Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
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 | dschaertel | 48447 | ||
"Non-thinking Christians, maybe. Some of the most important theological arguments made in the New Testament hinge on there being a single, historical pair of human parents. " So, if I said that you were as strong as Hercules, what does that mean? Does that mean that Hercules was a real literal person? Do you not understand what I mean when I say that? Does it mean you have no strength because Hercules was a myth? I think the thruth that God is communicating can be made even if the story is a parable. Now, if your aganda is not the witness of Christ but rather anti-evolution, then you need the literal explanation. If I was trying to prove that Greek mythology was actually true, then I would need Hercules to be a real person. It kind of depends on what your aganda is, doesn't it? ""Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." --John 17:17 " It is interesting you quote John, because John says that the "word" was made flesh and dwelt among us. Have you seen any flesh Bibles lately? John also records for us: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Are you saying then that the comforter is actually the Bible? That the Holy Ghost is actually the Bible? I still haven't seen any scripture that speaks of the Bible. Remember when the psalms were written, the only scripture was the Torah. Just 5 books. When Paul wrote 2Timothy, there was no New Testament. So when they refer to scripture they aren't refering to the Bible, the Bible didn't exist yet. |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 48453 | ||
Greetings Dschaertel! I have been following your posts my friend. I just have a couple of quick questions for you. Do you believe that every writting is inspired by God? If I wrote a Gospel of Jesus today, would it be just as authoritative as the one Matthew wrote? Would something written later than Paul, and teaching a totally different message, be more authoritative than Paul's letters? It seems to me that one only has two choices, either accept everything written as being from God or realize that not everything written is inspired by God. The first choice leads to nonsense, since logic itself is violated when we accept two different works which say two different things about Jesus (a logical contradiction). The second choice leads to a Canon - a recoginition that some works are inspired and some are not. This is all the New Testament Canon is - a recognition by the early Church of which books were inspired by God. You seem to argue that the Church has authority, so why wouldn't the Church has authority to classify which books are inspired and which aren't? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48460 | ||
Tim, Very well put, and in fact that is my point. It is the church that recognizes the scripture. The scripture doesn't come with some kind of angelic seal that marks it as such. It is though usage, application, and revelation that we come to accept something as being inspired. But the authority to make this recognition, I believe, has been given to the church. So now we have a dilema. Part of the church says one thing, and part of the church says another. Many of the early church fathers quoted the apocryphal books as if they were scripture. Paul even makes refernce to the practice of being baptized for the dead. John even says that there are many more things that Jesus did that are not recorded in his gospel. If the RCC says that these books are scripture, by what authority would you argue against that? |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 48462 | ||
Greetings Dschaertel! In this case, I would go back to the oldest Canon list established by the Church, which was in the fourth century. The RCC Canon list came over 1,100 years later. The early lists were all in basic agreement and used similar critieria. The problem I have with the RCC list is which 'Church' was right, the one in the late 300's or the one in the 1500's? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48478 | ||
" The early lists were all in basic agreement and used similar critieria. The problem I have with the RCC list is which 'Church' was right, the one in the late 300's or the one in the 1500's? " I think that there were no fewer than 3 councils that had canon lists in the 4th century. They didn't all agree, so which one do you mean? Also, the first church historian, Eusebius,did not consider Revelation to be scripture, he didn't even believe that it was written by the apostle John. Jude was a book that was in some lists and not in others, Hebrews as well. In fact, Hebrews, by todays standards for canonization doesn't make the cut because we don't know the author. As I mentioned before, there were different version of the Old Testament as well depending on if you were of the Palestinian or Alexandrian persuasion. You say that these apocryphal books were not recognized, and I agree people disagred about it. But the simple fact that it was in the scriptures says that it wasn't some kind of fly by night fad. Especially when Jerome himself didn't recognize them as being inspired. He still incuded them in the Vulgate. Somebody thought they belonged there. It may have a lot to do with the fact that they were in the Septuagint. But my point is that people look through rose colored glasses. There wasn't all this automatic agreement that people seem to think. I think that people have trouble dealing with ambiguity. They don't like the idea that there isn't some kind of solid "correct" list that has God's stamp on it. So they deny the truth. You see, if the Bible is your God, it must be everything you want it to be. If Christ is your God, as long as it points to him, it's good enough. |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 48492 | ||
Greetings! I'll have to find the actual lists, but I know that they were in substantial agreement. There were some minor differences, but more agreement than not and none of them were the same as the 1500 RCC list. Your argment though is that the church has the authority to decide which are canonical, so which would be more authoritative - the oldest canon or one which was drawn up 1500 years after the fact? You wrote: "You see, if the Bible is your God, it must be everything you want it to be. If Christ is your God, as long as it points to him, it's good enough." There are two major problems with these statements. First, the Bible isn't anyone's God. I believe that the Bible is God's self-revelation to us - nothing more and nothing less. As God's self-revelation, it is authorative in a way that other writtings are not. Secondly, not everything which points to Christ is factual. God-breathed writtings are not in error. That is why all of us make distinctions between valid writings and those which are not! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||