Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48272 | ||
Dschaertel Well, that is just it! You see, the Bible CLAIMS to be inspired by God! However, it is interesting that there is no claim in any Apocryphal book in regard to divine inspiration. :-) So there you go. The books that claim to be inspired or were written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God belong in the Bible. Only books that are authoritative, and tell the truth about God as it is already known by previous revelation belong in the Word of God. And if the book is also giving evidence of having the power of God and is widely accepted by the people of God, as well as meeting the other requirements above, then it is and should be considered as Scripture. But can you find any instance in any Apocryphal book that claims divine inspiration? Also, no NT author ever quoted from any of these books (that are included in the Catholic Bible) as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired writ. If these books had been inspired, then why did Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore all of these books? Therefore, I believe that it should not be a hard task for a Christian to be able to determine just what is inspired Scripture and what isn't. I have touched upon some of the criteria for determining just which books belong and which books do not belong, and I believe that it is quite obvious when touching upon the text itself, that is, if you have ever read the Bible for yourself. |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48299 | ||
Apparently you are missing my point. "Only books that are authoritative, and tell the truth about God as it is already known by previous revelation belong in the Word of God." What makes them authoritative? You are defining your terms with the terms. It is like looking up a word in the dictionary only to find it defined by itself. If I am trying to decide what is authoritatve, how do I go about that? What makes something authoritative? And where do you get that definition from? "Also, no NT author ever quoted from any of these books (that are included in the Catholic Bible) as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired writ. If these books had been inspired, then why did Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore all of these books?" This is just totally false and baseless. The books of Enoch (which isn't even in the Catholic books) and Baruch are quoted from in the NT. Not to mention there are quotations from early church fathers from the apocryphal books. However, there are other books in the Old Testament that are not quoted from in the NT, like Esther for example. This doesn't hold up as criteria for determining canonicity, sorry. "I believe that it is quite obvious when touching upon the text itself" I think this statement shows a lack of understanding of history and how the Bible came about. If it is so "obvious" how come there have been so many lists throughout the years? When Josephus wrote at the end of the first century he sites only 22 books in the Jewish canon. Throughout the years different books have been in and out. Luther did not want James and Revelation in the Bible. Say what! How does he come to that? I think if you put the blinders on and repeat the rhetoric, life is a bowl of cherries. But that doesn't chagne the facts. |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 48300 | ||
Hello dschaertel You continue to make statements concerning all these supposed canon lists, yet the only one you attempt to cite is Josephus (and that without proper reference). You need to document this claim. Steve |
||||||