Ye shall know the truth... absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God !

[RoadDebris]

One bit of advice, take it or leave it....

I have been posting for nearly a decade on a variety of Christian forums, and have learned that the best logical and reasonable argument does NOT trump emotional beliefs held by another. I could point out the facts of baptism and its necessity, take quotes from the Catechism, logically explain everything in a reasonable fashion, but STILL have someone completely miss the boat because they are emotionally committed to believing that the Catholic Church is wrong on practically everything. You end up beating your head against a wall, and that's a fact from experience.

Yes, most people believe what they believe because it pleases them, the actual state of affairs notwithstanding. I believe this is becoming more and more the case every day as rational thought is pushed aside in favor of emotionalism. I don't have to go along with the crowd, however. I believe I'm called to express my understanding of the truth in a rational way and to oppose absurdity. As to how that is taken, that part is not my job. My commission is to speak the truth and leave the heart changing part up to the Holy Spirit.

A fallacious assumption, because the context of my comment was not on literally "EVERYTHING", but on the topic of this OP.

It's not fallacious to understand that absolute statements that don't measure up to their own truth claims are absurd. Your statement, "God allows an element of doubt to exist in everything" can't be true at one time and place and not in another, at least not here on Planet Reality. If there is any exception to that statement, in any context, then the statement is false. Since the rational already know that we can be absolutely certain of at least one thing (e.g. our existence), then it's illogical to state that nothing can be known absolutely. It's also a self-defeating idea. And since we know absolutely of our own existence by virtue of God, it's overtly delusional to claim He leaves us without certainty in all cases. He doesn't.

It goes without saying that I do speak for myself. Did I suggest that I spoke for you?

It was probably the "our" that gave it away. Using "my" might avert false inferences (IMO).

Why are you being so combative? Ever since our discussions began, you have a very strange way of speaking to another Christian, for someone who CLAIMS to be a sheep who hears the voice of the Shepherd.

I'm just direct. When people make irrational statements I call them on the absurdity of what they are saying. Why? Because Jesus claimed to be the Truth and folks who preach ideas that are illogical are showing themselves to be the purveyors of false gospels. Hommie don' play dat.
YouTube - HOMIE DON'T PLAY THAT!

I am not here to "win points", but to share my faith. That is a deeply personal choice, and there is nothing entirely right or wrong. There is no need for your attitude with me. If you disagree with my beliefs, fine. I won't lose sleep over it.

Yes, I can see that you are sharing what you believe. The problem with that is that truth is not effected by your beliefs and so much of what you believe, at least what you have acknowledged here, is false. Again, it's my commission to stand for the truth and to oppose it's opposite. I can understand how that might feel harsh to you, given your irrational view of reality, but sometimes the truth just hurts for those who wilfully deny it. I'm sure the emperor got very bent out of shape when everyone started snickering at his "new suit." That didn't change the fact that he was naked, however.

To the first part, you provide no objective evidence. To the second part, science is also founded on "evidence and logic", and have been shown to be WRONG later on. What we hold to be true is based upon FAITH.

That's true, but I made the assumption that even someone who follows the indoctrination of Catholicism must be familiar with the concrete evidence that proves the New Testament to be true. I should not have made that assumption. I think it would make more sense to devote a thread to this topic, here are a couple of examples off the top of my head:

1) Jesus's disciples were claiming that the Lord had risen from the grave. Since the Jewish rulers were adamantly opposed to the Church, why didn't they just produce the body to prove Peter and the rest were a bunch of liars?

2) The apostles and many other first century believers were first hand witnesses of what took place. They knew the truth as to whether they had actually seen, spoken to, eaten with the Lord after his crucifixion. If it was a fictional story they knew it was false. But when these people were faced with the death penalty for sticking to their story they went ahead and accepted that penalty, rather than admitting that they were lying. People who knowingly preach fictions don't do that. People will die for a lie, but only if they think it's true.

3) The Jews had believed in a strictly monotheistic God since Abraham and their whole spiritual life was predicated on following Mosaic law and keeping separate from the gentile world. Suddenly, after Christ's death, thousands of devout Jews turned their backs on the Law proclaiming that Jesus was God's son, that He is God incarnate, and that salvation comes by grace through faith in Him, not by being a descendant of Abraham and following the Law. This happened literally overnight (i.e. in one day).

I don't slavishly follow anything, if that is the intent of the hypocritical comment. I willingly, by choice after much reasoning and contemplation, worship God as a Catholic. You worship God (slavishly or not) as a Calvinist, following the dictates and doctrines of Jean Calvin.

There's a fundamental difference between my regard for Calvin and your subjugation to the Pope; subjugation. I strive to follow the revealed truth expressed by the Holy Spirit, through the writers of the Bible. In as much as his opinions are in line with that truth my walk is in line with Calvin's views. He was not inerrant in any way. He was merely a man.

No its not. That's your false opinion. You clearly are not familiar with the process with how something BECOMES IDENTIFIED as "Sacred Scriptures". The New Testament has no divinely inspired TAble of Contents, nor are the individual books self-authenticating as from God, except perhaps the Apocalypse. Not even the Gospels claim to be written or inspired by God.

One of us is mistaken here, and it isn't me.

All of the New Testament books were accepted by the original first century witnesses as scripture from the moment they were penned. They didn't have to wait for a committee to authenticate them before they called authoritative. As to the Bible as a whole, I think Moses coming down from the mountain with his face shining and a set of tablets pretty much tells the tale. No committee necessary.

 

[francisdesales]

Spiritual? Can you define that? It sounds like you are saying the RCC can interpret scripture in a way that's not subject to logic. I mean, that would be a really honest confession and everything, but I'm surprised if you are actually acknowledging this. Are you?

RoadDebris,

I apologize if I didn't not clarify myself better.

Spiritual does not mean that an interpretion is not subject to logic. Perhaps if I point you to the allegorical that Paul uses, you would see what I mean by "spiritual". Consider Galatians 4 and Paul's comparison between Hagar and Sarah. It goes beyond the literal, don't you agree? It has meaning beyond an historical and literal meaning.

I believe that I am honest and will note it. You will find I am not the typical apologist. I don't think, however, that this is an occasion where Scripture interpretation is severed from rationality. I think that God does communicate with us through the Scriptures through unexepected ways.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yes

So do you believe that this is true for interpreting any of the scriptures, that they're not restricted to what your assembly happens to believe about them..?

That's a difficult question. We do believe that God has revealed truth to mankind through the apostles - and that the Church continues to teach it, because the Spirit dwells within the Church. But I have come to believe that the Spirit blows where He wills and that He is also present, to some degree, in many different communities.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, most people believe what they believe because it pleases them, the actual state of affairs notwithstanding. I believe this is becoming more and more the case every day as rational thought is pushed aside in favor of emotionalism. I don't have to go along with the crowd, however. I believe I'm called to express my understanding of the truth in a rational way and to oppose absurdity. As to how that is taken, that part is not my job. My commission is to speak the truth and leave the heart changing part up to the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough.

It's not fallacious to understand that absolute statements that don't measure up to their own truth claims are absurd. Your statement, "God allows an element of doubt to exist in everything" can't be true at one time and place and not in another,

My intent on "everything" was not to imply that I doubted my own existence, but that of the subject, that God allows us to doubt HIS existence and work in the world. Thus, faith is an important aspect in seeking Him out..

Yes, I can see that you are sharing what you believe. The problem with that is that truth is not effected by your beliefs and so much of what you believe, at least what you have acknowledged here, is false. Again, it's my commission to stand for the truth and to oppose it's opposite.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your idea of what is truth.

I came to Christianity upon realizing its historical truth. Anything that came along 1500 years later just doesn't register, since it implies that God left His Church, which contradicts the promise of Christ.

I can understand how that might feel harsh to you, given your irrational view of reality,

Again, I disagree with your prognosis, and could very easily point out your own irrational views, if you dare to go in that direction. However, I try not to do that, because I realize that other people's faith is at issue, and it is not my desire to put another believer into such a state of affairs.

That's true, but I made the assumption that even someone who follows the indoctrination of Catholicism must be familiar with the concrete evidence that proves the New Testament to be true.

Concrete Evidence? I was a military historian before becoming Christian. You sure you want to discuss "concrete" here??? This is not "CNN". It is relying on an ancient witness called the Church.

There's a fundamental difference between my regard for Calvin and your subjugation to the Pope; subjugation. I strive to follow the revealed truth expressed by the Holy Spirit, through the writers of the Bible. In as much as his opinions are in line with that truth my walk is in line with Calvin's views. He was not inerrant in any way. He was merely a man.

Which makes your position less secure, doesn't it...

One of us is mistaken here, and it isn't me.

Oh, you have no idea what you are getting yourself into!!! Consider this your final warning.

All of the New Testament books were accepted by the original first century witnesses as scripture from the moment they were penned.

Baloney. You have no idea what you are talking about!!!

hey didn't have to wait for a committee to authenticate them before they called authoritative.

According to you...

But not reality. All one has to do is read history.

As to the Bible as a whole, I think Moses coming down from the mountain with his face shining and a set of tablets pretty much tells the tale. No committee necessary.

???? How does that tell us the contents of Sacred Scripture???

You are joking, right???

 

[Eventide]

That's a difficult question. We do believe that God has revealed truth to mankind through the apostles - and that the Church continues to teach it, because the Spirit dwells within the Church. But I have come to believe that the Spirit blows where He wills and that He is also present, to some degree, in many different communities.

Regards

Knowing that the Holy Spirit has been sent into the world to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.. and that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.. then yeah, I'd have to agree that He isn't limited to any one denomination or assembly.

 

[RoadDebris]

My intent on "everything" was not to imply that I doubted my own existence, but that of the subject, that God allows us to doubt HIS existence and work in the world. Thus, faith is an important aspect in seeking Him out..

So it was hyperbole then. God leaves many questions unanswered and many not answered to the extent we would like, but He doesn't leave all questions up in the air. Truth is knowable and people who claim it isn't are making a self-defeating statement and are irrational.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your idea of what is truth.

I think you're referring to some of the things that I believe are true, not that you disagree that truth means the actual state of affairs, right?

I came to Christianity upon realizing its historical truth. Anything that came along 1500 years later just doesn't register, since it implies that God left His Church, which contradicts the promise of Christ.

If it were the case that Reformed Theology were a new theology made up of whole cloth during the sixteenth century then you might have a good argument. But as I said, Calvin was only correct when his views were in line with the New Testament writers, who were inspired by God himself. Again, he was only a man, not divine, not inerrant. I believe Calvin believed the sun revolved around the earth, for pete's sake. He was certainly wrong on some things. Even my personal hero's like R.C. Sproul are not inerrant. I happen to disagree with him on infant baptism. So your point is irrelevant to my faith.

Again, I disagree with your prognosis, and could very easily point out your own irrational views, if you dare to go in that direction. However, I try not to do that, because I realize that other people's faith is at issue, and it is not my desire to put another believer into such a state of affairs.

Well, I totally disagree with your tack there, and frankly can't relate to it. One of the foundational ideas of my belief system is that logic is universally integral to reality. Anything that contradicts the Laws of Logic is invalid. I strive to view things from a rational perspective, accepting as factual things which are supported by the weight of evidence and which are in line with the Laws of Logic. And I strive to have an open mind (i.e. I accept the truth and reject it's opposite). That being the case, if any of my views are illogical please point them out and I will renounce them.

Concrete Evidence? I was a military historian before becoming Christian. You sure you want to discuss "concrete" here??? This is not "CNN". It is relying on an ancient witness called the Church.

The old argument by authority fallacy, eh? Look, I admire your background as a history scholar. I enjoy history myself, although only as an amateur. But that doesn't make you infallible on the truth of past events. Heck, if I don't view R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur as inerrant I'm sure not going to take a strangers word on the internet as unerringly authoritative, especially when that person has shown difficulty managing basic logic in the recent past.

And yes, if you would like to discuss the concrete evidence that backs up the historicity of the New Testament, much of it from secular sources, then that would be an interesting conversation.

Which makes your position less secure, doesn't it...

Not at all. My faith is not based on argument by authority, as the Catholic religion is, at least not the authority of mere men.

Oh, you have no idea what you are getting yourself into!!! Consider this your final warning.

Wow. Take your pill, francis. If your arguments are really that devastating then there's no need for you to get that worked up over it. Just bring it; calm, cool, and collected.

Baloney. You have no idea what you are talking about!!!

You have evidence that Timothy, Philemon or some other recipient of one of the Epistles threw the correspondence in the circular file and laughed off the instruction therein? Great, pony up (i.e. let's see it).

According to you...

But not reality. All one has to do is read history.

I can't wait to see the fourth, fifth, sixth century writings you're going to produce that are supposed to be authoritative over the actual eyewitnesses of the first century.

???? How does that tell us the contents of Sacred Scripture???

You are joking, right???

Serious as a heart attack. See, when your leader goes up on a thundering mountain for forty days and comes back with his face shining so brightly, so miraculously that people have to cover it just to be around him and he's got these stone tablets that he claims are instructions from God, and if you've just seen God do a whole bunch of miracles, totally violating the laws of nature, if you're open minded you're going to tend to believe him, since all the evidence points to his claim as being factual.

 

[Sam21]

It is only moderns who think one must keep the law "perfectly" to be considered righteous. And don't bother with the one verse in James, as it is a different context, written against those trying to EARN salvation by their deeds. No one can earn salvation. However, with a different mindset behind our actions, we can be righteous in God's eyes by following the Law, even if imperfectly. As God's children, we are not expected to be perfect.

Do you expect perfection from your children before you love and accept them?

I think if you actually sat down and read Psalm 119, you would see that the writer has a different view on whether someone can be righteous or not...

As to Romans 3, Paul is not talking about a faith v works battle, since Romans 2 points out that some who DO "work" are saved. Some men have a Law written in their hearts and they OBEY IT... The point is that Jews, in their pride, are no better off than the Gentiles by merely HAVING the Law! ALL need Christ and His act of faith, a gift of grace. Jew or Gentile. Jews following their law proudly does not yield righteousness, and Paul's quotations are, in context, written as a litany of "see, I told you, the Jews are no better" by citing David. In OT context, the "evil men" are Jews pursuing David, wicked men who THINK they are doing God's will, but have no concern for God's Law in their hearts. If you read the Psalms that Paul quotes in Romans 3, you will find that David ALSO notes righteous men exist. Paul is certainly aware of the context of these passages.

The point, then, is NOT that "all men are evil". Clearly, the Psalms do not say that. The point is that all men are in need of God's gift of grace. Even Jews. It is not a matter of 'faith vs. works'.

Regards

righteous men in the OT did strive to keep the law of God, and all failed to some degree,however they were counted righteous by God because of their FAITH in God, they were not allowed to enter Heaven at death because they had commited sin in their lifetime, they were kept in Paradise until Christ paid the penalty for their sin and then they were allowed into Heaven. As christians we are to strive to stay away from sin and evil and minister to those in need,however we are not perfect in this endeavor and are counted righteous because of our FAITH in Christ. A righteous person is someone who God has imputed righteousness to because of faith in God(Christ).

 

[francisdesales]

So it was hyperbole then.

Not at all. My answer was not meant to be applied universally to every single truth, such as my existence, that's all...

I think you're referring to some of the things that I believe are true, not that you disagree that truth means the actual state of affairs, right?

Correct to a degree. Truth is not always so obvious to discern. Look at all those people who THINK they know the "truth" and swear by that "truth", but it isn't truth. Can't be, since there are numerous contradictory "truth claims" out there in the various denominations.

This is where sola scriptura eventually leads one.

If it were the case that Reformed Theology were a new theology made up of whole cloth during the sixteenth century then you might have a good argument. But as I said, Calvin was only correct when his views were in line with the New Testament writers, who were inspired by God himself.

Which leaves open the subject of personal interpretation and the never-ending discussion on who is correct, as noted above.

Again, he was only a man, not divine, not inerrant. I believe Calvin believed the sun revolved around the earth, for pete's sake. He was certainly wrong on some things. Even my personal hero's like R.C. Sproul are not inerrant. I happen to disagree with him on infant baptism. So your point is irrelevant to my faith.

It is not necessary to be "divine" or "inerrant" to be given the power by God to infallibly proclaim God's revelation. Without such a backing, how much stock can we take in "just another man's opinion" when dealing with a divinely revealed (not made up by men) religion?

Well, I totally disagree with your tack there, and frankly can't relate to it. One of the foundational ideas of my belief system is that logic is universally integral to reality. Anything that contradicts the Laws of Logic is invalid.

Who said anything about re-inventing the Laws of Logic???

I see no reason to separate faith from reason, and John Paul 2 wrote a nice encyclical, "Faith and Reason" to follow up nicely on what was said at Vatican 1 on the subject. We don't separate faith from reason, nor am I suggesting that... Our faith is based upon a REASONABLE (NOT CERTAIN!) set of circumstances, which is why we call it "faith".

The old argument by authority fallacy, eh? Look, I admire your background as a history scholar. I enjoy history myself, although only as an amateur. But that doesn't make you infallible on the truth of past events.

I never claimed I was infallible. Why the preponderance of inventing red herrings? I think every post you address me with includes two or three of them.

Using your own methods that you described, I came to the reasonable and logical conclusion that the Catholic Church is the historical continuation of the Twelve Apostles, proven by historical records. I don't need to be infallible to see and read the historical writings and have faith that they are accurate and believable.

And yes, if you would like to discuss the concrete evidence that backs up the historicity of the New Testament, much of it from secular sources, then that would be an interesting conversation.

I obviously believe that the New Testament has an historical veracity that exceeds that of other ancient sources. My point is merely to state that we are ASSUMING that the sources that lead us to this conclusion are accurate. It is based upon our belief that we have honest and faithful witnesses worthy of belief. That's how historians act. We rely on what we have, knowing full well that we don't have "CNN-like" sources when dealing with ancient works.

Not at all. My faith is not based on argument by authority, as the Catholic religion is, at least not the authority of mere men.

It is no more based upon authority than Jesus' own commands and impositions upon the Apostles to do the very same thing.

And Calvin??? Sproul? Macarthur? Who sent them? Which apostle sent these MEN??? For we have no evidence that God sent any of them ...

You have evidence that Timothy, Philemon or some other recipient of one of the Epistles threw the correspondence in the circular file and laughed off the instruction therein? Great, pony up (i.e. let's see it).]

You are hilarious... Nice try at turning the tables...

The responsibility is upon you to deliver that evidence that Philemon was recognized as inspired by God IMMEDIATELY after it was penned!!! YOU are the one with the funny proclamation.

How about you prove it, now... We (well, at least those who know about and studied such things) know that Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John and Revelation were NOT widely accepted by ALL Christians even 100 years after they were penned!!!.

Get real. This information is widely available on the internet and numerous books have been written about the subject. Google "New Testament Deuterocanonicals", read up on it, THEN, perhaps you can enter into an intelligent conversation on this matter...

At the moment, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can't wait to see the fourth, fifth, sixth century writings you're going to produce that are supposed to be authoritative over the actual eyewitnesses of the first century.

Why do I need to produce that? Are you sure you even are aware of the point here? I think you are lost on what I am even saying.

Serious as a heart attack. See, when your leader goes up on a thundering mountain for forty days and comes back with his face shining so brightly, so miraculously that people have to cover it just to be around him and he's got these stone tablets that he claims are instructions from God, and if you've just seen God do a whole bunch of miracles, totally violating the laws of nature, if you're open minded you're going to tend to believe him, since all the evidence points to his claim as being factual.

Again, are you joking? Maybe you didn't understand my comment, let me try again...

How does that tell me the table of contents of Sacred Scriptures???

 

[francisdesales]

As christians we are to strive to stay away from sin and evil and minister to those in need,however we are not perfect in this endeavor and are counted righteous because of our FAITH in Christ. A righteous person is someone who God has imputed righteousness to because of faith in God(Christ).

A person is righteous because God MAKES him righteous, not because of some legal fiction, where God "pretends" someone is righteous. This smells too much like the "God" of Islam, where at His whim, God calls an unjust man just.

God gives birth to a new person. Regeneration and sanctification are the result of the righteousness that God INFUSES within the new man. As a result of Christ's Spirit indwelling within the new creation, we are indeed righteous.

Just as in the OT, we are not required to be absolutely perfect to be righteous in God's eyes, the God Who changes us.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

Not having mine own righteousness, but the righteousness which is by faith..

There are none righteous, not even one.. and that's as true today as it was when it was first scripted.

 

[francisdesales]

Not having mine own righteousness, but the righteousness which is by faith..

There are none righteous, not even one.. and that's as true today as it was when it was first scripted.

I tried to explain this to you. If there is no one righteous, as you claim, please explain these verses and many more like it...

He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still Rev 22:11

For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; But the wicked are overthrown by calamity. Proverbs 24:16 (and over a dozen more like this from just this one book...)

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Mat 1:19

There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-6

Eventide, you are clearly misunderstanding the Scriptures here, based on the false teachings of Protestantism on this subject. How can one interpret Romans 3 in your manner when the Bible over and over speaks of righteous men???

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

Not at all. My answer was not meant to be applied universally to every single truth, such as my existence, that's all...

So in your world when you use the word "everything" you don't actually mean all things, and at the same time you're not exaggerating. Here on Planet Reality, however, the opposite is true. Everything means all things and when people use that word when they really mean "many things" they are exaggerating, being hyperbolic. Keep it real, if you are able.

Correct to a degree. Truth is not always so obvious to discern. Look at all those people who THINK they know the "truth" and swear by that "truth", but it isn't truth. Can't be, since there are numerous contradictory "truth claims" out there in the various denominations.

Truth and discernment are not synonyms, francis. Your lack of discernment on this subject has no effect on the truth of the matter.

This is where sola scriptura eventually leads one.

~eye roll~

Catholicism leads people to see images of saints in horse droppings.

Which leaves open the subject of personal interpretation and the never-ending discussion on who is correct, as noted above.

The hypocrisy of that statement is truly monumental, given how the RCC has contradicted itself over the centuries and the fact that no communication is possible without interpretation. Not all popes agree and not all Catholics agree with their own leadership.

It is not necessary to be "divine" or "inerrant" to be given the power by God to infallibly proclaim God's revelation. Without such a backing, how much stock can we take in "just another man's opinion" when dealing with a divinely revealed (not made up by men) religion?

By your "logic" your own opinion has no merit, since you are not the Pope and since any statement you put forward on behalf of the Pope entails your own interpretation of what Catholic doctrine is.

Who said anything about re-inventing the Laws of Logic???

No-one did. Straw man. I'm just proclaiming my adherence to logic and how that course is in line with biblical teaching. You claimed you could point out the irrational nature of my belief. I'm calling your bluff. If my views are irrational then prove it by pointing to which of the Laws of Logic they contradict.

Our faith is based upon a REASONABLE (NOT CERTAIN!) set of circumstances, which is why we call it "faith".

As I've already stated, with the exception of self-awareness, every other thing we believe to be true has some element of faith. Your faith, however, does not have the evidence to back it up. It's a counterfeit religion.

I never claimed I was infallible. Why the preponderance of inventing red herrings? I think every post you address me with includes two or three of them.

You tried to back your argument with an argument from authority fallacy, francis. While I respect scholarship and scholars, their arguments don't necessarily hold any more weight because they have letters following their name. In addition, genuine scholars understand basic logic and don't use lame fallacious arguments in the first place.

Using your own methods that you described, I came to the reasonable and logical conclusion that the Catholic Church is the historical continuation of the Twelve Apostles, proven by historical records. I don't need to be infallible to see and read the historical writings and have faith that they are accurate and believable.

My method doesn't include buying into indoctrination and the weight of evidence must support ideas that I accept. That's two swings and two misses for Catholicism.

I obviously believe that the New Testament has an historical veracity that exceeds that of other ancient sources. My point is merely to state that we are ASSUMING that the sources that lead us to this conclusion are accurate.

Ignorant statement. Did you accept money for teaching history? There is beau coup objective, verifiable evidence, much of it from secular sources, that proves the accuracy of the Bible. There's no need for "assumptions."

t is based upon our belief that we have honest and faithful witnesses worthy of belief. That's how historians act. We rely on what we have, knowing full well that we don't have "CNN-like" sources when dealing with ancient works.

Again, we have independent evidence that backs up the claims of the writers. People knowledgeable with biblical history are well aware of this.

It is no more based upon authority than Jesus' own commands and impositions upon the Apostles to do the very same thing.

Claiming divine authority doesn't make someone God's spokesperson. If it did then the Pharisees would have been correct when they denounced Christ. The Pope's claim of authority is completely false.

And Calvin??? Sproul? Macarthur? Who sent them? Which apostle sent these MEN??? For we have no evidence that God sent any of them ...

All Christians are commissioned to spread the Word.

You are hilarious... Nice try at turning the tables...

The responsibility is upon you to deliver that evidence that Philemon was recognized as inspired by God IMMEDIATELY after it was penned!!! YOU are the one with the funny proclamation.

How about you prove it, now... We (well, at least those who know about and studied such things) know that Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John and Revelation were NOT widely accepted by ALL Christians even 100 years after they were penned!!!.

Get real. This information is widely available on the internet and numerous books have been written about the subject. Google "New Testament Deuterocanonicals", read up on it, THEN, perhaps you can enter into an intelligent conversation on this matter...

At the moment, you have no idea what you are talking about.

So you refuse to back up your assertion? Fine.

On Philemon, It's quoted by Ignatius in 107 as a source of divine doctrine. Given the lack of radio, TV, cell phones or faxes, this early quotation of this epistle gives evidence of how quickly the New Testament was disseminated and accepted as divinely inspired. But you already knew that right, Mr. Historian?

Why do I need to produce that? Are you sure you even are aware of the point here? I think you are lost on what I am even saying.

It was just a wise crack base on an assumption, from past experience dealing with Catholic "theologians." Nevermind.

Again, are you joking? Maybe you didn't understand my comment, let me try again...

How does that tell me the table of contents of Sacred Scriptures???

What don't you understand about the numbers 1-10? I know most Catholics don't delve into the Old Testament very often, but you have heard of the Ten Commandments, right?

 

[francisdesales]

Truth and discernment are not synonyms, francis. Your lack of discernment on this subject has no effect on the truth of the matter.

Which is my point - a person can THINK they know the truth, but that has no effect on it ACTUALLY BEING the truth! A person can think that Calvinism is "truth", but that has no bearing on it actually BEING truth... I even gave you an example of science using rational thought and evidence - which does not PROVE that something is truth.

Are you getting this???

Catholicism leads people to see images of saints in horse droppings.

Grow up. I tire of the polemics. I think I'll just stick to the subject, which is your inability to prove that the writings of the NT were considered Scriptures immediately after they were penned...

There is beau coup objective, verifiable evidence, much of it from secular sources, that proves the accuracy of the Bible. There's no need for "assumptions."

As usual, you stray from the subject when you find you are at a loss. Are you able to even figure out what I am talking about???

Where did I say that the individual Bible letters were false??? NOWHERE. AS USUAL, you have no ability to stay on topic or understand my point. The POINT was that the Bible does not vouch for the individual letters contained within. There is no "inspired Table of Contents". NOR do the individual letters self-authenticate themselves as "from God". Where IS your proof that Philemon is from God, from Philemon internally????

Oh yea, the big circular argument - Philemon is part of the Word of God because the Word of God contains Philemon....

Again, we have independent evidence that backs up the claims of the writers. People knowledgeable with biblical history are well aware of this.

Which NT writer claims to be writing inspired Scriptures as they write them???

Where is the internal evidence that a particular letter is "THE WORD OF GOD"??? As I have stated, this is EXACTLY the reason why some letters are considered "deuterocanonical", of questionable authenticity or relevance to any list of "canonical" writings.

Your claim that all letters and books were recognized "immediately" as God's Word is rubbish. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of the formation of the canon would laugh at such a notion - it is fantasy.

On Philemon, It's quoted by Ignatius in 107 as a source of divine doctrine.

No, its not. Philemon is never cited by Ignatius. Again, you are mistaken.

Given the lack of radio, TV, cell phones or faxes, this early quotation of this epistle gives evidence of how quickly the New Testament.

You mistake the existence of "Philemon" as proof that it is Sacred Scriptures. Another fine example of your "logic", the circular argument that "proves" everything...

There is a process that Philemon undergoes BEFORE it is considered that. Merely citing a writing is not proof of it being Sacred Scriptures in the eyes of the writer. Paul cited pagan writings. Jude cites Jewish Apocrypha. Come on, this is just another example of your "begging the question"...

It was just a wise crack base on an assumption, from past experience dealing with Catholic "theologians." Nevermind.

Yea, you are full of wisecracking assumptions... My response here is an attempt to sift through them and perhaps you can get some education on history and the development of the acceptance of the writings that LATER became called "Scriptures" by the Catholic community.

What don't you understand about the numbers 1-10? I know most Catholics don't delve into the Old Testament very often, but you have heard of the Ten Commandments, right?

For the final time... What does this have to do with the Contents of Sacred Scriptures??? What does the Decalogue have to do with deciding whether 1 Maccabees or Amos belongs in the Bible???

Is this sinking in yet? Are you reading this post???

Geez... Like I said, dealing with people who live on emotion is like running your head into the wall. Where is all of that vaunted "logic" you talk about???

Go read up on the subject "Deuterocanonicals". It would save me a lot of time and you a lot of embarassment...

 

[Eventide]

I tried to explain this to you. If there is no one righteous, as you claim, please explain these verses and many more like it...

He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still Rev 22:11

For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; But the wicked are overthrown by calamity. Proverbs 24:16 (and over a dozen more like this from just this one book...)

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Mat 1:19

There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-6

Eventide, you are clearly misunderstanding the Scriptures here, based on the false teachings of Protestantism on this subject. How can one interpret Romans 3 in your manner when the Bible over and over speaks of righteous men???

Regards

Haven't you ever asked yourself WHY they're righteous ?

We have the answer in the scriptures.. that they're declared righteous by faith in God.

There is no righteousness apart from faith... because then the word of God wouldn't be true.. there WOULD BE righteous men who didn't need a Saviour...

Show me one man (you couldn't last time I asked) who is righteous apart from faith in God.. and that's what I thought that we concluded last time.. that there is no righteousness apart from faith..

Now you're telling me that there is righteousness apart from faith ?

 

[francisdesales]

Haven't you ever asked yourself WHY they're righteous ?

We have the answer in the scriptures.. that they're declared righteous by faith in God.

There is no righteousness apart from faith...

I agree with you, there is no righteousness apart from faith. I never said there was. My point - and your admission - is that you were reading Romans 3 incorrectly - that "no one is righteous, not even one". Of course, with the rest of Scriptures, we must understand this as "no one is righteous without God, without faith". Do you think when I asked you to read Psalm 119, that I expected you to find a righteous man APART from faith in God???

Faith is a gift freely given, and without this faith, no one can please God. Clearly, the OT has people who are righteous, which overturns the shallow interpretation of Paul in Romans 3.

I would like you to open your mind a bit and go beyond the "faith v works" mantra that some Protestants cannot get away from in Romans 3 and further discuss why they were seen as righteous ("declared", we don't find in the OT...) It is not "just" a matter of belief in God, nor is there some legal declaration, and that's it.

Would Abram be considered righteous if he believed there was a God, but never picked up and moved to Palestine? Let's consider one of the verses I cited, from Luke:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-6

HERE, they were righteous before God, by walking in all the commandments... faith is UNDERSTOOD, but one must also see obedience, the walk, as important in recognizing that someone is righteous.

This further defines what righteousness is. It is faith walking in obedience to the commandments. Faith without such works is dead, is it not? According to Paul, faith without love is nothing, is it not? And thus, to be just in God's eyes, one must respond to God with the gifts He gives us - faith AND love. We can do NEITHER without God. I have never understood the Protestant recognition of the gift of faith, but not the gift of love when discussing the subject of ongoing justification.

because then the word of God wouldn't be true.. there WOULD BE righteous men who didn't need a Saviour...

Show me one man (you couldn't last time I asked) who is righteous apart from faith in God..

You never asked me that. I would and continue to answer 'no one' has faith apart from God...

You added "apart from faith in God"...

Now you're telling me that there is righteousness apart from faith ?

When did I say that? I am telling you that you are misreading Paul when you say that "no one is righteous", citing Romans 3 as your evidence. You asked for proof of "one person", and I gave you two. They were righteous, even before Christ died on the cross. Not only are they faithful men, but they are ALSO obedient men who follow the Law 'blamelessly'. It is the combination of faith, trust and obedience to God (gifts from God, these responses) that MAKES us righteous. We are not just "declared" righteous.

Paul's point in Romans is to state categorically that a Gentile Christian does not need to become a Jew - for people were seen as righteous BEFORE the Mosaic Law even existed. NOR does having the Law by mere possession mean one is righteous - as Paul devastatingly proves in Romans 2 and the Gentile WITHOUT that written Law who were enjoying eternal life, based upon what they did (and implied, what they believed in - God).

Regards

 

[Eventide]

I agree with you, there is no righteousness apart from faith. I never said there was. My point - and your admission - is that you were reading Romans 3 incorrectly - that "no one is righteous, not even one". Of course, with the rest of Scriptures, we must understand this as "no one is righteous without God, without faith". Do you think when I asked you to read Psalm 119, that I expected you to find a righteous man APART from faith in God???

Faith is a gift freely given, and without this faith, no one can please God. Clearly, the OT has people who are righteous, which overturns the shallow interpretation of Paul in Romans 3.

I would like you to open your mind a bit and go beyond the "faith v works" mantra that some Protestants cannot get away from in Romans 3 and further discuss why they were seen as righteous ("declared", we don't find in the OT...) It is not "just" a matter of belief in God, nor is there some legal declaration, and that's it.

Would Abram be considered righteous if he believed there was a God, but never picked up and moved to Palestine? Let's consider one of the verses I cited, from Luke:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-6

HERE, they were righteous before God, by walking in all the commandments... faith is UNDERSTOOD, but one must also see obedience, the walk, as important in recognizing that someone is righteous.

This further defines what righteousness is. It is faith walking in obedience to the commandments. Faith without such works is dead, is it not? According to Paul, faith without love is nothing, is it not? And thus, to be just in God's eyes, one must respond to God with the gifts He gives us - faith AND love. We can do NEITHER without God. I have never understood the Protestant recognition of the gift of faith, but not the gift of love when discussing the subject of ongoing justification.



You never asked me that. I would and continue to answer 'no one' has faith apart from God...

You added "apart from faith in God"...



When did I say that? I am telling you that you are misreading Paul when you say that "no one is righteous", citing Romans 3 as your evidence. You asked for proof of "one person", and I gave you two. They were righteous, even before Christ died on the cross. Not only are they faithful men, but they are ALSO obedient men who follow the Law 'blamelessly'. It is the combination of faith, trust and obedience to God (gifts from God, these responses) that MAKES us righteous. We are not just "declared" righteous.

Paul's point in Romans is to state categorically that a Gentile Christian does not need to become a Jew - for people were seen as righteous BEFORE the Mosaic Law even existed. NOR does having the Law by mere possession mean one is righteous - as Paul devastatingly proves in Romans 2 and the Gentile WITHOUT that written Law who were enjoying eternal life, based upon what they did (and implied, what they believed in - God).

Regards

Then we're in agreement. There are none righteous.. there is only righteousness by FAITH.. and this is exactly what Paul teaches, that he DID NOT have HIS OWN righteousness, but rather the righteousness of God which is by FAITH.

 

[francisdesales]

Then we're in agreement. There are none righteous.. there is only righteousness by FAITH.. and this is exactly what Paul teaches, that he DID NOT have HIS OWN righteousness, but rather the righteousness of God which is by FAITH.

I think we are in agreement, but you said it a confusing way.

"There are none righteous" led me to initially complain. Joseph is indeed righteous. It is his righteousness granted by the gift of the faithful response of Joseph.

Is it Joseph's righteousness ALONE? No. That is our agreement. However, in Christ, it IS our righteousness, just not ours alone, not just God's alone. This is the mystery of synergy that Calvinists refuse to regard. Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (Mat 5:20) to ENTER the Kingdom, correct? I believe you will agree that Jesus didn't mean "your righteousness alone." This is the beauty of proper Scripture interpretation. It isn't necessary for Jesus to actually say this, we already know that "you can do nothing good without me"... But indeed, it is our righteousness that is judged at the time of death. Not mine alone, it relies on the gift of God.

I hope I am making this clear. Alone, we can do nothing good, nothing worthy of salvation. However, we must be righteous to enter the Kingdom - a rightousness that comes from God and depends upon our response to that gift. Of course, even the response is a gift!!!

Regards

 

[Eventide]

I think we are in agreement, but you said it a confusing way.

As long as you believe that there is no righteousness apart from the righteousness of God which is by faith, then we're in agreement.

 

[francisdesales]

As long as you believe that there is no righteousness apart from the righteousness of God which is by faith, then we're in agreement.

Just being careful...

 

[Eventide]

Only God could have authored the scriptures seeing that they describe future events with remarkable detail centuries before they come to pass..

No other book in the world is living and powerful and can do this..

<stir>