is not what is the procedure to establish some book has (or hasn’t) errors. The real question is: who does determine and apply such procedure? I’ve asked you WHO says Hebrews or 3John haven’t errors and 1Clement does, not how do you know. The procedure can be arbitrary (or not) but we need to know the exact authority to determine what is the procedure and how is applied. Therefore I again ask the same question to you: WHO does say they both contain no errors but 1Clement it does? Perhaps you?

This all comes down to whether a person can discern between truth & lies. If a person cannot discern it for themselves, then no one can show it to them. Otherwise, you are simply accepting the definition of “truth” from human beings, who themselves are capable of being wrong. That is why when you ask “who,” the real question should be “Who?” And the answer to that is Jesus Christ. The typical non-believing secular argument for not believing in the Word of God is that “I wasn’t there when the Bible was written & these ‘alleged’ miracles, like the Resurrection, happened. Therefore, I don’t believe any of it.” In a way, you are giving that same argument with your question “who?” Obviously, I wasn’t there, so I am basing my faith in the writings of the NT regarding the Resurrection on the eyewitness testimonies of it, which is based on fact that none of them recanted their faith, even in the eye of torture & death. That is what I base my faith on the writings of the NT - their unwillingness to recant their faith, which is “why” I believe their writings, including the ones about the Resurrection, are Inspired. That is where I begin my faith in their writings. And then when I compare their writings to those of say Hebrews, which is unauthored, as well as other unauthored NT (as well as OT texts), I find the same godly attributes as those of Peter, James, John, & the rest of the NT writers who died martyrs’ deaths without recanting their faith. And regarding 1 Clement, not only does Scripture not support that the Phoenix was real, nor does credible secular history. Otherwise, “why” would the Catholic church leave it out of their NT canon?

PD: Your argument about the phoenix to discard 1Clement is quite obviously a weak argument, has been refuted in my previous message (you conveniently has dodged it). You’ll need to find something more solid.

You actually believe that the Phoenix was a real bird who lived for 1,600 years, then died, then rose from its own ashes? You actually, honestly believe that, despite there being ZERO evidence IN the Bible, or OUTSIDE the Bible, that the Phoenix was real? Are you sure that you’re not merely trying to prove some kind of point, rather than accept the logical explanations that I have not “dodged” from you?

 

[thetazlord]

You again seem to be reserving for yourself something you object to in others: “Taz gets to decide what criteria make something inspired, but PRmerger doesn’t get to do that!”

Why is this?

Because the difference is that “I’M” not deciding what is & is not Inspired Scripture - beginning and ending with myself - you are. I’m acknowledging that if something is God-breathed, then it must have the attributes “of” God. And the God I worship can’t contradict Himself, while you even admitted yourself that you “have no problem with a god who contradicts himself.” Sorry, but the God of Scripture can’t change, therefore, He can’t contradict Himself. Based on your own admission it almost sounds like the “god” you worship isn’t the God of Scripture. You might want to rethink your “God can contradict Himself” mentality, rather than using that simply to try to win an argument or debate.

 

[PRmerger]

It amazes me how much you don’t listen.

That also seems to be your theme here. No one, it appears, that you are in dialogue with, reads your posts or understands your responses.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12683861&postcount=767
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12603755&postcount=30
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12616521&postcount=99
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12626642&postcount=251

All of the above are different posters. None of us, it seems, has the ability to “comprehend” what you are saying.

You are making the common fallacy that when godly criteria are given for a text to qualify for Inspiration,

Let’s stop right here: who is doing the “giving” for this godly criteria?

That should be a simple question to answer. Could you do that, pleae?

 

[PRmerger]

Because the difference is that “I’M” not deciding what is & is not Inspired Scripture - beginning and ending with myself

Absolutely you are. That’s your point here, isn’t it?

You decided ON YOUR OWN, without anyone else telling you, what’s theopneustos?

You don’t rely on anyone else to tell you what to believe.

And when we point out: yes, you do, taz. You believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired for ONE REASON ONLY–because you take the word of the CC on this.

But you’re rejecting this and saying: I, my, MYSELF, gets to determine if it’s inspired or not.

So it’s peculiar for you to make the above statement, which contradicts your entire raison d’etre here on this thread.

 

[thetazlord]

Ok.

What’s your source for determining if it’s not “theologically true”? Isn’t your source for what’s “theologically true” the Bible?

And yet, remember, you don’t have the Bible yet. You’re still trying to figure out what belongs in the Bible. Because, remember, you’re claiming you don’t need the CC to tell you what’s theopneustos. You evaluate each (of the over 400) manuscripts on its own merit.

You don’t take anyone else’s word for it–that’s your theme here.

I’m explained this already. Had I been living in the Church at the time of Clement of Rome, the OT had already been written, as well as the entire NT - including Revelation. And NOWHERE in the OT ("the Law & the Prophets)(let alone the NT) does it ever mention that the Phoenix, theologically, let alone historically, was a real animal - even in the Apocrypha. You are under the false impression that because the canon wasn’t “officially” placed under one cover until the fifth century, that the early Christian Church would have no idea what books were Inspired. It’s clear that the OT was already decided by the first century had we lived in the NT Church age in the FIRST Century. And by the end of the first century, the NT books had already been written & most - if not all - of them were being read & circulated in the Church. It doesn’t matter that 1 Clement was “believed” to be Inspired by writers of non-inspired writings. It’s blatantly obvious that 1 Clement isn’t Inspired, even in the first century. Why later ECF’s didn’t realize this, I can’t tell you, other than lack of spiritual discernment on their part. But it doesn’t change the fact that birds don’t live for 1,600 years, die, & rise from their own ashes! I’m sorry, you aren’t looking at this logically, but merely attempting to win a debate.

Not, is obvious for you, but is evident is not obvious. If were obvious there would be an unanimous rendering, not different renderings in different Bibles (not only christians but jewish). So it’s far to be painfully obvious as you claim.

And if were obvious there would be no an early Jewish exegetical tradition to use the “phoenix” as relative to this verse. Three examples:

Rashi, on Job 29:18: *“It is a bird whose name is chol, and death has no power on it, because it did not taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge. At the end of thousand years it renews itself, and returns to his youth.” *

In the Midrashim , in Bereshit Rabbah (19:5) there is a commentary to Genesis 3:6: *“[Eve] gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of it *. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol *” (Job 29:18). ***

Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Sanhedrin (108b) speaking about Noe’s ark:
As for the phoenix, my father discovered it lying in the hold of the ark. “Dost thou require no food?” he asked it. “I saw that thou wast busy,” it replied, “so I said to myself, I will give thee no trouble.” “May it be (God’s) will that thou shouldst not perish,” he exclaimed; as it is written, ‘Then I said, I shall die in the nest, but I shall multiply my days as the chol [phoenix].’ ”

So your obviousness is not obvious at all.

All this shows is that these “sources” aren’t ignoring the TWENTY-THREE TIMES the EXACT SAME Hebrew word is translated “sand,” & never…NEVER…Phoenix. What “should” be obvious is that they are exegetically wrong. The fact that other translations, like the KJV, renders it “Phoenix,” only demonstrates that they too are exegetically ignoring these same 23 verses as well.
PRmerger;12770023:

That also seems to be your theme here. No one, it appears, that you are in dialogue with, reads your posts or understands your responses.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12683861&postcount=767

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12603755&postcount=30
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12616521&postcount=99
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12626642&postcount=251

All of the above are different posters. None of us, it seems, has the ability to “comprehend” what you are saying.



Hmmmm! And what do all these posters have - theologically & denominationally - in common? Hmmmmm!

You are making the common fallacy that when godly criteria are given for a text to qualify for Inspiration,

Let’s stop right here: who is doing the “giving” for this godly criteria?

That should be a simple question to answer. Could you do that, pleae?It would help if you quoted me in context, rather than take a snippet - a fraction of what I said - rather than the entire context of what I wrote. By doing the former, you are again twisting my words into something completely different than what I was attempting to get across. Let me give you an example of what you’re doing:

If I were to say, “all women are bad drivers while blindfolded,” what you would do is quote “part” of what I say, “all women are bad drivers” & then ask, “that’s not true! Not ALL women are bad drivers.” Then I’d have to backtrack what I “actually” said, & then you’d just repeat yourself later when I made that say quote, & misquote me by “partially” address what I said, instead of “all” of what I said. You are doing the same here, just as you quote-mine Scripture out of context, by providing a SINGLE verse - or sometimes only a “part” of a verse, rather than the context of the verse to the whole message of Scripture.

Something tells me this will all go completely over your head.

 

[thetazlord]

Absolutely you are. That’s your point here, isn’t it?

You decided ON YOUR OWN, without anyone else telling you, what’s theopneustos

Well, if a person believes God can contradict Himself, then obviously it’s not the God of Scripture! It’s not me “deciding on my own,” because “I” don’t believe God can’t contradict Himself. I believe in the Word of God that says that He can’t, which was written by men who EYEWITNESSED the Resurrection, never recanted their faith in the face of torture & death, & performed miracles to back it all up - something I would have SEEN had I lived in the first century as a first century Christian.