The Bible can it be trusted?

[mica]

The Bible say so. I just posted verbatim the words used by St. Paul.

And I reject her opinion. The Catholic Church has arrived at it's theological outlook with the assent of the whole Church through hundreds upon hundreds of years. First with the ECF's, then with all the Bishop's who followed them, and then with all the theologians who also weighed in. The "men" whom you folks constantly bring up are actually those who arrived on the scene in the 15th century who suddenly decided things for themselves, and I say they are the men and what they put forth whom you both follow as you live out your relationship with God.

who here is constantly bringing up men who 'arrived on the scene' in the 15th century? are you missing books from the 1st century in your catholic bible?

I agree that there is no problem with men calling other men father as the scriptures so clearly point out, even if the word "Holy" precedes the name. This has to be kept in the proper context and that context is that one should not see any other man as God the Father and there is no orthodox believing Christian (Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) that does so.

since when do catholics read or keep anything in scripture in its proper context? they don't. I don't think I've ever seen that happen in a catholic post on here.

catholics do. that'd be their popes, magisterium men, priests, bishops etc. who is it that catholics claim has infallibility? the one they call 'holy father', and they aren't talking about God.

Those whose words they believe instead of the words of God Himself.

 

[Theophilos]

You've shot down your claim with that statement. There is no indication that the canons of Greek speaking and Aramaic speaking Jews were different. But even if we suppose for the sake of argument that there was a difference then why couldn't the mythological Papal church agree on what that canon was? It is no secret that different canons were in use and sanctioned in the one church of the Roman Empire.

They were used because the translation was in their language. A person doesn't read Bel And The Dragon, Daniel chapter fourteen in the LXX, to verify what Paul said of Moses from the Exodus or Deuteronomy.

The Greek speaking Gentiles were among the first Gentiles to receive Jesus. Trent formally recognized as canonical some of the books used by Greek speaking Gentiles of the undivided Church of the Roman Empire.

There is no indication of a unified Jewish canon until centuries after the time of the apostles.

The modern Hebrew canon appears to be based on the traditions of the Pharisees. What does the New Testament have to say about the Pharisees compared to the Bereans and Timothy's family?

The Greek Old Testament with a larger canon has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the Bereans. It is the original Christian Bible and predates a complete New Testament by several centuries.

 

[balshan]

Sola Scriptura is workable-----when the Church is the divinely authorized teacher as it is in Catholicism.

Sola Scriptura as it is in Protestantism is not workable because in Protestantism everyone is essentially their own pope.

Note that it is misrepresentation of the Catholic position to suggest that the meaning of Scripture is unclear. Catholics are not claiming that the Scriptures are unintelligible without the Church. We are claiming that the Church is the divinely authorized teacher; Scripture is analogous to a divine text book.

I agree with everything above.

You are assuming that the RCC teaches worldly wisdom and man made teachings.

Yep when you church is divinely authorized tell me, it isn', its actions shout it from the roof tops we are not divinely authorized because we wallow in sin. God clearly tells us and I have posted the scriptures we can interpret it for ourselves, it is not difficult.

You claim it is not workable because it shows the false teachings of you institution.

The RCC does teach worldly wisdom and man made teachings. In fact, we have had an RCC posting that prayers to the saints come from looking at the world and ancestor worship.

 

[Maxtar]

who here is constantly bringing up men who 'arrived on the scene' in the 15th century?

I am. They are the men whom you look to for your theological outlook. Of course, they differ from one another and thus the many different sects that they spawned - but you take your beliefs from them and how they interpreted the scriptures.

since when do catholics read or keep anything in scripture in its proper context?

I just pointed out the proper context of what Jesus meant by not calling men Father - to not look at another man as God the Father. Now who is right, Jesus or St. Paul who clearly sees things differently on this issue than the Lord?

 

[mica]

I am. They are the men whom you look to for your theological outlook. Of course, they differ from one another and thus the many different sects that they spawned - but you take your beliefs from them and how they interpreted the scriptures.

I just pointed out the proper context of what Jesus meant by not calling men Father - to not look at another man as God the Father. Now who is right, Jesus or St. Paul who clearly sees things differently on this issue than the Lord?

nope. open up your bible to the NT books and that's where you'll find the men believers read, study and believe - the words they were taught by Jesus Himself. not false teachers like found in the RCC.

catholics know nothing of the context. What the RCC teaches you is not in context.

that is exactly what catholics do - 'holy father', father Joe, john, frank or whatever. The RCC has taught you to do that.

 

[BJ Bear]

There is no indication of a unified Jewish canon until centuries after the time of the apostles.

I don't think there was any confusion or doubt as to which books Jesus was referring to when He used the shorthand expression the law and the prophets. At least there is no confusion or doubt expressed in Scripture or a contemporary external account of which I am aware. Do you know of one?

The modern Hebrew canon appears to be based on the traditions of the Pharisees. What does the New Testament have to say about the Pharisees compared to the Bereans and Timothy's family?

The right measure is what Scripture says about Scripture rather than about people. For example, in addition to there being no confusion and no explanation necessary among the Jews regarding the law and the prophets, Paul didn't find it necessary to explain the virtue of one OT Canon over another to the Gentiles. That sounds like a set canon to me.

Maybe you can refresh my memory, weren't they still using scrolls at that time? If so then the expression LXX refers to a collection of translations rather than a canon or "book." This would explain the inability of the undivided Church of Rome to definitively determine an OT canon from the LXX. That inability is also an indicator of the dominance of local tradition rather than the myth of a centralized tradition emanating from Rome.

On the other hand, if one tries to look at the matter from the perspective of what Scripture says about people then is there a negative statement regarding the Pharisees and the canon? I don't remember one. Nor is there a positive statement regarding the Bereans and Timothy and the canon. At least not one that I recall.

The Greek Old Testament with a larger canon has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the Bereans.

That is a revision of verifiable history. There wouldn't have been and still are multiple OT canons among the Greek speakers of the Roman Empire if there was something like a recognized first century Greek OT canon.

It is the original Christian Bible and predates a complete New Testament by several centuries.

A change in language doesn't indicate a change in religion. The *disciples* were first called Christians, a Greek word derived from xristos which means annointed, by the Greek speakers at Antioch, see Acts 11:26.

 

[1Thess521]

There is no indication of a unified Jewish canon until centuries after the time of the apostles.

Got it: not EVERY Jew agreed: that does NOT mean they thought Sirach was inspired

The modern Hebrew canon appears to be based on the traditions of the Pharisees. What does the New Testament have to say about the Pharisees compared to the Bereans and Timothy's family?

Which just happened to agree with collection of Sacred Scrolls in God's Holy Temple

The Greek Old Testament with a larger canon has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the Bereans. It is the original Christian Bible and predates a complete New Testament by several centuries.

Got it: you have a lower standard


. "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:]
-FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

 

[1Thess521]

There is no indication of a unified Jewish canon until centuries after the time of the apostles.

The modern Hebrew canon appears to be based on the traditions of the Pharisees. What does the New Testament have to say about the Pharisees compared to the Bereans and Timothy's family?

The Greek Old Testament with a larger canon has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the Bereans. It is the original Christian Bible and predates a complete New Testament by several centuries.

show us any proof you have Timothy or the Bereans thought Sirach or 4 Maccabees were inspired

 

[balshan]

show us any proof you have Timothy or the Bereans thought Sirach or 4 Maccabees were inspired

That will be interesting.

 

[Theophilos]

show us any proof you have Timothy or the Bereans thought Sirach or 4 Maccabees were inspired

4 Maccabees probably was not written until after the time of the conversion of the Bereans. It is not part of the canon of the Roman Catholic or Greek Church although it appears in some Russian Orthodox bibles.

Jesus paraphrased Sirach. Perhaps that is why the Bereans recognized Paul's teachings as authentic.

. . . if you forgive someone who has wronged you, your sins will be forgiven when you pray. Sirach 3:2

when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
Mark 11:25
. . . if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Matthew 6:14

The Jewish Talmud quotes from Sirach as scripture, and Hebrew text for most of the book was found in an synagogue in Alexandria Egypt. That is consistent with its use as scripture by Greek-speaking Jews.

The Bereans did not abandon their scriptures when they converted. The book appears in the Old Testament for all of the earliest surviving Christian bibles, and the Bereans' manuscripts may well have provided the source.

 

[BJ Bear]

.
Jesus paraphrased Sirach.

That is an imaginative interpretation. Both are reflections of the law given through Moses.

Perhaps that is why the Bereans recognized Paul's teachings as authentic.

That is more imaginative speculation based upon your previous speculation.

. . . if you forgive someone who has wronged you, your sins will be forgiven when you pray. Sirach 3:2

when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
Mark 11:25
. . . if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Matthew 6:14

If you copied and pasted that from a website it would be a kindness to the site to inform the owner that the Sirach reference is wrong. The reference should be to 28:2.

The Jewish Talmud quotes from Sirach as scripture,

Please post your reference so that we can know if this is an accurate assertion or more imaginative interpretation.

and Hebrew text for most of the book was found in an synagogue in Alexandria Egypt.

That is more imaginative interpretation on your part since since something found one time in a storage room doesn't indicate why it was there or that it was a normative practice.

That is consistent with its use as scripture by Greek-speaking Jews.

No, see above.

The Bereans did not abandon their scriptures when they converted. The book appears in the Old Testament for all of the earliest surviving Christian bibles, and the Bereans' manuscripts may well have provided the source.

Again that is more imaginative interpretation on your part since the Greek speaking Gentiles of the one Church of the Roman Empire couldn't identify a canon of singular extent and instead used and sanctioned canons of various lengths.

 

[1Thess521]

4 Maccabees probably was not written until after the time of the conversion of the Bereans. It is not part of the canon of the Roman Catholic or Greek Church although it appears in some Russian Orthodox bibles.

Jesus paraphrased Sirach. Perhaps that is why the Bereans recognized Paul's teachings as authentic.

. . . if you forgive someone who has wronged you, your sins will be forgiven when you pray. Sirach 3:2

when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
Mark 11:25
. . . if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Matthew 6:14

The Jewish Talmud quotes from Sirach as scripture, and Hebrew text for most of the book was found in an synagogue in Alexandria Egypt. That is consistent with its use as scripture by Greek-speaking Jews.

The Bereans did not abandon their scriptures when they converted. The book appears in the Old Testament for all of the earliest surviving Christian bibles, and the Bereans' manuscripts may well have provided the source.

a paraphrase of a truism is not proof that anyone thought Sirach was divinely inspired>
Do you have any example of "it is written"... or "the Lord says".."?

of course not

 

[BJ Bear]

Once again we see that men calling other men "Father" is not without precedent in the Holy Scriptures

In other contexts this is true.

and the Catholic Church's use of the word to call their priests that name is not a violation of God's Holy Word in any way.

Yes, it is a violation of the word of the Lord because they do it in the context which is forbidden. They use it as a distinction in the church among persons rather than office.

1 Cor 4 :14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

St. Paul calling himself a father? Why how can this be?

Paul can do it because his metaphor is based upon the gospel, that is, he and some others have sired or begotten some through the gospel. So it is not based upon his or their persons, not based upon his or their voluntaristic knowledge or preaching, and he is not asking or suggesting that anyone call him or others father.

Romans 4 :10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Calling a man (Abraham) father? I thought Jesus was against such a thing?

You are again citing Scripture that is written in a different context and asking a question based upon a false dichotomy.

 

[Maxtar]

Yes, it is a violation of the word of the Lord because they do it in the context which is forbidden. They use it as a distinction in the church among persons rather than office.

No, I do not see it as a violation on the Lord's proscription against this. St. Paul did the same thing when he called Abraham the "father of us all". So I guess in your mind St. Paul would also be in violation of Jesus's words. We Catholics are not the only one's who use the term either. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers use it as other denominations also do/did.

According to "Religion Online", " American Protestants regularly called their clergy "Father" 200 and 300 years ago, and some continued to do so a century ago. And during the same years, Protestants addressed venerated women in their churches as "Mother" . "Protestants of earlier centuries also addressed founders of denominations and religious communities as "Father." American Methodists, for example, referred to John Wesley not only as "Mr. Wesley" but also as "Father Wesley." Following the custom in both genders, the Shakers called their matriarch ‘‘Mother’’ and their male leaders "Father." Interesting stuff wouldn't you say?

Paul can do it because his metaphor is based upon the gospel, that is, he and some others have sired or begotten some through the gospel. So it is not based upon his or their persons, not based upon his or their voluntaristic knowledge or preaching, and he is not asking or suggesting that anyone call him or others father.

Oh, I see. St Paul can do it but not anyone else? Nice try. St Paul is defacto calling Abraham THE FATHER OF US ALL and according to Jesus that is forbidden.. It's the same then with the so called "repetitive prayer" argument. Such a thing is going on in heaven as we speak, but somehow that is forbidden to us here on earth? Sorry, but this is only your faulty biblical interpretation coming out again is all.

 

[Theophilos]

a paraphrase of a truism is not proof that anyone thought Sirach was divinely inspired>
Do you have any example of "it is written"... or "the Lord says".."?

of course not

Can you point to an "it is written" quote of a New Testament book as scripture?

The same people who selected the Protestant Old Testament canon also reject the New Testament completely.

 

[1Thess521]

Can you point to an "it is written" quote of a New Testament book as scripture?

The same people who selected the Protestant Old Testament canon also reject the New Testament completely.

Let the presbyters who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17–18):

from https://taylormarshall.com/2015/07/saint-paul-cites-the-gospel-of-luke-as-scripture.html

In 1 Timothy 5:17–18 we observe Saint Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke as Scripture on equal level with Deuteronomy!
I take 1 Timothy as authentically Pauline (I’m Catholic). This demonstrates that:

1. The Gospel of Luke was written and published before the death of Paul (AD 66/67)
2. Paul had read the Gospel of Luke
3. Paul regarded the Gospel of Luke as Scripture
4. Paul considered Luke to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16)
5. Paul assumed that Timothy also regarded the Gospel of Luke as Scripture

 

[mica]

No, I do not see it as a violation on the Lord's proscription against this. St. Paul did the same thing when he called Abraham the "father of us all". So I guess in your mind St. Paul would also be in violation of Jesus's words.

no, as a catholic you wouldn't because you believe the RCC, not God's word.

Father of all Jews. Paul was a Jew. Are you a Jew?

We Catholics are not the only one's who use the term either. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers use it as other denominations also do/did.

so? catholics use a lot of terms/words incorrectly.

According to "Religion Online", " American Protestants regularly called their clergy "Father" 200 and 300 years ago, and some continued to do so a century ago. And during the same years, Protestants addressed venerated women in their churches as "Mother" . "Protestants of earlier centuries also addressed founders of denominations and religious communities as "Father." American Methodists, for example, referred to John Wesley not only as "Mr. Wesley" but also as "Father Wesley." Following the custom in both genders, the Shakers called their matriarch ‘‘Mother’’ and their male leaders "Father." Interesting stuff wouldn't you say?

so once again you get what you believe and profess from men, not from God's word.

I find it very interesting that you are resorting to likening what your RCC does to all of those that catholics dislike so much and claim aren't part of your 'His church', those that catholics label as protestants and show so much hatred toward.

Oh, I see. St Paul can do it but not anyone else? Nice try. St Paul is defacto calling Abraham THE FATHER OF US ALL and according to Jesus that is forbidden and that is a truth that cannot be twisted away to achieve your own result. It's the same then with the so called "repetitive prayer" argument. Such a thing is going on in heaven as we speak, but somehow that is forbidden to us here on earth? Sorry, but this is only your faulty biblical interpretation coming out again is all.

again, he was a Jew. Are you? are you an apostle chosen and taught directly by the risen Christ?

repetitive prayer to catholics also means 'canned' prayer - words made up by someone other than the one doing the praying.

how do you know repetitive prayer is going on in heaven? cite the verse.

repetitive praise from the heart is totally different.

 

[BJ Bear]

No, I do not see it as a violation on the Lord's proscription against this. St. Paul did the same thing when he called Abraham the "father of us all". So I guess in your mind St. Paul would also be in violation of Jesus's words.

Calling someone, in this case Abraham, a metaphorical ancestor or father in the faith according to the gospel is not the same context. Paul is not stating or suggesting a hierarchical relationship among the faithful according persons.

Oh, I see. St Paul can do it but not anyone else?

You have misread the post.

Nice try. St Paul is defacto calling Abraham THE FATHER OF US ALL

A metaphorical father in the faith according to the categories he was using, Jew and Gentile. He is not stating or implying a hierarchy of merit or authority according to person.

and according to Jesus that is forbidden and that is a truth that cannot be twisted away to achieve your own result.

You've misunderstood the words of Jesus. Jesus affirmed the unbelieving Jews claim that Abraham was their father when He affirmed that they were Abraham's seed, see John 8:41.

It's the same then with the so called "repetitive prayer" argument. Such a thing is going on in heaven as we speak, but somehow that is forbidden to us here on earth?

That is a different topic addressed to the wrong audience, but if you start a thread on that topic I will join you there.

Sorry, but this is only your faulty biblical interpretation coming out again is all.

No, the different contexts of the words of Jesus and of Paul are clear. The words of Jesus exclude the Papal hierarchy and the words of Paul are outside the context of the Papal hierarchy of merit and authority according to person.

 

[1Thess521]

The same people who selected the Protestant Old Testament canon also reject the New Testament completely.

nope:
the Protestants "selected" the Hebrew Scriptures as their OLD Testament

 

[Theophilos]

nope:
the Protestants "selected" the Hebrew Scriptures as their OLD Testament

Yes, exactly.

The Reformation rejected in the Jewish scriptures used by the Bereans and the other Greek-speaking communities that converted to Christianity and substituted the Hebrew scriptures based on the traditions of the Pharisees who rejected Christ.