Misrepresent from your pov.

Your words, WG - look back at post 242.

Your words, WG - look back at post 242.
I KNOW what I wrote. I figured it probably won't agree with your interpretation, so you will consider it as misrepresenting and incorrect.

I KNOW what I wrote. I figured it probably won't agree with your interpretation, so you will consider it as misrepresenting and incorrect.

You apparently THINK you know what you wrote. I said nothing about you mis-representing anything - you said that the SS teachers mis-represent.

Maybe if you stop trying to throw stones at me, and attack me, and stop, calm down go back and read what you wrote, things may become clear to you.

Let me quote your entire post:



How much creative teaching is being done that misrepresents or causes misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually say? Were the shepherds and Wise Men at the manger at the same time? I bet 85-90% of Christians believe so (but they weren't). Does a day in Genesis 1 mean a 24-hour period? Some Christian teachers/pastors believe yes, and others no. Are there mistakes in the Bible? Some SS teachers/pastors say yes, others no.

Sit in on several SS classes or adult Bible studies at a Christian church not in your denomination and let me know what you find out.


I added the colour and the bold to make it easier to see what you actually wrote. If you don't believe that it is a quote, click that little blue arrow after your name in the quote box and it will take you right to YOUR original post.

You apparently THINK you know what you wrote. I said nothing about you mis-representing anything - you said that the SS teachers mis-represent.

Maybe if you stop trying to throw stones at me, and attack me, and stop, calm down go back and read what you wrote, things may become clear to you.

Let me quote your entire post:
You are having trouble understanding what I wrote. Yes, there are SS teachers who misrepresent what the Bible says. But by whose standard of what the Bible says? They think they are correct. You may agree with them. According to you, we here misrepresent what the Bible says.

You are having trouble understanding what I wrote. Yes, there are SS teachers who misrepresent what the Bible says.

And that is exactly what I was referring to - it appears you are having difficulty understanding what is being said. If you take the time to discuss instead of picking of stones to toss because you don't agree with, or don't like the person, so many mis-understandings like this will never even happen. I'll be honest - I do not understand why some folk just decide to turn nasty when others disagree. Why can't we just discuss respectfully?

Now, to carry on with the discussion:


But by whose standard of what the Bible says? They think they are correct.

People can be sincere and sincerely mistaken. Open the Bible and let's see what it says. You don't need a "standard" to read what it says, with the possible exception of a basic understanding of the English language and a dictionary if you struggle with word meanings. If there are more difficult passages, picking up a lexicon for Greek or hebrew may also be necessary, or further study into what the Bible says elsewhere on the same topic.


You may agree with them. According to you, we here misrepresent what the Bible says.

Here we go again - I did not say that - you claimed that I said it.

This is where mis-understandings occur - when someone refuses to read what was actually said.

why some folk just decide to turn nasty when others disagree. Why can't we just discuss respectfully?
Are you referring to me as "nasty"? I'm simply talking about people who have decided the Bible is to be interpreted in one way which happens to be different from the way another person would interpret it. It happens all the time, even here.

People can be sincere and sincerely mistaken.
So who is correct?

Here we go again - I did not say that - you claimed that I said it.
*chuckle*

This is where mis-understandings occur - when someone refuses to read what was actually said.
I so glad you admit that. So true, so true.

Are you referring to me as "nasty"? I'm simply talking about people who have decided the Bible is to be interpreted in one way which happens to be different from the way another person would interpret it. It happens all the time, even here.

Yes, it does, and by making accusations about me, you contributed to that. It is important to read what is said, and to respond to the topic.


So who is correct?

That is where it is important for people to put aside their theological systems and beliefs and sit down and look at what the Bible actually says. The key issue here is that far too often people do not wish to submit themselves to God's word, but follow their own theological system and forcefit scripture, or they bend scripture to fit the theological system of their church or denomination (and we see a great deal of that on here with some folk demanding the everyone else submit to their denomination.

It can be painful for people to admit that it is God and God's word that we must submit to, and to put aside our own beliefs, but that is what must be done.


So true, so true.

I hope that in the future you will take the time to actually read what you said and what I said before claiming otherwise.

It can be painful for people to admit that it is God and God's word that we must submit to, and to put aside our own beliefs, but that is what must be done.
Then why do no two ***ADDED sola scriptura*** Christians believe exactly the same thing?

I hope that in the future you will take the time to actually read what you said and what I said before claiming otherwise.
Yes, I hope you will understand what I write as well as you understand the Bible.

And I absolutely agree with you on that... And have insisted that we recognize that we can not fall to added traditions (or) to change any that were written.

There’s a problem here. If we aren’t to rely on any traditions or any teachings outside of the Bible, then Christ is not King. We don’t have a messiah who is both man and God. We don’t have a Holy Spirit. We are simply left with the Old Testament and a new story about a nice guy who came along and was both loving and kind to the poor.


I have mentioned twice that man's traditions were spoken of as leaven which rises up within the teaching, and Christ himself warned us of this fact. (Matthew 16:6 16:12)

There were many things Christ said which refer to writings that are no longer in existence. Do God’s words fade and go out of vogue?


So today we want to be unleavened and purged the conscience from false traditions and false doctrine.

To Interpret Holy Scripture, each deciding individually what authority to give Scripture, bends the will of God conforming to your own fallible and subjective will, i.e. placing God in a box. In so doing God must conform to your will. I’m sure that’s not what you intend to do with the tenets of Sola Scriptura, but that is the net effect.

JoeT

Then why do no two Christians believe exactly the same thing?

First, I disagree with your premise. I know many Christians who are in concert with each other.

Now, if you say why don't all Christians agree on areas of speculation or areas where the Bible is silent - that is simply because those areas are matters of opinion and if scripture has not commented on those areas, they are not essentials and are areas which are not doctrinal.

The other problem is as I stated in my last message, and that is when people place their own beliefs and theological system or indeed the teachings of their denomination above scripture. Or in cases where they or theior denomination adds to, subtracts from or alters scripture. In such cases they have altered the standard from being scripture alone and have put man in a position of judgment over God's word.

There’s a problem here. If we aren’t to rely on any traditions or any teachings outside of the Bible, then Christ is not King.

So, you say that if we don't add manmade doctrines to God's word, that we deny Jesus? Wow. That is quite a claim. I do agree that I may be denying the jesus made up by whoever added their manmade teachings, but I will be submitting myself to the true Jesus.

First, I disagree with your premise. I know many Christians who are in concert with each other.
I added "sola scriptura" while you were penning your answer. Sola scriptura Christians. Although it's very possible there are not two Christians who agree on everything.


In such cases they have altered the standard from being scripture alone and have put man in a position of judgment over God's word.
Well, it's mankind who reads and interprets/understands it. There is no way to get around that.

I added "sola scriptura" while you were penning your answer. Sola scriptura Christians. Although it's very possible there are not two Christians who agree on everything.

My response remains.


Well, it's mankind who reads and interprets/understands it. There is no way to get around that.

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. Then it is downhill from there.

Tj:

Do answer the question.



Then why do no two ***ADDED sola scriptura*** Christians believe exactly the same thing?

JoeT

Tj:

Do answer the question.

Joe,

Do read my answer which was already posted.

My response remains.
Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences.
So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

My response remains.

Your response?




We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. then it is downhill from there.


What you've said here is to ignor interpretation and just believe as TJ tells you to.

That's downhill for sure!

JoeT

PEOPLE,YE ARE WREAKING MY HEAD!
And yes I'm shouting.

Come as little children.come with the faith and hearts of little children. No amount of argueing will make GOD or anyone answer your questions.

Be still and know I am GOD.

Listen.

Hear.

Know.

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. then it is downhill from there.


What you've said here is to ignor interpretation and just beleive as TJ tells you to.

That's downhill for sure!


Sorry - I missed mentioning when people feel that they must turn on anyone who dares disagree with them. That is not a doctrinal issue but a behavioural issue, but it can become a doctrinal issue because people who decide to make a doctrinal discussion a personal issue typically do so as a way to force people into accepting their (pr their denomination's) private interpretation.

Thanks for giving such an excellent demonstration by your own behaviour.

Sorry - I missed mentioning when people feel that they must turn on anyone who dares disagree with them. That is not a doctrinal issue but a behavioural issue, but it can become a doctrinal issue because people who decide to make a doctrinal discussion a personal issue typically do so as a way to force people into accepting their (pr their denomination's) private interpretation.

Does anyone else notice that Tom just described himself to a Tee? Interesting that he can't see it in himself.

Does anyone else notice that Tom just described himself to a Tee? Interesting that he can't see it in himself.

Alty,

Have you come to make personal demeaning comments or come to contribute to the discussion?

Alty,

Have you come to make personal demeaning comments or come to contribute to the discussion?

Just pointing out the obvious Tom. Why do you find it demeaning?

The truth does hurt at times, but it will set you free.

As for the discussion, I'm just watching, reading, taking it all in. That is allowed, nes pas?

Just pointing out the obvious Tom. Why do you find it demeaning?

The truth does hurt at times, but it will set you free.

Because, Alty, I am trying to discuss the topic, and you and a few others on this site take it upon themselves to turn everything into a personal dispute, which results in abuse and subsequently each thread where that happens gets shut down.

Truth is one thing, abuse is something else. You have not given us truth, you have simply continued what you do on every thread where you find me, you come on and start trouble.


As for the discussion, I'm just watching, reading, taking it all in. That is allowed, nes pas?

Watching is allowed. Constructive, respectful discussion is allowed, but as you ought to know, abusive comments are not.

Because, Alty, I am trying to discuss the topic, and you and a few others on this site take it upon themselves to turn everything into a personal dispute, which results in abuse and subsequently each thread where that happens gets shut down.

Tom, don't you find it odd that to you everyone is turning it into a personal dispute, but you are completely innocent? Really, that should be a clue.

As for threads getting shut down. Well Tom, it is my understanding that when you feel threatened you report the thread and then it's shut down. There's nothing I can do about that, it's all on you.


Watching is allowed. Constructive, respectful discussion is allowed, but as you ought to know, abusive comments are not.

So now the truth is abusive? Since when?

Also, constructive respectful discussion, come on Tom, you can't tell someone else to do something you are unwilling to do.

I'm done. I've said my peace. Something tells me you'll come back with more though. In fact, I'd bet on it.

Bye now.

Tom, don't you find it odd that to you everyone is turning it into a personal dispute, but you are completely innocent? Really, that should be a clue.

No, Alty, not everyone - there are a few people who seem unable to accept disagreement.


As for threads getting shut down. Well Tom, it is my understanding that when you feel threatened you report the thread and then it's shut down. There's nothing I can do about that, it's all on you.

Alty, I only report abuse. If there was no abuse, no mod would shut down the thread. If you are finding that after you post abuse, threads get shut, don't blame it on others.


So now the truth is abusive? Since when?

The truth isn't. False accusations and turning a thread in a personal attack session is abusive. And I have yet to see you contribute anything to the discussion.


I'm done. I've said my peace.

Time will tell.

Now, hopefully Alty will keep her personal comments at bay so that the discussion can continue.


Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

Are you referring to people who hold solely to scripture as their standard of truth? Or just picking attendees at random?

If the latter, you will certainly find differences because there is no guarantee that all these people are saved, or that they hold to scripture as their sole standard. I once belonged to a church where one of the deacons denied that there was any need of acknowledging essentials. So in cases like that, we certainly will find differences.

Amongst those in the former category? I can state for a fact that you will find few if any difference amongst the vast majority who hold to the Bible as the sole standard of truth in doctrine. I have spoken to enough Christians to know this to be true.


So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

If you are looking for a denomination to be always right, then you are looking to men. I would not recommend a denomination as the standard. I recommend God's word.

Look for a church whose leadership is submitted to God's word as the sole standard of truth in doctrine, and do not force scripture to bend to their beliefs and theological system, but are willing to have their beliefs bent by the words of scripture.

Now, hopefully Alty will keep her personal comments at bay so that the discussion can continue.

And the demeaning personal comments continue on Toms part. You just can't let it go, can you Tom?

You have proven my point.

On that note.

Happy Easter everyone, have a wonderful weekend. :)

And the demeaning personal comments continue on Toms part. You just can't let it go, can you Tom?

Alty,

You promised to stop. I went back to the discussion - who is that cannot let it drop? You are just continuing to disrupt the thread.

And Happy Easter to you too Tom. :)

Let's try one more time and see if Alty will let the thread continue without disruption.


Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

Are you referring to people who hold solely to scripture as their standard of truth? Or just picking attendees at random?

If the latter, you will certainly find differences because there is no guarantee that all these people are saved, or that they hold to scripture as their sole standard. I once belonged to a church where one of the deacons denied that there was any need of acknowledging essentials. So in cases like that, we certainly will find differences.

Amongst those in the former category? I can state for a fact that you will find few if any difference amongst the vast majority who hold to the Bible as the sole standard of truth in doctrine. I have spoken to enough Christians to know this to be true.


So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

If you are looking for a denomination to be always right, then you are looking to men. I would not recommend a denomination as the standard. I recommend God's word.

Look for a church whose leadership is submitted to God's word as the sole standard of truth in doctrine, and do not force scripture to bend to their beliefs and theological system, but are willing to have their beliefs bent by the words of scripture.

Are you referring to people who hold solely to scripture as their standard of truth?
Church members.

you will certainly find differences because there is no guarantee that all these people are saved
We can look into their hearts?

Look for a church whose leadership is submitted to God's word as the sole standard of truth in doctrine, and do not force scripture to bend to their beliefs and theological system, but are willing to have their beliefs bent by the words of scripture.
I belonged to one for years.

Church members.

You have no guarantee that just because a person is a member of a church that they hold to scripture as the standard of truth, or even that they are saved. So I would not be surprised that there are differences found.



We can look into their hearts?

No, but we can, in some cases get glimpses of what is in a person's heart based upon what they tell us.

You have no guarantee that just because a person is a member of a church that they hold to scripture as the standard of truth, or even that they are saved. So I would not be surprised that there are differences found.
So how do you determine which ten people to test?

No, but we can, in some cases get glimpses of what is in a person's heart based upon what they tell us.
Is a glimpse enough?

And this means they are not saved, if they don't understand the Bible exactly as you do?

So how do you determine which ten people to test?

I am not sure why I would need to test 10 people anyway. Before anything of the sort were done, you would need to define the objective. I am not clear what your objective would be.



Is a glimpse enough?

Why do I need to know? If a person tells me that they reject the sacrifice on the cross, then I know that they are not saved because that is an essential given in scripture. If they reject Jesus as Saviour, then they are not saved because scripture says so.

If a person says that they believe both of these, there may yet be something in their heart which is unknown to me. That is fine - that is between them and God. Salvation is more than just a verbal agreement to some set of doctrines, but there are some doctrines which are essential for salvation.


And this means they are not saved, if they don't understand the Bible exactly as you do?

Why is it always made personal? It has nothing to do with whether they believe as I do - or you do, or as the Pope does, or anyone else.

I am not sure why I would need to test 10 people anyway. Before anything of the sort were done, you would need to define the objective. I am not clear what your objective would be.
You've forgotten already? Begin with #266.

Why do I need to know?
So belief in the Rapture is not an issue? Or not believing in a 24-hour day at Creation? Or believing the Creation story is a myth? Only "the sacrifice on the cross" and "Jesus as Saviour" are essential?

The "you" was generic.

You've forgotten already? Begin with #266.

That's not an objective. That is an hypothesis or a matter of speculation, and not a well defined one. If you are trying to say that no ten Bible believing Christians agree on a certain set of doctrines, you would first have to identify what doctrines you are testing, and you would have to establish a scientifically significant sampling program, adequate to establish that the probabilities are sufficient to prove your hypothesis. To say that no ten Bible believing Christians agree would require far more than a sample of ten.

Bottom line - if you are trying to turn this from a random comment into a testable objective, it needs to be much better defined. Defined from the point of view of the question to be answered, what the pass / fail criteria would be and a definition of the methodology.


So belief in the Rapture is not an issue? Or not believing in a 24-hour day at Creation? Or believing the Creation story is a myth? Only "the sacrifice on the cross" and "Jesus as Saviour" are essential?

Again, we would need to define these according to what scripture says.

Again, we would need to define these according to what scripture says.

We? How about you? What does scripture say Tom?

Again, we would need to define these according to what scripture says.
I did my best to give examples of what many consider non-essentials.

Good thing I had stats classes in grad school. Now we need a random sample.

How much creative teaching is being done that misrepresents or causes misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually say? Were the shepherds and Wise Men at the manger at the same time? I bet 85-90% of Christians believe so (but they weren't). Does a day in Genesis 1 mean a 24-hour period? Some Christian teachers/pastors believe yes, and others no. Are there mistakes in the Bible? Some SS teachers/pastors say yes, others no.

Sit in on several SS classes or adult Bible studies at a Christian church not in your denomination and let me know what you find out.

I agree with what you say here. This only serves to prove or illustrate my point.

Let's use a hypothetical situation. Suppose I argue that Jesus was not virgin born. (I absolutely do believe that He was, but suppose), If you tell me that your church teaches that He was born of a virgin and that your tradition says so, I counter that your tradition is of no value to me. Now if you appeal to Scripture to make your point, and I also believe in Scripture, then we can discuss our differences and let Scripture be the final authority.

It is illuminating that Catholics appeal to tradition that was oral for centuries before it was written down. By that time any witnesses to the supposed events were no longer present.

New Testament Scripture was written soon after the events while most of the eye witnesses were still alive.

But in spite of these difficulties, there are many who still argue that Tradition is as good as Scripture, and some have said in these posts that Tradition may actually be superior.

Gotten to arguments and in fighting

Closed

Ok, I will open it for a bit, one more report and complaining, and it closes

Ok, I will open it for a bit, one more report and complaining, and it closes
Thank you!

Help me, Tom. How should we define a Christian, one who is saved? Is his acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice sufficient? What else would he need to do or believe in order to consider him saved? What if he believes that the Creation story is a myth or that Jonah didn't get swallowed by a great fish? To go with the OP's questiion, is Jesus the standard and all else is extra and unessential to salvation?

Is his acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice sufficient?

If it is then I'm saved. You see, I do believe in the sacrifice Jesus made, giving his life for our sins.

Yes, I know, surprising isn't it? ;)


is Jesus the standard and all else is extra and unessential to salvation?

I'll go one step further. What if you don't believe in Jesus, many people don't, but are still religious, still accept God into their lives. So, is Jesus even necessary for salvation? Or is it only Christians that can be saved?

There are so many different faiths, so many different scriptures. So are we only discussing the scriptures in the bible, or are all scriptures up for discussion?

Not trying to start a fight, I truly would like to know what you all think.

I'll go one step further. What if you don't believe in Jesus, many people don't, but are still religious, still accept God into their lives. So, is Jesus even necessary for salvation? Or is it only Christians that can be saved?

There are so many different faiths, so many different scriptures. So are we only discussing the scriptures in the bible, or are all scriptures up for discussion?

Not trying to start a fight, I truly would like to know what you all think.
I work with two wonderful, devoted to their religion and families, Hindu women. They were born into Hinduism and would never consider switching to Christianity any more than I would to Hinduism. Does God have a plan in mind for them? I'd like to think so. Heaven certainly won't be populated just with Christians, will it? Certainly God is big enough?

I work with two wonderful, devoted to their religion and families, Hindu women. They were born into Hinduism and would never consider switching to Christianity any more than I would to Hinduism. Does God have a plan in mind for them? I'd like to think so. Heaven certainly won't be populated just with Christians, will it? Certainly God is big enough?

That's what I believe WG, which is why I have such a problem with the "my way or the highway" people out there.

Who's to say who's right, who's wrong? Only God can decide that, no one else.

A mere human cannot hope to understand what God's will is, or who is saved, who will enter heaven. We can guess, but guessing never works.

I truly believe that in the end, it's what you do with your life that matters. After all, there are many people that are "saved" but would still step over a homeless man on the street and pretend not to see him, or walk away from a man beating his wife or child. Will those people really go to heaven just because they're saved? God isn't blind.

I think that heaven will be a lot like earth, a mix of all religions, all beliefs, all types of people. It will be a huge surprise to some, of that I'm certain. :)

That's what I believe WG, which is why I have such a problem with the "my way or the highway" people out there.

Who's to say who's right, who's wrong? Only God can decide that, no one else.

A mere human cannot hope to understand what God's will is, or who is saved, who will enter heaven. We can guess, but guessing never works.

I truly believe that in the end, it's what you do with your life that matters. After all, there are many people that are "saved" but would still step over a homeless man on the street and pretend not to see him, or walk away from a man beating his wife or child. Will those people really go to heaven just because they're saved? God isn't blind.

I think that heaven will be alot like earth, a mix of all religions, all beliefs, all types of people. It will be a huge surprise to some, of that I'm certain. :)
That reminds me of the story of the Good Samaritan. Do you know it? The religious guys walked past the beaten-up guy on the side of the road, but it was a non-Jew who stopped to help him. And Jesus held him up as a good example.

That reminds me of the story of the Good Samaritan. Do you know it? The religious guys walked past the beaten-up guy on the side of the road, but it was a non-Jew who stopped to help him. And Jesus held him up as a good example.

The story rings a bell and is exactly what I was trying to say.

One thing that make me believe that everyone will be accepted, well, the bible itself says so. Jesus didn't descriminate against anyone. He preached to all, hookers, beggers, thieves, whoever wanted to listen.

So who are we to say, "nope, you don't measure up!" That's God's choice, not ours.

The thieves that were crucified beside him, they had never heard scripture, had never been baptized, they were the worst of the worst. When they asked for forgiveness, Jesus forgave, because he saw what was in their hearts. God can see into our hearts, words don't mean anything. You can claim to believe, spout scripture until you're blue in the face, you may fool a few people, but you can't fool God. When judgement day comes, even if you are the most devout Christian in the eyes of other mortals, God will see the truth.

Easter gets to me, sorry. :(

There used to be a popular bumper sticker -- "I found God." No, it should have been -- "God found me."

Help me, Tom. How should we define a Christian, one who is saved? Is his acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice sufficient? What else would he need to do or believe in order to consider him saved? What if he believes that the Creation story is a myth or that Jonah didn't get swallowed by a great fish? To go with the OP's questiion, is Jesus the standard and all else is extra and unessential to salvation?

First, you are deviating from what we were discussing. The question was about whether 10 Bible believing Christians would agree on the essentials. You said that no two would agree.

Perhaps before we move on to something else, you copuld provide us with some validation for that claim.

BTW, as for salvation, keep in mind that scripture was quite clear that we must believe in the true gospel and the true Jesus - not just believe in some variant of the gospel and some variant of Jesus.

If it is then I'm saved. You see, I do believe in the sacrifice Jesus made, giving his life for our sins.

Yes, I know, surprising isn't it? ;)

The devil believes also. The question is whether a person believes in the one true Jesus and the gospel and has received Jesus as Lord and Saviour.


I'll go one step further. What if you don't believe in Jesus, many people don't, but are still religious, still accept God into their lives. So, is Jesus even necessary for salvation? Or is it only Christians that can be saved?

Acts 4:10-12
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
NKJV

John 14:5-6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV


There are so many different faiths, so many different scriptures. So are we only discussing the scriptures in the bible, or are all scriptures up for discussion?

There is and can be only one truth.

There used to be a popular bumper sticker -- "I found God." No, it should have been -- "God found me."


It should read, I cooperated with God when He found me.

JoeT

There used to be a popular bumper sticker -- "I found God." No, it should have been -- "God found me."

I think that you are referring to the mid-70's "I Found It" campaign.

First, you are deviating from what we were discussing. The question was about whether 10 Bible believing Christians would agree on the essentials. You said that no two would agree.
I didn't say "essentials." I suggested a list of ten things but didn't specify.

Perhaps before we move on to something else, you copuld provide us with some validation for that claim.
That would have been the point of the survey.

BTW, as for salvation, keep in mind that scripture was quite clear that we must believe in the true gospel and the true Jesus - not just believe in some variant of the gospel and some variant of Jesus.
But is that the only and final revelation? Is God that small that only Christians will be in heaven?

The devil believes also. The question is whether a person believes in the one true Jesus and the gospel and has received Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Are you comparing me to the devil Tom?


There is and can be only one truth.

What makes you so certain that you're "truth" is the one? Others would disagree, say that their way is the only way.

One has to wonder, who's right? Not all of you can be right.

I didn't say "essentials." I suggest a list of ten things but didn't specify.

I missed your list of ten things - can you point me to it?


But is that the only and final revelation? Is God that small that only Christians will be in heaven?

I don't think that either you or I are in a position to judge God on that matter.

The question should be, is there any other way for the price of sin to be paid than the perfect blood of Jesus shed on the cross? And if there is, then Jesus sacrifice was futile and un-necessary.

What makes you so certain that you're "truth" is the one? Others would disagree, say that their way is the only way.

Me, Me!

Are you comparing me to the devil Tom?

Heh heh heh, I guess you'll find some way to make anything I say negative.


What makes you so certain that you're "truth" is the one? Others would disagree, say that their way is the only way.

It does not matter what a man or woman, or even millions of billions of men or women want to believe. All that matters is what God has said. His word is final.


One has to wonder, who's right? Not all of you can be right.

Again - who is right - God!

I missed your list of ten things - can you point me to it?
We never got that far. The thread was shut down.

I don't think that either you or I are in a position to judge God on that matter.
Precisely! We agree!

The question should be, is there any other way for the price of sin to be paid than the perfect blood of Jesus shed on the cross? And if there is, then Jesus sacrifice was futile and un-necessary.
Not unnecessary, but there might be more we don't know. We don't know the mind of God.

Not unnecessary, but there might be more we don't know. We don't know the mind of God.

We do know because God told us.

Heb 10:11-14
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
NKJV

Acts 4:10-12
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
NKJV

John 14:5-6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV

We do know because God told us.
We don't know ALL of God's mind.

We don't know ALL of God's mind.

We don't need to know more than what He already told us.

We don't need to know more than what He already told us.
He will take care of the details.

He will take care of the details.

Yes He will, whether we think that He should have done it differently or not, whether we feel that He should have opened salvation up to additional ways of salvation or not. His decision is final and His decision is just.

Yes He will, whether or not we think that He should have done it differently or not, whether or not we feel that He should have opened salvation up to additional ways of salvation or not. His decision is final and His decision is just.
Even if He does open heaven to many more than we think He should. But then, if we have a problem with that, we're in the wrong place.

Even if He does open heaven to many more than we think He should. But then, if we have a problem with that, we're in the wrong place.

God does not contradict Himself. Again, if there was another acceptable sacrifice, then that belittles what Jesus did on the cross, making it unnecessary.

I have no reason to doubt God's word, which is quite specific and abundantly clear.

God does not contradict Himself. Again, if there was another acceptable sacrifice, then that belittles what Jesus did on the cross, making it unnecessary.

I have no reason to doubt God's word, which is quite specific and abundantly clear.
I don't agree. There may be life on other planets and God has a different plan for them.

I don't agree. There may be life on other planets and God has a different plan for them.

The gospel given to us applies to ALL creation.

Rom 8:20-24
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
NKJV

The gospel given to us applies to ALL creation.

Rom 8:20-24
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
NKJV
Limited to this world, the creation here.

Limited to this world, the creation here.

Where specifically do you find "whole creation" limited to earth in scripture?

We cannot simply read something into scripture because it makes us feel more comfortable, or because we don't like what God said, or to bend scripture to fit our beliefs. So where do you find this limitation in scripture?

Me, Me!

Me too Joe, me too! :cool:

Where specifically do you find "whole creation" limited to earth in scripture?
Then you're saying that Jesus died on this world for any life on other worlds--or even saying there is no viable life on any other planets.

Me too Joe, me too! :cool:

Happy Easter everybody! I've got to shut myself down so I can be bright and spiffy for Mass in the morning.

JoeT

Happy Easter everybody! I've got to shut myself down so I can be bright and spiffy for Mass in the morning.

JoeT
Happy Easter, Joe!

Happy Easter everybody! I've got to shut myself down so I can be bright and spiffy for Mass in the morning.

JoeT

Happy Easter to you too Joe and everyone else.

I've got to be up bright and early so the kids can search for their baskets. Sorry, no mass for me, but the day is special. :)

Then you're saying that Jesus died on this world for any life on other worlds--or even saying there is no viable life on any other planets.

So far all you have given is speculation of the following:

1) That there is life elsewhere (intelligent life)
2) That sin did not affect all of creation (even though scripture says that it did)
3) That if there is intelligent life on another world, that the coming of the God who created the whole universe to die on the cross had no impact other than on this grain of dust in this galaxy, making the effect of God's word very limited.

And what have you validated from scripture? So far none of it.

Give a whole lot of assumption and speculation piled up several layers with absolutely no solid validation, vs God's word, I believe God.

Happy Easter to you too Joe and everyone else.

I've got to be up bright and early so the kids can search for their baskets. Sorry, no mass for me, but the day is special. :)
Happy Easter, Alty!

Happy Easter to you too Joe and everyone else.

I've got to be up bright and early so the kids can search for their baskets. Sorry, no mass for me, but the day is special. :)

Ok, maybe next Easter.

Ok, maybe next Easter.

Or the Easter after that. Stranger things have happened, you never know. ;)

Or the Easter after that. Stranger things have happened, you never know. ;)

We'll pray for 'stranger things'.

Muslims have something that offers the clearest proof of all - The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. It is absolutely perfect in the Arabic language. It has no mistakes in grammar, meanings or context. The scientific evidences are well known around the entire world, even amongst non-Muslim scholars. Predictions in the Quran have come true; and its teachings are clearly for all people, all places and all times.

Surprisingly enough, the Quran itself provides us with the test of authenticity and offers challenges against itself to prove its veracity. Allah tells us in the Quran:

Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions?
[Noble Quran 4:82]

Another amazing challenge from Allah's Book:

If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it.
[Noble Quran 2:23]

And Allah challenges us with:

Bring ten chapters like it.[Noble Quran 11:13]

And finally:

Bring one chapter like it.[Noble Quran 10:38]

No one has been able to produce a book like it, nor ten chapters like it, nor even one chapter like it. It was memorized by thousands of people during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and then this memorization was passed down from teacher to student for generation after generation, from mouth to ear and from one nation to another. Today every single Muslim has memorized some part of the Quran in the original Arabic language that it was revealed in over 1,400 years ago, even though most of them are not Arabs. There are over nine million (9,000,000) Muslims living on the earth today who have totally memorized the entire Quran, word for word, and can recite the entire Quran, in Arabic just as Muhammad (peace be upon him) did 14 centuries ago.

MORE?
visit

Allah's Quran - Quran - A Guidance Without Doubt (http://www.allahsquran.com/)

God Allah - Does It Mean God? (http://godallah.com)

Since the topic here is not the Koran, but you wish to discuss it, let's look at Aal-e-Imran 3:3

He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was said before ti, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as guidance to the people, and He sent down Salvation.

Now here the Koran endorses and points you to the Gospel and to the Salvation which was sent. What is that Gospel, do you know?

Now we will be arguing the superiority of different books. OK.

Mohommad wrote his book. One author. All eggs in one basket, so to speak. In spite of that there are at least 3 different sects of Islam, some of whom hate the others.

The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, is penned by many authors, yet without contradictiions. (I have challenged Atheists to prove any, but they have been loathe to do so.)

There are literally hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that have already been fulfilled, thus proving its divine authorship.

The point of the OP was whether the Bible alone is sufficient or whether Tradition is needed.

You cannot build a house without some standard of measurement, how much less a church? In the New Testament, the four Evangelists, plus Paul, Peter, James and Jude recorded everything necessary for our perfection, and did it when the events were very recent. What came later is suspect because the witnesses could not be questioned.

I have a question for the Muslims.

Mohammed said that Jesus is a prophet of God.
Mohammed said that Allah has no Son.
Jesus said that He is the Son of God.
So who is wrong? Jesus or Mohammed?

If Jesus lied, then He can hardly be called a prophet of God.

What do you say?

So what do you understand from these verses

He it is Who has sent down this Book to you (O Messenger) in Absolute Truth, confirming the authentic in what He has revealed before. He is the One Who revealed the Torah and the Gospel. (Quran 3:3)

He has bestowed Guidance upon mankind before, and now He has sent the Final Criterion between right and wrong. Those who reject the revelations of God, theirs will be a strict retribution. God Almighty’s Law of Cause and Effect carries all things and actions to their logical outcome. (Quran 3:4)

Quran is speaking about. The Torah & the Gospel, which was given to Moses & Jesus peace be upon them, Not the today's corrupted bible.

Read the next verse. (Now He has sent the Final Criterion betweent right & wrong).
Now you have to follow the Final Book, i.e. The Holy Quran.

All the messengers that came before Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) -they were only sent for their people, and their message was only meant for a particular time. The messengers that came were sent for their own people, and their message was meant for a particular time.

In fact, Qur’an says in Surah Fatir, Ch. 35, Verse 24 ‘There is not a nation or a tribe…there has never been a nation or a people, to whom a Warner has not been sent’. The Qur’an says in Surah Raad, Ch.13, Verse 7... ‘And to every nation and to every people have we sent a guide’. That means, there were messengers and guides, send to all the nations of the world.

By name, only 25 Prophets of Almighty God are mentioned in the Holy Qur’an.
For example Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammed (Peace be upon him). But our beloved Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him), is mentioned in the Hadith, has said that… ' There were more than 1,24,000 Messengers sent on the face of the earth.'

The Holy Qur’an says in Surah Ahzab, Ch. 33, Verse 40 ‘Muhammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of Allah (SWT). He is the messenger of Almighty God, and the seal of the Prophets - and Allah is all knowing and full of knowledge’.

In Surah Ambiya, Ch. 21,Verse 107 ‘That We have sent thee… that is, Prophet Muhammed, as a mercy to all the creatures’ -As a mercy to all the world, as a mercy to the whole of humanity. The Holy Qur’an says in Surah Saba, Ch. 34, Verse 28... ‘That We have sent thee…that is, Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him), as a universal Messenger giving them glad tidings, and warning them against sin.

s
Quran is speaking abt. the Torah & the Gospel, which was given to Moses & Jesus peace be upon them, Not the today's corrupted bible.

The gospel was not given TO Jesus. The gospels were penned after Jesus's death and resurrection. That is one error in the Koran. Jesus and the gospel is the Good news (Gospel).

As for your claims of "corruption", we have manuscripts which go back well before the Koran was written, so we know what Mohammed would have known as the Bible at that time (which by the way, is identical to what we have today), so we can prove with absolute certainty that there have been no changes to the content.

BTW, when 3:3 says that salvation was sent, I trust that you know that Yeshua (in Greek - Jesus) means "Salvation".

The "criterion" you speak of is none other than Jesus the Christ.

Jesus was more than just a prophet, and He was sent not only to the Jews.

Matt 4:14-16
14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
(KJV)

And these words, prophecy concerning Messiah (Jesus)
Ps 2:8
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
(KJV)

Tom:

How do you know that it isn't the Koran that is the 'Standard of Truth'?

JoeT

Tom:

How do you know that it isn’t the Koran that is the ‘Standard of Truth’?

JoeT

For several reasons, not the least of which that it contradicts God's word, and it does not have the same validation as the Bible has with respect to prophetic accuracy and other relevant criteria.

For several reasons, not the least of which that it contradicts God's word, and it does not have the same validation as the Bible has with respect to prophetic accuracy and other relevant criteria.


And who validates Scripture?

And who validates Scripture?

God.

The "criterion" you speak of is none other than Jesus the Christ.

Jesus was more than just a prophet, and He was sent not only to the Jews.

Matt 4:14-16
14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
(KJV)

And these words, prophecy concerning Messiah (Jesus)
Ps 2:8
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
(KJV)



Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, 1 and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go ye rather unto The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel.

Matthew 10:5-6

The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) – to Fulfill the Law

Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." [The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]

Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’

And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).

Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth – a Man Approved of God

The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God.

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." [The Bible, Acts 2:22]

The gospel was not given TO Jesus. The gospels were penned after Jesus's death and resurrection. That is one error in the Koran. Jesus and the gospel is the Good news (Gospel).

As for your claims of "corruption", we have manuscripts which go back well before the Koran was written, so we know what Mohammed would have known as the Bible at that time (which by the way, is identical to what we have today), so we can prove with absolute certainty that there have been no changes to the content.

BTW, when 3:3 says that salvation was sent, I trust that you know that Yeshua (in Greek - Jesus) means "Salvation".


Read what the former Christian Preacher Says about Bible
Islam Cracks The Code (http://islamcode.com/BibleACloserLook.html)

Bible Scholars say, "Its Changed"
What Does the Real "Word of God" Say?
Islam Cracks The Code - Da Vinci (http://islamcode.com/)

Read what the former Christian Preacher Says abt Bible
Islam Cracks The Code (http://islamcode.com/BibleACloserLook.html)

Bible Scholars say, "Its Changed"
What Does the Real "Word of God" Say?
Islam Cracks The Code - Da Vinci (http://islamcode.com/)

You know, I don't care what a man says. I know the truth. I know what God has said, I also know what the Koran says (yes, I have read it through a few times)

I have also studied how the Bible has been validated, I even have a copy of the translated Dead Sea scrolls in front of me. I have also seen the evidence of how the Koran has changed over time.

I have also seen the evidence of how the Koran has changed over time.[/QUOTE]

Just by saying you can't prove that Quran has changed.

Sir William Muir (Orientalist) noted, "There is probably in the world no other book which has remained (fourteen) centuries with so pure a text." The Quran was written down during the lifetime and under the supervision of the Prophet, who himself was illiterate, and it was canonized shortly after his death by a rigorous method which scrutinized both written and oral traditions. Thus its authenticity is unblemished, and is its preservation is seen as the fulfillment of God's promise:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it from corruption."[Noble Quran 15:9]


More?

Visit
What others say about Quran
Allah's Quran - What Others Say (http://www.allahsquran.com/what_others_say_about_quran.php)

The Scriptures changes lives forever. The apostle Paul put it best :

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12. KJV

It IS indeed the standard and the ONLY authority we really have.

Jesus said (paraphrased) Heaven and Earth will pass away but my WORD will NOT pass away. It is THAT important.

The Scriptures changes lives forever. The apostle Paul put it best :

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12. KJV

It IS indeed the standard and the ONLY authority we really have.

Jesus said (paraphrased) Heaven and Earth will pass away but my WORD will NOT pass away. It is THAT important.

It's the only authority 'Scriputre only' folks have. There are some of us who have the Kingdom of God and the Vicar of Chirst as an objective authority.

JoeT

JoeT,

HUH? Call me blonde but... everything the Lord wanted us to know is in His word. The Kingdom of God or Kingdom living is available to any Christian who wants to die to himself and live for Christ. Give me the Holy Spirit any day over the "Vicar of Christ". Why settle for anything less that God himself. Last time I checked MAN has never had an original thought AND had to be saved by the blood of Christ just like me... something to ponder. I'm not suggesting I can't LEARN or be taught interesting truths from the word but any info outside of the word... is NOT the word.

JoeT,

HUH? call me blonde but... everything the Lord wanted us to know is in His word. The Kingdom of God or Kingdom living is available to any Christian who wants to die to himself and live for Christ. Give me the Holy Spirit any day over the "Vicar of Christ". Why settle for anything less that God himself. Last time I checked MAN has never had an original thought AND had to be saved by the blood of Christ just like me.... something to ponder. I'm not suggesting I can't LEARN or be taught interesting truths from the word but any info outside of the word...is NOT the word.


Classy T,

You have a good point there... to a certain extent!

It is true that NOT all Vicars of Christ have always lived and behaved by the Lord’s Word.

This is because irrespective of their having being appointed Vicars of Christ they are also just plain human beings, and therefore subject to the same failures as you and I.

Still, let me just remind you that the Apostles were also men full of defects as proven by St. Peter reneging three times his Master and St. Thomas disbelieving He had resurrected...

And when you say “everything the Lord wanted us to know is in His word” I gather you are referring basically to the Gospels, are you? :):)

John 8:58
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(KJV)

John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
(KJV)

John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(KJV)

Matt 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(KJV)

Are these enough verses to convince you that Jesus is both the Son of God and God the Son?

Lets leave the intellectual realm for a moment. Does Mohammed heal anyone of sickness?

Jesus did and still does.

The challenge of Islam cannot be refuted intellectually or by Tradition. Only the displayed power of God through the authority of Jesus Christ can do it.

The Apostle Paul put it this way.

1 Cor 2:4-5
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(KJV)

JoeT,

HUH? call me blonde but... everything the Lord wanted us to know is in His word. The Kingdom of God or Kingdom living is available to any Christian who wants to die to himself and live for Christ. Give me the Holy Spirit any day over the "Vicar of Christ". Why settle for anything less that God himself. Last time I checked MAN has never had an original thought AND had to be saved by the blood of Christ just like me.... something to ponder. I'm not suggesting I can't LEARN or be taught interesting truths from the word but any info outside of the word...is NOT the word.

That's the point T - How do you know? The Scriptures don't come complete with authentication. How do you know that Scripture is in fact THE Holy Scriptures? Catholics hold that authentication comes from the Church. Being as you don’t recognize the Catholic Church, how do you authenticate them? How do you know you got the right set of books?


JoeT

That's the point T - How do you know? The Scriptures don't come complete with authentication. How do you know that Scripture is in fact THE Holy Scriptures? Catholics hold that authentication comes from the Church. Being as you don’t recognize the Catholic Church, how do you authenticate them? How do you know you got the right set of books?


JoeT

Because Paul was giving the awesome responsibility of completing the scriptures. The Bible says not to ADD or to take anything away and JOE777 if I didn't believe THAT then I subject to consider the book of mormon or any other book outside of the bible as God's word.

Classy T,

You have a good point there... to a certain extent!

It is true that NOT all Vicars of Christ have always lived and behaved by the Lord’s Word.

This is because irrespective of their having being appointed Vicars of Christ they are also just plain human beings, and therefore subject to the same failures as you and I.

Still, let me just remind you that the Apostles were also men full of defects as proven by St. Peter reneging three times his Master and St. Thomas disbelieving He had resurrected...

And when you say “everything the Lord wanted us to know is in His word” I gather you are referring basically to the Gospels, are you? :):)

Gromm,

I am referring to ALL 66 books. I do not go outside of that and say it is God's mind or word.

I am judging NO man, including Vicars of Christ. I am just saying they are men and must be saved. As far as the apostles that wrote books in the Bible, I believe their writings were indeed inspired of God and therefore the word of God. I believe we have teachers and pastors today that can TEACH and explain the Word but if they add something in the teachings and proclaim that it came from God and cannot back it up with verses in the 66 books that complete the bible... I do not recognize it as truth. Make sense.

I would also like to say that when we go outside of the Bible, what then do we accept as truth? I mean Proverbs says "

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof is death.

Because Paul was givin the awesome responsibilty of completing the scriptures. The Bible says not to ADD or to take anything away and JOE777 if I didn't believe THAT then i subject to consider the book of mormon or any other book outside of the bible as God's word.

Nobody is adding or subtracting form the Scripture, (well, except maybe Luther and his Bible of 66 books). I want you to FEEL GOOD about Scriptures. I wouldn’t take that away from you.

But, where in scriptures was Paul given this awesome responsibility? Where is it he authenticated Scripture? You can have ONLY 66 Books if that makes you FEEL GOOD. The only point I’m making is that without the Catholic Church ‘authenticating’ Scripture, there isn’t a Holy Scripture we can infallibly or otherwise rely on or ‘feel good’ about it.

JoeT

Its the only authority 'Scriputre only' folks have. There are some of us who have the Kingdom of God and the Vicar of Chirst as an objective authority.

JoeT

Pssst hey Joe, bad news - the Kingdopm of God is owned by God, not your denomination.

You can have you "vicar of Christ", though. The rest of us will just go to Christ directly.

pssst hey Joe, bad news - the Kingdopm of God is owned by God, not your denomination.

You can have you "vicar of Christ", though. The rest of us will just go to Christ directly.

Pssst Tom, the gates are always open!

Nobody is adding or subtracting form the Scripture, (well, except maybe Luther and his Bible of 66 books). I want you to FEEL GOOD about Scriptures. I wouldn't take that away from you.

But, where in scriptures was Paul given this awesome responsibility? Where is it he authenticated Scripture? You can have ONLY 66 Books if that makes you FEEL GOOD. The only point I'm making is that without the Catholic Church 'authenticating' Scripture, there isn't a Holy Scripture we can infallibly or otherwise rely on or 'feel good' about it.

JoeT

JoeT,

It isn't a matter of feeling good. If it WAS... I'd change all kinds of things in the bible to make me"feel good".. lol Please where did that come from anyway??

The Apostle Paul said it in Colossians 1:25

... of which I became minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to complete the word of God, ( Darby translation)

KJ version: whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God which I given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God.

Now I'm going to give you a little advise, take it or leave it. I have an idea what you are going to do with it... lol here it goes... JOET - you come off as grumpy!! A grumpy catholic is NOT a good thing. If you want to really make me feel good... lighten up dude. You are grouchy.:D

the Bible
The NT (canon) was put together in book form by men (from the Catholic Church).

JOET - you come off as grumpy!!!! A grumpy catholic is NOT a good thing. If ya wanna really make me feel good...lighten up dude. You are grouchy.:D

I can't help the lenses that color your perception, rightly or wrongly. I don't mind being grumpy. I love being Catholic – It feels good when right reasoning in the Magisterium of the Church one can get some semblance of God's Truth. But, you're right about one thing, grumpy Catholics are'nt good things. When I see a real grumpy Catholic I'll give them your advice - courtesy of 'T'

But, forgive me if for now I take your advice as a badge of honor.

That's the point T - How do you know? The Scriptures don't come complete with authentication. How do you know that Scripture is in fact THE Holy Scriptures?

Really? You don't think that God's authentication is enough? You don't think that Jesus using scripture alone to validate doctrine is authentication? You don't think that God meant it when He told us that prophetic fulfillment was validation?


Catholics hold that authentication comes from the Church. Being as you don’t recognize the Catholic Church, how do you authenticate them? How do you know you got the right set of books?

I would not wait for the word of a denomination that came into being 3 centuries after the last book of scripture was written. Did the Jews wait for your denomination to say "Thanks goodness, finally we have authentication?"

No, authentication comes from God, not man.

Pssst Tom, the gates are always open!

You been there? :p

The NT (canon) was put together in book form by men (from the Catholic Church).

Really? So you are telling me that the Jews had nothing, that the entire OT is a complete fabrication?

You are telling me that in the NT when a variety of books of the NT were already called as Holy Scripture, that those who penned those books, including the Apostles had no authority, and we all had to wait until a specific denomination came into existence a few centuries later?

Really? So you are telling me that the Jews had nothing, that the entire OT is a complete fabrication?

You are telling me that in the NT when a variety of books of the NT were already called as Holy Scripture, that those who penned those books, including the Apostles had no authority, and we all had to wait until a specific denomination came into existence a few centuries later?

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

Keep in mind that when you post nonsense like this that you are exposing yourself as a person who has no regard for what others say, and that you attempt to twist what others say into whatever your position "du jour" happens to be at the moment.

Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

(That's rhetorical - no need to reply).

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

All these extra books can possibly do is add some history. They CANNOT change any doctrine or subtract anything.

If these extra books do NOT agree with the other 66 books, then they are FALSE.

Otherwise, you would have the Bible contradicting itself, and there are NO contradictions of substance in the Bible. (Contrary to what the Atheists love to say)

Therefore to say that Tradition, written or oral, can give us anything other than what is written in the Bible is false.

Gal,

Exactly!!

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.
Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

That is the problem. If someone says that the Bible was the creation of, and authenticated by an organization that started in the 4th century, then they are in effect denying that the Tanakh was Holy scripture and that the Apopstles did not have authority to declare what was and was not scripture - because they did. That is the only logical conclusion.


Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

I really am not concerned whether you like it or not, and I am not out to win people to "my side". I am merely here presenting what scripture says. Some will like it, others won't. So be it.

Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.
Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

The NT books were not written in the order in which we know them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts... ). The Epistles were written first.

All the Canonical books were written within the life times of the Apostles. Otherwise there could be no recorded testimony of the eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry and resurrection.

Matthew: 37 AD
Mark: 57-63 AD
Luke: 58-63 AD
John: 90 AD
Acts: 63 AD
Romans: 58-60 AD
I Corinthians: 59 AD
II Corinthians: 60 AD
Galatians: 68 AD
Ephesians: 64 AD
Philippians: 64 AD
Colossians: 64 AD
I Thessalonians: 54 AD
II Thessalonians: 54-55 AD
I Timothy: 67 AD
II Timothy: 68 AD
Titus: 67 AD
Philemon: 64 AD
Hebrews: 68 AD
James: 45 AD
I Peter: 60 AD
II Peter: 61-65 AD
I John: 90 AD
II John: 90 AD
III John: 9) AD
Jude: 66 AD
Revelation: 96 AD

So you can see that Matthew wrote his gospel first, very shortly after the events.

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although this is often disputed. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later... Most secular scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95."

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.
I said EVEN Wikipedia disagrees. Best scholarship from where?

***ADDED -- Mark was written before Matthew. That's a no-brainer.

Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

Believe as you wish, but I rather stand by what I know to be true. If indeed that were the case, there would have been no need for the Council of Trent to make a decision to add the non-canonical books to the canon of their denomination.

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition,....

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.
Roman tradition?

Roman tradition?

Roman Catholic denomination.

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

Would you share with us the names of those scholars that you have found advancing the dates you have provided? I would like very much to read their arguments for these dates since they lie well-outside those accepted by academic historians and Biblical scholars (be they Protestant, secular, Catholic, or other--I'm thinking of people like Joachim Jeremias, Kurt Aland, Marcus Barth, Geza Vermes, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, W.H.C. Friend, Jaroslav Pelikan, Bentley Layton, Wayne Meeks, Eric Meyers, Bruce Metzger, E.P. Sanders, Oscar Cullmann, Henry Chadwick, Harold Attridge, John Meier... well, basically a who's who of NT scholarship). If you can provide bibliographical info without going to too much trouble that would, of course, be ideal. But if it would be a hassle to do so, it would be a big help even just to have their names.

(Ps. I mention the names for the benefit of anyone--I'm looking at you Wondergirl--who might be interested in having a look at some of the best scholarly work on the NT. Well, that and to give some idea why I am both interested in and incredulous about the scholarly work that backs up the dates provided by Galveston.)

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics. The question of the role and status of Tradition is quite separate from issues about the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Good. Then wikipedia needs to clarify whose tradition they are referring to.


Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics.

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.
Even you hold to Tradition.

Wondergirl,

I'm curious... what traditions do you think he holds to? That was an interesting comment and I don't think I hold on to tradition.. give me an example.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics. The question of the role and status of Tradition is quite separate from issues about the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

All of which begs the question, if Holy Scripture didn't come about as history tells us, then where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky and fall on St. Jerome’s desk (or maybe it was Tom’s desk)?

JT

Even you hold to Tradition.

Actually, No. Not even close.

All of which begs the question, if Holy Scripture didn't come about as history tells us, then where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky and fall on St. Jerome’s desk (or maybe it was Tom’s desk)?

A couple of things - first, I am not sure that we agree on what history says, but I would hope that you would agree with me that secular history does tell us the full story especially in matters of a spiritual nature.

For example, we know that the OT was revealed to OT saints (primarily Jews) over a period of hundereds of years, and was locked down prior to the coming of Christ in the flesh. How then would Jerome (who, BTW opposed inclusion of the Apochrypha as part of the canon) have had anything to do with it?

Actually, No. Not even close.
Yes. One is Sola Scriptura.

Yes. One is Sola Scriptura.

That is not a tradition.

That is not a tradition.
Of course it is!

Of course it is!

Believe as you wish. If it were not Biblical, I would not believe it. Your saying otherwise does not change that reality.

That is not a tradition.
From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation:
\trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation:
\trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

Exactly. My belief in Sola Scriptura comes from scripture. It is not a tradition.

Exactly. My belief in Sola Scriptura comes from scripture. It is not a tradition.
The use of Sola Scriptura IS a tradition (born out of the Protestant Reformation) -- in fact, one of five such traditions.

The use of Sola Scriptura IS a tradition (born out of the Protestant Reformation) -- in fact, one of five such traditions.

Actually, it goes back thousands of years earlier. I can trace it back well over 2,000 years. Maybe you are mistaking the rebirth of the recognition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as a major force within the church as being the start because you are not aware of the history or the Biblical basis.

Further, I am not a protestant, so though that may be your tradition, it is not mine.

Actually, it goes back thousands of years earlier. I can trace it back well over 2,000 years. maybe you are mistaking the rebirth of the recognition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as a major force within the church as being the start because you are not aware of the history or the Biblical basis.

Further, I am not a protestant, so though that may be your tradition, it is not mine.
Oh, I thought you adhered to and taught Sola Scriptura. My mistake.

Oh, I thought you adhered to and taught Sola Scriptura. My mistake.

I do indeed - but you appear to be unaware of where it comes from. That appears to be the source of your mistake.

I am "unaware." "My mistake." Ah.

If you adhere to and teach Sola Scriptura, you are bound by that tradition, no matter its source.

I am "unaware." "My mistake." Ah.

If you adhere to and teach Sola Scriptura, you are bound by that tradition, no matter its source.
Heh heh, even after you acknowledge being wrong, you continue to falsely insist the others be labeled according to your false belief nonetheless.

No need to answer, but I wonder why you feel the need to demand that the world be labeled to a worldview that you believe in no matter what history, scripture or anyone else says.

It is not a tradition, but a Biblical doctrine.

It is not a tradition, but a Biblical doctrine.

Well, if it is you've manifestly failed to support that contention. 2Tim.3 didn't do it--although it does use the words "Scripture" and "complete" in rough proximity. Let's just remind ourselves what the verses to which you've appealed actually say: they say that Scripture is inspired and that it makes one wise for salvation. They also say that Scripture is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. These four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--are in turn said to make one "complete", "fully equipped" for doing good works. As has been pointed out, this is nothing with which anyone here has taken the least exception.

But this is not by any stretch an endorsement of the doctrine of sola scriptura. So far, then, you haven't justified your adherence to the doctrine all the while throwing barbs at others for failing to adhere to it. So what we have is, on the one hand, your own personal decision to be a sola-scripturist and, on the other hand, the decisions of others not to be sola-scripturists. You insist that sola scriptura is mandated by Scripture despite the fact that you have been unable to provide Scriptural evidence for this claim. At the same time, we have all seen that Scripture requires us to uphold and abide by oral teachings--and Scripture nowhere tells us that all of these teachings by which we are to abide, and which we are to uphold, are themselves contained in Scripture (in fact, they must not be if Scripture is itself telling us to abide by them). Now you chastise others for taking this at face value and so recognizing the authority of Tradition, all the while demanding adherence to a doctrine (sola scriptura) that is not found in Scripture.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself, as Wondergirl has pointed out, a tradition. Now I don't begrudge you adherence to that doctrine. You are, of course, free to believe as you wish, and this is as it should be. No one here is under the illusion that we are going to talk you out of it. You really ought, however, to recognize what is obvious to so many, to wit, that you have chosen to abide by this tradition and should therefore refrain from castigating others for themselves making the decision to abide by traditions other than that of sola scriptura. I say this less for your benefit--you have made it clear that you are less interested in what Scripture says about the matter than you are in doggedly promoting an ideology--than for the benefit of those who have found themselves brow-beaten by the demand, in the mouth of a sola-scripturist, that they must conform their beliefs in all matters spiritual to what sola-scripturists claim God requires of those who would serve him. If you, and others, choose to live your spiritual lives by the standard of sola scriptura I wish you all the best; but those of us who have read the Bible and studied the history of the Christian faith and have come to the informed judgment that sola scriptura is itself both textually and historically unsupported should not find our bona fides as Christians called into question.

It is perfectly fair to discuss and argue about which traditions ought to be accepted and which traditions ought to be rejected. But let's stop pretending that we aren't talking about competing traditions, that sola scriptura is not one tradition among others the merits of which ought to be discussed and evaluated. I don't for a moment mean to suggest that the absence of any explicit and unambiguous endorsement of sola scriptura by Scripture demonstrates its falsity. That is a further question. But it's one that ought to be entered into honestly, and that cannot be done so long as some insist on maintaining the pretense that their adherence to sola scriptura is not a tradition but is rather a sort of supine response to what Scripture says on its face. As we've seen, on its face Scripture not only doe not endorse sola scriptura, it explicitly and unambiguously affirms the authority of oral teachings. It is far from obvious that those who take this seriously, who, that is, think it important to honor the Scriptures by upholding and abiding by these oral teachings as they have been handed down, have done anything wrong. And, at the very least, those who recognize the authority of Tradition do not deserve to have their standing as Christians called into question by sola scripturists who have not only failed to provide clear Scriptural support for their doctrine, but who have manifestly misunderstood the Scripture that they have offered (see the discussion of 2Tim.3 earlier in the thread). This latter fact does not itself speak well for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

To each is given what God intends upon giving. Eph 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.


Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

One Way was given in Christ Jesus and we can rest upon HIM (Luke 3:4 Mark 1:3 Matthew 3:3)

Life or death is the choice. Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

All these extra books can possibly do is add some history. They CANNOT change any doctrine or subtract anything.

If these extra books do NOT agree with the other 66 books, then they are FALSE.

Otherwise, you would have the Bible contradicting itself, and there are NO contradictions of substance in the Bible. (Contrary to what the Atheists love to say)

Therefore to say that Tradition, written or oral, can give us anything other than what is written in the Bible is false.


Galveston,

If you allow me to say something on the subject you are discussing, I will add that the “Nova Vulgata”, is the latest official version approved by the RCC in 1979, has 73 books, of which 46 in the OT and 27 in the NT.

This text is the reviewed edition made by the friars of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome during the rule of St. Pious X. All these books were revised and checked against the modern editions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

There may appear some fragments of paragraphs which have been adapted to modern use of the language just because the first Vulgata in Latin (i.e. the revision of the old Latin texts commissioned by Pope Damasus I) dates back to the 404 AD. This first revision was the responsibility of Saint Jerome, who was aided by some learned rabbis for the translation of the O.T. from the original in Hebrew, and by some other scholars for the Latin revision.

This first Vulgata became the officially promulgated version of the Bible of the RCC, and in the so called Clementine Edition, in the 13th century (therefore, long before the KJV, which dates from the year 1611, when first edited by the Church of England. This edition had the 46 books of the O.T. the 27, of the NT, and 3 in the Apocrypha, that is, those 3 books whose canonicity is either rejected or doubted. In some editions of the Bible (the RCC for one) they are completely omitted.

• The 3 books which are not found in the canon of the Council of Trent were moved into an appendix “ne prorsus interirent," "lest they utterly perish", and they are:
• Prayer of Manasses
• 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
• 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)

The 7 books missing in the KJV of the OT. as compared with the Vulgata (both the old and the modern) are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus or Sirach.

Should you wish some additional information as to why there is that difference between most Protestant Bibles and the RCC, please let me know.

Other than that, let us say that most Christians admit the Bible was written (especially the O.T.) under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but the actual writers were more than 40, among which there were shepherds, farmers, priests, philosophers, fishermen, doctors in medicine and kings. Consequently, it is already a marvelous miracle that despite the different cultural levels of the authors and the time elapsed to complete the Bible, it is so coherent and unified in purpose and in depth.

Still, the different interpretations derived from the many translations into different languages by different scholars, exegetes and translators make it difficult to discern these copies from the original.

On the other hand the stories were initially orally transmitted, and probably 10 centuries before Christ they started to be written. The original Hebraic text had only consonants. How these texts were to be read was transmitted also orally the next thousand years, until some learned Jews, well in our Era and in a long term of several centuries, rewrote the texts with vowels and punctuation signs, which resulted into the so called “masoretic” (from “Masora” = Tradition) text.

As you can understand these oral transmissions may have had to be adapted to the available know-how of the story-teller as well as to the average knowledge of the people they were addressed to.

Long before the “masoretic” text, in the 3rd century BC, the King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309 – 246 BC) commissioned the translation of the O.T. into Greek, which was carried out by some 70 scholars. This translation is known by the name of “Septuagint” or LXX.

As for the texts of the Hebraic Bible before the masoteric texts a very helpful tool has been the discovery of the Qumran scrolls in 1945, which have allowed availing ourselves of copies much older than those we had so far.

The original NT was written in Koine Greek by several authors, most probably after the 45 AD. Greek was chosen because it was the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire whereas Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, was spoken only by a few. It is believed that the Vatican keeps in its Museum some 3000 original papyrus and 2200 lectionaries (books containing a collection of scripture readings) of the N.T.

The oldest original text we have is the Rylands Papyrus P-52 (from the year 120 to 130 AD), at present kept at the John Rylands University, in Manchester, U.K. It contains some fragments from the Gospel of St. John (18:31-33).

The most important Codex is probably “The Codex Alexandrinus” (London, British Library), a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible containing the majority of the Septuagint and the N.T.

As regards the most complete text of the Hebraic Bible, we may refer to “The Codex Leningradensis”, containing the masoteric text from the end of the 10th century AC. It is housed at the National Library of Russia, in Saint Petersburg.

I mention all this information because when we are referring to the Holy Bible and its contents we should never forget how it was written (from approximately 1450 BC, in Moses times to approx. the year 100 AC), translated throughout the centuries into more than 2000 languages and finally, since Gutenberg printed the first one in 1454 AC, built up in several versions (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant).

All this has to induce us in my opinion to be very cautious in our criticism of some Books or in considering one version as the only true one and the others false… or bogus
:):)

To each is given what God intends upon giving. Eph 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.


Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

One Way was given in Christ Jesus and we can rest upon HIM (Luke 3:4 Mark 1:3 Matthew 3:3)

Life or death is the choice. Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)


If you mean eternal life or eternal death, I agree with you. If you refer to death here in our Planet there is no choice. We all are to die! So we better decide down here who we want to follow for later on, it may be too late! :):)

heh heh, even after you acknowledge being wrong
It's really difficult to get past reading everything as literal truth, isn't it. I was quoting you, Tom. Please note the quote marks.

And what about the other four traditions, in addition to sola scriptura, that you hold?

If you mean eternal life or eternal death, I agree with you.

Agree...

Life or death is the choice.... Life in Christ or Death in satan

Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)

SAME ANSWER when Choice of Life:

What we follow is The Word of God = Christ the flesh of the word
Who we follow is Christ Jesus = Man (begotten son of God) sent to show us the Way

`in Christ

So, do the extra books in any way contradict the ones in my Bible?

If not, we have no argument.

If so, then as far as I am concerned, Scripture trumps Tradition.

I keep coming back to the question, if Sola Scriptura is to be the “rule of faith”, or as put here, the “standard of faith”, why are there some 30,000 different faiths, other than Catholic? Don't they all read the same Scripture? Don't they all understand the same passages in the same way? And, even within the same building of the non-Catholic faiths, the only way they continue in the same faith is to teach – what do they teach? How to read? Isn't teaching the passing of traditions?


JoeT

Well, if it is you've manifestly failed to support that contention. 2Tim.3 didn't do it--although it does use the words "Scripture" and "complete" in rough proximity.

It does do it, but you keep saying complete doesn't mean complete, so we get nowhere.

It's really difficult to get past reading everything as literal truth, isn't it. I was quoting you, Tom. Please note the quote marks.

And what about the other four traditions, in addition to sola scriptura, that you hold?


WG,

Why is it that you feel that you must mis-represent me, and continue to do so even after you have been correcteed several times?

Is the truth not good enough?

Can we not simply have a respectful discussion where we discuss where we agree and disagree and why without you demanding that I must believe what you tell me that I mus5t believe?

So, do the extra books in any way contradict the ones in my Bible?

If not, we have no argument.

If so, then as far as I am concerned, Scripture trumps Tradition.


The Apochrypha definitely contradicts the books of the Bible. Indeed, as I have pointed out on here many times, Maccabees even goes so far as to deny inspiration.

I keep coming back to the question, if Sola Scriptura is to be the “rule of faith”, or as put here, the “standard of faith”, why are there some 30,000 different faiths, other than Catholic?

First, I keep seeing this number and it is never validated. But regardless, I do not think that there are 30,000 Christian faiths. There is a much smaller number because a very large number of the different denominations share a single faith. The reasons for most denominations is not doctrinal.

Second, you in part answered the question that you asked as to why there are some doctrinal differences between denominations. Too often men add their own interpretations rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

It does do it, but you keep saying complete doesn't mean complete, so we get nowhere.

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete. It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and thoroughly equipped for doing good works.

This isn't fancy maneuvering on my part; this is just reading comprehension. The only way to get from this passage the claim that Scripture is complete is just to ignore all the words that occur between the words "Scriptures" and "complete" and say, "See, the words 'Scripture' and 'complete' are used, and so it must be saying that Scripture is complete. Nevermind that the word 'complete' isn't being used of Scripture--just ignore all those other words and hold 'Scriptures' and 'complete' up next to each other". Even though they don't occur next to each other, and even though the word "complete" isn't being used as an adjective of "Scripture", and even though it is telling us that Scripture is profitable for four things, which four things taken together are said to make one complete and equipped for doing good works. You are just patently refusing to read what the words say because you want them to say something different.

Face it, Tom, this passage just manifestly does not say that Scripture is complete. Nor does it in any way support the doctrine of sola scriptura. So either you can concede that the doctrine of sola scriptura, however much you may like it, is not scriptural; or you can point us to some verse or verses that actually do support the doctrine--because 2Tim.3 sure doesn't.

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete. It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and throughly equipped for doing good works.


But it does say that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth.

John 14:1 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And it says to eat the the bread which was the body of Christ

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

AND we are to drink blood of the NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Cr 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Should anyone deny Christ Jesus is complete as the Word of God in scripture?

It was shown that Peter did sorrow in denying Christ, the bitterly wept and shame that one can suffer in denying Christ Jesus..

2 Sa 22:31 As for God, His way is perfect; the Word of the LORD is tried: He is a buckler to all them that trust in Him.

Scripture is the standard
If you do not use scripture as the standard then how do you back up what you believe??
If you do not use scripture as the standard then it is not Biblically based and very likely opposes God's word
So how do you NOT use scripture as the standard and still claim it is God's word if what you believe is not supported by scripture?

But it does say that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth.

Right. No one is denying the Incarnation.


And it says to eat the the bread which was the body of Christ

Right again.


AND we are to drink blood of the NEW TESTAMENT


We are to eat of Christ's flesh and drink of his blood, the blood of the New Covenant.


Should anyone deny Christ Jesus is complete as the Word of God in scripture?

I'm not entirely clear what you are saying here, so I'll take a shot and trust that you'll correct me if I've misunderstood what you mean.

Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity. When the Word became flesh it did not reliquish its divinity, so Jesus, the Incarnate Word, was "complete as the Word" (I'm not sure if that's what you meant).

Here's where I'm really not sure what you mean: "in scripture". Scripture (a) does not exhaust all that the Incarnate Word was and is. Nothing ever could. So if what you mean by "complete as the Word in scripture" is something like, "Scripture completely contains all that is or pertains to the Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity, without remainder" then we disagree. Scripture does not contain all that is or pertains to the second Person of the Trinity. You need to be careful not to confuse the Word of God (the second Person of the Trinity) and the word of God (the books of Scripture inspired by the Word of God).

But neither does Scripture (b) exhaust the whole of God's revelation. Scripture does not contain the whole of the word of God (where "the word of God" is understood to be God's revelation, as opposed to "the Word of God" which is the second Person of the Trinity). Scripture itself refers to oral teachings, instructing us to uphold and abide by them. Now, if Scripture intended us to disregard these oral teachings, it wouldn't tell us to adhere to them. Instead of telling us to uphold and abide by oral teaching, it would simply record those teachings itself. Scripture points us to something beyond itself, namely to oral teaching. It wouldn't do this if God wanted us only to look to Scripture. So God's revelation isn't exhausted by the Bible. Not only does the Bible not tell us that all of these oral teachings would be written down and included in the canon of the NT; it explicitly commands us uphold and abide by oral teachings. To be a sola-scripturist is to disobey what Scripture explicitly commands us to do.

We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete.

And then I ask you where scripture is deficient, and you won't answer.

And then I ask you where scripture is deficient, and you won't answer.

I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete". Then, once it's pointed out to you yet again that I have done no such thing, that I have in fact been faithful to what the Scripture says, it becomes: We don't get anywhere because I won't answer your question.

Well, here's what I said one of the many times I've answered this question:


So I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient. It is perfectly suited to be what it is: A standard of truth and an authority in matters of doctrine and discipline, ordained by God to function with and alongside Tradition.

I have never said, nor even intimated, that Scripture is deficient. What I have said is that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation. And I say this because, as has been shown, Scripture says it. Surely you don't mean to chastise me for taking Scripture at face value on this. Scripture is the perfect complement to Tradition, as Tradition is the perfect complement to Scripture (I've said this before too, in answer to your question). So, you see, Scripture isn't at all deficient. God gave us Scripture, just as he has given us Tradition. And God's designs aren't deficient. I'm sure you will agree.

Now, instead of changing the subject, let's stay on-topic. You can either acknowledge that the doctrine of sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition or you can provide some Scripture that actually does (unlike 2Tim.3) unambiguously affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura. If you do the latter, then we can all read and discuss the Scripture you bring forth. If you do the former, we can then proceed to a discussion--on this or another thread, whatever you prefer--of the revelatory content of Tradition.

But first things first: you have a decision to make. Either admit that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition unsupported by Scripture or show us where Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura.

I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete".

When in fact the verse in question DOES use the word complete. Yes, your denial of what scripture says is issue number 1. If you won't admit what it actually says, how can we discuss it?


I have never said, nor even intimated, that Scripture is deficient.

Second problem - if something is not complete - it is missing something and therefore deficient or not complete.

Then after saying that you never said that it was deficient, your next sentence is:


What I have said is that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation.

Maybe you don't know what deficient means:

de⋅fi⋅cient

–adjective
1. lacking some element or characteristic; defective: deficient in taste.
2. insufficient; inadequate: deficient knowledge.
(Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

But when asked what is deficient about scripture, you won't tell us what it is missing that would make it complete, i.e. what teaching, what doctrine, what part of the gospel do you feel that it is missing.

So we go around in circles.

When in fact the verse in question DOES use the word complete. Yes, your denial of what scripture says is issue number 1. If you won't admit what it actually says, how can we discuss it?

I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete". I have discussed these verses several times now, and each time I have addressed this fact. Here's what I said in my most recent post about the use of the word "complete":


It says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It goes on to say that these four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--make one complete and thoroughly equipped for doing good works.

This isn't fancy maneuvering on my part; this is just reading comprehension. The only way to get from this passage the claim that Scripture is complete is just to ignore all the words that occur between the words "Scriptures" and "complete" and say, "See, the words 'Scripture' and 'complete' are used, and so it must be saying that Scripture is complete. Nevermind that the word 'complete' isn't being used of Scripture--just ignore all those other words and hold 'Scriptures' and 'complete' up next to each other". Even though they don't occur next to each other, and even though the word "complete" isn't being used as an adjective of "Scripture", and even though it is telling us that Scripture is profitable for four things, which four things taken together are said to make one complete and equipped for doing good works.

It is, in fact, you who refuse to admit what it actually says. Once again: It says that Scripture is inspired by God and makes one wise for salvation. It then says that Scripture is profitable for four things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Then it tells us that these four things (doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in reighteousness)--for which Scripture is profitable--make one complete and equipped for performing good works. So I have omitted nothing. Neither have I in any way distorted or misrepresented what Scripture says. You have. And you have been shown your error. Repeatedly. Scripture means what it says, and it says that Scripture is inspired by God, makes one wise for salvation, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that these four things make one complete and fulyl equipped for performing good works.


Second problem - if something is not complete - it is missing something and therefore deficient or not complete.

Then after saying that you never said that it was deficient, your next sentence is:



Maybe you don't know what deficient means:

de?fi?cient

–adjective
1. lacking some element or characteristic; defective: deficient in taste.
2. insufficient; inadequate: deficient knowledge.
(Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

As the definition you provide illustrates, the word "deficient" often connotes something's being defective in some way. It is a loaded word. To tell someone that, say, their inability to do analysis renders them deficient would be taken by many people as an insult.

There are things, purposes, to which Scripture is not adequate. It doesn't make for a good calculus textbook, for instance. It doesn't teach us anything about German Expressionism. But it would just be odd to say that, on that account, the Bible is somehow deficient. This for the reason that it was never intended to serve as a calculus textbook nor to teach us about German Expressionism.

It is my view that Scripture is perfectly suited to its purposes, namely to work in concert with Tradition as an authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It is perfectly suited to the purposes for which God ordained it, and so it would, I believe, be disrespectful to say that it is deficient simply because it doesn't contain the whole of God's revelation to his people. It would make about as much sense as saying that the Bible is deficient because it cannot be used as a calculus textbook.

So, I'm going to reserve the right to choose my own words going forward.

Now, I have said that Scripture is not the whole of God's revelation. I have said this because Scripture says it, instructing us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. So maybe you need to give some thought to why you find Scripture deficient, since you clearly think that it erred when it gave this instruction.

But, in any event, this is all really beside the present point. You have either to provide Scriptural justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura or acknowledge that it is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition.


But when asked what is deficient about scripture, you won't tell us what it is missing that would make it complete, i.e. what teaching, what doctrine, what part of the gospel do you feel that it is missing.

I've addressed this silly notion about deficiency, so now I'll just reiterate something I said a short time ago: Once you acknowlegde that sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition I will be more than happy for us to turn our attention to that portion of God's revelation that isn't contained within the pages of Scripture. I've already indicated one such issue which is of paramount importance, but it would be folly to wade into that subject until such time as you acknowledge your error and indicate that you are indeed prepared to open yourself to the whole of God's revelation. There's lots to discuss, but doing so requires you first to admit your error.


So we go around in circles.

We go around in circles because you have demonstrated your unwillingness to read 2Tim.3 honestly. You have similarly refused to provide any Scriptural justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

So, here we are again: Either provide evidence that Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura or recant and acknowledge that this doctrine is not Scriptural at all.

I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete".

See why we get nowhere? In your last post you said:

"I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete"."

In this post you said:

"I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete"."

I think that documents nicely where we go around in circles. I could spend hours refuting your long posts, but why when you simply say one thing in one psot and the opposite thing in the next.

When we can get you to unambiguously come to a position that you can hold for more than one post at a time, perhaps we can move on to the second step.

See why we get nowhere? In your last post you said:

"I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete"."

That's some interesting, creative, editing you've done. Here's the bit you quote in context:


I see. So first it's: We don't get anywhere because I refuse to admit that the verses you cited use the word "complete". Then, once it's pointed out to you yet again that I have done no such thing, that I have in fact been faithful to what the Scripture says, it becomes: We don't get anywhere because I won't answer your question.

I honestly don't know whether this is just sheer mendacity on your part or poor reading skills. Clearly, the bit that you quoted was part of my attempt to point out your shifting charges against me. First you accused me of refusing to admit the use of the word "complete", and then, once you're shown that that won't fly, you move on to another accusation.


In this post you said:

"I have at no time denied or ignored the fact that it uses the word "complete"."

I think that documents nicely where we go around in circles. I could spend hours refuting your long posts, but why when you simply say one thing in one psot and the opposite thing in the next.

Yes, in fact, it does document nicely why we go around in circles. You are either an unbelievably poor reader or you are appallingly dishonest. Have your pick.

Of course, either way it's just a ploy so that you can avoid the dilemma with which you are confronted: Either provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of
sola scriptura or acknowledge that sola scriptura is an un-Scriptural man-made tradition.

Akoue,

It is not creative editing - I am trying to understand your position. Without a lengthy post just answer the question YES or No.

Do you accept that the verse uses the word "complete".

Let's start with small points first and then build on that if we can get past this one point.

BTW, your demeaning personal comments are not helping your credibility. Kindly dispense with them. You always seem to resort to that tactic when other tactics to obfuscate things fail.

BTW, your demeaning personal comments are not helping your credibility. Kindly dispense with them. You always seem to resort to that tactic when other tactics to obfuscate things fail.

Tom, I'm watching. Don't start with this bull or I will ask that the thread be closed.

You will not get away with this any longer, I'll personally see to it.

Carry on respectfully or I will do what I have to.

Thank you.

Tom, I'm watching. Don't start with this bull or I will ask that the thread be closed.

You will not get away with this any longer, I'll personally see to it.

Carry on respectfully or I will do what I have to.

Thank you.

Alty, don't threaten - that is not appropriate for posting in a thread. If you are going to try to get it closed because others which to actually discuss the topic, then go ahead, do what you want. I really don't don't care.

If you decide to actually add value, you are always welcome, but disruptive comments are not.

Alty, don't threaten - that is not appropriate for posting in a thread. If you are going to try to get it closed because others which to actually discuss the topic, then go ahead, do what you want. I really don't don't care.

If you decide to actually add value, you are always welcome, but disruptive comments are not.

Threaten? Did you read what I wrote?

Enough!

Sorry everyone, but once again one person is trying to rule the thread by posting accusations and lies, so it's time to report.

God bless.

Threaten? Did you read what I wrote?

Enough!

Sorry everyone, but once again one person is trying to rule the thread by posting accusations and lies, so it's time to report.

God bless.

Alty, is this going to be your new approach to disrupting every thread that I go on? Posting threats? (and yes, accusations and lies).

Comment removed.

Let's try this again...


Akoue,

It is not creative editing - I am trying to understand your position. BTW, in post 407 is another example where you said that it says that scripture is not complete:

"We get nowhere because it doesn't say that Scripture is complete."

Without a lengthy post just answer the question YES or No.

Do you accept that the verse uses the word "complete"?

Let's start with small points first and then build on that if we can get past this one point. If we can, then after that we can try once again to discuss what it means in that context.

BTW, your demeaning personal comments are not helping your credibility. Kindly dispense with them. You always seem to resort to that tactic when other tactics to obfuscate things fail.

Do you accept that the verse uses the word "complete"?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version) 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.

Yes, verse 16 uses the word "profitable." According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Prof·it·able
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-fə-tə-bəl, ˈpräf-tə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
: affording profits : yielding advantageous returns or results

According to verse 16, "All Scripture...is profitable," i.e. yields advantageous results.

Yes, verse 17 uses the word "complete." To what does it refer? It refers to "the man of God." In fact, English teachers all over the world will tell us that "complete" is a predicate nominative referring to "the man of God" since "may be" is an intransitive verb.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version) 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.

Yes, verse 16 uses the word "profitable." According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

prof·it·able
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-fə-tə-bəl, ˈpräf-tə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
: affording profits : yielding advantageous returns or results

According to verse 16, "All scripture...is profitable," i.e., yields advantageous results.

Yes, verse 17 uses the word "complete." To what does it refer? It refers to "the man of God." In fact, English teachers all over the world will tell us that "complete" is a predicate nominative referring to "the man of God" since "may be" is an intransitive verb.

Okay, I went through this once before, and now let's go through this once again. First, I started at verse 15 (not verse 16)

2 Tim 3:13-17
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.
NKJV

Note that this says that scripture is provides the following:

- What you need to know about the gospel of salvation Jesus Christ
- Everything that is necessary for the man of God to be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Now, if it tells us everything that we need to know to be saved, and if it tells us everything that we need to know to be complete as a man of God, and to be thoroughly equipped for every good work, in what way is it incomplete? In what way is it deficient?

Now, if it tells us everything that we need to know to be saved, and if it tells us everything that we need to know to be complete as a man of God, and to be thoroughly equipped for every good work, in what way is it incomplete?
That passage doesn't say that "it tells us everything." It only says that "the Holy Scriptures... make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." There may be other things that make us wise.

My mother made me wise for baking cookies, but the 4-H Club also made me wise, as did my paternal grandmother.

That passage doesn't say that "it tells us everything." It only says that "the Holy Scriptures...make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." There may be other things that make us wise.

So you don't think that this says that it provides us with adequate information to be saved?

So you don't think that this says that it provides us with adequate information to be saved?
That isn't what you claim. You claim it says "everything" we need to be saved. That is your argument for sola scriptura and that there's no need for Tradition.

That isn't what you claim. You claim it says "everything" we need to be saved.

That is my question - are you claiming that it DOES NOT contain everything that we need to know to be saved?

That is my question - are you claiming that it DOES NOT contain everything that we need to know to be saved?


No, Scripture doesn’t reveal all of God's Truths, e.g. the Trinity

That is my question - are you claiming that it DOES NOT contain everything that we need to know to be saved?
You've changed the game, Tom.

We're talking about the passage in 2 Timothy.

We're talking about the passage in 2 Timothy.

Exactly, so please answer my question regarding your understanding of this passage and what it says - are you claiming that it DOES NOT contain everything that we need to know to be saved?

2 Tim 3:14-17
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.
NKJV

No, Scripture doesn’t reveal all of God's Truths, e.g. the Trinity

Really? What aspects of the trinity do you think are omitted from the Bible?

- Do you think that the Bible does not say that the Holy Spirit is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that Jesus is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that there is only one God?

Or are there other aspects of the trinity that you believe are missing from scripture? Please be specific.

Really? What aspects of the trinity do you think are omitted from the Bible?

- Do you think that the Bible does not say that the Holy Spirit is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that Jesus is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that there is only one God?

Or are there other aspects of the trinity that you believe are missing from scripture? Please be specific.

The Scriptures are not complete, and we know that because John explains that Christ said that there are yet many things which you cannot bear. These are things yet to be revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit.

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. John 16:12-13

I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I have not said to the seed of Jacob: Seek me in vain. I am the Lord that speak justice, that declare right things. Isaiah 45:19

JoeT

The Scriptures are not complete, and we know that because John explains that Christ said that there are yet many things which you cannot bear. These are things yet to be revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit.

But it does not say that there is anything that we need to know and if it has not been revealed to the church, either in or outside of scripture, that means that this argument does not in any way impact the fact that scripture is the standard of truth in doctrine.

I noticed that you did not answer my question regarding the aspects of the doctrine of the trinity that you say are missing from scripture.

What aspects of the trinity do you think are omitted from the Bible?

- Do you think that the Bible does not say that the Holy Spirit is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that Jesus is God?
- Do you think that it does not say that there is only one God?

Or are there other aspects of the trinity that you believe are missing from scripture? Please be specific.