Originally posted by ScienceDada
The assertion that what is addressed to the Church as a whole applies to an individual is an opinion which leads to schism.

So on judgement day, you're under the impression that entire churches will be let in while entire churches will be kept out?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Church holds that this is a mystery and that we are not to judge others. It is "above my pay grade" to say who is going to Hell; it is equally judgmental for me to say who is going to heaven. But the Church does teach that we will be surprised at the diversity we will find there. That is good enough for me.

If there's diversity, then how will some whole bodies of churches be there and whole church bodies be missing? I seem to remember something about every tribe, every tongue and every nation, but it's not in the cherry-pickers edition of The Bible.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I am not generating opinions, nor am I inciting divisions. Therefore the word heresy does not apply to me. Check what I say. It is scriptural (albeit, not a typical Protestant interpretation).

Then I mean the response to whoever you're parroting.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You and I both know that Protestant Bible study is always accompanied with interpretation. In fact, typical practice is to read, then immediately to have either the leader expound on the meaning (regardless of the substance or correctness) or to ask "what does this mean to you?" and have those present expound on their own interpretations.

Having a viewpoint or understanding is not the same as interpreting. In fact, saying "what does it mean to you" is exactly what we all should be asking ourselves when reading the Bible because it should not be filtered through a single individual who says, "This is what this verse means to you." See the difference?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I thought you might kick back on this. If you think that the Apocalypse of John is going to win any debates, then that Hammer will come back to hit you. I, in turn, reserve the right to quote the Church Fathers (consistent wit the historical interpretations by Church Councils) to make a point (which I have avoided doing) and I will quote Church councils as authoritative in the same way that the Epistles in the New Testament Canon. It was though a series of Church councils that established the Canon, and the councils were equally authoritative.

Quote whatever you want, I was just pointing out the inequality of your 'rules of discussion'. I'm not a fan of double standards and will point out whenever anyone uses them.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
70 were appointed by Christ, not just Peter.

I didn't mean to imply Peter was the only one, but the number you've presented here is new to me. How did you arrive at it?

Luke 10

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You evaded the question: How then does one determine who has authority and who does not?

There is only One authority, my friend. Paul explains that one should subject themselves to the rulings of the church in matters of dispute. One should subject themselves. This takes maturity and humility, not force.

And yet, so many things that the Church has ruled upon are ignored, especially by Protestants. The ironic thing is that the Canon of the scriptures was not agreed upon for many years. Yet the same Councils that decided the canon also ruled on many other things. We can discuss these if you wish.

(ScienceDada) And Paul submits to Anias the High Priest in the kangaroo court.
(saint4God)Uh...what?
(ScienceDada)Acts 23
(saint4God)Paul does not follows them, is subserviant to them or is their worker.

Then the Church has no authority. How then do the Church councils have the authority to set a scriptural canon? This shoots yourself in the foot, no?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
He also allows many to leave him when he says, "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" without trying to clarify anything.

Do you really believe Jesus 'turned people away' by this teaching?

It says they were offended and left him that day and didn't return. He didn't try to stop them and they said they could not bare his teaching. Read the scriptures. If it were a misunderstanding, neither he nor his disciples tried to stop them or clarify the teaching.

And how did the Early Christians speak of the Eucharist?

Originally posted by saint4God"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him," - John 6:44
Is he telling the truth here?

Of course He was.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. The Church has always interpreted this in a very literal way, and I challenge you to find any Christian writers who do not support the literal view of the Lord's Supper.

I know not one protestant who has written or believed in literally eating Christ in order to be saved. The only ones I know of that believe in Eucharist/Transmutation are Catholic:

First off, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople did not commune together. I suppose I do not know what point you are making here.

Second, Martin Luther believed in the real presence. Transubstantiation is a theologically loaded term. The real presence in the Eucharist was held by the early Christians. It is consistent with the scriptures. To say otherwise was condemned by the same Councils which you point to for declaring the canon of the scriptures.

Originally posted by saint4GodI'm sure many have wondered if only those who have literally eaten Christ would be saved. If so, how can they do so now that he's in heaven? I'd also ask how the criminal on the cross was saved if he died before eating Christ.

The same way as with the works argument. God isn't confined in some theological box.

You say that it is Christ who has authority... and this is true. But people also fell at the Apostle's feet. They had authority to proclaim the word, to heal, to cast out demons, and many such things. So Christ wasn't the only one with authority since he gave it to others.

You quote Christ saying "do not call anyone on earth father" yet Paul refers to himself in this very way to Timothy. Did Paul not know Christ's words?

Originally posted by saint4God
So on judgement day, you're under the impression that entire churches will be let in while entire churches will be kept out?

I am saying that there will be people there who we do not expect to see. In the sense that you mean, whole Churches may be absent, yes. Additionally, there will be people who are not "christian." It is a mystery because salvation is a mystery. I do not presume to judge these matters.

Originally posted by saint4God
I seem to remember something about every tribe, every tongue and every nation, but it's not in the cherry-pickers edition of The Bible.

There will be. Literally.

Originally posted by saint4God
Then I mean the response to whoever you're parroting.

Parroting is quite a derogatory term, but I suppose it is true. Lord help me if I introduce original thoughts because I have not been given the authority, nor new revelation. Thus, nothing that I say should be new or innovative. That is kinda the point.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You and I both know that Protestant Bible study is always accompanied with interpretation.

Having a viewpoint or understanding is not the same as interpreting. In fact, saying "what does it mean to you" is exactly what we all should be asking ourselves when reading the Bible because it should not be filtered through a single individual who says, "This is what this verse means to you." See the difference?

Well, then "The Bible" is ambiguous, because it means different things to different people, and to some it means nothing at all. In then end, we all "do what is right in our own eyes" which is the scriptural definition of lawlessness. If your interpretations do not align with those who were taught by Christ and the Apostles themselves, then how you can possibly claim to gather meaning at all, especially from a book as obscured as The Apocalypse of John? Reading meaning into the scriptures is exactly interpretation.

Originally posted by saint4God
Quote whatever you want, I was just pointing out the inequality of your 'rules of discussion'. I'm not a fan of double standards and will point out whenever anyone uses them.

That is fine, but double-standards go two ways. You cannot make the argument that "books are not in the Bible because they are not scriptural" as it is circular reasoning. So, if you try to bat away quotes because they are "not scriptural" this is equally a double-standard for this thread.

As long as is agreed, then there is no problem. If it is a problem, then perhaps you need to examine your own double-standards.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The whole question of lost books of the Bible hinges on what the Bible is. Now the Bible can only be two things. What is it that we mean when we use the word "Bible"? Well, a Bible is either God's supernatural Word -- God supernaturally oversees its production and its care. Or it 's a statement of beliefs of the leaders of Christianity.

These are not the only two options. Also, it doesn't define what "God's word" means.

Even if Athanasius is taken at this word, the scriptures are the ruler why which all others are measured, that does not mean that they are the only representations of the word of God. For what does he write?

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

Athanasius is reporting the Tradition of the Church through the Church Fathers. And this was not the Universal position of the Fathers; rather, this is a loose consensus which is gaining momentum in the later half of the 300's. In fact, Eusebius reports many of these books are controversial about 40 years earlier.

Athanasius also says that several writings are not "the ruler" by which others be measured (kanon), but should still be read, especially to those converting to Christianity:
* Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
* the Shepherd (Hermas)
* the Wisdom of Solomon
* the Wisdom of Sirach
* Esther
* Judith
* Tobit

Note that he does not consider Esther as canonical, but Baruch he does. But even more importantly, Athanasius considers the Council of Nicea to be God inspired, especially the statement of faith, which was held on the same level as the Holy Scriptures in terms of inspiration and authority.

Also important to mention is that Athanasius was the Pope of Alexandria, so he did not speak for the whole Church, just as the Pope of Rome did not speak for the whole Church. This letter was to those under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.

So, the argument you cite above is a false dichotomy, and imposes a structure and expectation on the scriptures that was not held by the Church Fathers.

I want to make a statement here for all on the forum to read, because I am obviously ruffling some feathers.

I am not trying to train-wreck anybody's faith. Seriously. And it would be a sin for me to cause anybody else to stumble. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. So please, to not take what I write as a personal attack, nor as an attack on Christianity as a whole, nor Protestantism as "evil."

I am simply debating the issue of what "The Bible" actually is. Period.

I am one who thrives on consistency, and when the evidence is inconsistent, I feel an obligation to address that inconsistency. Ultimately, I have faith in Christ and that his scriptures are consistent, that the Church is consistent. Otherwise, how true it is that we are to be pitied above all men.

saint4God, NOTurTypical, and others I have engaged in debate with in the past have tried to figure out just where the heck this stuff I come up with comes from, because I sound like a mix between some crazy hybrid "Biblical fundamentalist, Cathlic, conspiracy theorist schizophrenic" who at one minute says something so right, then the next pipes up with some obnoxiously out-of-left-field remark that is so wrong. I am certain that this is unnerving.

The irony of the whole thread is that I believe that the canonical scriptures are inspired by God. So let me make one thing abundantly clear! This is the faith that was handed down by the Apostles, and has been held by the Church throughout the ages. It was affirmed by individuals and Councils.

What I am debating here is what inspired actually means, both as a term and what logically follows. This is the pivotal point in the argument. The opinion that most Protestants have fallen into is that the scriptures are inspired and that effectively puts Christianity into a book (or as I commonly say, "a box") and is effectively worshiped as any idol. Having God nailed down by text in a book gives "Bible thumpers" a position of power... many of them recognize this, as it gives victory over Satan, but many also use it to abuse others.

The Church, while holding that the canonical scriptures are inspired, never limited the Christian faith to the pages of "The Bible." The Protestant attitude toward non-canonical scriptures is not Christian, and I use The Shepherd (Hermas) as a very good illustration of why, because it was widely regarded by the Early Christians, many of whom said it was inspired. I personally hold this view. The reason why it is not in the canon is because it was not authored by an Apostle. Period. But from a Protestant point of view, this is very troublesome, because it does not support the Protestant tradition (but rather it exposes it as a tradition of men) which is very uncomfortable to many. One of these is Sola Fide (i.e., salvation by faith alone).

What I am doing here is likely perceived by many as sacrilege. But I will not lie, and the evidence for things like "the four spiritual laws" and "the five points of Calvinism" are that these are traditions of men, not of Christ nor his Apostles. Please keep this in mind when reading my posts, because it may clarify why I am even bothering to write.

In the Authorized King James Bible the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew text called the 'Massoretic Text'; and, the New Testament comes from a Greek text called the 'Textus Receptus'.

Do you disagree?

Agree.

MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THAT MODERN VERSIONS ARE SIMPLY WORDING 'UPDATES' TO THE SAME HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (i.e. updates to the Massoretic Text and updates to the Textus Receptus).

Agree or disagree?

Disagree. All translation has depended on previous translations. This includes the Septuagint(s), Vulgate, Geneva Bible, KJV, American Standard, NASB, NIV, etc. That is how translators operate, and they typically do not simply update a text. What you say is true of the NKJV only.

It is difficult to describe without a familiarity with the languages. I will try in another posting to give a feel for what I am talking about.

As to the Old Testament, we learn that: "The NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text, and follow Rudolph Kittel's 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica ..."

Disagree?

The Masoretes and their text are fine. It is only in the jots and tiddles that this argument matters. Christianity transcends the text.

My translation was on the Masoretic texts. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls make the argument moot. Were their texts perfect? No. Is Kittel's text perfect? No. Does it really matter? Not really.

The KJV text was a politically motivated translation to improve on the Bishop's Bible. Many Anabaptists rejected it in favor of the Geneva Bible.

The argument really focuses on the notion that God would not allow the Textus Receptus to be corrupted. Because if the Church is based on the scriptures, and the contents are corrupted, then the Church and the Christian faith have been corrupted. It is an understandable argument, but it is also not true, because the Church was not based on the scriptures in this way. So, from that point of view, the argument is irrelevant.

This may be a difficult thing to accept, but the Byzantine texts do not agree with the earliest texts in several

There are more than 110 versions of the Bible on the shelves today, ONLY 1 version uses the Textus Recepticus Greek, the KJV. EVERY single modern translation uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

Then go to other texts. The message really isn't changed. A lot of issues were as a result of scribal error. Does this propagate in a text family? Yes. It does not have to be malicious.

There are issues of in-text glosses, scribal methods, and even smears on the paper due to sweating! To agonize over a few letters or words here-and-there is very error-prone.

When this Westcott and Hort Greek text is compared with the more than 5,000 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, it is found to DIS-AGREE with them in 90-95% of the cases!

That is because more weight is given to the older manuscripts. The bulk of the Greek texts are later manuscripts. If you find two given manuscripts that were copied by hand over generations, weight is typically given to the older text unless there is reason not to do so.

You don't like the the Massoretes?? That's odd to me brother, these scribes were the FIRST to standardize the Hebrew text. The FIRST. I'm sure you know of the exhausting lengths they took to copy these Hebrew books, they couldn't even use the wrong ink, the wrong paper, even mess up a single "title", or the work was rejected.

Standardization meant that you had dozens of little Wescott and Horts synchronizing the Hebrew and adding vowel-points in interpretation of ambiguities. These occurred between 500-1000 A.D. by men who had rejected Christ and had a theological axe to grind in this respect. I do not place my faith in the Massoretes, no. The Dead Sea Scrolls are to be preferred to the Massoretic text.

But even from the standpoint that other factors are considered, why not the Samaritan Pentateuch? When the woman at the well raises the differences in the texts where the Samaritans argue over the worship in Jerusalem vs. Mount Gerazim, what does Christ say? He basically tells her it is irrelevant because the time is coming when His followers will worship in spirit and in truth. And since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled, it is really irrelevant.

Also look at the arguments revolving around the Pesh-itta and the Received Text. The Pesh-itta is a Syriac text, and some have even tried to argue about that text family (as you raise the issue). But then you just transfer the problem. Which Pesh-itta texts do we use? Murdock then is villified along with Wescott and Hort.

To drive this point home even further, Papias wrote that Matthew originally penned his Gospel in his native tongue (Aramaic) so the Syriac translation of this would likely preserve more of the message than the Greek translation would.

But in the end, the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason
(i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e.
corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date
back to the early manuscripts.

This is not so. Early unicals and miniscules are used by people like Wescott and Hort. Often, these arguments revolve around this ambiguous term "early" which often means before the year 1200 or something like that. Let us instead define early to mean "500 A.D." and all of a sudden the KJV-only arguments really fall apart. Again, the concept is that God would not allow any text family to be corrupted because "The Bible" is the basis for Christianity.

The quote above shows the 'Traditional Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

The Received Text is Byzantine type. It was propagated through the Byzantine Church, of which the Reformers rejected the Tradition as they did the Roman Catholic Church. And the arguments still are an appeal to the goodness of God to not allow the Received Text to see corruption, despite being in such an "evil empire." But the facts do not support this model. I am sorry, but it is the truth.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lemme ask you a Q...
Did the thief on the cross have anything other than Sola Fide?

Christ knows the heart, and it is not for me to judge.

Also true: exceptions don't make the rules. But faith without works is not faith. The Bible as a whole attests to this fact. Both are necessary as the rule, and James the Brother of the Lord expounds on this at length in his epistle.

So then, should we demote James as Martin Luther attempted to do? Or do all the writings of the scriptures hold equal weight? Even Christ taught that we are judged by our works. And what was the work of the thief on the cross? He was limited, but had he gotten down and lived, I have little doubt that this works would have followed.

We have already discussed these points in previous postings. Do you wish to comment on them?

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lemme ask you a Q...
Did the thief on the cross have anything other than Sola Fide?

Christ knows the heart, and it is not for me to judge.

Also true: exceptions don't make the rules. But faith without works is not faith. The Bible as a whole attests to this fact. Both are necessary as the rule, and James the Brother of the Lord expounds on this at length in his epistle.

So then, should we demote James as Martin Luther attempted to do? Or do all the writings of the scriptures hold equal weight? Even Christ taught that we are judged by our works. And what was the work of the thief on the cross? He was limited, but had he gotten down and lived, I have little doubt that this works would have followed.

We have already discussed these points in previous postings. Do you wish to comment on them?

There is a huge difference between works and salvation, salvation is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, offered as a free girt to those who accept is as payment for the sins they owe.

Works are "proof" to another man that a person has faith, God requires no works for salvation. Romans 4:5:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Now, works are judged for crowns or rewards, but there are 2 judgments, the judgment of the condemned, and the judgment of the believers. No one at the first judgment has his or her name written in the book of life, the second judgment is for those in heaven, believers, where their works are judged.

It's very important not to mix the two up. Salvation is NOT faith + works, that's a damnable heresy, salvation is by grace through faith alone. Rewards from our Lord are based on works, but none at that particular judgment are condemned to hell, but there will be great sorrow and weeping when other believers have crowns to cast to our Lord's feet and they have none, there will be great sorrow for those believers who never had good works.

Salvation is through faith in Christ alone... period. Rewards/crowns are works based, but works don't have ANYTHING to do with salvation.

"Lest no man can boast"

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
There is a huge difference between works and salvation, salvation is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, offered as a free girt to those who accept is as payment for the sins they owe...

I appreciate the response, and the vigor. We run the risk of being off-topic here, so another thread would be more appropriate for these issues. I have sent a U2U with more detail.

Ive heard, although I have no evidence, that a Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene but the Church wouldnt allow it to be in the Bible. Again, no proof and I dont remember where Ive heard it.