- This topic is empty.
- Posts
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote That verse you quoted did NOT say they accepted the book of Deuteronomy “because it did not contradict”. Sorry. Not there.
I have read it and it and tested it and it does not contradict the rest of the Law of Mosses. In addition the transition from it to the book of Joshua is extremely smooth as if written by the same author. Still, you are correct that it does not explicitly state that it does not contradict in the passage I quoted.
That passage does tell us that a prophetess of the Lord was consulted about the book. It also tells us that it was read to the king and only before he showed repentance for not adhering to it.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote The book of Enoch….does not contradict the Bible. It is quoted in the NT. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE CANON YOU ACCEPT.
I am going to disagree with you as I do believe that the book of Enoch, we have now, does contradict scripture. On the other hand I believe there is probably an original version that does not and should be part of scripture. I also have hopes about the book of Jubilees but, like Enoch, I believe the present version is corrupt.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome (all men who knew at least one of the twelve apostles) do not contradict the rest of Scripture…yet their writings are NOT part of the Canon.
I do not know these letters and so am unable to judge the spirit of them. If they are as you state then I have no problem when using them as teaching tools.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote So we're going to need a little bit better criteria than “it doesn't contradict” to call it Scripture.
That is my standards. When I say it then it also means it does not add or subtract from the Word of God.
The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is nonsensical from any basis of logic or debate. Truth is not confined to a particular set of writings. Can people say without prejudice that God inspired only the ancient Jews of a particular time period? There was no truth from other creeds? God didn't inspire anyone from India or China? There was no truth before or after scripture that has any spiritual value? How are we any different then any follower of Islam that says the Koran is all we need? Does no one here see God's hand in great works of science from Newton to Einstein? Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, have nothing to add? What a sad world we live in to have divine inspiration limited to the confines of one leather bound book.
Hi cato,
Certainly the world would have us believe our God is whatever we choose him to be.
But we bathe in the revelation of the true God of Israel.Quote (Cato @ Sep. 25 2009,23:14) The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is nonsensical from any basis of logic or debate. Truth is not confined to a particular set of writings. Can people say without prejudice that God inspired only the ancient Jews of a particular time period? There was no truth from other creeds? God didn't inspire anyone from India or China? There was no truth before or after scripture that has any spiritual value? How are we any different then any follower of Islam that says the Koran is all we need? Does no one here see God's hand in great works of science from Newton to Einstein? Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, have nothing to add? What a sad world we live in to have divine inspiration limited to the confines of one leather bound book.
Your argument took off well enough with your first sentence. But you took a nose dive from there on.It is illogical to use an “it's not fair that God would use the Jews and not us” argument. That proves nothing. God is perfectly free to use whoever He wants for His own purposes. It doesn't logically have to include Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, or any other teacher or strain of thought.
Bad argument.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 25 2009,18:18) I do not know these letters and so am unable to judge the spirit of them. If they are as you state then I have no problem when using them as teaching tools.
But that is not what we are discussing is it? (Using something as a teaching tool.) No, we are discussing WHAT constitutes the Bible. What is the infallible authoritative written Word of God?Quote CatholicApologist wrote: Quote So we're going to need a little bit better criteria than “it doesn't contradict” to call it Scripture.
That is my standards. When I say it then it also means it does not add or subtract from the Word of God.
So, then, according to your standards…I could write a letter something like this:
“I love Jesus. Jesus loves me. Jesus died for my sins. Praise the Lord. He is worthy of all praise. I'm so thankful because this is the day that the Lord has made.”
And because it doesn't add or subtract any new themes or teachings to the Word of God…you would call this “the book of CA” and add it to your Bible?
BTW, when you refer to the Word of God please try and be specific. Jesus is the Word of God. Then there is the unwritten and written Word of God.
Also…you haven't shown what books belong in the Bible and why. Please do so.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 26 2009,09:52) Quote (Cato @ Sep. 25 2009,23:14) The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is nonsensical from any basis of logic or debate. Truth is not confined to a particular set of writings. Can people say without prejudice that God inspired only the ancient Jews of a particular time period? There was no truth from other creeds? God didn't inspire anyone from India or China? There was no truth before or after scripture that has any spiritual value? How are we any different then any follower of Islam that says the Koran is all we need? Does no one here see God's hand in great works of science from Newton to Einstein? Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, have nothing to add? What a sad world we live in to have divine inspiration limited to the confines of one leather bound book.
Your argument took off well enough with your first sentence. But you took a nose dive from there on.It is illogical to use an “it's not fair that God would use the Jews and not us” argument. That proves nothing. God is perfectly free to use whoever He wants for His own purposes. It doesn't logically have to include Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, or any other teacher or strain of thought.
Bad argument.
Hey CA,I actually think it's a good argument.
Your argument is based on this: God can do what he bloody well feels like and that's that!
Well……okay but the only thing we have to validate you point would be the scriptures…..right?
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,10:45) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 26 2009,09:52) Quote (Cato @ Sep. 25 2009,23:14) The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is nonsensical from any basis of logic or debate. Truth is not confined to a particular set of writings. Can people say without prejudice that God inspired only the ancient Jews of a particular time period? There was no truth from other creeds? God didn't inspire anyone from India or China? There was no truth before or after scripture that has any spiritual value? How are we any different then any follower of Islam that says the Koran is all we need? Does no one here see God's hand in great works of science from Newton to Einstein? Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, have nothing to add? What a sad world we live in to have divine inspiration limited to the confines of one leather bound book.
Your argument took off well enough with your first sentence. But you took a nose dive from there on.It is illogical to use an “it's not fair that God would use the Jews and not us” argument. That proves nothing. God is perfectly free to use whoever He wants for His own purposes. It doesn't logically have to include Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, or any other teacher or strain of thought.
Bad argument.
Hey CA,I actually think it's a good argument.
Your argument is based on this: God can do what he bloody well feels like and that's that!
Well……okay but the only thing we have to validate you point would be the scriptures…..right?
Love,
Mandy
In my rebuttal there I wasn't making a point of my own. Just saying that his argument doesn't inherently prove anything.I'm not saying that his argument is inherently false. That's another conversation. I'm just saying this one thing.
The “it's not fair” argument isn't very weighty and doesn't prove anything….at least not with me.
Still disagree?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 26 2009,10:50) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,10:45) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 26 2009,09:52) Quote (Cato @ Sep. 25 2009,23:14) The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is nonsensical from any basis of logic or debate. Truth is not confined to a particular set of writings. Can people say without prejudice that God inspired only the ancient Jews of a particular time period? There was no truth from other creeds? God didn't inspire anyone from India or China? There was no truth before or after scripture that has any spiritual value? How are we any different then any follower of Islam that says the Koran is all we need? Does no one here see God's hand in great works of science from Newton to Einstein? Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, have nothing to add? What a sad world we live in to have divine inspiration limited to the confines of one leather bound book.
Your argument took off well enough with your first sentence. But you took a nose dive from there on.It is illogical to use an “it's not fair that God would use the Jews and not us” argument. That proves nothing. God is perfectly free to use whoever He wants for His own purposes. It doesn't logically have to include Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tsu, or any other teacher or strain of thought.
Bad argument.
Hey CA,I actually think it's a good argument.
Your argument is based on this: God can do what he bloody well feels like and that's that!
Well……okay but the only thing we have to validate you point would be the scriptures…..right?
Love,
Mandy
In my rebuttal there I wasn't making a point of my own. Just saying that his argument doesn't inherently prove anything.I'm not saying that his argument is inherently false. That's another conversation. I'm just saying this one thing.
The “it's not fair” argument isn't very weighty and doesn't prove anything….at least not with me.
Still disagree?
At this point there is not much to agree with or disagree with.
But I do think that Cato has a point. Why do we believe that God would only use our holy texts? Because our texts say so? Hmmmm.
Sometimes, CA, I think a lot of what we have come to believe is based on fear of not believing it.
Love,
MandyHi not3,
Sooner or later you do have to commit to the idea of God and His Son and their precious words of spirit and life.
Sitting in doubt on the fence gets you nowhere as those who doubt can expect nothing from the Lord God.[Jas]Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,11:13) At this point there is not much to agree with or disagree with. But I do think that Cato has a point.
fair enough.Quote Why do we believe that God would only use our holy texts? Because our texts say so? Hmmmm.
Sometimes, CA, I think a lot of what we have come to believe is based on fear of not believing it.
Love,
MandyI think you have a point. That is really my whole point in this thread. We have to have more than a book for this whole thing to work.
Also, a book claiming something for itself doesn't cut the mustard in and of itself. If it does, then who are we to argue with BD and the Muslims?
Most protestants don't realize it, but they are good Lutherans. They believe Luther's premise and can't get outside that box.
I think it is fascinating to read pre-Luther Christian history and the proofs they give for the Catholic faith. I love reading the Orthodox as well. The line of thinking is far and away different and waaay more reasonable to me.
Here's the thing…I KNOW Jesus is real. Yes, I have explored objective proofs for this as well. But just stay with me on this train of thought for a bit.
I have cast out devils in the name of Jesus. I have stared them down eyeball to eyeball in people. Not something you want to do everyday. I have seen the terror in a devil's eyes more than once when I started taking authority over them in the name of Jesus. I have seen miracles happen in the name of Jesus. I have experienced miracle after miracle. And it seems that things are progressing in that regard the more Catholic I become.
So I KNOW the Christian faith is real. But while I was a Protestant, why couldn't I find the fullness of truth to satisfy my own logic AND my spiritual and pragmatic concerns within something that I “saw results”? The puzzle wasn't fitting.
Now the puzzle fits perfectly. This is NOT to say I have God all figured out now. Far from it. In fact, that's just the point I want to make in this little rabbit trail. The point is that there are a lot of things I know are NOT true about God. But there are way more things that I have no clue about. And I am comfortable with the mystery. I am also logically satisfied with everything that the Church has defined.
It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus established a Church. It doesn't make any sense that He would leave us all hanging to figure out the faith for ourselves all by ourselves. That seems like madness to me.
Protestantism is splintered into thousands of pieces…and keeps splintering. The Catholic Church is still the same. Protestantism is new. Catholicism is old.
Now we're going to have a lot of agreement in spirit when it concerns people who have never heard the Christian message. (those tribes in the Amazon for example) I think we're even going to have a lot of common ground with the beliefs of people who didn't really have an intelligible presentation of Christian truth. (like some folks in NY or Amsterdam)
To get back to the thread…I just want some other folks here to admit that Sola Scriptura (“prove to me it's true by showing it to me in the Bible”) has no place in logic. It is not self-validating by the simplest of standards.
Sorry to go on so long.
Hi CA,
You offer the supremacy of weak greek logic?
The wisdom of man is greater to you than the wisdom of God? [lk11.49, 1Cor2]That is the shakiest of foundations just like your claim that age and unteachability proves veracity.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 26 2009,11:33) Hi not3,
Sooner or later you do have to commit to the idea of God and His Son and their precious words of spirit and life.
Sitting in doubt on the fence gets you nowhere as those who doubt can expect nothing from the Lord God.[Jas]
Hi Nick,You sound like my sister. I would say you sound like my mother but my mother has passed on (so my sister has taken her place in the watching over my spiritual well-being).
I appreciate your calling to the lambs, Nick. I really do. But I'm not in doubt. I just don't believe everything you believe. Does this make you fear for my salvation?
Love,
MandyCA,
I'm not doubting that Jesus is real. I've doubted that he was/is the Messiah before….but I've never once questioned that he was and is.
My beef is in that he is the ONLY way to God. Does that clear up my concerns better? I think Cato has a point in that why cannot we look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
Perhaps Jesus is the way for our culture? For those that hear this “way” from missionaries and so on. But perhaps for other's who do not, or are not born into this culture, this “way”, just perhaps their way to God is by another name or religion? Could it not be so? How do we know fo' sho?
Love,
MandyCatholicApologist wrote:
Quote So, then, according to your standards…I could write a letter something like this:
“I love Jesus. Jesus loves me. Jesus died for my sins. Praise the Lord. He is worthy of all praise. I'm so thankful because this is the day that the Lord has made.”
And because it doesn't add or subtract any new themes or teachings to the Word of God…you would call this “the book of CA” and add it to your Bible?
I am rather easy going but I suppose you would state that would be extraneous. In that case it would seem that you pointed out an additional requirement that should be replied before a writing is considered the Word of God and that is that the writing is not extraneous. The question then becomes is “how do we determine whether a writing is extraneous or not”?
Many consider scripture closed and some of those most likely feel any additional writings added to it would be extraneous. I believe that is the position of those that believe in Sola Scripture.
Lets assume that Scripture is still open to additions. Then it would make sense to use the criteria set by Paul which is that scripture must be inspired by God and therefore “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote BTW, when you refer to the Word of God please try and be specific. Jesus is the Word of God. Then there is the unwritten and written Word of God.
I do not see the difference between the written and spoken word of God. Could you explain your perception?
Jesus could be said to be the personification of the word of God. I am not sure why that would confuse you. If I am speaking of him you should tell by the context. I do not think I often speak of him in that way.
So as not to offend you I will try to do as you ask anyways.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Also…you haven't shown what books belong in the Bible and why. Please do so.
I am a student of Jesus and do not yet have the knowledge which enables me to be that exact. I have questions, some of which have been answered. That is as far as I have progressed.
Mandy wrote:
Quote My beef is in that he is the ONLY way to God. Does that clear up my concerns better? I think Cato has a point in that why cannot we look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
Why do you want to look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
I can say that the reason you want to look to Jesus is because he can give you true righteousness. I will not say it is easy to obtain that gift.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 26 2009,17:45) Mandy wrote: Quote My beef is in that he is the ONLY way to God. Does that clear up my concerns better? I think Cato has a point in that why cannot we look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
Why do you want to look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
I can say that the reason you want to look to Jesus is because he can give you true righteousness. I will not say it is easy to obtain that gift.
Hi Kerwin,Gosh, I've tried to answer your question several different ways and I've erased all of them.
I don't look to other inspired writers, but I'm wondering what would be the harm in doing so?
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,17:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 26 2009,11:33) Hi not3,
Sooner or later you do have to commit to the idea of God and His Son and their precious words of spirit and life.
Sitting in doubt on the fence gets you nowhere as those who doubt can expect nothing from the Lord God.[Jas]
Hi Nick,You sound like my sister. I would say you sound like my mother but my mother has passed on (so my sister has taken her place in the watching over my spiritual well-being).
I appreciate your calling to the lambs, Nick. I really do. But I'm not in doubt. I just don't believe everything you believe. Does this make you fear for my salvation?
Love,
Mandy
Hi Not3,
We carry no burdens.
You must live by your own choices.
You have the books and can hear the same messages.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 26 2009,17:58) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,17:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 26 2009,11:33) Hi not3,
Sooner or later you do have to commit to the idea of God and His Son and their precious words of spirit and life.
Sitting in doubt on the fence gets you nowhere as those who doubt can expect nothing from the Lord God.[Jas]
Hi Nick,You sound like my sister. I would say you sound like my mother but my mother has passed on (so my sister has taken her place in the watching over my spiritual well-being).
I appreciate your calling to the lambs, Nick. I really do. But I'm not in doubt. I just don't believe everything you believe. Does this make you fear for my salvation?
Love,
Mandy
Hi Not3,
We carry no burdens.
You must live by your own choices.
You have the books and can hear the same messages.
My brother,With all due respect, that's the thing that drives me crazy about “the books”……….they do not teach the same message to everyone. Not at all. Take a looky here at the forum.
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 26 2009,17:54) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 26 2009,17:45) Mandy wrote: Quote My beef is in that he is the ONLY way to God. Does that clear up my concerns better? I think Cato has a point in that why cannot we look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
Why do you want to look to other so-called inspired writers for guidance and “truth”?
I can say that the reason you want to look to Jesus is because he can give you true righteousness. I will not say it is easy to obtain that gift.
Hi Kerwin,Gosh, I've tried to answer your question several different ways and I've erased all of them.
I don't look to other inspired writers, but I'm wondering what would be the harm in doing so?
Love,
Mandy
Mandy ! You would have to ask the Word of God what harm there would be to look somewhere else, rather then the Bible!!!
If I believe in another God, what would that be? I let you answer that question.
Is there another Word of God, in another Book? I have not heard of another, have you?
Someone might say that the Koran is the Word of God, but I do nit believe that.
Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
