- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 03 2009,07:54) Hi CA,
Your foolish traditions do not contribute anything to the truth of God's word.
I want everyone to hear what Nick just admitted. He apparently thinks that this verse is foolish:“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” – 2 Thess. 2:15
I knew you had audacity. But I didn't think you were prepared to call God a fool.
Hi CA,
Everyone but you knows that the traditions of the apostles do not relate in any way to the foolish ones of CATHOLICISM.Hi CA,
You should read Mk 7 and see where the traditions of the Jews rated with God.
And their traditions were supported by the true anointing of Moses.
Yours are just the whims of aging bachelorsNick,
You're avoiding talking with me about the Bible. Why? Do you hate the Bible? (for all of those reading my posts for the first time…I am being facetious….Nick seems to think people that don't believe in Sola Scriptura hate the Bible)
Answer me.
What does this verse mean?
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” – 2 Thess. 2:15
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 03 2009,07:24) Quote If you want to wax philosophical then I can prove nothing but “I think therefore I am” and that everything beyond that is taken on faith. Descartes (a devout Catholic) believed in the objective content of divine revelation, but he sought a way of presenting the reality of God to skeptics who would not accept revelation as an avenue of truth.
Descartes hoped to bring clarity to the belief in God by applying mathematical and scientific methods. He desired to build a kind of calculus of faith, starting from some fundamental principle which even the skeptics could not deny, and working to the undeniable existence of God. To this end, he began to examine everything in the world from the skeptic's point of view, creating a procedure that came to be known as “methodic doubt.”
He first concluded that the man's senses are not reliable. A stick looks straight when it is held in the air, but looks bent when it is stuck in the water. Since both the true and false images of the stick are presented to the mind by the same senses, the senses cannot be trusted.
(Here he ignored the fact that, using all of his senses, man can confirm the stick to be straight. This is characteristic of a scientific method that tends to dissect things and isolate one attribute from all others when analyzing anything.)
Next he concluded that the mind of man, trapped inside a body fed unreliable information by the senses, cannot be certain that the images it receives truly represent reality. He went so far as to speculate that some evil higher being could be feeding the information to the mind, making it think that there is an objective world out there when in fact there is not. In the long run, Descartes concluded that almost everything we normally take for granted can be doubted.
It was not that Descartes himself doubted. He was examining everything from the perspective of a skeptic to find something even the skeptic could not doubt. What he found is summed up in the phrase, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). No skeptic could doubt this. Even if the entire world is an illusion, the skeptic, by the simple fact that he is pondering the illusion, must admit that he himself exists.
After demonstrating the certainty of his own existence as a thinking mind, Descartes reasoned his way back to the existence of the world and to the existence of a God who is all good and therefore would not fool man by creating the world as an illusion.
The validity of Descartes' reasoning was challenged for being, among other things, circular, but an important.aspect of his thought remains with us to this day-the concept of man as a mind trapped in a body. It is because of Descartes' thus splitting man that today one can still pick up popular books about the so-called “mind/body problem.”
Descartes himself was not very interested in this problem. The important point is that this severing of the mind from the body was a direct divergence from the previously established Scholastic and Catholic view of man as a composed unity of body and soul. The human soul, in the Scholastic sense, is much more than a mind. It is the substantial form of a man. It is the nature of the soul to form the body, and the body and soul together are the man.
Man, in this sense, has direct knowledge of the objective world around him because he sees it, hears it, tastes it, puts his hands on it. It is evident to him, and need not be proven. This is not to say that some knowledge of the world does not result from proofs. Through proofs one can come to the knowledge, for example, that the tangent of an angle is always equal to the inverse of the cotangent of that same angle.
But one can know that a river exists by seeing it and putting one's feet in it. This type of knowledge is more certain than knowledge obtained by proofs. It cannot, and need not, be proven through a series of mathematical or logical propositions and conclusions.
Unfortunately, there was no great Scholastic philosopher among Descartes' associates to hammer this point home. As a consequence, modern philosophy has thought of man ever since in a dualistic manner: mind distinct from body.
Descartes' division of man created a division in modern philosophy itself. Some philosophers believed, like Descartes, that the only things we can know with certainty are concepts in the mind. These are the “Rationalists.” A counter-movement thought we can know things for sure only through our senses; what is in our minds, since it cannot be sensed, measured, and weighed, is basically unknowable. These are the “Empiricists.”
It is beyond the scope of our discussion here to trace out the various schools of thought spawned by these two philosophies, but it can be known that they all came to despair because each was looking at only a part of man while trying to understand how man as a whole can know things.
THIS IS THE CONTEXT OF “I think therefore I am”.
If we are going to have any intelligent discussion about this, I thought we should have the same background information and understanding.
Catholic Apologist it would be good if you could reference your source(s) from time to time. I'll do it for you for this one:Is 1:18 is back. Please dot all i's and cross the t's. Otherwise the truth may lose on a legal technicality.
T8……….you are right small insignificant Points can throw off sound dialog , but then that is the only way a TRINITARIAN can continue to support His theology is to change sound dialog to cause doubt and muddy up the waters, and that prevents growth and understanding in solid scriptures and sound teachings. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 03 2009,11:43) Answer me. What does this verse mean?
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” – 2 Thess. 2:15
Obviously there are traditions/teachings of men and there are the ones that were passed on orally or letter. Men's traditions nullify the word of God. Apostolic tradition or the teachings that were passed on should support the Word of God, after all it says “by word of mouth or (AN)by letter from us.Matthew 15:6
he is not to 'honor his father ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”So a condemnation of tradition or teaching per se is not right, but the traditions and teachings of carnal men should be.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2009,16:02) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 03 2009,11:43) Answer me. What does this verse mean?
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” – 2 Thess. 2:15
Obviously there are traditions/teachings of men and there are the ones that were passed on orally or letter. Men's traditions nullify the word of God. Apostolic tradition or the teachings that were passed on should support the Word of God, after all it says “by word of mouth or (AN)by letter from us.Matthew 15:6
he is not to 'honor his father ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”So a condemnation of tradition or teaching per se is not right, but the traditions and teachings of carnal men should be.
Is it just me? Or did you try and put the word “and” into the text next to the word “or” to cloud the meaning of that passage?What you WANT that passage (2 Thess. 2:15) to say is that apostolic oral tradition must bow to written apostolic written tradition. BUT THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE.
Oral and Written Apostolic Tradition equally speak with force as the Word of God.
So in Matt. 15:6, “word of God” is not exclusive to what is written as you would like. It is not so in mark 7:13 either.
Where are the apostolic ORAL traditions that WERE NOT written down that YOU FOLLOW TODAY?
If you don't have any, you don't have the original faith of the apostles.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Not at all. I'm saying that you don't know why any of the books in the Bible should be Scripture. You can't even begin to tell me the history and purpose for the Canon of Scriptures.
Which implies that you are not following my reasoning? My reasoning is not based on Scripture but rather on who God is. Scripture does testify of his characteristics even if you do not believe that it is the very word of God. I also mentioned Descarte’s conclusion that “I think therefore I am”. After further reasoning I believe that is wisest to believe God exists and that a individual that hungers and thirsts for righteousness will choose to believe in a God that is righteous and commands righteousness of his people. This is the God scripture testifies of and the one believed in by the Hebrew people. That includes the scripture that Jesus quoted as if it were the very word of God. It also includes those writings attributed to those you call Saints about what they witnessed, reported, or taught. Like Jesus they treated the Old Testament Scriptures like the very word of God.
One problem with scripture is we cannot cross examine the writers but God is available to show us the way.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote So you don't believe that when we sin, we hurt God by hurting others?
I did not state that. What I said is that it is impossible for us to make amends to God as the most we can do is to do the things we should have done in the first place. What God wants from us is a broken spirit and a contrite heart. That is what David gave God. David did lose his child but that child was not an “indulgence” to God but instead was a way that God showed David that sin has its costs even when God is merciful.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote But we're not talking about “covering up sins” or the “forgiveness of sins”
But my point is that Jesus' sacrifice is our “indulgence” through which we enter the new covenant.
Kerwin wrote:
Quote sin has its costs even when God is merciful. So you do understand purgatory/final theosis and the efficacy of indulgences in seed form.
So are you saying you believe:
Principle 1: Sin Results in Guilt and Punishment
When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment. Scripture speaks of the former when it pictures guilt as clinging to our souls, making them discolored and unclean before God: “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (cf. Ps. 51:4, 9).
We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin: “I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless” (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: “For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl. 12:14).
Principle 2: Punishments are Both Temporal and Eternal
The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).
Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven
When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
“Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’” (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).
Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others
In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that “as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom. 11:28).
When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).
Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church
God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as “what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven.” The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.
In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.
The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins “to men” (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).
If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.
Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians
From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that “indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.
In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men “turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out” (2 Macc. 12:42).
The reference to the sin being “wholly blotted out” refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah “was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness” (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case i
f they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah “took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (verses 43, 46).Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.
These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does “expiate” mean anyway?
Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making “expiation” for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word “expiation” means or how indulgences work.
Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word “expiate”: “[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime” (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: “The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty.”
Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.
An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: “By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil” (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2009,15:50) Is 1:18 is back. Please dot all i's and cross the t's. Otherwise the truth may lose on a legal technicality. 
Nice burn. I'm impressed.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 03 2009,20:19) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2009,15:50) Is 1:18 is back. Please dot all i's and cross the t's. Otherwise the truth may lose on a legal technicality. Nice burn. I'm impressed.
Welcome back. I don't remember if I ever debated with yiou or not. But you believe in the trinity, ruight? If so, can yo prove it?
Peace and Love IreneCatholic Apologist:
Quote So you do understand purgatory/final theosis and the efficacy of indulgences in seed form.
You posted a lot. I have heard the purgatory is the places after death where souls in a state of grace go to be purified. If that is what you speak of then it is a false tenet as we are purified by the faith that Jesus is the anointed one. This is because it is through that faith we receive the spirit of holiness and so if we choose to walk by it, we live a holy life.
There is the Grave also referred to as Hades and as well as by other names. There is also the second death that I choose to call Hell though the name Hell is sometimes used for the Grave which is the first death. The Grave is a waiting place where one waits for Judgment Day much like a man waits in a holding cell before going before the judge. Once you enter Hades you have no further chance to change your ways.
I have been taught that theois occurs in this lifetime through faith that Jesus is the Anointed One. Theois depends on whether or not you choose believe that God will fill you with the Holy Spirit when you act on your pledge to obey all of Jesus’ teachings. If you believe that promise then you believe that by the power of God you will stop sinning in this world.
You actual success is based on your maturity so the question becomes what occurs if you die before you are fully mature. This is why I believe Catholics invented purgatory. What is correct is that purgatory is not needed as the ones you call Saints, teach us that he credits those that believe him with righteousness whether they have obtained true righteousness or not.
If you want to call this life an approximate of purgatory then I agree but a person will not die until God determines the time is right and they are ready to be judged.
Matthew 10:29(NIV) reads:
Quote Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment.
I am not sure I see this quite as you do. We do have guilt for our sins but that guilt remains until we choose to change our ways and act on that choice without looking back. When God states he will cleanse us; he means he will change our spirit, hearts, and minds so we no longer want to do those evil things that made us guilty.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin:
I agree!
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal.
I agree though I do not use the divisions you chose. Still, I believe to argue over that detail would be a foolish argument over words and thus of no real value.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven
I would state that if we change our ways then God will show mercy and relent choosing to discipline us more lightly for our rebellion though the discipline may be considered harsh by the measures of the world.
I am going to stop here as the rest seems to be going off on a tangent. I will consider addressing it at a later date.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 03 2009,21:57) Catholic Apologist: Quote So you do understand purgatory/final theosis and the efficacy of indulgences in seed form.
You posted a lot. I have heard the purgatory is the places after death where souls in a state of grace go to be purified. If that is what you speak of then it is a false tenet as we are purified by the faith that Jesus is the anointed one. This is because it is through that faith we receive the spirit of holiness and so if we choose to walk by it, we live a holy life.
There is the Grave also referred to as Hades and as well as by other names. There is also the second death that I choose to call Hell though the name Hell is sometimes used for the Grave which is the first death. The Grave is a waiting place where one waits for Judgment Day much like a man waits in a holding cell before going before the judge. Once you enter Hades you have no further chance to change your ways.
I have been taught that theois occurs in this lifetime through faith that Jesus is the Anointed One. Theois depends on whether or not you choose believe that God will fill you with the Holy Spirit when you act on your pledge to obey all of Jesus’ teachings. If you believe that promise then you believe that by the power of God you will stop sinning in this world.
You actual success is based on your maturity so the question becomes what occurs if you die before you are fully mature. This is why I believe Catholics invented purgatory. What is correct is that purgatory is not needed as the ones you call Saints, teach us that he credits those that believe him with righteousness whether they have obtained true righteousness or not.
If you want to call this life an approximate of purgatory then I agree but a person will not die until God determines the time is right and they are ready to be judged.
Matthew 10:29(NIV) reads:
Quote Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment.
I am not sure I see this quite as you do. We do have guilt for our sins but that guilt remains until we choose to change our ways and act on that choice without looking back. When God states he will cleanse us; he means he will change our spirit, hearts, and minds so we no longer want to do those evil things that made us guilty.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin:
I agree!
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal.
I agree though I do not use the divisions you chose. Still, I believe to argue over that detail would be a foolish argument over words and thus of no real value.
As of October 3, 2009 catholic.com wrote:
Quote Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven
I would state that if we change our ways then God will show mercy and relent choosing to discipline us more lightly for our rebellion though the discipline may be considered harsh by the measures of the world.
I am going to stop here as the rest seems to be going off on a tangent. I will consider addressing it at a later date.
Kerwin,Thanks for seeking to understand. I respect you for it.
Yeah, I didn't think we'd really accomplish much more than this at this point anyway. But I'm glad we got past using indulgences as “buying your way out of hell” as some here seem to think we mean.
Back to Sola Scriptura.
Please tell me on what grounds you see the Protestant Hebrew canon as canonical? Did you accept this based on tradition when someone handed you the 66 books and said, “Here's the Bible. This is God's Word.” ?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 03 2009,20:19) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2009,15:50) Is 1:18 is back. Please dot all i's and cross the t's. Otherwise the truth may lose on a legal technicality. Nice burn. I'm impressed.
This cracked me up!
Hi CA,
So the catholic answer to the problems that beset serious bible students is to give up and be spoonfed a mixture of bible and man's tradition because only they can be trusted to know.
Such a copout should be anathema to anyone who hopes to follow Jesus and not the dimwitted old men in Rome.Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Back to Sola Scriptura.
I don’t believe you correctly understand the tenet of Sola Scriptura as supported by most.
Catholic Apologist wrote:
Quote Please tell me on what grounds you see the Protestant Hebrew canon as canonical? Did you accept this based on tradition when someone handed you the 66 books and said, “Here's the Bible. This is God's Word.” ?
I do not believe I am a standard witness as my opinion is that and individual book or even a passage in an otherwise legitimate book may not be legitimate. I pretty much accept the latter four books of the Pentateuch but I do not consider them the original text given to Mosses but rather histories that contain snippets of that text. I am the opinion that Genesis up to the time of Abraham is oral tribal history and not actually what was passed from God to Mosses as all scripture tells me is Mosses received the law. From the time of Abraham onward the history seems more detailed which gives me the impression it may have been written tribal history. I can go on breaking up the Hebrew Cannon into prophecy, history, law codes or as the Hebrews themselves call them Prophets, Writings, and Instruction,
I do not want to get sidetracked too far explaining my point of view so I will cut to the chase and state that even if inaccuracies exist in Scripture they do not effect the important message about God and what God wants of his people. As an example there is the question whether it was the Red Sea or the Reed Sea that God divided through Mosses to allow the Hebrew people to pass. It is a useless argument since what is important is that God led his people out of slavery. I admit that some historians question that the Hebrew people were delivered from Egypt but I am fairly sure their viewpoints are biased against it.
I believe the question you are asking is whether or not I view those that write scripture as reliable witnesses. I find scripture internally consistent in what it teaches about God and what he wants of his people. In addition I find that it agrees in many points with what little archeologists have found. It does not agree on every point but too often addition finds in archaeology seem to erase those points of disagreement. So I do find the writers to be reliable witnesses though we do not always understand their point of view correctly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
