Are you a “True Worshipper”?

[Cnkw3]

It seems the only answer they have is something along the lines of "The book of Hebrews is inspired because it's in the Bible."

A lesson on circular reasoning.

The reality is they cannot arrive at the "Scriptura" without violating the "sola." Hence they cannot answer the question.

I answered the question. Just because someone may not like the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.

 

[Cnkw3]

Jesus did what He did for the people God Loved and sent Him into the world to live and die for them as their Surety Substitute. So we are clothed in His Righteousness, His Worship of God in Spirit and Truth has been imputed to us, if you are one of His.

God loved the world. And this part about worship being imputed to us is a bunch of nonsense. I noticed there was no scripture reference with that.

 

[Walpole]

I answered the question. Just because someone may not like the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.

The only answer I saw you post was, "Because the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God", which was followed by a list of other unsubstantiated assertions.

This is demonstrably fallacious because there is NOT a canonical list that dates to the first century. The earliest canonical list actually dates to the middle of the second century (the Muratorian canon c. 155 A.D.), and it DOES NOT include the book of Hebrews.

 

[Mungo]

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1 Corinthians 4:6
What this tells us is that we should not listen to what ANY man has to say unless what he says can be supported in the written word God has given us. This is why the bereans were considered “noble” people in acts 17. They didnt just take Pauls word for it. They searched the scriptures (OT at the time) to prove that what he was saying was true. They were not rebuked for this they were praised.

When Paul said not to think of men above that which is written, what written was he referring to:
- the Old Testament?
- this particular letter?
- all his letters?
- all writings up to this date? - in which case writings by whom?
- all past and future wrings? - and by whom?

The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They did take Paul's word for it. You can't teach the , Incarnation, life, death and Resurrection of Christ solely from the Old Testament. It’s not possible. Paul taught from his own knowledge, and would have used the Old Testament just as we quote it (e.g. to expound on the foreshadowing in the OT). But you can’t do it by the Old Testament alone.


-

 

[Cnkw3]

The only answer I saw you post was, "Because the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God", which was followed by a list of other unsubstantiated assertions.

This is demonstrably fallacious because there is NOT a canonical list that dates to the first century. The earliest canonical list actually dates to the middle of the second century (the Muratorian canon c. 155 A.D.), and it DOES NOT include the book of Hebrews.

• James: AD 44-
• Galatians: AD 49-50
• Mark: AD 50-60
• Matthew: AD 50-60
• 1 Thessalonians: AD 51
• 2 Thessalonians: AD 51-52
• 1 Corinthians: AD 55
• 2 Corinthians: AD 55-56
• Romans: AD 56
• Luke: AD 60-61
• Ephesians: AD 60-62
• Philippians: AD 60-62
• Philemon: AD 60-62
• Colossians: AD 60-62
• Acts: AD 62
• 1 Timothy: AD 62-64
• Titus: AD 62-64
• 1 Peter: AD 64-65
• 2 Timothy: AD 66-67
• 2 Peter: AD 67-68
• Hebrews: AD 67-69
• Jude: AD 68-70
• John: AD 80-90
• 1 John: AD 90-95
• 2 John: AD 90-95
• 3 John: AD 90-95
• Revelation: AD 94-96

(Apologetics press)
McGarvey said:

Consequently we find the existence of every book of the New Testament except II Peter attested by translations as early as the middle of the second century. They were translated because they were the authoritative books of the churches, and they were authoritative because the churches believed them to have come from the apostolic hands.

So. They were all written in the first century and shortly there after were translated and used because they were considered “authoritative”. The question shouldn’t be….When did these books all come together in one binding. The question should be….Why are your arguing and fighting against them? I know why. Catholics have to go outside the Bible to find All that they do.
How did you like the pope to be 2 days ago blessing a gay marriage over in Italy? That’s the kind of perversion you get from the Catholic Church.

 

[Cnkw3]

When Paul said not to think of men above that which is written, what written was he referring to:
- the Old Testament?
- this particular letter?
- all his letters?
- all writings up to this date? - in which case writings by whom?
- all past and future wrings? - and by whom?

The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They did take Paul's word for it. You can't teach the , Incarnation, life, death and Resurrection of Christ solely from the Old Testament. It’s not possible. Paul taught from his own knowledge, and would have used the Old Testament just as we quote it (e.g. to expound on the foreshadowing in the OT). But you can’t do it by the Old Testament alone.


-

Do we have the written word now? You think Paul would accept his own letters “as the written word”? You sure can find the life of Christ including his virgin birth, death, resurrection and the kingdom, in the OT a whole lot more then you can EVER find the Catholic Church and there doctrine in the NT.

Do you know exactly what the Bereans were looking up? We just know that they did. A lot more than you would ever do. I guess that makes you “less noble”.
But one thing Paul had supporting him that the Catholic Church has never had…..The miraculous. Paul appealed on many occasions to his ability with the miraculous. He could demonstrate to back up his word. The Catholic Church sure cant. They just bless gay marriages.

 

[Mungo]

Do we have the written word now? You think Paul would accept his own letters “as the written word”? You sure can find the life of Christ including his virgin birth, death, resurrection and the kingdom, in the OT a whole lot more then you can EVER find the Catholic Church and there doctrine in the NT.

Do you know exactly what the Bereans were looking up? We just know that they did. A lot more than you would ever do. I guess that makes you “less noble”.
But one thing Paul had supporting him that the Catholic Church has never had…..The miraculous. Paul appealed on many occasions to his ability with the miraculous. He could demonstrate to back up his word. The Catholic Church sure cant. They just bless gay marriages.

I note you totally failed to answer my questions.
Of course you can't without admitting you are wrong.

 

[brightfame52]

God loved the world. And this part about worship being imputed to us is a bunch of nonsense. I noticed there was no scripture reference with that.

God Loved His Own Elect in the World Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

His Love is limited to His Own Sheep, Church !

And Christs Righteousness has been imputed, that is , His Righteous Life as the Elects Surety is theirs, and that includes all His Righteous actions ! Is Worshipping of God in Spirit and Truth a Righteous act ?

Rom 4:6

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

That word righteousness means:

1. in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
   1. the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
   2. integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
2. in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due

 

[Walpole]

• James: AD 44-
• Galatians: AD 49-50
• Mark: AD 50-60
• Matthew: AD 50-60
• 1 Thessalonians: AD 51
• 2 Thessalonians: AD 51-52
• 1 Corinthians: AD 55
• 2 Corinthians: AD 55-56
• Romans: AD 56
• Luke: AD 60-61
• Ephesians: AD 60-62
• Philippians: AD 60-62
• Philemon: AD 60-62
• Colossians: AD 60-62
• Acts: AD 62
• 1 Timothy: AD 62-64
• Titus: AD 62-64
• 1 Peter: AD 64-65
• 2 Timothy: AD 66-67
• 2 Peter: AD 67-68
• Hebrews: AD 67-69
• Jude: AD 68-70
• John: AD 80-90
• 1 John: AD 90-95
• 2 John: AD 90-95
• 3 John: AD 90-95
• Revelation: AD 94-96

(Apologetics press)
McGarvey said:


So. They were all written in the first century and shortly there after were translated and used because they were considered “authoritative”. The question shouldn’t be….When did these books all come together in one binding. The question should be….Why are your arguing and fighting against them? I know why. Catholics have to go outside the Bible to find All that they do.
How did you like the pope to be 2 days ago blessing a gay marriage over in Italy? That’s the kind of perversion you get from the Catholic Church.

Didache: c. 70 A.D.
Epistle of Barnabas: c. 80 A.D.
Shepherd of Hermas: c. 90 A.D.
Epistle of Papias: c. 95 A.D.
1 Clement: c. 95 A.D.
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: c. 100 A.D.


How do you know the epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not???

 

[Walpole]

I always find it humorous when Protestants try to lay claim to the Bereans, as if they were some sort of proto-Protestant / proto-sola Scriptura believing group, given that there has NEVER been a Protestant church in Berea (modern day Veria), EVER.

Furthermore, the example of the Bereans actually torpedoes sola Scriptura and the Protestant position. How?

Berea was an Greek-speaking city in what is now north-central Greece. Hence the Scriptures the Bereans searched were the Greek Septuagint, not the New Testament, which did not yet exist and its compilation was centuries away. The Gospel only existed in spoken form, so what Paul was teaching (that a man named Jesus, who had died and rose from the dead and is the Christ) was extra-Biblical teaching. This account in Acts with the Bereans affirms two things: The validity of the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanonical books) and the value of extra-Biblical teachings, both of which violate the modern Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Paradoxically, there is one explicit chapter in the Septuagint which affirms exactly what St. Paul was telling them (orally), and that chapter happens to be ABSENT in the modern Protestant Old Testament canon. What might this verse be?

- Think about who the Bereans were. (They were Greek-speaking Jews)

- Think about what St. Paul was telling them about Jesus —> that He is the Christ who suffered, died and rose again. (Acts 17:3)

- What prophesy in the Old Testament matches this —> stating a man who claims to be the actual Son of God would suffer, be put to death and in the end be triumphant?

- What verse of from Scripture do the Jewish rulers quote to Jesus at the foot of the cross? (cf Luke 23:35)


Is there a verse so explicit as to affirm what St. Paul was telling them? Hint: It's not in the Protestant Bible!

 

[Walpole]

I note you totally failed to answer my questions.
Of course you can't without admitting you are wrong.

Note the circular logic again: "Do we have the written word now?" In other words, it's inspired because it's in the Bible!

We are getting a lesson on circular reasoning but no answer. Once again, they cannot answer because you cannot arrive at the "Scriptura" without violating the "sola."

 

[Cnkw3]

Didache: c. 70 A.D.
Epistle of Barnabas: c. 80 A.D.
Shepherd of Hermas: c. 90 A.D.
Epistle of Papias: c. 95 A.D.
1 Clement: c. 95 A.D.
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: c. 100 A.D.


How do you know the epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not???

The projected range of writing was 100-160 with an a closer projected date of writing around 140? Then there’s no way it was a divinely inspired document.

 

[Cnkw3]

I always find it humorous when Protestants try to lay claim to the Bereans, as if they were some sort of proto-Protestant / proto-sola Scriptura believing group, given that there has NEVER been a Protestant church in Berea (modern day Veria), EVER.

So there had to be a church before anyone was curious about Jesus? Didnt know that. Dont converts usually start out as alien sinners a part from the church?

Furthermore, the example of the Bereans actually torpedoes sola Scriptura and the Protestant position. How?

This is gonna be good. It has to be its coming from a catholic who have new inspired, oral revelations for us all. Like the next pope being a black woman. God told them to do that.

Berea was an Greek-speaking city in what is now north-central Greece.

Means nothing. Many of them were.

Hence the Scriptures the Bereans searched were the Greek Septuagint, not the New Testament, which did not yet exist and its compilation was centuries away.

Jesus did the same.

The Gospel only existed in spoken form, so what Paul was teaching (that a man named Jesus, who had died and rose from the dead and is the Christ) was extra-Biblical teaching.

Thats not what the text says. Doesn’t surprise me that a catholic would overlook what the text says.
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Acts 17:2-3
The Bible, the book you care very little for, specifically tells us that Paul reasoned of the suffering, death and resurrection and that he is Christ out of the scriptures. Doesn’t sound extra biblical to me.

This account in Acts with the Bereans affirms two things: The validity of the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanonical books)

who is arguing against the Septuagint. I thought our discussion was about the NT?

and the value of extra-Biblical teachings, both of which violate the modern Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

What extra Biblical teaching. How did Philip preach Jesus to the Eunuch?
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 8:30-35
No they never used the OT to preach Jesus.

Paradoxically, there is one explicit chapter in the Septuagint which affirms exactly what St. Paul was telling them (orally), and that chapter happens to be ABSENT in the modern Protestant Old Testament canon. What might this verse be?

- Think about who the Bereans were. (They were Greek-speaking Jews)

- Think about what St. Paul was telling them about Jesus —> that He is the Christ who suffered, died and rose again. (Acts 17:3)

- What prophesy in the Old Testament matches this —> stating a man who claims to be the actual Son of God would suffer, be put to death and in the end be triumphant?

obviously Isaiah 53 was pretty convincing for the eunuch. but there are some 300 prophecies of Christ in the OT. Plenty to make a really good sermon.

- What verse of from Scripture do the Jewish rulers quote to Jesus at the foot of the cross? (cf Luke 23:35)

I read this and see nothing in it. Dont even know what you are trying to say with it.

Is there a verse so explicit as to affirm what St. Paul was telling them? Hint: It's not in the Protestant Bible!

Jesu said…
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Matthew 26:53-54
What? Scriptures be fulfilled! What scriptures? There cant be any scriptures prophesying the death of Christ. In the Septuagint? No, cant be.

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Matthew 26:56
more scriptures (plural) being fulfilled. How could the Bereans (greek speaking jews, why this matters no one knows) ever searched anything in the OT that spoke of Christ? its a mystery.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:25-27
So “all the scriptures” including Moses, expounded the things concerning Jesus? How can that be? Catholics are never wrong. They are directly inspired.

I could go on and on. But it wouldn’t matter.

 

[Walpole]

The projected range of writing was 100-160 with an a closer projected date of writing around 140? Then there’s no way it was a divinely inspired document.

When you made the assertion regarding the epistle to the Hebrews that "...the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God", I demonstrated this was fallacious. The OLDEST canon dates from the SECOND century and it DOES NOT include the epistle to the Hebrews, but DOES INCLUDE the Shepherd of Hermas.

---> How do you know the epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Land the plane.

 

[Cnkw3]

Note the circular logic again: "Do we have the written word now?" In other words, it's inspired because it's in the Bible!

We are getting a lesson on circular reasoning but no answer. Once again, they cannot answer because you cannot arrive at the "Scriptura" without violating the "sola."

that is an easy and important question….Do you believe we have the written word of God right now? If so then what Paul says in 1 Cor 4 applies.

 

[Cnkw3]

When you made the assertion regarding the epistle to the Hebrews that "...the early church in the first century accepted this letter as the word of God", I demonstrated this was fallacious. The OLDEST canon dates from the SECOND century and it DOES NOT include the epistle to the Hebrews, but DOES INCLUDE the Shepherd of Hermas.

---> How do you know the epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Land the plane.

I answered it. The shepherd was written too late and you know it was. That’s why its not in any reputable translation that we have.

 

[Walpole]

So there had to be a church before anyone was curious about Jesus? Didnt know that. Dont converts usually start out as alien sinners a part from the church?

This is gonna be good. It has to be its coming from a catholic who have new inspired, oral revelations for us all. Like the next pope being a black woman. God told them to do that.

Means nothing. Many of them were.

Jesus did the same.

Thats not what the text says. Doesn’t surprise me that a catholic would overlook what the text says.
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Acts 17:2-3
The Bible, the book you care very little for, specifically tells us that Paul reasoned of the suffering, death and resurrection and that he is Christ out of the scriptures. Doesn’t sound extra biblical to me.

who is arguing against the Septuagint. I thought our discussion was about the NT?

What extra Biblical teaching. How did Philip preach Jesus to the Eunuch?
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 8:30-35
No they never used the OT to preach Jesus.

obviously Isaiah 53 was pretty convincing for the eunuch. but there are some 300 prophecies of Christ in the OT. Plenty to make a really good sermon.

I read this and see nothing in it. Dont even know what you are trying to say with it.

Jesu said…
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Matthew 26:53-54
What? Scriptures be fulfilled! What scriptures? There cant be any scriptures prophesying the death of Christ. In the Septuagint? No, cant be.

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Matthew 26:56
more scriptures (plural) being fulfilled. How could the Bereans (greek speaking jews, why this matters no one knows) ever searched anything in the OT that spoke of Christ? its a mystery.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:25-27
So “all the scriptures” including Moses, expounded the things concerning Jesus? How can that be? Catholics are never wrong. They are directly inspired.

I could go on and on. But it wouldn’t matter.

Yes, the Scriptures, which means THE OLD TESTAMENT. Scroll up and look at your previous post. You went through the trouble of providing approximate dates for each book of the New Testament. By your own source, St. Luke wrote the book of Acts in 62 A.D. Most of the books of the New Testament WERE NOT EVEN WRITTEN, LET ALONE TRANSCRIBED, COPIED AND DISSEMINATED at the time of Paul's visit to Berea!


Ergo "all the Scriptures" refers to the Old Testament Greek Scriptures, which paradoxically your Bible does not even contain all of it.

 

[Walpole]

that is an easy and important question….Do you believe we have the written word of God right now? If so then what Paul says in 1 Cor 4 applies.

Yes, of course. And as the written word of God says, the word of God is not confined to paper.

 

[Walpole]

I answered it. The shepherd was written too late and you know it was. That’s why its not in any reputable translation that we have.

But your own list dates at least 4 books of the New Testament LATER than the Shepherd was written!

Per your source:

• 1 John: AD 90-95
• 2 John: AD 90-95
• 3 John: AD 90-95
• Revelation: AD 94-96

By your logic, your New Testament should not contain these books.


Land the plane.

---> How do you know Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd is not???

 

[Cnkw3]

Yes, the Scriptures, which means THE OLD TESTAMENT. Scroll up and look at your previous post. You went through the trouble of providing approximate dates for each book of the New Testament. By your own source, St. Luke wrote the book of Acts in 62 A.D. Most of the books of the New Testament WERE NOT EVEN WRITTEN, LET ALONE TRANSCRIBED, COPIED AND DISSEMINATED at the time of Paul's visit to Berea!


Ergo "all the Scriptures" refers to the Old Testament Greek Scriptures, which paradoxically your Bible does not even contain all of it.

You don’t know exactly what they were looking at. Im sure it contained Isaiah. Maybe thats all Paul needed to use. Thats all Philip needed. Show me in the text where it tells which OT scriptures he was referring to. The point is….he used the written word to support what he was teaching. That is a fact!