11-06-2008, 08:41 AM
11-06-2008, 10:07 AM
Quote:
What message are you trying to get across with your post? Are you saying that what is and what is not sacred scripture is something that we are free to disagree on? That God allows for differences in this area as long as we agree on the “basics”? Are you saying that if I insist that God’s revelation of scripture was made to the Christian Councils of the 4th century and not to the Jewish Councils of the first century that I’m practicing denominationalism or being divisive?
Yes, you ARE practicing denominationalism and being divisive. Was I ambiguous? (Not usually acused of such a thing...LOL)
Quote:
This discussion is about the canon of scripture. Your post detracts from the purpose of this thread.
The "need" for this thread was a splinter off of another thread in which you were asserting RCC Authority.
This is "another reason" RCC is the only true church, in your thinking.
That is your sole purpose on this forum wk. From your first post to the most recent: RCC "proofs" that it ALONE is "the church." The rest of us are red-haired step children.
11-06-2008, 02:08 PM
Okay Ripley's, now that you've finished posting your OPINIONS, care to address the FACTS I've brought forth?
Sugarman - The comments you raise have already been addressed in this thread. Please read the posts and then comment, preferably in your own words rather than links to other people's material.
Sugarman - The comments you raise have already been addressed in this thread. Please read the posts and then comment, preferably in your own words rather than links to other people's material.
11-06-2008, 10:27 PM
Ripleys,
You said: The "need" for this thread was a splinter off of another thread in which you were asserting RCC Authority.
I say:
This thread spawned from another that was discussing the role of God’s revelation through the Church vis-à-vis Sola Scriptura. You even started the thread and called it “Gentile Talmudism”. Arguments were made that Sacred Scripture was the sole source of God’s infallible revelation. I pointed out the fact that scripture itself does not set out to tell us what is and what is not inspired. In other words, the teaching of Sola-Scriptura does not reveal the canon of scripture to us so God has revealed the truth of what is and what is not scripture through some other authoritative means.
You seem really hung up on issues related to the authority that Jesus granted to his apostles and the church. Perhaps we could start another thread on this. In the mean time, let’s limit the discussion in this thread to the establishment of the canon of scripture.
You said: The "need" for this thread was a splinter off of another thread in which you were asserting RCC Authority.
I say:
This thread spawned from another that was discussing the role of God’s revelation through the Church vis-à-vis Sola Scriptura. You even started the thread and called it “Gentile Talmudism”. Arguments were made that Sacred Scripture was the sole source of God’s infallible revelation. I pointed out the fact that scripture itself does not set out to tell us what is and what is not inspired. In other words, the teaching of Sola-Scriptura does not reveal the canon of scripture to us so God has revealed the truth of what is and what is not scripture through some other authoritative means.
You seem really hung up on issues related to the authority that Jesus granted to his apostles and the church. Perhaps we could start another thread on this. In the mean time, let’s limit the discussion in this thread to the establishment of the canon of scripture.
11-07-2008, 06:51 AM
wkirscher Wrote:
Okay Ripley's, now that you've finished posting your OPINIONS, care to address the FACTS I've brought forth?
Sugarman - The comments you raise have already been addressed in this thread. Please read the posts and then comment, preferably in your own words rather than links to other people's material.
Sorry But I fail to see when you deal with the errors of them.
11-07-2008, 07:05 AM
http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm
Can you deal with this?
many of the teachings in the apocrypha go directly against in the OT The blood not money is what atones for sin.
also in The NT it jesus Not money that atones.
or how about magic burning fish hearts to scare away devils?
what about this?
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Macabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Connect that to the NT we are to die once then our judgment period after we are dead no more chances for salvation.
Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
so we have salvation by works giving with money we have witchcraft burning fish hearts to scare away evil and we have wrong Historical facts.
http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm
you Might say but these were anicent practice of jews! But that does not the case because The case is if these jews were practice this they were not practicing what was written down as God word but leaning on tradition.
Can you deal with this?
many of the teachings in the apocrypha go directly against in the OT The blood not money is what atones for sin.
also in The NT it jesus Not money that atones.
or how about magic burning fish hearts to scare away devils?
what about this?
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Macabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Connect that to the NT we are to die once then our judgment period after we are dead no more chances for salvation.
Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
so we have salvation by works giving with money we have witchcraft burning fish hearts to scare away evil and we have wrong Historical facts.
http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm
you Might say but these were anicent practice of jews! But that does not the case because The case is if these jews were practice this they were not practicing what was written down as God word but leaning on tradition.
11-07-2008, 07:12 AM
wkirscher Wrote:
Ripleys,
You said: The "need" for this thread was a splinter off of another thread in which you were asserting RCC Authority.
I say:
This thread spawned from another that was discussing the role of God’s revelation through the Church vis-à-vis Sola Scriptura. You even started the thread and called it “Gentile Talmudism”. Arguments were made that Sacred Scripture was the sole source of God’s infallible revelation. I pointed out the fact that scripture itself does not set out to tell us what is and what is not inspired. In other words, the teaching of Sola-Scriptura does not reveal the canon of scripture to us so God has revealed the truth of what is and what is not scripture through some other authoritative means.
You seem really hung up on issues related to the authority that Jesus granted to his apostles and the church. Perhaps we could start another thread on this. In the mean time, let’s limit the discussion in this thread to the establishment of the canon of scripture.
Mr. Kirscher and Ripley's,
Quote:
2 Timothy 3:12-17 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 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.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
11-07-2008, 09:08 AM
Quote:
Okay Ripley's, now that you've finished posting your OPINIONS, care to address the FACTS I've brought forth?
The facts are that we are of Christ. If you choose to be of Kefa, and exclude the rest of us, so be it. And if you feel that is persecuting you, so be that also.
Quote:
In other words, the teaching of Sola-Scriptura does not reveal the canon of scripture to us so God has revealed the truth of what is and what is not scripture through some other authoritative means.
You seem really hung up on issues related to the authority that Jesus granted to his apostles and the church.
You seem really hung up on issues related to the authority that Jesus granted to his apostles and the church.
The "some other authoritative means" to YOU is RCC.
It is not me who is hung up on the authority God granted ALL of the apostles. It is not me who is asserting that you must acknowledge any other authority than God Himself, without parsing words, like "of course, BUT...."
I asked you many months ago if you were her to scatter or gather. THAT is my only concern: church unity.
11-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Successive translations are suspect to everything from leading people astray, to damning them and those who did the translating.
I have found good success with the KJV and strong's cross-references.
Of course you can type yourself into just about any pseudo-box you want...
If you leave out the essentials, such as faith worketh by love, (going around the horn) By grace, through faith, which worketh by love, from GOD through Christ.
The crux of the matter lies in whether the scripture version or language that is transmitted for your use is perverting the kind of love Christ exibited. (not in just a strictly platonic sense either) . Yosef and Miriam
(in most translations) are portrayed as handling a very socially and culturally akward situation in the best way possible.* After all, claiming to hear from God, especially in dreams, visions or through angels would put anyone in a league by themselves.
I think when Christ said, "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood",
is similiar in a lot of ways to this story of Christ:
Luke.14
[28] For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Prov.18
[10] The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
Job.23
[14] For He performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.
*THE BEST
I have found good success with the KJV and strong's cross-references.
Of course you can type yourself into just about any pseudo-box you want...
If you leave out the essentials, such as faith worketh by love, (going around the horn) By grace, through faith, which worketh by love, from GOD through Christ.
The crux of the matter lies in whether the scripture version or language that is transmitted for your use is perverting the kind of love Christ exibited. (not in just a strictly platonic sense either) . Yosef and Miriam
(in most translations) are portrayed as handling a very socially and culturally akward situation in the best way possible.* After all, claiming to hear from God, especially in dreams, visions or through angels would put anyone in a league by themselves.
I think when Christ said, "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood",
is similiar in a lot of ways to this story of Christ:
Luke.14
[28] For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Prov.18
[10] The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
Job.23
[14] For He performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.
*THE BEST
11-07-2008, 03:52 PM
Sugarman - We are talking about the history of the canon of scripture, not how scripture does or does not line up with our personal interpretation of scripture, or what literary styles are used, or what apparent inconsistencies are in scripture. If you want to talk more about this, I suggest you start a separate thread.
Otherwise, maybe you would like to answer the following:
What are your thoughts on the fact that there is no Christian Council that affirms the Protestant O.T. canon? What are your thoughts on the fact that many of the Jews of the Diaspora, the present day Jews of Ethiopia, the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, the early Christians, and many of the early Church Fathers, all consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture? What are your thoughts on the fact that all Christian Councils prior to the Reformation that list a canon of scripture, include the deuterocanonical books? How can one make the claim that the RCC “added to” scripture at the Council of Trent when these books were already listed as scripture by the Church in Hippo, the Church in Carthage, and the Church in Rome? Isn’t it more likely that the Reformers “subtracted from” scripture since their new canon was not consistent with any prior Christian canon?
Otherwise, maybe you would like to answer the following:
What are your thoughts on the fact that there is no Christian Council that affirms the Protestant O.T. canon? What are your thoughts on the fact that many of the Jews of the Diaspora, the present day Jews of Ethiopia, the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, the early Christians, and many of the early Church Fathers, all consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture? What are your thoughts on the fact that all Christian Councils prior to the Reformation that list a canon of scripture, include the deuterocanonical books? How can one make the claim that the RCC “added to” scripture at the Council of Trent when these books were already listed as scripture by the Church in Hippo, the Church in Carthage, and the Church in Rome? Isn’t it more likely that the Reformers “subtracted from” scripture since their new canon was not consistent with any prior Christian canon?