The Majority Text: Divine Preservation and Christian Reason

[TMal3]

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)

Our LORD Jesus said this about the Torah. But what does the Torah say?

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, (Deut. 18:15 NKJ)

Jesus is that Prophet. What did Jesus command?

14 "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.
15 "Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city! (Matt. 10:14-15 NKJ)

Therefore, we pay heed to His apostles in obedience to Torah.

What did His apostle say about scripture?

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)

What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world?

The 66 books of the cannon God providentially had the church set.


I rest my case.

PS: I believe you are "on your own", some of those you want to weigh in, likely agree the Bible exists today, that it is the very Word of God.

You again keep misrepresenting what I say and then attacking your strawman creations to make you feel like you’ve proven something when you've proven nothing. "What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world" is what I deem as divinely inspired, infallible, authoritative sacred Scripture too, so stop saying I don't. Stop trying to create these strawman positions that I don't hold. That's is disingenuous.

And your "argument" is the most convoluted piece of eisegesis I think I've ever seen to force Scripture to say what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself. And even if I grant you said argument, 2 Tim 3 still only refers to the Old Testament.

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

2 Timothy 2.8-9
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to try to deny it)

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You again keep misrepresenting what I say and then attacking your strawman creations to make you feel like you’ve proven something when you've proven nothing. "What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world" is what I deem as divinely inspired, infallible, authoritative sacred Scripture as too, so stop saying I don't. Stop trying to create these strawman positions that I don't hold. That's is disingenuous.

And your "argument" is the most convoluted piece of eisegesis I think I've ever seen to force Scripture to say what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself. And even if I grant you said argument, 2 Tim 3 still only refers to the Old Testament.

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

2 Timothy 2.8-9
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to try to deny it)

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else.

Please make it crystal clear. You don't believe the "gospel message" is in the bible?

 

[TMal3]

How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion??? I never said that. Of course it's in the Bible. On the previous page I cited 80 different verses that say so! SERIOUSLY, STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAY (I have now asked you about half a dozen times to stop doing that). YOU ARE BEARING FALSE WITNESS AND LYING.

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to argue about it)

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else

 

[gordon777]

Now I see the New Testament in a whole new light. The gospel message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection was "the word" and "the word of God" to the apostles (*who did not anticipate the later Bible, but believed the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and possibly would happen in their lifetime). They were all about the gospel and nothing but the gospel ("For I resolved to know nothing but Christ crucified"). And *everything* depended on, centered in, and revolved around the gospel message. So, yes, I'm guilty of being a minimalist, but I figure I can't go wrong if I follow Paul's lead.

The Apostles were told it was not for them to know the times, they would harldy assume to know them then.


Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

 

[Alfred Persson]

How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion??? I never said that. Of course it's in the Bible. On the previous page I cited 80 different verses that say so! SERIOUSLY, STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAY (I have now asked you about half a dozen times to stop doing that). YOU ARE BEARING FALSE WITNESS AND LYING.

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to try to deny it)

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else

Sir, its elementary deduction. To quote you, I bolded the pertinent words in red font:

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

That suggests the "gospel message" is not in the Bible, that the "gospel message" and not "Scripture" is "the word of God."

You accuse me of conflating the two, but that means you distinguish the two.

Therefore, you must believe the "gospel message" which is the "word of God" is NOT in Scripture.

Its not "false witness and lying" when people don't make a cogent argument for their beliefs, and they are misunderstood. I didn't accuse you, I only said it appears, based on YOUR words, you don't believe the gospel message is in the Bible. If you don't believe this, correct the record. Accusing me doesn't correct the record.

Do you believe the Word of God Gospel Message is in our bibles today? And if so, what ARE you going on about?

 

[gordon777]

Sir, its elementary deduction. To quote you, I bolded the pertinent words in red font:

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

That suggests the "gospel message" is not in the Bible, that the "gospel message" and not "Scripture" is "the word of God."

You accuse me of conflating the two, but that means you distinguish the two.

Therefore, you must believe the "gospel message" which is the "word of God" is NOT in Scripture.

You must believe questioning words that brings strife, is not in scripture, or the word of God, and that the only thing that maters is forum chat.

The other poster said he did not want to engage in debate, why not try this out...


1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You must believe questioning words that brings strife, is not in scripture, or the word of God, and that the only thing that maters is forum chat.

The other poster said he did not want to engage in debate, why not try this out...


1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Where did he say that?

And do you agree the "word of God" "Gospel Message" is not in the Bible?

The scripture you cited isn't relevant, material or competent to answer that question. So why did you cite it?

Am I living "rent free" in your brain? Does that explain the odd and peculiar posts you direct at me?

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you,`You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Jn. 3:3-8 NKJ)

 

[gordon777]

Where did he say that?

And do you agree the "word of God" "Gospel Message" is not in the Bible?

The scripture you cited isn't relevant, material or competent to answer that question. So why did you cite it?

Am I living "rent free" in your brain? Does that explain the odd and peculiar posts you direct at me?

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you,`You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Jn. 3:3-8 NKJ)

Sorry if we do not consent to the wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness, it leaves this as testified..

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry if we do not consent to the wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness, it leaves this as testified..

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Why wouldn't you consent to wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness? I do.

32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 10:32-33 NKJ)

One day a Baptist Radio minister was urging listeners to call in and confess "Jesus Christ is LORD" and that God "raised Him from the dead" publicly (Mat. 10:32) and you will be saved. "God does not lie," and He promised:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Rom. 10:9 KJV)

I rushed to the public phone in the lobby of the Amory Hotel. A few of my fellow sailors sat there socializing, they would overhear every word I said on the phone!" Then a thought appeared: "You don't want to embarrass yourself in front of them! You'll be a laughingstock!" I drove the thought away thinking: "I want Jesus to be my LORD more than life itself!"
The Radio minister asked "do you confess Jesus Christ is LORD!" "Yes, I confess Jesus Christ is LORD!" "Do you believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead?" "Yes, I believe God raised Him from the dead!"
"Then you are saved, for God cannot lie and in Romans 10: 9-11 He says:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom. 10:9-11 KJV)

I thanked him profusely and went to my room, stunned. As I was pondering these things I was "baptized in the Holy Spirit!"

About Me | End Time News

CHAP. XI.16—CONCERNING TEACHERS, APOSTLES, AND PROPHETS. Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you all these things that have been said before, receive him…But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. 6 And...

endtimenews.net

I was Born again!

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you,`You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
11 "Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.
12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn. 3:3-16 NKJ)

 

[Alfred Persson]

You again keep misrepresenting what I say and then attacking your strawman creations to make you feel like you’ve proven something when you've proven nothing. "What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world" is what I deem as divinely inspired, infallible, authoritative sacred Scripture too, so stop saying I don't. Stop trying to create these strawman positions that I don't hold. That's is disingenuous.

And your "argument" is the most convoluted piece of eisegesis I think I've ever seen to force Scripture to say what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself. And even if I grant you said argument, 2 Tim 3 still only refers to the Old Testament.

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

2 Timothy 2.8-9
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to try to deny it)

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else.

Sir, is impossible "A" is "not A" in the same premise. That would be the fallacy of equivocation.

So also the phrase "word of God" which does not mean "word of God."

That would be meaningless babble.

Please make a cogent argument that doesn't misrepresent what your beliefs are.


It suddenly occurred to me, ChatGPT might be what you need! Here is an example of excellent informal logic:

Generate a syllogism proving the bible is the Word of God using NT scripture

Sure, I can certainly help with that, but it's important to understand that the following syllogism is based on Christian belief and the texts within the New Testament itself, rather than external evidence or scholarly critique. Here's a possible way to formulate such a syllogism:

1. Major Premise: Anything that is divinely inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness is the Word of God. (Based on the general definition of what the Word of God is believed to be in Christian doctrine)
2. Minor Premise: According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NT), "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
3. Conclusion: Therefore, according to the New Testament, the Bible is the Word of God.

-ChatGPT [Bolding emphasis mine]

 

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry if we do not consent to the wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness, it leaves this as testified..

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Who are the "WE" in this statement?

Sorry if we do not consent to the wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness, it leaves this as testified..

Should I expect more posters who won't consent to wholesome words, the doctrine according to godliness?

 

[Free]

Please make it crystal clear. You don't believe the "gospel message" is in the bible?

How can you even ask that question? TMal3 clearly stated, as you quoted, "Of course it's in the Bible." I'm as confused as he is at how you have some to such a conclusion.

Please don't misrepresent his position again, as that is a violation of the ToS.

 

[Alfred Persson]

How can you even ask that question? TMal3 clearly stated, as you quoted, "Of course it's in the Bible." I'm as confused as he is at how you have some to such a conclusion.

Please don't misrepresent his position again, as that is a violation of the ToS.

Finally, help is here! I don't misrepresent, I don't understand and NOW finally, YOU can explain what this means, from Post #103

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

The phrase "Word of God" means words from God. The Bible = Words from God, so how can the phrase "Word of God" NOT refer to the Bible?


I asked Chatgpt to rule on this, for an unbiased objective opinion:

The two statements presented appear to be contradictory.

The first statement asserts that the Bible is the Word of God as it is inspired divine revelation. This suggests that the content of the Bible, in its entirety, is considered the Word of God.

However, the second statement claims that the phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible itself. This implies that when the Bible uses the term "Word of God," it is not referring to the entirety of the text.

If both statements are considered factual, it creates a contradiction because the first statement defines the Bible as the Word of God, while the second statement claims that the Bible's usage of the term "Word of God" does not include the Bible.



PS: Also answer: Is your misrepresenting me a violation of the TOS? Shouldn't you apologize?

 

[Free]

Finally, help is here! I don't misrepresent, I don't understand and NOW finally, YOU can explain what this means, from Post #103

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

The phrase "Word of God" means words from God. The Bible = Words from God, so how can the phrase "Word of God" NOT refer to the Bible?


I asked Chatgpt to rule on this, for an unbiased objective opinion:

The two statements presented appear to be contradictory.

The first statement asserts that the Bible is the Word of God as it is inspired divine revelation. This suggests that the content of the Bible, in its entirety, is considered the Word of God.

However, the second statement claims that the phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible itself. This implies that when the Bible uses the term "Word of God," it is not referring to the entirety of the text.

If both statements are considered factual, it creates a contradiction because the first statement defines the Bible as the Word of God, while the second statement claims that the Bible's usage of the term "Word of God" does not include the Bible.

ChatGPT... Context is important. Gp back to post #101 and note the other statement TMal3 made: "I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist."

The Bible is a collection of the inspired words of God, but the phrase "word of God" in the Bible cannot be referring to the Bible itself, since the Bible didn't exist when these individual letters were written. It generally refers to words that God has spoken or speaks, or the gospel itself. The exception is "Word of God," which is a name given to Christ as the rider on the white horse in Rev 19:13.

Only the Tanakh and Septuagint existed at the time the NT was being written, but they are generally referred to as the Scriptures.

Both statements are indeed correct. We can now call the Bible the Word of God, being title of a collection of the inspired words of God, but the "word of God" in the Bible don't refer to the Bible, since it didn't officially come to be the collection it is until AD 397.

PS: Also answer: Is your misrepresenting me a violation of the TOS? Shouldn't you apologize?

No, I haven't misrepresented anything.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You again keep misrepresenting what I say and then attacking your strawman creations to make you feel like you’ve proven something when you've proven nothing. "What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world" is what I deem as divinely inspired, infallible, authoritative sacred Scripture too, so stop saying I don't. Stop trying to create these strawman positions that I don't hold. That's is disingenuous.

And your "argument" is the most convoluted piece of eisegesis I think I've ever seen to force Scripture to say what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself. And even if I grant you said argument, 2 Tim 3 still only refers to the Old Testament.

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

2 Timothy 2.8-9
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!

Try to be a good listener: I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist (and you know it, so it's absurd to try to deny it)

1. The Bible is the Word of God in that it is inspired divine revelation--FACT
2. The phrase "Word of God" in the Bible is not referring to the Bible--ALSO FACT

*But sure, you keep pretending I'm saying something else.

The "self-contradiction" in your argument is its fatal flaw. Catholic polemic against sola scriptura is unsound and absurd because of these elementary facts: Scripture is the "word of God" and therefore the phrase "the word of God" does refer to Scripture generally. End of argument.

It is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent the phrase can be found also referring to Jesus as "the Word of God" or Paul's oral tradition as "the Word of God", because Paul obviously that tradition (and more!) in his writings---Today Paul's writings ARE Holy Scripture:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13 NKJ)

And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture:

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:15-16 NKJ)

Peter says Paul "speaks" in his epistles = apostolic oral tradition written down, the Word of God Scripture.

Suppose Jesus' words were passed down generation after generation, and finally someone wrote the four gospels down and today we call it scripture. Do we then conclude the phrase "the word of God" does not refer to the Gospels?

Recall Jesus called His teachings the "Word of God":

So it was, as the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret, (Lk. 5:1 NKJ)

Not only were many things Jesus taught the masses recorded in Scripture, much of what only the disciples heard is there also. So your argument the Scriptures aren't the "word of God" contradicts history. History, God's-Story. God knew how to get the Word of God written down, how faithless is it to suppose that was left to chance?

Catholic polemic against sola scriptura fails for another main reason, already mentioned. Catholics don't have the Word of God apart from the Scriptures. If they did, they would write it down and share it with us. The text, not their pontifications pretending to be infallible.


That Catholics do NOT have anything superior to Protestants, even though we are divided into many denominations, is proved by the constant change in Catholicism.

There are many versions of it throughout history begging the question "which version is correct?"

To illustrate, Catholics of the first few centuries would have been slain if they teleported into the future and landed in Spain during the Spanish inquisition.

 

[Alfred Persson]

ChatGPT... Context is important. Gp back to post #101 and note the other statement TMal3 made: "I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist."

The Bible is a collection of the inspired words of God, but the phrase "word of God" in the Bible cannot be referring to the Bible itself, since the Bible didn't exist when these individual letters were written. It generally refers to words that God has spoken or speaks, or the gospel itself. The exception is "Word of God," which is a name given to Christ as the rider on the white horse in Rev 19:13.

Only the Tanakh and Septuagint existed at the time the NT was being written, but they are generally referred to as the Scriptures.

Both statements are indeed correct. We can now call the Bible the Word of God, being title of a collection of the inspired words of God, but the "word of God" in the Bible don't refer to the Bible, since it didn't officially come to be the collection it is until AD 397.


No, I haven't misrepresented anything.

Now you can go to Post #115 and read my rebuttal of his argument, using his own premises. Not that the obvious fallacy (self-contradiction) didn't suffice, but lest he or you think a point against sola scriptura was scored, it wasn't.

 

[Free]

Now you can go to Post #115 and read my rebuttal of his argument, using his own premises. Not that the obvious fallacy (self-contradiction) didn't suffice, but lest he or you think a point against sola scriptura was scored, it wasn't.

You haven’t refuted anything. Their is no contradiction and your attempt at a rebuttal is a case of begging the question.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The "self-contradiction" in your argument is its fatal flaw. Catholic polemic against sola scriptura is unsound and absurd because of these elementary facts: Scripture is the "word of God" and therefore the phrase "the word of God" does refer to Scripture generally. End of argument.

It is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent the phrase can be found also referring to Jesus as "the Word of God" or Paul's oral tradition as "the Word of God", because Paul obviously that tradition (and more!) in his writings---Today Paul's writings ARE Holy Scripture:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13 NKJ)

And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture:

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:15-16 NKJ)

Peter says Paul "speaks" in his epistles = apostolic oral tradition written down, the Word of God Scripture.

Suppose Jesus' words were passed down generation after generation, and finally someone wrote the four gospels down and today we call it scripture. Do we then conclude the phrase "the word of God" does not refer to the Gospels?

Recall Jesus called His teachings the "Word of God":

So it was, as the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret, (Lk. 5:1 NKJ)

Not only were many things Jesus taught the masses recorded in Scripture, much of what only the disciples heard is there also. So your argument the Scriptures aren't the "word of God" contradicts history. History, God's-Story. God knew how to get the Word of God written down, how faithless is it to suppose that was left to chance?

Catholic polemic against sola scriptura fails for another main reason, already mentioned. Catholics don't have the Word of God apart from the Scriptures. If they did, they would write it down and share it with us. The text, not their pontifications pretending to be infallible.


That Catholics do NOT have anything superior to Protestants, even though we are divided into many denominations, is proved by the constant change in Catholicism.

There are many versions of it throughout history begging the question "which version is correct?"

To illustrate, Catholics of the first few centuries would have been slain if they teleported into the future and landed in Spain during the Spanish inquisition.

Correction: Change

Not only were many things Jesus taught the masses recorded in Scripture, much of what only the disciples heard is there also. So your argument the Scriptures aren't the "word of God" contradicts history. History, God's-Story. God knew how to get the Word of God written down, how faithless is it to suppose that was left to chance?

To

Not only were many things Jesus taught the masses recorded in Scripture, much of what only the disciples heard is there also. So your argument the phrase the "word of God" proves the Catholic Church has "word of God" Protestants do not, contradicts history. History, God's-Story. God knew how to get the Word of God written down, how faithless is it to suppose that was left to chance?

 

[Alfred Persson]

You haven’t refuted anything. Their is no contradiction and your attempt at a rebuttal is a case of begging the question.

Prove it, or is that request a violation of the TOS? Your "drive-by" comments are no substitute for good argument. Then everyone is benefited, intellectually challenged.

"Drive-by", like a "drive-by shooting", nothing to respond to. The cowards scurry away like cockroaches, into the night.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Sir, its elementary deduction. To quote you, I bolded the pertinent words in red font:

(You also conflate "the word of God" with "Scripture" when the apostles usually use these terms separately. Thus, for example, in 2 Tim 3.16-17 Paul speaks of Scripture, but in the same letter in 2 Tim 2.8-9 refers to the gospel message as "the word of God.":

That suggests the "gospel message" is not in the Bible, that the "gospel message" and not "Scripture" is "the word of God."

You accuse me of conflating the two, but that means you distinguish the two.

Therefore, you must believe the "gospel message" which is the "word of God" is NOT in Scripture.

Its not "false witness and lying" when people don't make a cogent argument for their beliefs, and they are misunderstood. I didn't accuse you, I only said it appears, based on YOUR words, you don't believe the gospel message is in the Bible. If you don't believe this, correct the record. Accusing me doesn't correct the record.

Do you believe the Word of God Gospel Message is in our bibles today? And if so, what ARE you going on about?

Because this thread was about the Majority Text, not sola scriptura I reposted your argument, and my rebuttal on the Catholic forum. Hope to see you there:

Catholic argument against sola scriptura refuted. Willing and able to take on his replacements

TMal3 said: You again keep misrepresenting what I say and then attacking your strawman creations to make you feel like you’ve proven something when you've proven nothing. "What today is deemed scripture by all the church throughout the world" is what I deem as divinely inspired, infallible...

christianforums.net