PastorAIO:




Without a doubt you would fall into the category of 'those who don't want it', Uben, so you can safely assume that he has been nothing but untruthful since he took you for such.

The Truth is the Bible. I don't offer that to people who don't want it. Even if I didn't mean that, even if I meant that I don't tell the truth of issues to those who don't want to hear it, it does not mean that I lie instead. It can mean that I simply don't talk to them (as I sometimes do with you).

However, the Truth there quite clearly referred to the Bible. And no one has yet successfully accused me of dishonesty around these parts. You, on the other hand, ooze with it.

PaChukwudi44:


Bokenkotter did not live during the patristic age and thus does not have the locus standi to write about events that happened then.That is common sense bro

I went to check. It was just you and Ubenedictus then and you are just rehashing the same bad argument you were making then.

Ihedinobi3:

The Truth is the Bible. I don't offer that to people who don't want it. Even if I didn't mean that, even if I meant that I don't tell the truth of issues to those who don't want to hear it, it does not mean that I lie instead. It can mean that I simply don't talk to them (as I sometimes do with you).

However, the Truth there quite clearly referred to the Bible. And no one has yet successfully accused me of dishonesty around these parts. You, on the other hand, ooze with it.

can you define the term bible? what do you understand by it? I hope you know Bible is not synonymous with scriptures?

PaChukwudi44:


can you define the term bible? what do you understand by it? I hope you know Bible is not synonymous with scriptures?

I think that my conversations with PastorAIO and Ubenedictus covered that well enough. My views are clear there. If you think they are not, let me know what you want me to clarify in them.

Ihedinobi3:

Maybe one day I'll trust you enough to believe every single thing you say without question. But today is not that day.

Uben has not asked you to believe, Ihedi. He provided you with facts for you to go check out yourself and the fact the you claim to "know enough history to know that they are [false]” without checking while claiming the Bible as your only source, would be comical if you didn't mean it.

Do you have "a vested interest in a certain point of view" so "will twist everything to serve it" ? Or are you incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff and so just don't bother with the evidence?

budaatum:
Uben has not asked you to believe, Ihedi. He provided you with facts for you to go check out yourself and the fact the you claim to "know enough history to know that they are [false]” without checking while claiming the Bible as your only source, would be comical if you didn't mean it.

Do you have "a vested interest in a certain point of view" so "will twist everything to serve it" ? Or are you incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff and so just don't bother with the evidence?

"Facts" for me to go check out myself? Pray tell, what made them facts? His say-so or yours?

I can imagine the attraction an atheist may have to a discussion about the authority of the Bible but, believe me, you really can't make any judgment calls here beyond the default atheistic stand that there is no "Word of God" since there is no God. All you will countenance here is anything that may help you shore up such an idea. Beyond that, you will not quite follow the argument.

As for my position, I make a point of duty to avoid complicating discussions unnecessarily because that is how readers are led astray. Science and history can be hard to follow and they are never really the point in these questions. The question here is: is the Bible we have today the actual Word of God? Or is it a fabrication that nobody should trust? If it is the Word of God, then it will not need a lesson in history to prove it so. If it isn't, then no amount of historical debate will make it so. The Word of God must of necessity be recognizable in itself. Or else, it will not be accessible to everyone.

Historical arguments come into play specifically to confuse the issue and make that truth seem like a lie. Of course, I can make one. I did years ago with this same crowd and they made a terrible hash of the discussion. If I repeat the experience here, what will happen will be a constant attack on the authorities each person presents ad infinitum ad absurdum.

That is why I went to the heart of the issue. Apart from the OP here, pretty much everybody else at least pays lip service to the authority of the Bible. That is why I insist on arguing on that common ground.

Ihedinobi3:

The Truth is the Bible. I don't offer that to people who don't want it. Even if I didn't mean that, even if I meant that I don't tell the truth of issues to those who don't want to hear it, it does not mean that I lie instead. It can mean that I simply don't talk to them (as I sometimes do with you).

However, the Truth there quite clearly referred to the Bible. And no one has yet successfully accused me of dishonesty around these parts. You, on the other hand, ooze with it.

I thought Jesus is THE Truth and the bible contains God's revelation, now it seems to u the bible is JESUS.

i will address ur posts later. this jumped out

Ubenedictus:
I thought Jesus is THE Truth and the bible contains God's revelation, now it seems to u the bible is JESUS.

i will address ur posts later. this jumped out

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me...
John 5:39 NASB

Ihedinobi3:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me...
John 5:39 NASB

They testify about him, i.e divine revelation, but THE truth is a person not a book.
You should know that

Ihedinobi3:

I went to check. It was just you and Ubenedictus then and you are just rehashing the same bad argument you were making then.

I had to go search on nl for the topic and it is funny.

We provided the church fathers direct quote on the topic and you presented a 21 century commentary of events that happened in the 1st 5 centuries. How did you imagine that a 21 century commentator will trump the very people he is commenting on?

I havent read bokenhoter, but u quoted him as saying primacy began in the 4th and 5th century, i immediate provided iraeneus from the 2nd century to show that he is incorrect...then u went about saying he is a catholic priest and historian as though that implies he is never wrong or that make him equal to the church fathers he is commenting on.

I also saw pastoraio there trying to prevent the thread from tumbling into pettiness.

Ubenedictus:
I had to go search on nl for the topic and it is funny.

We provided the church fathers direct quote on the topic and you presented a 21 century commentary of events that happened in the 1st 5 centuries. How did you imagine that a 21 century commentator will trump the very people he is commenting on?

I havent read bokenhoter, but u quoted him as saying primacy began in the 4th and 5th century, i immediate provided iraeneus from the 2nd century to show that he is incorrect...then u went about saying he is a catholic priest and historian as though that implies he is never wrong or that make him equal to the church fathers he is commenting on.

I also saw pastoraio there trying to prevent the thread from tumbling into pettiness.

It was PastorAIO you saw trying to prevent the thread from tumbling into pettiness? The same PastorAIO that you are double-teaming with here? I have wondered why you appear to have a kinship with an antichristian more than with others who confess the Lord Jesus even if in a different way than you do. But it was just my self-imposed naivete when I deal with people I want to be gentler with.

PastorAIO hates the Bible and everything to do with Christianity with a resoluteness. Yet, you think of him as some kind of a friend? For what reason other than his use of your church's claims to being the true church to attack other Christians? That, sir, is pathetic.

As for the arguments there, to be clear, I don't completely trust any sources the Vatican approves. The Roman Church has a narrative that was developed solely to solidify its claim of exclusive rights to Christ and God. Because of its unflinching commitment to this claim, it has altered history and the Bible itself to try to hold it up. I am certain of this. I have absolutely no doubt about this. It is a fact that I do not consider assailable at all. In other words, you will not succeed at persuading me otherwise.

I am also sure that I will never succeed at convincing you of the truth of that position. Just like atheism, buying into Roman Catholicism takes a deliberate decision to ignore any arguments or evidence to the contrary. It takes the very rare inquirer to actually accept the possibility that Roman Catholicism is a lie, a very deep and entrenched one too.

So, I insist on discussing with Romans on the Bible you claim to believe. You will reject every other authority that may even only seem to attack your favoured position. That is why Father Bokenkotter whose work was not proscribed by the Vatican, whose peers in the Roman Church acclaim him and who is a solid Roman Catholic historian (trained by the Church's own university too) is still not a reliable authority for you because he appears to confound something you cannot afford to doubt.

Why should I believe that what you claim Irenaeus wrote was really written by him if you are so obstinate as to reject even a contemporary Roman Catholic historian whose authority is not even in doubt? If it was, is it impossible that you are failing to understand it as it was meant to be understood? Historical contexts are after all considerably different than contemporary ones.

Furthermore, Irenaeus and others did not write in English. So you are relying on the interpretations of others to get at what he is saying. Do you have a good reason for trusting those others?

Finally, were the Church Fathers inspired? Were they infallible? These, of course, are bonus questions, considering that you believe papal decrees to be inspired and the Pope himself as well as the nebulous idea of the Church Romans have as infallible. Obviously, I do not hold these beliefs. I don't trust Irenaeus as much as I trust the Bible. And I don't believe that the Roman Church and the Pope are what they are claimed to be.

To be honest, Ubenedictus, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere fruitful. I continue to respond to you out of courtesy. I thought you had quit the conversation summarily before and then you returned. But there really is nothing left to be said. Your attacks on the Bible in order to prove that it is whatever the Roman Church says that it is only prove my point. And as long as you insist that the Bible is a creation of the Roman Church, my arguments for its independent authority amount to nothing with you. So, there is no point really. I am not going to believe you, no matter what materials you trot out of the Vatican. And you are not going to believe me no matter what Roman authority I appeal to.

I mark repeated mentions of my name yet nothing actually pertaining to the topic of the thread. A typical display of npd worthy of it's own thread one day.

Ubenedictus:
They testify about him, i.e divine revelation, but THE truth is a person not a book.
You should know that

Forgot this comment earlier.

There is no difference between The Truth and the Father's Witness to the Truth.

There are atleast 5 post here i am yet to respond to, i've been busy....

But i think you have created a strawman above and you are enjoying playing with your strawman. then you have mistakenly equated my post as a "vatican dogma". i wonder why you would do that.
I'll get around to your posts, just give me time.

Ihedinobi3:

Forgot this comment earlier.

There is no difference between The Truth and the Father's Witness to the Truth.

I really hope that by this you do NOT imply that Jesus is equal to the Bible, as though you are comparing a person to his word.

I hope you are not reducing the Logos of the eternal Father, consubstatial and equal to him, the very manifestation of his glory, power, presence in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily into the little revelation of the unspeakable God, all Holy God we have received in human words.
Because if you are equating the logos to the little of God he has put in human words and we call a Bible then you do God himself a great disservice and you abuse the Bible that you claim to defend.






That is nothing short of biblilatry, you have elevated the Bible beyond it's status as divine revelation and have made it equal to God himself. What next?

Ubenedictus:
I really hope that by this you do NOT imply that Jesus is equal to the Bible, as though you are comparing a person to his word.

I hope you are not reducing the Logos of the eternal Father, consubstatial and equal to him, the very manifestation of his glory, power, presence in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily into the little revelation of the unspeakable God, all Holy God we have received in human words.
Because if you are equating the logos to the little of God he has put in human words and we call a Bible then you do God himself a great disservice and you abuse the Bible that you claim to defend.






That is nothing short of biblilatry, you have elevated the Bible beyond it's status as divine revelation and have made it equal to God himself. What next?

And right there you make the antichristian's argument for him.

Call it what you will. The Bible is the written Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God Himself. There is neither reducing nor elevating happening.

Ihedinobi3:

And right there you make the antichristian's argument for him.

Call it what you will. The Bible is the written Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God Himself. There is neither reducing nor elevating happening.

But the Bible is not God. Or is it?

Have we finally moved on to a Quarternity?

budaatum:

But the Bible is not God. Or is it?

Have we finally moved on to a Quarternity?

I don't know why you guys are still feeding the troll. I think I couldn't have asked for more after he said jesus was the same as the bible.

It might shock you to believe this but he is not the only one. It only remain as to which translation is the real jesus.

Ihedinobi3:

I think you are still failing to appreciate my position.

I don't believe your historical arguments because they are false. I know enough history to know that they are. But I fully understand that when people have a vested interest in a certain point of view, they will twist everything to serve it. That is why I don't care much for your references and sources.

Just to demonstrate to you that I am not inept with such things: my approach to attacking what I consider as false ideas is to research the point of view of those who hold it and then expose the weaknesses from within. That is why I actually know quite a bit about Roman Catholic history. I used to attack it. You should remember. I do. From 2012/2013. One of my sources then was "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter, a Roman Catholic Priest. You and italo, I believe, attacked the authenticity and reliability of that source and tried to invalidate the authority of the author. I am not sure now if Syncan was part of that discussion or not. But I think Pa Chukwudi 44 was also there then.

Then it is a good thing that what I presented so far are not particularly Roman Catholic beliefs nor do much of it constitute some official Roman catholic position.

Maybe you didn't notice but the first issue pastoraio raised as his historical point was the Septuagint the Greek translation of the old testament. He presented it as the scripture of the early church and I agreed with him that the church used it over and above the Hebrew scripture of the period and I went on to show that the early church from the time of Justin martyr believed the Jew were corrupting the scriptures to remove allusions to Jesus... Something that is pretty obvious in the masoretic text you so enjoy and love. In fact I presented I link that shows that Stephen who was a Jew when he was been killed by the Jews in the book of acts quoted a potion of scripture which today can't even be found in the masoretic text the present jews use.

What you did not notice is that the Roman church has no horse in that race.... The Roman church does NOT use the Septuagint since the 4th-6th centuries we have been using the Vulgate... So I have no reason to defend the Septuagint... No "vested interest ". For 1500years my church has used the Vulgate not the septuagint. The only person who would have such vested interest is a Greek orthodox Christian, they are the guys who still use the Septuagint as a official translation.

This is why I encourage you to check again everything I wrote and see if any of those points is untrue.


Funny enough you mentioned bokenhotter, a priest who presents history as a big bad church just learning to be good and actually promotes liberation theology and the like while shading pope Johnpaul as some bad guy. Maybe that should tell you that the church does not busy itself policing the academic work of priest. You seem to wonder why I will question the authority of a guy who puts a contradictory spin on the works he claims to comment on.

I am not afraid at all of your "material". If something is untrue, it caves in time under pressure. I just don't really care to attack Roman beliefs anymore. You will also notice that I don't attack atheism anymore either. I just defend against it. That is what I have been doing here too. When you joined PastorAIO, then I had to defend against Roman beliefs as well.

I am not presenting Roman Catholic beliefs, these are historical issues that anyone can verify, be they Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran or if your church had such scholars they too will tell you that the early church adopted the Septuagint, that the church recognised scripture ETc. If what I wrote is untrue present contrary evidence, is the new testament not filled with a large percentage of quotes from the Septuagint, did the early church not adopt it etc. You can't just hide behind your preconceived notions and say I am talking trash and the historical points pastoraio raised and I supported are untrue. That just doesn't work

So, in short, I know the material here about as well as any average person needs to since I am not a historian. But that is really beside the point. The point is just that I know that it is obviously ludicrous that any group of humans can have the authority to decide what comes from God and what doesn't when God Himself created each human being with the ability to discern not only His Existence but His Nature. Just thinking about it is enough to show its ridiculousness.

first of all, I do not believe that the church decided what is inspired... That opinion is considered an error should a catholic hold such, I I do believe that the church, that community of believers Jesus Christ established, and gave authority to and promised his ever presence, that same church which settled issues in act 15 against all contradicting opinions I believe that same church still had authority 400years later,
still had the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit and that promised ever presence still holds good 400 years later to recognize what constitutes scripture and still had the same authority as act 15 to enforce that truth. You on the otherhand seem to imply that Jesus didn't form his church or she didn't receive his spirit to guide her through all history or she doesn't have authority or Christ lied about his ever presence.... Only then will you tell me that each Christian is the arbiter of what constitutes scripture based on a non descript feature he alone sees. Your opinion to me does sound ridiculous which is why I have asked you why Luther a protestant like you is sure James is an epistle of straw and you disagree, yet you agree with him that Tobit is not scripture even as Catholics and orthodox disagrees. Did Christ create his church without the ability to resolve disputes and disagreements?

But then the Bible itself makes it clear that it is inspired by God and that the Existence and attributes of God are manifest to all so that anyone who reads the Bible with an honest heart will admit that they are reading the Very Mind of God.

and I ask which bible makes that claim? Because so much of what we know as scripture hadn't yet been written, there was no bible as we have it now, so which bible says so.

But why would a group hankering after power over all human beings ever admit anything that threatens that power?

this must be because you consider the church as hankering over power. I have to ask you this question though, did Jesus not give the church power over human beings? You seem to imply having power is some bad thing.

I can hear scripture ringing in my head as Jesus addresses his church, he who hears you hears me, if there is a problem report to the church, what you bind on earth is bound in heaven what you lose is... What ever sin you forgive is forgiven... I give you the keys..., Paul says don't take a brother to court for judgement take him to the church... Act 15 the church exercise power over Christians... In fact the church is sent to all human beings.... Why should she not desire to go to all humans? Why should she not exercise her God giving authority in the world?

I certainly don't get your critique of the churchs power. She does have power, she should exercise it and she is sent to all humans, this fact has not stopped the church from admitting when ministers use power wrongly or abuse their authority or overstep, that may challenge the church power but sincerely the church doesn't care that it power may be challenged, that power is guaranteed by God who conferred it through Jesus Christ.

If there is something you think I have not addressed or where you think I am wrong, bring it forward instead of looking for excuses to discredit the church.

Ihedinobi3:

And right there you make the antichristian's argument for him.

Call it what you will. The Bible is the written Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God Himself. There is neither reducing nor elevating happening.

that he may be antichristian as you call him doesn't imply all he says is wrong. When you equate the written word In the bible to God himself made incarnate, you already showed you are guilty of the biblilatry he talked about. What next worshipping the Bible since it is now God's equal? I don't think you understand the full import of what you are implying.

budaatum:

But the Bible is not God. Or is it?

Have we finally moved on to a Quarternity?

here is what I wanted to ask him.... Is the bible now God?

budaatum:

But the Bible is not God. Or is it?

Have we finally moved on to a Quarternity?

Why would you need a Quarternity here? What is the substantive difference between the Written Word and the Word Himself?

PastorAIO:


I don't know why you guys are still feeding the troll. I think I couldn't have asked for more after he said jesus was the same as the bible.

It might shock you to believe this but he is not the only one. It only remain as to which translation is the real jesus.

Oh, I know he's not the only one. I'm in conversation with one who's asking me to agree that the host is Christ!

It's amazing how easy it is to forget despite being clearly stated that, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Ihedinobi3:

I was phrasing it the way Jews say it, sorry about the confusion. The Jews use the word "holy" in that sense as well. But the point made in my comment was that they too act with arrogance toward the Bible pretending to decide what is accurate in it and what isn't, that is, what is to be received as authentic and true and what is not to be.

Again that isn't about arrogance, God inspired members of the community to pen down his word for his community and through her to the world, as far as the old covenant lasted it was the duty of the Israelites to recognize that which is scripture and hold it above the mundane and it seemed they were attentive to this responsibility, I guess you would prefer each Jew to decide for himself which is inspired instead of the community.

This brings out what I believe is the background of your argument thus far which is the individualism of the modern protestant sects. The insistence by individuals that they possess the truth over and above the community.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on this and I don't believe there is any actual discussion possible in this matter. I am confident that no human community has ever had any responsibility of any sort to decide (I'm sure that that was the word you should have used) which books are inspired and which are not. I am only to take your word for it that there has ever been any such community. And I don't trust you that much.

I don't take kindly to you deciding for me what word I should use. The church didn't recognize scriptures and recognize is the correct term to use not decide. Those works were already inspired, the church didn't decide that they are, she recognized them for what they are : God's word.

If the church as a body in council doesn't have any right to produce a canon then why do you assume that each individual Christian should...? Besides the church isn't just some human organisation it is the body of Christ.

The Bible was written by inspired men, all of whom were incidentally Jewish. I have no doubt of that. What I will not accept because I have no real reason to accept it is that the Roman Church had any authority or power to "recognize" the Scripture.

Actually I have not made any case about the authority of the ROMAN church to recognize scriptures, you created that strawman yourself and you now enjoy playing with it, I could have made it but I certainly didn't because historically it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the Roman church that did.

The important councils of note are those of hippo, Carthage and Constantinople, non of those councils were held by the Roman church, hippo and Carthage are councils for the church in Africa AKA the church of Alexandria, Constantinople is an ecumenical council that adopted the council of Carthage for the entire church. Of course the Roman church played a role but the recognition isn't just a Roman church thing it is the entire church.

If you hold that it falls on each individual to discern for himself what is scripture as you have consistently said, then it seems weird and inconsistent that you think it is wrong for Roman church to make the same discernment.

What's with all this "dear"? Do you have a problem typing my name or using a more formal epithet? Please, cease addressing me in that manner.

actually I was trying to avoid using "sir" which is rather patronising but since dear displeases you I will avoid it

As for your argument here, Paul often quoted pagan poets and philosophers. Should we enshrine those works as inspired Scripture too and put them in a Canon? I told you that this line of reasoning is unimpressive. It still is.

actually it is still impressive, Paul never quotes those authors as scripture the way he consistently quoted the Septuagint as scripture over and above the Hebrew which he certainly knew rendered those passages differently.

I won't even bother to explain again how this is a ridiculous argument.

clearly you have no response and this is an unfortunate ruse to hide that.

A church claims to have the authority to tell everyone just what is the Word of God and what isn't and you ask me what about it that pains me so? Very funny.

on the other hand you believe everyone can decide for himself what is or isn't the word of God...how does that sound, the church can't tell what is God's word but any other person can..... Can't you perceive the stink of your bias?

As for your response, I guessed right after all, didn't I? Anyway, I take all my information about church history from the Bible. Every other source is treated very delicately. Therefore, I can't credit your claims here either.

eusebius isn't a Roman church historian either... He is simply an Early church historian and you don't need the Vatican to tell you that, you could go check any church that can trace it history to that period, whether its the orthodox churches or the oriental... The reference the the Vatican achives is a joke in bad taste.

I think that you know that your argument here is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, if there is just one theme running through multiple writings, they are one subject. It is not always practicable to put one work in a single volume so we may have them in several but they are still considered of one unit. The Bible is one unit so its multiple books will all fit with each other to produce a consistent narrative.

if you wish call it one unit I'll grant you that but I'll certainly not accept your earlier statement that it is one book.

As for the inspiration of Scriptures, I have little interest in responding to deliberate obtuseness. I have already explained on this thread that just as you can tell whether a given bit of literature was written by someone is to look at them or things they have done for clues into their nature, you can look at Creation which itself demonstrates the Nature of God. If anyone accepts the witness of Creation as to what God is like, they will be able to discern His Character in His Writings.

yes you said this before, you just haven't Managed to answer how an easily seen feature is not so easily seen. And why the feature you or Luther of some other person claims to see should be held over and above that which the church in antiquity saw?

This life is all about free will.



Free will is the explanation you want.



LOL. The thing your opponent does not want to address is always the thing with which you win. What's new about that? I don't want to discuss history, Ubenedictus, because it misses the point.



You're welcome to disagree all you want. The Bible says what it says. And if your belief that it is inspired does not derive from its own claim to be, it is that much less surprising that you think any human being has any right to decide what God says and what He doesn't.



You are the one saying that each man is the determiner of truth. That only comes from your insistence that it is men who decide what is true and what isn't. You only prefer to have more people making the decision than less. I hold no such sentiments.

I believe rather that the Bible is the Truth independent of any human notions about it. And I hold that each human being is able to tell for themselves whether or not this is so. That is why we each have a free will and why we each have the senses and brains that we have. I have never much liked "faith by committee" too.



Like I said, free will.



Did that merit a counter argument?



LOL


Asked and answered.



You're welcome to your belief however wrong it may be.



Unity in error is not much better than chaos. Even so, any study in Roman Catholic history will uncover enough reversals in interpretation as to leave one spinning. So, no, even if you are all standing together, you are not necessarily all agreed.



I don't see it the same way you do.



If Tobit is, none of the 66 books that Protestants accept is. Go figure.

PastorAIO:




Without a doubt you would fall into the category of 'those who don't want it', Uben, so you can safely assume that he has been nothing but untruthful since he took you for such.

lol

budaatum:

Oh, I know he's not the only one. I'm in conversation with one who's asking me to agree that the host is Christ!

It's amazing how easy it is to forget despite being clearly stated that, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

this only makes me wonder how you interpret the last supper narrative

Ubenedictus:
this only makes me wonder how you interpret the last supper narrative

see here.

Ubenedictus:


Then it is a good thing that what I presented so far are not particularly Roman Catholic beliefs nor do much of it constitute some official Roman catholic position.

This is obviously untrue. It is a Roman position that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic. It is also a Roman position that the Bible was compiled by the Roman Church. You have said these things yourself even, so your claim here is curious at best.

Ubenedictus:
Maybe you didn't notice but the first issue pastoraio raised as his historical point was the Septuagint the Greek translation of the old testament. He presented it as the scripture of the early church and I agreed with him that the church used it over and above the Hebrew scripture of the period and I went on to show that the early church from the time of Justin martyr believed the Jew were corrupting the scriptures to remove allusions to Jesus... Something that is pretty obvious in the masoretic text you so enjoy and love. In fact I presented I link that shows that Stephen who was a Jew when he was been killed by the Jews in the book of acts quoted a potion of scripture which today can't even be found in the masoretic text the present jews use.

That historical argument did not interest me nearly as much as his overall claim that the Bible we have today is nothing like what existed prior to the Septuagint. My response was that, of course, the Bible that existed prior was preserved in spite of the Septuagint in Hebrew texts and manuscripts and was finally transmitted very near perfection down to us in the Masoretic. That is, the Masoretic was no retranslation back into Hebrew from the Greek as he claimed.

It was that focus on the lie that the original Scriptures are extinct that led to all of this. Obviously, the Septuagint existed side by side with preserved Hebrew originals. Given also that the Septuagint was notoriously problematic, every Jewish teacher used it only as far as it was correct when they taught. Otherwise, they translated straight from the Hebrew into whatever language they were teaching in.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time so the Septuagint was widely known and used but it was also known to be problematic so it was not used alone. Existing Hebrew manuscripts and personal translations were used when the errors were encountered in teaching. These are things I have said before.

Ubenedictus:
What you did not notice is that the Roman church has no horse in that race.... The Roman church does NOT use the Septuagint since the 4th-6th centuries we have been using the Vulgate... So I have no reason to defend the Septuagint... No "vested interest ". For 1500years my church has used the Vulgate not the septuagint. The only person who would have such vested interest is a Greek orthodox Christian, they are the guys who still use the Septuagint as a official translation.

This is why I encourage you to check again everything I wrote and see if any of those points is untrue.

You do have a dog in the fight. You have a vested interest in opposing the Masoretic Text because it is accepted by the Jews with whom you have never been at peace.

Ubenedictus:
Funny enough you mentioned bokenhotter, a priest who presents history as a big bad church just learning to be good and actually promotes liberation theology and the like while shading pope Johnpaul as some bad guy. Maybe that should tell you that the church does not busy itself policing the academic work of priest. You seem to wonder why I will question the authority of a guy who puts a contradictory spin on the works he claims to comment on.

If you have an argument against Bokenkotter's authority as a historian, present it clearly.

Ubenedictus:
I am not presenting Roman Catholic beliefs, these are historical issues that anyone can verify, be they Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran or if your church had such scholars they too will tell you that the early church adopted the Septuagint, that the church recognised scripture ETc. If what I wrote is untrue present contrary evidence, is the new testament not filled with a large percentage of quotes from the Septuagint, did the early church not adopt it etc. You can't just hide behind your preconceived notions and say I am talking trash and the historical points pastoraio raised and I supported are untrue. That just doesn't work

There's that double team I spoke of.

I am not interested in debating history with you or PastorAIO, Ubenedictus. I have stated my reasons. If it wasn't for his pretence to authority on the Bible, PastorAIO would have not argued with me beyond the point where I exited any debates about history. My sole interest is that the Bible IS the Word of God and is recognizable as such by anyone who reads it honestly. Historical debates are worth exactly nothing for recognizing the Word of God. They are merely entertaining.

Ubenedictus:
first of all, I do not believe that the church decided what is inspired... That opinion is considered an error should a catholic hold such, I I do believe that the church, that community of believers Jesus Christ established, and gave authority to and promised his ever presence, that same church which settled issues in act 15 against all contradicting opinions I believe that same church still had authority 400years later,
still had the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit and that promised ever presence still holds good 400 years later to recognize what constitutes scripture and still had the same authority as act 15 to enforce that truth. You on the otherhand seem to imply that Jesus didn't form his church or she didn't receive his spirit to guide her through all history or she doesn't have authority or Christ lied about his ever presence.... Only then will you tell me that each Christian is the arbiter of what constitutes scripture based on a non descript feature he alone sees. Your opinion to me does sound ridiculous which is why I have asked you why Luther a protestant like you is sure James is an epistle of straw and you disagree, yet you agree with him that Tobit is not scripture even as Catholics and orthodox disagrees. Did Christ create his church without the ability to resolve disputes and disagreements?

1. When you say "recognize what constitutes Scripture", is this anything different than deciding what is Scripture and what isn't Scripture? My point is that God wrote the Bible and He left His Signature on it, that is, His Essence so that anyone who wishes to can recognize it for what it is: His Word. You are insisting that somehow it is the Roman Church alone which possesses the ability to tell what and what is Scripture and what and what isn't.

2. You are coopting plenty from the Bible. Nonetheless, there is nothing in Acts 15 to suggest that a council has the power to decide what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't. Not only are there clear signs of human imperfection on the part of the brethren in that story, there is also no indication whatsoever that we must follow that example ever. If we are to simply repeat everything that the Bible records believers doing in the Bible without thought as to which actions were right and which wrong, we would soon find ourselves in hardened disobedience to God. For example, if we treat each other the way that Job's believing friends treated him just because the Bible records that they did, we would soon find ourselves under discipline from God like they too did.

3. Since it seems in doubt, let me state explicitly that I completely believe that the Lord Jesus called out and is today still calling out His Church which is solidly founded and established on Himself and the Sublime Work that He did in sacrificing Himself on the Cross for our sins. I also believe without a doubt that every believer in the Lord Jesus regardless what their cultural heritage or language or even their pet foibles and serious failures is this Church. I believe without a doubt that The Church as a whole is invisible and spiritual, that it is visible only when two or more believers are together. I believe that no denomination including the Roman Church is the true church, rather that each is a mixed multitude not necessarily concerned with Jesus Christ and the Truth that about Him but may in fact (as is actually true in a depressing number) be actively opposed to Him.

3. As to my claim for identifying Scripture, my actual claim is that every inspired Scripture by definition contains the Essence of God which is apparent to every human being who is willing to recognize it. It is no more nondescript than the personality or character of a writer discernible in their work.

4. The Church does not exist to negate free will. Each believer is completely free by God's Own Will to decide things for themselves. Their responsibility is to God, not to any person or institution. That means too that they are free to acknowledge Scripture when and where they encounter it or to deny it. Luther and I are not responsible to agree for the sake of agreement. We are responsible to agree with each other in the Truth alone and to maintain our loyalty to that alone. If either of us chooses to deny the Truth in any particular, the other is not responsible to either join the one or to force them into subservience in that particular. Their disobedience is a matter between them and their Lord. Where necessary and proper, the other may warn or rebuke. Otherwise, we are responsible to mind our own business and be careful to personally walk right with the Lord.

Ubenedictus:
this must be because you consider the church as hankering over power. I have to ask you this question though, did Jesus not give the church power over human beings? You seem to imply having power is some bad thing.

I can hear scripture ringing in my head as Jesus addresses his church, he who hears you hears me, if there is a problem report to the church, what you bind on earth is bound in heaven what you lose is... What ever sin you forgive is forgiven... I give you the keys..., Paul says don't take a brother to court for judgement take him to the church... Act 15 the church exercise power over Christians... In fact the church is sent to all human beings.... Why should she not desire to go to all humans? Why should she not exercise her God giving authority in the world?

I certainly don't get your critique of the churchs power. She does have power, she should exercise it and she is sent to all humans, this fact has not stopped the church from admitting when ministers use power wrongly or abuse their authority or overstep, that may challenge the church power but sincerely the church doesn't care that it power may be challenged, that power is guaranteed by God who conferred it through Jesus Christ.

If there is something you think I have not addressed or where you think I am wrong, bring it forward instead of looking for excuses to discredit the church.

Well, at least, you didn't deny it. That would have been easier to dismiss. This other thing you have done is just the same as what I have had to be doing in this conversation: presenting knots for me to unravel.

Obviously, this is not at all what the Bible teaches.

The Lord Jesus - and later Paul - essentially taught us to stand together as one Family in the world. That was the whole point of everything that they said.

To put it simply, the world is a very hostile place to faith in Jesus Christ. If that is not a reason for Christians to support and help each other, I don't know what is.

But Christians too are sinful people. Our sin natures remain even after we have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ. So, we often stumble and in many cases cause harm to each other for any number of reasons. As one Family surrounded by enemies who will not rest until they have either seduced us away from the Faith or until they have killed us - if God could be persuaded to let them -, it is only for our security that we settle our problems with each other amongst our own selves.

Even so, nobody is compelled to yield to the instructions of the teachers who shepherd the churches. So, when the teachings and judgments of the pastor-teacher are rejected, there is no pressure brought on the dissident to conform. Thus, there is no power exercised over fellow believers in the manner that you have described. Whenever there is dissidence, focus on the Truth on the part of the pastor-teacher has often been demonstrated to be enough to make the dissident break fellowship and leave the church.

Finally, as Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 5, the church has no business seeking to correct or judge unbelievers who are not interested in the Truth at all. So, the idea of seeking to rule over unbelievers at this time is clearly unscriptural in the extreme.

Ubenedictus:
that he may be antichristian as you call him doesn't imply all he says is wrong. When you equate the written word In the bible to God himself made incarnate, you already showed you are guilty of the biblilatry he talked about. What next worshipping the Bible since it is now God's equal? I don't think you understand the full import of what you are implying.

I have not said that he never says anything right. I have just pointed out how you are always somehow on the same side as him including when he is not just wrong but willfully and dangerously so. I consider it a very telling thing.

Actually I fully understand what I am saying but I hope that you do not understand what you yourself are doing.

Let me describe how ridiculous your incredulity is:

Do you consider there to be any difference between my posts and myself? Do you think of my relationship to them as one where I am greater than or on the same level as them?

Ubenedictus:
Again that isn't about arrogance, God inspired members of the community to pen down his word for his community and through her to the world, as far as the old covenant lasted it was the duty of the Israelites to recognize that which is scripture and hold it above the mundane and it seemed they were attentive to this responsibility, I guess you would prefer each Jew to decide for himself which is inspired instead of the community.

This brings out what I believe is the background of your argument thus far which is the individualism of the modern protestant sects. The insistence by individuals that they possess the truth over and above the community.

No, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't agree that it is arrogance that the Jews would claim some kind of right to decide if Daniel whether in whole or in part is accurate just because of the prophecies about the Messiah that make it unmistakable that the true King of Israel was and is Jesus Christ, the Man they crucified and whose followers they zealously persecuted.

Ubenedictus:
I don't take kindly to you deciding for me what word I should use. The church didn't recognize scriptures and recognize is the correct term to use not decide. Those works were already inspired, the church didn't decide that they are, she recognized them for what they are : God's word.

Well, that was the point. When she recognizes writings that were not inspired at all, is that a decision or not? Just like I believe that you would consider it a decision when anybody claims to recognize no inspiration in the Apocrypha.

Ubenedictus:
If the church as a body in council doesn't have any right to produce a canon then why do you assume that each individual Christian should...? Besides the church isn't just some human organisation it is the body of Christ.

Groups of individuals do not possess free will. Free will is a trait that is possessed by and is only operational in individuals. That is why it is an individual matter, not a group affair.

Ubenedictus:
Actually I have not made any case about the authority of the ROMAN church to recognize scriptures, you created that strawman yourself and you now enjoy playing with it, I could have made it but I certainly didn't because historically it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH not just the Roman church that did.

No Church did any such thing. The Scriptures have always spoken for themselves.

Ubenedictus:
The important councils of note are those of hippo, Carthage and Constantinople, non of those councils were held by the Roman church, hippo and Carthage are councils for the church in Africa AKA the church of Alexandria, Constantinople is an ecumenical council that adopted the council of Carthage for the entire church. Of course the Roman church played a role but the recognition isn't just a Roman church thing it is the entire church.

If you hold that it falls on each individual to discern for himself what is scripture as you have consistently said, then it seems weird and inconsistent that you think it is wrong for Roman church to make the same discernment.

Asked and answered.

Ubenedictus:
actually I was trying to avoid using "sir" which is rather patronising but since dear displeases you I will avoid it

Thank you, Ubenedictus. I deeply appreciate it.

Ubenedictus:
actually it is still impressive, Paul never quotes those authors as scripture the way he consistently quoted the Septuagint as scripture over and above the Hebrew which he certainly knew rendered those passages differently.

Refer to my other response. As for the Hebrew rendering those passages differently, that is quite obviously not true. His reason for quoting the Septuagint is the same reason why trained pastor-teachers today simply quote translations of the Bible that they have when they are correct or when they render the meaning in a way that is perfect for their purposes rather than simply translate every single passage they call up.

Ubenedictus:
clearly you have no response and this is an unfortunate ruse to hide that.

You are free to believe whatever you want. I'm just tired of repeating myself. Besides it is not necessary as demonstrated by your argument about Jews differing in what was Scripture and what wasn't: you answered your own self later.

Ubenedictus:
on the other hand you believe everyone can decide for himself what is or isn't the word of God...how does that sound, the church can't tell what is God's word but any other person can..... Can't you perceive the stink of your bias?

Clearly not. The church you keep talking of is not a person. It is a group of persons. Corporately, it does not possess what persons possess which makes them able to do stuff like this as I have already explained in another response.

Ubenedictus:
eusebius isn't a Roman church historian either... He is simply an Early church historian and you don't need the Vatican to tell you that, you could go check any church that can trace it history to that period, whether its the orthodox churches or the oriental... The reference the the Vatican achives is a joke in bad taste.

It was not a joke at all.

Ubenedictus:
if you wish call it one unit I'll grant you that but I'll certainly not accept your earlier statement that it is one book.

What's the big difference?

Ubenedictus:
yes you said this before, you just haven't Managed to answer how an easily seen feature is not so easily seen. And why the feature you or Luther of some other person claims to see should be held over and above that which the church in antiquity saw?

Answered several times already.

To be sincere ihe, i think the OP has gat you where he needs you.

The problem with pastoraio's arguments is that his conclusions does not follow from his premise...the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God irrespective of the fact that God used men to pen it, it lived in God's community, it was translated, it was recognised by Israel and the church etc.... These premise DO NOT affect the inspiration or inerrancy of the bible. I expected you to make that argument.
But your first post was to challenge his premise including those that are rock solid and sorry that is the weakest defence you could have offered, much of his premise can be verified and just attacking them put u in a position that seem ignorant. You recoup about a feature visible to all as i showed is just as unimpressive.

If you know what i believe as regard the divine authorship, authority and inerrancy of the bible u will be suprised at how much our conclusion agree, but the route u took i certainly cant support.
I'll respond later.

Ihedinobi3:


Free will is the explanation you want.



LOL. The thing your opponent does not want to address is always the thing with which you win. What's new about that? I don't want to discuss history, Ubenedictus, because it misses the point.



You're welcome to disagree all you want. The Bible says what it says. And if your belief that it is inspired does not derive from its own claim to be, it is that much less surprising that you think any human being has any right to decide what God says and what He doesn't.



You are the one saying that each man is the determiner of truth. That only comes from your insistence that it is men who decide what is true and what isn't. You only prefer to have more people making the decision than less. I hold no such sentiments.

no ihe, you raised the issue of personal, individual discernment based upon some unknown criteria, I on the other hand hold that the church is the right authority to do that discernment and that she did about 1600 years ago .

I believe rather that the Bible is the Truth independent of any human notions about it. And I hold that each human being is able to tell for themselves whether or not this is so. That is why we each have a free will and why we each have the senses and brains that we have. I have never much liked "faith by committee" too.

I on the other hand will say the Bible contains God's word, I'll be truthful enough to admit it didn't fall from the sky, that men were inspired to write it, the community of God's people was guided by God to recognize it as God's word, scribes copied it and sometimes made mistakes in rendering it, people edited it to get what was believed to be the true sense according to the editor, some amended some missing part, it even had variant reading in some places etc.

Sometimes many had different ideas as to what books should be there and I believe the church has authority to settle those issues.

Like I said, free will.



Did that merit a counter argument?



LOL


Asked and answered.



You're welcome to your belief however wrong it may be.

Lol

Unity in error is not much better than chaos. Even so, any study in Roman Catholic history will uncover enough reversals in interpretation as to leave one spinning. So, no, even if you are all standing together, you are not necessarily all agreed.

You think the same church Christ Jesus promised to be with for all times and the gate of hell will not prevail against will be united in error?

I don't see it the same way you do.



If Tobit is, none of the 66 books that Protestants accept is. Go figure.

then you don't understand what the 66 books you accept teach, because Tobit is in tandem with them.