why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?

[SDA2RC]

Fredriech,
You said: 1. Your church officially says (there are many quotes to this effect, and you have seen them yourself) that there is no evidence in the Bible for keeping Sunday instead of Sabbath. It claims to have the power to do so, based on a `hotline to heaven’ that the Pope has – he even claims to be God on earth! So why argue with him?

My Answer: This authority is from scripture… no hotline. Not sure where you got that from. IF you would like to start another thread on where the Church gets her authority… I am sure that many would be happy to respond. Further, as has been demonstrated on SEVERAL threads, the Pope does not claim to be God. You do damage to people taking you seriously when you make such outlandish claims.

By the way… here is one of the verses that give the Church the authority to institute new laws where there are none.

Matthew 16:19 says: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Notice that it says “WHATEVER” you bind on earth… It does not say… “Whatever you bind on earth… except for Sunday”

You said: 2. It also claims proof of Sunday worship from the `church fathers’ from about 100 years AD – that means nothing to me, since there have always been heretical church fathers, even in Jesus’ day. Paul warns about wolves coming into the flock…
**
My Answer:** They are only heretical to Adventist’s because they prove you wrong.

You said: 3. A lot of forumites rely on semantics – If ye love me, keep My commandments – no TEN, so they are out etc. But that is just nitpicking, pulling the leaves off a beautiful flower in order to make your own flower look better…

My Answer: This is not semantics it is context. Serious Biblical study requires that we consider the context of statements and not insert meanings that are not supported in the text. When scripture uses the word “commandments” you cannot automatically insert the word “ten” into it in order to support a pet doctrine. This is not serious, honest, Bible exegesis.

You say: 4. Some claim that the Sabbath was never repeated in the NT, so Sunday must have been IN. This is ridiculous, since the Jews were legalistic Sabbath keepers – they wanted to kill Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath! Jesus showed them the true spirit of Sabbath keeping. It is like saying the Catholic Church does not believe in mass because it is not preached from the pulpit regularly…) Neither is Sunday worship mentioned in the NT…

My Answer: Sunday is not “in” because the Sabbath is not repeated… Sunday is in because that is what the the Church has taught by the authority of God. The fact that there is no command for Christians to keep the Sabbath in the NT just proves that there is no contradiction with scripture.

You say: 5. Many forumites claim that the law of God is a CURSE, it was done away with etc. It is only a curse when you are on the WRONG side of it (like ordinary state laws too!).

MY Answer: This is not what “forumites” say… this was quoted directly from scripture. I will quote it again for you:

Gatations 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "–

The law was a curse not because we are on the wrong side, but because it lead to death. Christ leads to eteranal life! This is why the law engraved on stones is called the Ministry of DEATH and we are given a new covenant through Christ which leads to life.

2 Corinthinans 3:7: But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was…

If you debate these statements then you debate is with Scripture not us. See… this is the difference betwen Adventism and Catholicism. We can take the entire Bible and agree with it, while you must reject those statements that disagree with your doctrines. The true Bible Christians (Catholics) are able to accept all the teachings on a subject because the our doctrines are from God and there is no contradiction.

 

[SDA2RC]

Untill then, we at least have the Sabbath, God’s HOLY day, set aside for us to find Him again…

God bless, and goodnight,
Your brother in Christ

Friedrich

You have the Sabbath… we have Christ as our hope.

 

[newshadow]

1. Your church officially says (there are many quotes to this effect, and you have seen them yourself) that there is no evidence in the Bible for keeping Sunday instead of Sabbath. It claims to have the power to do so, based on a `hotline to heaven’ that the Pope has – he even claims to be God on earth! So why argue with him?

It seems that every SDA who comes on these forums says the same thing. Please show me where the Pope claims to be God on earth. Please quote an original source document. Not a book that collects quote. Especially not from the 1600’s. Please verify it is a good translation. The Latin to English translations that your fellow SDA posters have used have been tossed out multiple times on these forums. Most recently in the “Sunday Laws” thread.

God bless & keep you,
Matt

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Patrick

Thank you once again for a lovely reply.

I can’t agree more with you that that president was seriously in error, not condemning abortions in an SDA hospital! Where we come from, this would never happen, so I expect our church has its problems in the more liberal countries!

Regarding the invitation to dialogue about the Sabbath/Sunday in Genesis 1 & 2, I see no light in such a dialogue for the following reason:

1. Your church officially says (there are many quotes to this effect, and you have seen them yourself) that there is no evidence in the Bible for keeping Sunday instead of Sabbath. It claims to have the power to do so, based on a `hotline to heaven’ that the Pope has – he even claims to be God on earth! So why argue with him?
2. It also claims proof of Sunday worship from the `church fathers’ from about 100 years AD – that means nothing to me, since there have always been heretical church fathers, even in Jesus’ day. Paul warns about wolves coming into the flock…
3. A lot of forumites rely on semantics – If ye love me, keep My commandments – no TEN, so they are out etc. But that is just nitpicking, pulling the leaves off a beautiful flower in order to make your own flower look better…
4. Some claim that the Sabbath was never repeated in the NT, so Sunday must have been IN. This is ridiculous, since the Jews were legalistic Sabbath keepers – they wanted to kill Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath! Jesus showed them the true spirit of Sabbath keeping. It is like saying the Catholic Church does not believe in mass because it is not preached from the pulpit regularly…) Neither is Sunday worship mentioned in the NT…
5. Many forumites claim that the law of God is a CURSE, it was done away with etc. It is only a curse when you are on the WRONG side of it (like ordinary state laws too!).

So where does that leave us? To argue about a Sabbath that started in Genesis 2 and up to Isaiah 66:23 in the OT, that goes through Jesus’ life on earth, the apostles’ lives many years after Jesus’ death, even Jesus’ prayer for them in Matthew 24:20 to pray that their flight from the Roman armies in 70 AD would not be on the Sabbath etc…

BUT NOWHERE IN THE OLD OR NEW TESTAMENT CAN YOU SHOW ME ONE VERSE THAT SAYS: REMEMBER SUNDAY TO KEEP IT HOLY, BECAUSE ON IT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD!

Patrick, as a fellow Christian I have too much respect for you to get embroiled in Higher Criticism when I can’t even get anyone on this forum to acknowledge that the Bible lays great importance on the blessings to be gotten from God’s Holy Day…

So, please give me just ONE LITTLE VERSE that says ANYTHING about REMEMBERING SUNDAY instead of the Sabbath. If you can’t, then please don’t try and bolster Sunday worship by nitpicking about the Biblical Memorial to Creation, and Re-creation – the Sabbath!

May God bless you richly,

Friedrich

Dear Friedrich,

If you read my posts throughout the various threads, I don’t recall that I ever got into a discussion about which day to worship on. I don’t recall trying to prove that Sunday is the day to worship or that Saturday was not. I have not participated in that debate. I do recall one time making the comment that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the absolutley most momentous event in all of the history of mankind…and an event like that would not be ignored but embraced. My dad is dead. He died at the age of 60. I will tell you that if he was resurrected today, that this day would be the most important day in my life for a long time to come. How much more so the resurrection of Jesus Christ which ensures and seals our own eternal life? In other words, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was so monumental that it could not be ignored by those who were thrilled by it at the time and those whose hope for eternal life is based on it now.

I really don’t have a desire to debate Saturday and Sunday…I did that for 30 years. I will tell you however, that it was one of the two last issues that I needed to resolve in my mind before I could become Catholic. That issue has been resolved for me. I’m not asking you to resolve that issue for you.

Friedrich, my dear brother in Christ, I too respect you and have an inexplicable love and affection for you, for what reason I do not know. I do not wish to argue with you, or become in embroiled in higher criticism, or lower criticism, or constructive criticism…

I merely want to look at the first two chapters of Genesis that relate the creation story to mankind…to read what each verse says and then share with each other what we see that verse saying…in the context of each day of creation…in the context of the creation week…in the context of the entire creation story. It is only two chapters…the entire creation story in Genesis.

As I said before, I don’t think that whether a person believes the story is literal or figurative in any way dimishes what the story says and teaches us. I accept that Moses wrote it, and wonder if you do too?

After those two chapters we can discuss what we would like to discuss next. I fully expect to be enriched by you as we share this together. Why can’t I find a SDA who will do this with me. Do I need a breath mint??..someone please tell me if I do.

God bless you my brother!!

Patrick Murebil

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi MarysRoses

We meet again…

Wow…

Bible Study does not work, MarysRoses, when our definitions of the Bible are different, when some of us say Only the Word, while others say Tradition + the Word + apochrypha… So why study to try and `prove’ that many many many instructions in the Bible to worship on Sabbath are actually not true, when we don’t even have ONE instruction to worship on Sunday?

Bible Study is not a wrestling match, MarysRoses, it is a peek into the heart of God! We kicked Him in the face in Genesis 3, and He is looking for us up to Revelation 22 where John says: ``He who testifies to these things says, `Yes, I am coming soon.’’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. Untill then, we at least have the Sabbath, God’s HOLY day, set aside for us to find Him again…

God bless, and goodnight,
Your brother in Christ

Friedrich

My brother,

Did I miss something I said about looking at Genesis chapters 1 and 2…all I have said over and over and over and over is let us look at the scriptures and the scriptures ALONE and share with each other what they say…what the words of the scripture say. It is almost like diagraming a sentence…what do the words say, and what do they say to us? It is the book of Genesis and we both agree that is in the Bible. This is about the Creation story…I believe the creation story…I believe the Bible. Two chapters of scripture and scripture alone.

Does this sound odd to anyone other than me, that a Catholic (well, soon to be Catholic) is begging a protestant to look at the Bible and the Bible alone? I feel like Martin Luther in reverse.

Which should clear up a wide-spread misconception protestants have regarding Catholics…and that is that Catholics do not read or believe the Bible. I discovered that Catholics love to read and study the Bible.

If anyone would have told me that I would be at this place in time, doing what I am doing…well…I probably would have dropped dead from laughing so hard. Never did I ever think I would be where I am right now…never.

God bless all!!!
Patrick Murebil

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Patrick

Thank you once again for a lovely reply.

I can’t agree more with you that that president was seriously in error, not condemning abortions in an SDA hospital! Where we come from, this would never happen, so I expect our church has its problems in the more liberal countries!

The President of the General Conference had the same dismissive attitude regarding this issue. And he is the head of the SDA church in all countries throughout the world, not just the U.S.

But I am glad to hear that the SDAs in your country respect the life of the helpless innocent, even if the head of the world-wide church has other issues to deal with.

God bless all!!!

 

[Friedrich]

Hi Patrick

Thanks so much for the lovely replies. Will chat to you over the weekend, need to get ready for Sabbath!

My concern with your `chat’ over Genesis 1 & 2 is in the TITLE – WHY IS SUNDAY INSTEAD OF SATURDAY THE SABBATH?

 

[Friedrich]

Sorry Patrick!

I pressed the wrong button.

WHY IS SUNDAY INSTEAD OF SATURDAY THE SABBATH? I find it disturbing to discuss such an issue in Genesis, because Genesis does not even mention Sunday in any context except WORK – God created light/dark on Sunday. So, combine this with statements made by at least 2 of your Catholic friends in reaction to my postings last night on 2 different threads (to the effect that Sunday is not about the Sabbath/Bible at all, but something that the Catholic Church decided on themselves!), then it seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Let me try again – If we are discussing Sunday observance which is not encouraged in the Bible (I am still waiting for texts from various posters – there aren’t any, so they don’t even try), then actually we are discussing A NON-EXISTENT THING. The only way I see that NOTHING can be made to look like SOMETHING (from a Biblical perspective), is to take SOMETHING (the Bible Sabbath), and try to reduce this beautiful structure to rubble, NOTHING. This happens every time I post something on the Sabbath – they nitpick at it, but have no Biblical grounds for Sunday. By the way, I also love the Resurrection of Jesus – both my parents are dead, and I can’t wait to see them again in Heaven. If you are looking for sharing of insights from the creation story, I would be happy to do that with you, but NO, I am NOT interested in `debating’ Sabbath/Sunday in Genesis 1 & 2 – IT IS A NON-ISSUE!

God bless,

Friedrich

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Sorry Patrick!

I pressed the wrong button.

WHY IS SUNDAY INSTEAD OF SATURDAY THE SABBATH? I find it disturbing to discuss such an issue in Genesis, because Genesis does not even mention Sunday in any context except WORK – God created light/dark on Sunday. So, combine this with statements made by at least 2 of your Catholic friends in reaction to my postings last night on 2 different threads (to the effect that Sunday is not about the Sabbath/Bible at all, but something that the Catholic Church decided on themselves!), then it seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Let me try again – If we are discussing Sunday observance which is not encouraged in the Bible (I am still waiting for texts from various posters – there aren’t any, so they don’t even try), then actually we are discussing A NON-EXISTENT THING. The only way I see that NOTHING can be made to look like SOMETHING (from a Biblical perspective), is to take SOMETHING (the Bible Sabbath), and try to reduce this beautiful structure to rubble, NOTHING. This happens every time I post something on the Sabbath – they nitpick at it, but have no Biblical grounds for Sunday. By the way, I also love the Resurrection of Jesus – both my parents are dead, and I can’t wait to see them again in Heaven. If you are looking for sharing of insights from the creation story, I would be happy to do that with you, but NO, I am NOT interested in `debating’ Sabbath/Sunday in Genesis 1 & 2 – IT IS A NON-ISSUE!

God bless,

Friedrich

Dear Friedrich, my dear brother,

This is why I love you! You shared your honest feelings above and now I hear what your are saying and understand your concerns.

Throughout many of these threads SDAs have may their points regarding the sabbath. I have read them. Also Catholics have made their points regarding Sunday. I think if anyone goes back through this post and most certainly the Amazing Fact Bible Study Guide post, they can read very good presentations on why Catholics observe Sunday and why SDAs observe Saturday. We both know what the other believes about that issue.

Let me re-assure you that I am in no way trying to reduce anything in the Bible to rubble. And I am in no way trying to prevent you or anyone else from presenting their views and beliefs.

I know that the Saturday/Sunday issue will in no way be settled one way or the other by discussing the first two chapters of Genesis. That discussion most definitely requires much study throughout the rest of the Bible. That will take time, and I’m willing to continue discussing that topic as time goes on.

But for now, I would just like to look at the first two chapters of Genesis…the creation story…and share with each other what those verses are saying. To just take some time and focus on those verses and those verses alone. What do those verses say to us. I never did believe that you were frightened to do this.

While the creation story certainly plays a major role in not only understanding the 7th day sabbath, it plays a major role in many other things as well. And I hope and pray that you and I will be around many many years to discuss these things as Christian brothers. So for us to have a discussion rather than an argument (which is not to say that we will ever agree with each other) , let’s at least begin at the beginning…two chapters…and see how that goes and where the Lord leads. How does that sound?

I am a creationist…that is the model I choose by faith…rather than an evolutionist…which others choose by faith as well.

If at any poiint you feel I am being cruel or unfair to you, just say so…and I will feel free to do the same. I just believe that you and I can talk together about the Bible!!! I like you Friedrich!

Have a great weekend…we will talk more next week! And I have to remember that you are on the other side of the earth…Praise God for the internet!! I had a room mate in college from South Africa…I liked him too!

God bless all!!!
Patrick Murebil

 

[Friedrich]

Dear Patrick

I know you were an SDA for many years, and understand how we think. I don’t understand how Catholics interpret the Bible. So, for the sake of anybody else reading our Bible Study together, here are a few (off the top of my head) PRINCIPLES OF SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, that could help us all to know where we come from:

1. The WHOLE BIBLE IS GOD-INSPIRED, and useful for instruction etc.
   – that means Genesis 1 to Revelation 22:21. ``But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’’ 2 Timothy 3:14-17.
   (We know in Paul and Timothy’s day the Old Testament was a complete Canon, but the New Testament was still being `canonized’, but if we don’t believe the NT to be God-inspired, then we can’t talk meaningfully!)
2. The logical conclusion to no 1 is that THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING OF A PORTION OF SCRIPTURE IS BY COMPARING IT WITH THE REST OF THE BIBLE.
   i.)If we take an isolated verse or portion of Scripture, and build a whole doctrine on it, we risk becoming SECTARIAN (something SDA’s are called quite often!). Take Matthew 27:5 ``Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.’’ Some weird guru tells his followers to follow this verse in order to reach a higher form of existence’, and they all commit suicide! II.) Obviously the best way to understand the mileu/background to the Bible, would be to read up extensively from archaeological findings etc., but once again, archaeology or ancient writings do not determine the Bible, rather, the Bible is the most accurate mirror of that society -- archaeology can merely corroborate, enlighten the truths of the Bible (too many proofs’ that the Bible was inaccurate, have been shattered by later discoveries)
3. LET THE BIBLE INTERPRET ITSELF! When we as humans don’t know what the Bible means, do not speculate, rather search for answers in the Bible.
   Take Daniel 8:2 & 3 …and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai. Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns,….’’ Is this talking about a literal sheep? NO – read Daniel 8:20 for the answer The ram which you saw, having the two horns – they are the kings of Media and Persia’’
4. The next logical conclusion to no 1 is that THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF! (We all know of 1 or 2 minute scribal `errors’ in the Bible – compare the 2 versions of Paul’s conversion experience on the Damascus road – the seeing of the light/hearing of the voice gets swapped around – but they don’t affect the Bible’s inaccuracy. For reassurance, check the great findings of the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls that were written between 200 BC and 100 AD – before that we only had comprehensive manuscripts from about 900 AD – they are virtually identical, apart from miniscule variations in spelling etc!
5. The next logical conclusion to no 1 is that A FEW ISOLATED VERSES THAT SEEM TO `CONTRADICT’ THE REST OF THE BIBLE NEED TO BE EVALUATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE REST OF THE BIBLE!
   I call it the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. So if you find 200 verses saying Jesus = God, and a few that call Him the Son of man, DO NOT MAKE JESUS A MERE MAN – He obviously was God, but now in the form of man for our sakes on earth.
6. ALWAYS TAKE THE BIBLE AS LITERAL, UNLESS OBVIOUSLY SYMBOLICAL, PROPHETIC, A PARABLE.
   i.)LITERAL – Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.’’ Matthew 14:25. The Bible claims that JESUS WALKED ON THE SEA, SO HE DID! ii) SYMBOLICAL -- Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, `I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.’ ‘’ Jesus is obviously NOT saying he is a torch, candle etc. but rather the spiritual light of the world.
   iii.) PARABLE – Another parable He put forth to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field., which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.’’ A literal interpretation of this parable would be: buy yourself a mustard seed at your local gardening shop, plant it in your backyard and till it well so that God’s kingdom can grow in your yard! By the way, it must have some birds nesting in the branches in order to qualify as God’s kingdom… Silly? Yes!
7. GOD CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE! Many Higher Critics have tried to prove that all prophetic books were written after the fulfilment of the predicted event, in other words, they were a hoax! But we know of too many Biblical predictions that came true: Noah’s preaching about the flood, Lot warning his relatives that Sodom would be destroyed by fire, God predicting that Israel in Babylonian captivity would return after 70 years – they did. The prediction that Cyrus would let the Jews return to Jerusalem was written 150 years before his existence – he did let them return.
   Take Daniel 8:21, 22 ``And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.’’ We all have heard of Alexander the Great who united Greece so swiftly and forcefully, and his four generals, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Chrysander and Lysimachus that shared his kingdom after his sudden death. This was predicted 200 years before the event…
8. PRAY BEFORE READING GOD’S WORD! The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, and He needs to guide our thoughts in studying it! ``And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation` (origin, margin), for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.’’
9. BIBLE STUDY THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO JESUS, LEADS TO DEATH ``You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they WHICH TESTIFY OF ME. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life…’’ John 5:39, 40

Patrick, I know you love Jesus, so lets talk together about Genesis 1 & 2 to see how we can find Jesus in those 2 books.

Please do me the favour, and give me a SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETION FROM THE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE so that we understand each other better.

God bless and have a wonderful Sunday,

Friedrich

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Patrick

I know you were an SDA for many years, and understand how we think. I don’t understand how Catholics interpret the Bible. So, for the sake of anybody else reading our Bible Study together, here are a few (off the top of my head) PRINCIPLES OF SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, that could help us all to know where we come from:

Hi Friedrich,
I hope you had a nice weekend!! It was so nice to receive your reply stating your willingness to talk about Genesis 1 and 2…I am glad to hear that!!

My initial reaction to this reply with your list of principles is…WOW…WOW I just wanted to talk about what the scriptures of the Creaton story say to each of us, trying to just keep it to what we each get from the story from what it says without involving a lot of other variables. But since you brought all this up…I will address your thoughts and questions to the best of my ability, hoping that you realize I do not speak for the Catholic Church, only my relationship with it. So let me begin.

First, I guess we need to get it straight that these “PRINCIPLES OF SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION” are your personal principles since they are “off the top of your head”?

Second (laced with some sarcasm to make a point), who died and made you pope? And now without the sarcasm, what qualifies you to make a list of principles, off the top of your head, to soundly interpret the Bible? I suppose anyone who reads the Bible could make up a list of principles off the top of their heads, in which case you would have as many interpretations of the Bible as you have people reading the Bible. That would seen to lead to great confusion…which I think is evident in the Christian world today. So, I have some questions and comments that I will address as we go on. Questions:

**1, Can you prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith?

1. Can you tell me how you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place?
2. Can you prove to us that you have the authority to interpret the Bible for me and that your interpretations will always be accurate?**

1. The WHOLE BIBLE IS GOD-INSPIRED, and useful for instruction etc.
   – that means Genesis 1 to Revelation 22:21. ``But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’’ 2 Timothy 3:14-17.
   (We know in Paul and Timothy’s day the Old Testament was a complete Canon, but the New Testament was still being `canonized’, but if we don’t believe the NT to be God-inspired, then we can’t talk meaningfully!)

This verse in context shows that Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, “helpful” or “useful” as you point out. Yet this in no way claims that the scriptures are “sufficient”. Many things can be profitable or useful for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”.

In the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17, Paul is laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings…the traditions…that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (RSV), and “. . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry.

If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.

The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.

Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.

As you point out Friedrich, the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written…while the NT books were still being “cannonized”. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament. So my next questions:

**1. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon?

1. How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament?
2. How do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?" **

The amazing fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The amazing fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). Friedrich, my dear brother, you accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Where did we get the Bible? Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

After you answer that question…and there’s really only one answer that can be given…you have some other important questions to ask:

**1. If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?

1. Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation? **

see (post 2, con’t)

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

post 2, con’t

1. The logical conclusion to no 1 is that THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING OF A PORTION OF SCRIPTURE IS BY COMPARING IT WITH THE REST OF THE BIBLE.
   i.)If we take an isolated verse or portion of Scripture, and build a whole doctrine on it, we risk becoming SECTARIAN (something SDA’s are called quite often!). Take Matthew 27:5 ``Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.’’ Some weird guru tells his followers to follow this verse in order to reach a higher form of existence’, and they all commit suicide! II.) Obviously the best way to understand the mileu/background to the Bible, would be to read up extensively from archaeological findings etc., but once again, archaeology or ancient writings do not determine the Bible, rather, the Bible is the most accurate mirror of that society -- archaeology can merely corroborate, enlighten the truths of the Bible (too many proofs’ that the Bible was inaccurate, have been shattered by later discoveries)
2. LET THE BIBLE INTERPRET ITSELF! When we as humans don’t know what the Bible means, do not speculate, rather search for answers in the Bible.
   Take Daniel 8:2 & 3 …and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai. Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns,….’’ Is this talking about a literal sheep? NO – read Daniel 8:20 for the answer The ram which you saw, having the two horns – they are the kings of Media and Persia’’
3. The next logical conclusion to no 1 is that THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF! (We all know of 1 or 2 minute scribal `errors’ in the Bible – compare the 2 versions of Paul’s conversion experience on the Damascus road – the seeing of the light/hearing of the voice gets swapped around – but they don’t affect the Bible’s inaccuracy. For reassurance, check the great findings of the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls that were written between 200 BC and 100 AD – before that we only had comprehensive manuscripts from about 900 AD – they are virtually identical, apart from miniscule variations in spelling etc!

It is interesting that you bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls…a truly GREAT finding indeed!!!

Here is another amazing fact! Did you know that among those scrolls, such as the book of Isaiah, there were scrolls of those books that you call the Apocrapha? Yes that’s right, those same books of the Old Testament that you said the Catholic Church added, were among the scrolls found that were maintained and preserved at Qumran.

And here is another Amazing fact! You are familiarl with the Septuagent (LXX) are you not? This was the Old Testament cannon in the Greek language used in Jesus’ time. And did you know that those 7 books you call the Apocrapha were contained in the LXX? And did you know that those 7 books you call the Apocrapha were removed from the Old Testament cannon around 90 A.D by the Jews? And did you know that it was the Catholic Church that kept them in the Old Testament Cannon used by Christians? And did you know that it was the Reformers who removed them 1500 years later, because they were a little too messy to deal with?

My guess is that you do not…but I tell you my brother, this is a very enlightening area to research and study…if you ever feel so inclined.

1. The next logical conclusion to no 1 is that A FEW ISOLATED VERSES THAT SEEM TO `CONTRADICT’ THE REST OF THE BIBLE NEED TO BE EVALUATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE REST OF THE BIBLE!
   I call it the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. So if you find 200 verses saying Jesus = God, and a few that call Him the Son of man, DO NOT MAKE JESUS A MERE MAN – He obviously was God, but now in the form of man for our sakes on earth.
2. ALWAYS TAKE THE BIBLE AS LITERAL, UNLESS OBVIOUSLY SYMBOLICAL, PROPHETIC, A PARABLE.
   i.)LITERAL – Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.’’ Matthew 14:25. The Bible claims that JESUS WALKED ON THE SEA, SO HE DID! ii) SYMBOLICAL -- Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, `I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.’ ‘’ Jesus is obviously NOT saying he is a torch, candle etc. but rather the spiritual light of the world.
   iii.) PARABLE – Another parable He put forth to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field., which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.’’ A literal interpretation of this parable would be: buy yourself a mustard seed at your local gardening shop, plant it in your backyard and till it well so that God’s kingdom can grow in your yard! By the way, it must have some birds nesting in the branches in order to qualify as God’s kingdom… Silly? Yes!
3. GOD CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE! Many Higher Critics have tried to prove that all prophetic books were written after the fulfilment of the predicted event, in other words, they were a hoax! But we know of too many Biblical predictions that came true: Noah’s preaching about the flood, Lot warning his relatives that Sodom would be destroyed by fire, God predicting that Israel in Babylonian captivity would return after 70 years – they did. The prediction that Cyrus would let the Jews return to Jerusalem was written 150 years before his existence – he did let them return.
   Take Daniel 8:21, 22 ``And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.’’ We all have heard of Alexander the Great who united Greece so swiftly and forcefully, and his four generals, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Chrysander and Lysimachus that shared his kingdom after his sudden death. This was predicted 200 years before the event…
4. PRAY BEFORE READING GOD’S WORD! The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, and He needs to guide our thoughts in studying it! ``And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation` (origin, margin), for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.’’
5. BIBLE STUDY THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO JESUS, LEADS TO DEATH ``You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they WHICH TESTIFY OF ME. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life…’’ John 5:39, 40

Patrick, I know you love Jesus, so lets talk together about Genesis 1 & 2 to see how we can find Jesus in those 2 books.

Please do me the favour, and give me a SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETION FROM THE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE so that we understand each other better.

God bless and have a wonderful Sunday,

Friedrich

Well, I hope what I’ve shared above is helpful for you to understand what you were asking me. I look forward to your thoughts!

And then, can we go discuss Genesis 1&2?

Have a great week!!
God bless all!!!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pariarch St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 105), appointed by the Apostles themselves to head the Church in Antioch, where the believers were first called Christians, Epistle to the Magnesians:

CHAPTER 9
9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient
practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after
the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through
Him and through His death which some men deny – a
mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found
disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher –
9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live
apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being
His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher
through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they
rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the
dead.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iii.ix.html

As the Church sings on Great and Holy Saturday, the Sabbath has been fulfilled:

Of old, the great Moses mystically foreshadowed this day, when he said,

God blessed the seventh day.

This is the Blessed Sabbath;

this is the day of rest,

on which the Only-Begotten Son of God rested from all His works.

By suffering death to fulfill the plan of salvation,

He kept the Sabbath in the flesh;

by returning again to what He was before,

He has granted us eternal life through His resurrection,

for He alone is good, and the Lover of man.

schmemann.org/byhim/matinsholysaturday.html

 

[Friedrich]

Hi Patrick

Good to hear from you again, my friend!

It seems like you misunderstood my introduction' to studying the Bible -- ``off the top of my head'' meant simply not from a theological book on hermeneutics’ etc. I am sure what I said, would be approved by all SDA’s because that is a `rough’ outline of how we study the Bible.

Perhaps I could add that studying a portion of Scripture in the context of what comes before and after is critical to a better understanding of it too.

So to summarize:
I take that all 66 books of the NKJV or NIV or RSV or KJV etc. would be inspired by God via the Holy Spirit, and that the Jewish church leaders under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit canonized' the OT about 500+ years BC. The NT is just as inspired as the OT, with the early church fathers, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit sifting them down to 27 book which were canonized’ by about 200 AD.

For both testaments there were obviously many more books written, but usually the church had a series of guidelines by which books were judged – for the NT it had to be written by an apostle, or somebody who was a friend/witness etc. Where the other `apochryphal’ books were more popular among the Eastern Christians, the general consensus in the West was that they would be left out of the canon because their content was not of the same value/contradicted the rest of the NT here and there etc. Obviously later, after Constantine, when the Catholic Church became more powerful, they decided they needed these books as part of their Bible.

You voice your concern that I claim something which belongs only to the Pope – that of interpreting the Bible. NOT AT ALL. I am only a child of God, and I believe that when the Bible was put together (think eg. of Paul’s letters), IT WAS MEANT TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYBODY to benefit every reader.
You are scared that this would lead to heresy – I fear the LACK OF PROPER PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, similar to what I have proposed, has been the major cause for all the churches we have – we all do our own thing, irrespective of what the Bible actually says.

I was confused by all your questions – were you trying to imply that the current Bible is NOT inspired etc, and that we can’t trust it? That is obviously NOT what you meant, so…

Please brother, I am not trying to argue with you – believe what you like – I am merely telling you how SDA’s interpret/study the current Bible.
Help me – Please just summarize in one or two paragraphs what YOU believe is essential in order to study/interpret the Bible better!

I look forward to your reply, and then please go ahead, and give us an introduction to Genesis 1&2, as you have asked for so long. I will join you as we feast on the Word of God!

In Christ

Friedrich

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi Patrick

Good to hear from you again, my friend!

It seems like you misunderstood my introduction' to studying the Bible -- ``off the top of my head'' meant simply not from a theological book on hermeneutics’ etc. I am sure what I said, would be approved by all SDA’s because that is a `rough’ outline of how we study the Bible.

Perhaps I could add that studying a portion of Scripture in the context of what comes before and after is critical to a better understanding of it too.

So to summarize:
I take that all 66 books of the NKJV or NIV or RSV or KJV etc. would be inspired by God via the Holy Spirit, and that the Jewish church leaders under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit canonized' the OT about 500+ years BC. The NT is just as inspired as the OT, with the early church fathers, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit sifting them down to 27 book which were canonized’ by about 200 AD.

For both testaments there were obviously many more books written, but usually the church had a series of guidelines by which books were judged – for the NT it had to be written by an apostle, or somebody who was a friend/witness etc. Where the other `apochryphal’ books were more popular among the Eastern Christians, the general consensus in the West was that they would be left out of the canon because their content was not of the same value/contradicted the rest of the NT here and there etc. Obviously later, after Constantine, when the Catholic Church became more powerful, they decided they needed these books as part of their Bible.

You voice your concern that I claim something which belongs only to the Pope – that of interpreting the Bible. NOT AT ALL. I am only a child of God, and I believe that when the Bible was put together (think eg. of Paul’s letters), IT WAS MEANT TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYBODY to benefit every reader.
You are scared that this would lead to heresy – I fear the LACK OF PROPER PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, similar to what I have proposed, has been the major cause for all the churches we have – we all do our own thing, irrespective of what the Bible actually says.

I was confused by all your questions – were you trying to imply that the current Bible is NOT inspired etc, and that we can’t trust it? That is obviously NOT what you meant, so…

Please brother, I am not trying to argue with you – believe what you like – I am merely telling you how SDA’s interpret/study the current Bible.
Help me – Please just summarize in one or two paragraphs what YOU believe is essential in order to study/interpret the Bible better!

I look forward to your reply, and then please go ahead, and give us an introduction to Genesis 1&2, as you have asked for so long. I will join you as we feast on the Word of God!

In Christ

Friedrich

Hi Friedrich,

Friedrich, Friedrich, Friedrich…you are misunderstanding my sarcasm about “who died and made you pope”. I was not saying the pope is the only one who can interpret scripture…that occurs with the Magesterium (The pope, the head of the Church and all the Bishops from all around the world)…somewhat like the SDA General Conference. The point I was making is that you list these principles of Bible interpretation…and by what authority do you adhere to that list.

I do not doubt that you are confused by my questions. So if you go back and read my last two posts carefully, I think they will become clearer. You should know darn well by now that I would never imply that the Old and New Testament are not inspired.

In my posts I provided you with one synod and three councils that dealt with cannonization and their dates. You make claims above in the first two paragraphs under “So to summarize” about eastern and western churches,and Constantine, and the Catholic Church. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to hold you on this and ask for citations, or at least councils, synods, and dates (I can at least research that) regarding the claims you make.

You brought up the list of “principles” and asked me, and I responded. And now I’m afraid I can no longer ignore your claims. We are talking about what you brought up. And I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I must insist now that you answer the questions in bold in my last two posts. And then we can move on…but not before you answer my questions in bold.

It keeps looking like I will never get to those first two chapters in Geneis…but this must be dealt with first now. I will pray for patience and wait.

God bless all

 

[Friedrich]

Hi Patrick

Sorry I did not answer sooner – have been extremely busy.

I have typed a response to your questions, but before posting it, I need to ask the following question:

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE?

If you force me to answer to those questions, then you will get mad at me, because obviously we see things from different perspectives. Think about it, brother,

God bless

Friedrich

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi Patrick

Sorry I did not answer sooner – have been extremely busy.

I have typed a response to your questions, but before posting it, I need to ask the following question:

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE?

If you force me to answer to those questions, then you will get mad at me, because obviously we see things from different perspectives. Think about it, brother,

God bless

Friedrich

Hi Friedrich,

First off, you never need to apologize to me regarding the length of time responding. We are all busy, and these posts can take a lot of time some times. I would assume we all have higher priorities in life.

Yes I would really like to go down that route.

If you feel that I am “forcing” you to answer my questions, then prehaps I did not communicate my desire very well to you…and if you feel forced by me then I would imagine that you could very easily be angry at me…and I don’t want you to be angry, and I especially don’t want to be the cause of your anger.

The only way I would be angry at you for your answers were if you were rude and nasty to me…and I don’t foresee you being like that.

I would not be angry because we have different opinions and views…I think we both know that is the case since we first met at the beginning. That is why I like to dialog…give and take…speak and listen…take turns and try to discuss our differences like the Christian brothers we are. I will be the first to admit that I don’t hit that mark all the time…but believe me that is my prayer and goal!

I am by no means an expert on these things, and can only relate what I know from what I have studied. I will be the first to admit that I have MUCH MUCH MUCH to learn…and with each passing year not as much time as I would like in which to do my learning…lol…and in that situation we are all equal. So to receive source documentation citations that we can go back and research is a good thing…much better than just general assertions about things.

So let’s pray for the Holy Spirit to guide our discussion in a Christian manner, and take it slow, state our thoughts, ask our questions, listen to each other, be clear that we understand what each other is saying, even if we don’t agree…and that is ok with me!! Really!!..so that we as brothers can play together with the toys in the toy chest and enjoy the experience without fighting over the toys as some brothers do…and those who have siblings know the challenge that confronts brothers. I just don’t want to follow in the footsteps of Cain and Abel …that would not be benficial.

So let me have it my friend, and I will tell you if you made me angry or not. I told you that I like you Friedrich…that hasn’t changed…even when we disagree!

I hope that on the Day when we meet in Heaven we can hug each other without having to do too much apologizing!!

God bless!!

 

[Friedrich]

Dear Patrick

I am very happy to be at last communicating with you again, especially after your comforting and open reply to my last posting.

Please accept my answers in the same Christian spirit as your letter – I do NOT claim to be all knowing etc, but am giving you thoughts that have grown through my personal study. IF AT ANY TIME A MAKE A WRONG STATEMENT ABOUT HISTORY/YOUR CHURCH, PLEASE RECTIFY IT, SINCE OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN AN OUTSIDER!

1, Can you prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith?

a. It is a rhetorical question – if ANY Christian does NOT believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith, then the Bible is merely another Christian book, and Bible study is a waste of time. Yes, the Bible DOES claim to be the only rule of faith, and I have already discussed that with you – 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed…’’; Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony! IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, THEY HAVE NO LIGHT OF DAWN.’’

1. Can you tell me how you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place?

a. I have already touched on this with you – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the JEWISH LEADERS (by 500 BC) canonized’ the OT, and under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some also Jewish Christians) by 200 AD canonized’ the NT. This was formalized in 382? at the Council of Rome.

1. Can you prove to us that you have the authority to interpret the Bible for me and that your interpretations will always be accurate?

a. Another rhetorical question. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR ANYBODY ELSE. Only by prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our thoughts, AND BY FOLLOWING BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (I AM SURE YOUR THEOLOGIANS HAVE THEM TOO – THEY ARE BRILLIANT!), CAN WE TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.

1. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon?

a. See (2) above, same question.

1. How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament?

a. similar to (2) above. If they are not inspired, why bother to study them? Also NOT ONE BOOK IN THE NT CONTRADICTS THE REST OF SCRIPTURE!

1. How do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?

a. answered before. THE BIBLE IS A LIMITED COMPILATION OF INSPIRED BOOKS UNDER THE HOLY SPIRIT’S GUIDANCE – many other prophets had inspired messages from God, but the HOLY SPIRIT saw it fit not to include them in God’s Word, the Bible.
However, where any other religious books like the apocrypha CONTRADICT THE UNITY OF SCRIPTURE, THE EARLY COMPILERS UNDER GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SAW IT FIT NOT TO USE THEM AS PART OF THE CANON. You know that Jesus quoted extensively from the LXX, but I am not aware of any quotes in the NT by Jesus or any of His disciples from any apocryphal writings

1. If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?

`the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church’’…. False assumption! Are you aware that the early Christian Church had a few subdivisions, like the Western Church, The Eastern Church, the Syriac-speaking Church. I am sure all of them could claim to be the original church, with the keys etc.

The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books. They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’ `It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings.

The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD.
• See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and `altogether wicked and impious books’.
• See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.

The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was formalized’ by a council in Rome.
THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES THEM TO CLAIM TO HAVE GIVEN US THE BIBLE…

`who’s to do the interpreting?’

.
We all know of the conversion’ of Constantine in the 4th century AD, and that many compromises were made by the early church after this time. – here is a list of unbiblical doctrines that were added to those of the early Christians from this time on till the present – – Unbiblical doctrine, Date Sunday, 321-364 AD Council of Laodicea Relic Worship, 337 AD Rosary, 366 AD Mass, 394 AD This Rock=Peter’, 445 AD Pope Leo I
Eternal Torment, 590 AD
Indulgences, 799 AD
Mary Worship, 850 AD
Bible Forbidden, 1299 AD
Infant Baptism, 1311 AD
Tradition above Scripture, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Transubstantiation, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Purgatory, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Justification by Faith & Works, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Preterism/Futurism, 1584
Immaculate Conception, 1854
Papal Infallibility, 1870
Pope sovereign ruler, 1929
Assumption of Mary, 1951

When the Roman empire collapsed in 476 AD, the bishop of Rome started taking over more political power, and in 533 AD emperor Justinian decreed that the Bishop of Rome was the spiritual leader of the world. They then became a religio/political power that eliminated other factions of the church that did not agree with them, through the use of armies, till the final fall of the Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths by 538 AD. Since that time the Catholic Church has been the undisputed powerhouse of Europe, until Napoleon’s general Berthiere temporarily halted this trend in 1798. We all know that Mussolini re-instated the Pope in the Vatican after WW1. Today he is the most influential person on earth.
This seems 100% the opposite of the way Peter and Jesus went about establishing Jesus’ Kingdom on earth – the only force ever used was when Peter used a sword to chop off Malchus’ ear – Jesus reprimanded Peter, and healed the wound in Gethsemane the evening before His death.

In the light of the above, can THE CURRENT CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIM TO BE THE SAME EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED, AND THEREBY HAVE THE SOLE RIGHT TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE?

1. Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?

a. Already discussed – the problem is inconsistency in applying basic principles of hermeneutics, or lack of such principles. Even if we were to discuss Shakespeare’s works, there would have to be some logical principles of interpretation to stick to, otherwise we would be talking in the wind…

b. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (so far) have not had the political clout to FORCE everybody to agree, or risk being branded a heretic, and burnt at the stake, as happened for hundreds of years in Europe

c. The same question can be asked of the Catholic Church – see the list of added doctrines over a period of 1400 years – did the first bishops of Rome not know about doctrines like Preterism/Futurism, the Immaculate Conception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870), Pope sovereign ruler (1929), the Assumption of Mary (1951) in 300 AD?

I KNOW MANY OF THESE DOCTRINES ARE VERY DEAR TO YOU, AND IN NO WAY INTEND TO HURT YOU BY MENTIONING THEM. I AM SIMPLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS, AS SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

Hopefully you now understand the differences between us better. ONE DAY WE MAY JUST GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MANY SIMILARITIES OUR FAITHS HAVE!

I eagerly await your introduction to Genesis 1&2!

God bless, and have a wonderful day,

Your brother in Christ,

Friedrich

 

[RobHom]

Sorry, I may misunderstood you. I tried to read the article. It was too long. There was no need to read it all. The proof of something was being given. But my point is that we cannot invent the religion. And that is what was being done in that article. That is not fair.

And yet…your profile identifies you as a “muslim”… and you state that “man-made religion” is wrong? Thanks for the laugh!!

Moreover, it was too difficult (complicated) for me to follow. It was extra to bible so I did not give it much importance in the very important matter of the sabbath.

Perhaps, considering your inadequacies in comprehending the English language… it would be safest and best for you to refrain from comment.

To cast judgment on something you neither read not understood is just foolish and ridiculous at best. It paints you in a very poor light.

 

[peary1]

Dear Patrick

I am very happy to be at last communicating with you again, especially after your comforting and open reply to my last posting.

Please accept my answers in the same Christian spirit as your letter – I do NOT claim to be all knowing etc, but am giving you thoughts that have grown through my personal study. IF AT ANY TIME A MAKE A WRONG STATEMENT ABOUT HISTORY/YOUR CHURCH, PLEASE RECTIFY IT, SINCE OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN AN OUTSIDER!

a. It is a rhetorical question – if ANY Christian does NOT believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith, then the Bible is merely another Christian book, and Bible study is a waste of time. Yes, the Bible DOES claim to be the only rule of faith, and I have already discussed that with you – 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed…’’; Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony! IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, THEY HAVE NO LIGHT OF DAWN.’’

a. I have already touched on this with you – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the JEWISH LEADERS (by 500 BC) canonized’ the OT, and under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some also Jewish Christians) by 200 AD canonized’ the NT. This was formalized in 382? at the Council of Rome.

a. Another rhetorical question. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR ANYBODY ELSE. Only by prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our thoughts, AND BY FOLLOWING BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (I AM SURE YOUR THEOLOGIANS HAVE THEM TOO – THEY ARE BRILLIANT!), CAN WE TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.

a. See (2) above, same question.

a. similar to (2) above. If they are not inspired, why bother to study them? Also NOT ONE BOOK IN THE NT CONTRADICTS THE REST OF SCRIPTURE!

a. answered before. THE BIBLE IS A LIMITED COMPILATION OF INSPIRED BOOKS UNDER THE HOLY SPIRIT’S GUIDANCE – many other prophets had inspired messages from God, but the HOLY SPIRIT saw it fit not to include them in God’s Word, the Bible.
However, where any other religious books like the apocrypha CONTRADICT THE UNITY OF SCRIPTURE, THE EARLY COMPILERS UNDER GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SAW IT FIT NOT TO USE THEM AS PART OF THE CANON. You know that Jesus quoted extensively from the LXX, but I am not aware of any quotes in the NT by Jesus or any of His disciples from any apocryphal writings

`the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church’’…. False assumption! Are you aware that the early Christian Church had a few subdivisions, like the Western Church, The Eastern Church, the Syriac-speaking Church. I am sure all of them could claim to be the original church, with the keys etc.

The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books. They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’ `It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings.

The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD.
• See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and `altogether wicked and impious books’.
• See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.

The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was formalized’ by a council in Rome.
THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES THEM TO CLAIM TO HAVE GIVEN US THE BIBLE…

.
We all know of the conversion’ of Constantine in the 4th century AD, and that many compromises were made by the early church after this time. – here is a list of unbiblical doctrines that were added to those of the early Christians from this time on till the present – – Unbiblical doctrine, Date Sunday, 321-364 AD Council of Laodicea Relic Worship, 337 AD Rosary, 366 AD Mass, 394 AD This Rock=Peter’, 445 AD Pope Leo I
Eternal Torment, 590 AD
Indulgences, 799 AD
Mary Worship, 850 AD
Bible Forbidden, 1299 AD
Infant Baptism, 1311 AD
Tradition above Scripture, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Transubstantiation, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Purgatory, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Justification by Faith & Works, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Preterism/Futurism, 1584
Immaculate Conception, 1854
Papal Infallibility, 1870
Pope sovereign ruler, 1929
Assumption of Mary, 1951

When the Roman empire collapsed in 476 AD, the bishop of Rome started taking over more political power, and in 533 AD emperor Justinian decreed that the Bishop of Rome was the spiritual leader of the world. They then became a religio/political power that eliminated other factions of the church that did not agree with them, through the use of armies, till the final fall of the Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths by 538 AD. Since that time the Catholic Church has been the undisputed powerhouse of Europe, until Napoleon’s general Berthiere temporarily halted this trend in 1798. We all know that Mussolini re-instated the Pope in the Vatican after WW1. Today he is the most influential person on earth.
This seems 100% the opposite of the way Peter and Jesus went about establishing Jesus’ Kingdom on earth – the only force ever used was when Peter used a sword to chop off Malchus’ ear – Jesus reprimanded Peter, and healed the wound in Gethsemane the evening before His death.

In the light of the above, can THE CURRENT CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIM TO BE THE SAME EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED, AND THEREBY HAVE THE SOLE RIGHT TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE?

a. Already discussed – the problem is inconsistency in applying basic principles of hermeneutics, or lack of such principles. Even if we were to discuss Shakespeare’s works, there would have to be some logical principles of interpretation to stick to, otherwise we would be talking in the wind…

b. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (so far) have not had the political clout to FORCE everybody to agree, or risk being branded a heretic, and burnt at the stake, as happened for hundreds of years in Europe

c. The same question can be asked of the Catholic Church – see the list of added doctrines over a period of 1400 years – did the first bishops of Rome not know about doctrines like Preterism/Futurism, the Immaculate Conception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870), Pope sovereign ruler (1929), the Assumption of Mary (1951) in 300 AD?

I KNOW MANY OF THESE DOCTRINES ARE VERY DEAR TO YOU, AND IN NO WAY INTEND TO HURT YOU BY MENTIONING THEM. I AM SIMPLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS, AS SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

Hopefully you now understand the differences between us better. ONE DAY WE MAY JUST GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MANY SIMILARITIES OUR FAITHS HAVE!

I eagerly await your introduction to Genesis 1&2!

God bless, and have a wonderful day,

Your brother in Christ,

Friedrich

**Is this more protestant fodder for the forum, or what? **