Is the NIV dishonest?

[donadams]

Why do you want to leave out everything else? Is Isaiah not one of the prophets? Wouldn't "all that the prophets have spoken" necessarily include Isa. 53? When Jesus "interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," do you think he would have excluded such an important and obvious passage as Isa. 53?

Since Paul was reasoning "from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2-3, ESV), do you think he would have excluded Isa. 53?


Have you not read the NT? Have you not read the Passion narratives? It's throughout the NT, shown in many ways. One could never have read the Bible and know little about it, read the NT, and then go read Isa. 53 and know that the suffering servant is Jesus.


No, he did not. He established the Church, but nowhere did he indicate or even imply that it would be infallible. Nowhere is any person or leader said to be infallible. Human nature dictates that we are all fallible, including church leaders. Only Jesus was infallible.

Please try and put all your responses to one post in one post.

there was no new testament until 40 years after Philip and the eunuch and after Paul and the bereans

scripture and tradition
Isa 53 and apostolic tradition
from Philip in acts 8 and Paul in acts 17

the church is of divine origin which implies a divine maintenance

if the apostolic church is fallibile the so is Christ
Lk 10:16 Jn 13:20 mt 16:18/19 Mt 28:19-20 Jn 29:21-23 acts 1:8

thks

 

[donadams]

We accept the teachings written down in the NT. A closed canon.

A closed canon, in religious contexts, refers to the belief that the collection of sacred writings considered authoritative is complete and no further additions or revisions are accepted.

That what was accepted was more than likely already in use. It clearly preexisted. The authorship was most likely the criteria for acceptance as genuine. A apostle or close associate of a apostle??

But what is your point in all this?

the canon is closed and approved at the council of rome by the pope in 381-2 apostolic tradition continues

 

[donadams]

Paul was God's choice from birth. Mathias is not one of the 12 whether you give him the title of apostle or not. They did not wait for answer to their prayer. Revelation states "12". The foundations of the New Jerusalem were named after the "12" apostles of the Lord. As Jesus states elsewhere, "if that were not so why would I state it?"

The 11 were not introducing apostolic succession. They only sought to replace Judas who betrayed Jesus. When James was put to the sword he wasn't replaced. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

acts 2:14 says we have twelve paul makes 13

 

[Randy]

acts 2:14 says we have twelve paul makes 13

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.

This is at Pentecost. Came you name the 13 for us at that time?

 

[WIP]

Tradition isn't any more infallible either for it requires that we also must test that which we hear against Scripture to validate it and this holds true also for the Catholic church and the Pope. I'm not trying to single out the Catholic church for we know there are many divisions in the Protestant churches as well. I didn't notice it until later in life but growing up in the Catholic church I never saw a Bible or was provided with a Bible for my own use. All of my understanding/teaching came from what we were told by the church priests and Catechism teachers. I know it's not as much today but historically, the Catholic church has a record of discouraging people from accepting what Scripture says on its own merit. Yet Scripture seems to say something a little different.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1 NKJV

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
2 Peter 2:1-3 NKJV

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.
Acts 17:10-12 NKJV

I think we have to be careful about putting too much emphasis on tradition and not enough emphasis on what God says. We all must exercise due diligence to test what we are taught against God's Word and not man's. In the past, people were not literate but they were also not encouraged to become literate because once they know how to read for themselves, it becomes harder to lead them as desired and to just accept what they are taught without question.

Some of the letters in the New Testament were specifically written to call out those that had gone astray due to false teaching, in some cases to intentionally lead them astray.

 

[donadams]

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.

This is at Pentecost. Came you name the 13 for us at that time?

original twelve minus judas plus mathias!

 

[Free]

there was no new testament until 40 years after Philip and the eunuch and after Paul and the bereans

What do you mean by "no new testament"?

scripture and tradition
Isa 53 and apostolic tradition
from Philip in acts 8 and Paul in acts 17

I have nothing against tradition, when it doesn't contradict Scripture, but Scripture is the ultimate and only infallible authority for Church doctrine. It is, however, interpreted and understood by fallible men and women.

the church is of divine origin which implies a divine maintenance

Yes, Jesus said that he would be with believers forever and send the Holy Spirit to guide, but that doesn't imply the Church is infallible.

if the apostolic church is fallibile the so is Christ
Lk 10:16 Jn 13:20 mt 16:18/19 Mt 28:19-20 Jn 29:21-23 acts 1:8

No, your conclusion doesn't follow. Jesus was the only infallible person to ever walk this earth, just as the Bible is the only infallible book to ever be written. Every Apostle, every Church leader, and every layperson that has ever been in the Church, is fallible. Therefore, the Church is fallible and fallible in its understanding of the Scriptures.

You are elevating the Church above even Paul.

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (ESV)

While Paul matured in his faith, he still claimed to "see in a mirror dimly" and to "know in part."

 

[Randy]

original twelve minus judas plus mathias!

To sit on one of the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel is not for man to give. Paul was set from birth and was Gods choice to replace Judas well before Matthias was even considered. Had they waited on an answer to their prayers they would have known that. The Apostles did not introduce apostolic succession. They only sought to replace Judas who had abandoned his office. When James was put to the sword, they didn't seek to replace him. Matthias is not one of the 12 even if man gives him the title of apostle. God didn't.

The foundations of the New Jerusalem were not named for 12 of the Apostles of the Lord. They were named for the 12 apostles of the Lord.

 

[reddogs]

I agree with Hidden In Him, but traditions can be either good or bad. Jesus criticized the religious leaders' use of their made-up rules that had no basis in the Scriptures. They wanted to control the people. If a tradition has that basis firmly in the Bible and is followed sincerely in worship or life, it is good.

I think kneeling for prayer and greeting with a hug or kiss to our brothers and sisters coming for worship would be a good example of what fall along those lines of a firm basis for the tradition. But cant be said for others..

"Sunday: Tradition

Tradition itself is not bad. It gives recurring acts in our daily life a certain routine and structure. It can help us to stay connected with our roots. Hence, it is no surprise that tradition also plays an important part in religion. But there are also some dangers connected with tradition.

The tradition Jesus confronted was carefully handed down in the Jewish community from teacher to pupil. In Jesus’ day, it had assumed a place alongside Scripture. Tradition, however, has a tendency to grow over long periods of time, thus accumulating more and more details and aspects that were not originally part of God’s Word and plan. These human traditions — even though they are promoted by respected “elders” (see Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5), i.e., by the religious leaders of the Jewish community — are not equal to God’s commandments (see Mark 7:8, Mark 7:9). They were human traditions, and ultimately they led to a point where they made “the word of God of no effect” (Mark 7:13, NKJV)....

The living Word of God initiates in us a reverent and faithful attitude toward it. This faithfulness generates a certain tradition. Our faithfulness, however, always needs to be loyal to the living God, who has revealed His will in the Written Word of God. Thus, the Bible holds a unique role that supersedes all human traditions. The Bible stands higher and above all traditions, even good ones. Traditions that grow out of our experience with God and His Word constantly need to be tested against the measuring rod of Holy Scripture."