The Bible can it be trusted?

[1Thess521]

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.

nope:
your equivocating word plays won't work on me
The Deuterocanonicals are not God -breathed
and neither is the translation known as the LXX

 

[1Thess521]

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.

Let's cut to the chase: do you consider the LXX to be divinely inspired?

 

[Pipiripi]

If the Bible was not trusted, why is that the majority of person in this world are Christians? And why all those miracles in the name of Jesus Christ?

 

[Theophilos]

nope:
your equivocating word plays won't work on me
The Deuterocanonicals are not God -breathed
and neither is the translation known as the LXX

. . .every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:17-20

The Bereans who accepted Christ bore good fruit. The Pharisees who rejected Christ did not.

Whose version of the Jewish scriptures should Christians use as the basis for the Old Testament?

 

[1Thess521]

The Bereans who accepted Christ bore good fruit. The Pharisees who rejected Christ did not.

Whose version of the Jewish scriptures should Christians use as the basis for the Old Testament?

the God-breathed writings that God -Almighty ordained to be kept in God's Holy Temple for God's chosen people, while God-Incarnate sat on steps or walk through the court yard.

Do you notice I answer your questions?

Your turn:
Do you consider the LXX to be divinely inspired?

 

[BJ Bear]

The Bereans who accepted Christ bore good fruit. The Pharisees who rejected Christ did not.

Whose version of the Jewish scriptures should Christians use as the basis for the Old Testament?

That post is again asserting Papal mythological history since we only know that some Pharisees and some Bereans bore good fruit and some did not. Give credit where credit is due, the good fruit to Christ and the bad fruit to the sinfulness of men

Also, there wouldn't have been multiple canons in use and sanctioned for use in the undivided Church of the Roman Empire if a good work of the Bereans was that of authoritatively handing down one of the of the longer Greek canons to the Greek speaking Gentiles of the Roman Empire.

To be deep in history is to recognize actual history from Papal myth.

 

[Theophilos]

the God-breathed writings that God -Almighty ordained to be kept in God's Holy Temple for God's chosen people, while God-Incarnate sat on steps or walk through the court yard.

Do you notice I answer your questions?

Your turn:
Do you consider the LXX to be divinely inspired?

Yes, the portion of the LXX in the Catholic bible is divinely inspired. The other parts are part of holy tradition.

If you reject the authority of the church, then what basis is there to say that the New Testament canon is correct or should even exist at all?

 

[Theophilos]

That post is again asserting Papal mythological history since we only know that some Pharisees and some Bereans bore good fruit and some did not. Give credit where credit is due, the good fruit to Christ and the bad fruit to the sinfulness of men

Also, there wouldn't have been multiple canons in use and sanctioned for use in the undivided Church of the Roman Empire if a good work of the Bereans was that of authoritatively handing down one of the of the longer Greek canons to the Greek speaking Gentiles of the Roman Empire.

To be deep in history is to recognize actual history from Papal myth.

Yes, there were Pharisees who accepted Christ and they may have been Bereans who did not. On the other hand, a careful reading of the New Testament shows that it supports Catholic and Orthodox practice of using the LXX as the basis the Old Testament canon.

There was no recognized canon among the Jews at the time of Christ, and the New Testament did not exist in its current form until hundreds of years later. The earliest Christian bible was the Greek Old Testament used by the Bereans and Timothy's family since that was the language of the New Testament and the international language of the eastern Roman Empire.

The apostles did not accept the modern doctrine of sola scriptura since they never explicitly defined the canon for the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament was not written until after the death of most of the apostles.

On the other hand, it is clear that the apostles favored the version of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews over that used by the Pharisees in Judea. Fore example consider Acts 15, when they specifically quoted an Amos LXX verse that is much different than that used in modern Hebrew scriptures. They quoted the verse in response to a dispute between Pharisee Christians from Judea and Greek-speaking Christians from outside of Judea.

Verses among those most frequently used as proof texts for sola scriptura (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:15) actually support the authority of the Greek Old Testament since that is version that is specifically praised. The Catholic Old Testament canon is consistent with the New Testament.

 

[1Thess521]

Yes, the portion of the LXX in the Catholic bible is divinely inspired. The other parts are part of holy tradition.

If you reject the authority of the church, then what basis is there to say that the New Testament canon is correct or should even exist at all?

if it is your Church that decides: then please stop appealing the LXX.

Just say it and be done with it:
"The deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired BECAUSE my Church said so"


and BTW none of your deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired.
That is why were not included among the Sacred Scrolls in God's Holy Temple
That is why there not a single reference in the NT quoting the deuterocanonical books as Scripture

 

[Theophilos]

if it is your Church that decides: then please stop appealing the LXX.

Just say it and be done with it:
"The deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired BECAUSE my Church said so"


and BTW none of your deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired.
That is why were not included among the Sacred Scrolls in God's Holy Temple
That is why there not a single reference in the NT quoting the deuterocanonical books as Scripture

Yes, there is not single case of the New Testament quoting another New Testament book as scripture. What basis is there to accept the canon of the New Testament other than the testimony of the Church?

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided the bible canon for both the Old and New Testament in the same way that the apostles resolved the dispute at the Council of Jerusalem.

. . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no further burden upon you, other than these necessary things: Acts 15:28

 

[1Thess521]

Yes, there is not single case of the New Testament quoting another New Testament book as scripture.

yes there is

see post 76

 

[Nondenom40]

Yes, the portion of the LXX in the Catholic bible is divinely inspired. The other parts are part of holy tradition.

If you reject the authority of the church, then what basis is there to say that the New Testament canon is correct or should even exist at all?

the portion of the LXX in the Catholic bible is divinely inspired.

So a greek translation of the o.t. hebrew is God breathed? Says who? And don't say your church because it wasn't around when it was created.

If you reject the authority of the church, then what basis is there to say that the New Testament canon is correct or should even exist at all?

Another arrogant statement. God is the author. Whether men believe it or not is irrelevant. Its God breathed regardless. Remember it was the authority of your church that elevated apocryphal books to the level of inspiration at trent. Not a good track record if youre hanging your hat on 'authority'.

 

[Theophilos]

So a greek translation of the o.t. hebrew is God breathed? Says who? And don't say your church because it wasn't around when it was created.



Another arrogant statement. God is the author. Whether men believe it or not is irrelevant. Its God breathed regardless. Remember it was the authority of your church that elevated apocryphal books to the level of inspiration at trent. Not a good track record if youre hanging your hat on 'authority'.

The apostles believed so. Here is the proof from the New Testament:

. . . so that the rest of men may seek the Lord, along with all the nations over whom my name has been invoked, says the Lord, who does these things. Acts 15:17, Amos 9:12 LXX

Compare that to the Hebrew text used for the KJV of Amos:

That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this. Amos 9:12 KJV

The apostles cited the Greek text in preference to the Hebrew text that is used for modern bibles. The apostles and elders were all Jews meeting in Jerusalem; there should have not been any problem with obtaining and understanding the Hebrew text.

And yes, God is the author of scripture. He spoke through both the authors who wrote the books and the church who decided the canon.

 

[1Thess521]

The apostles believed so. Here is the proof from the New Testament:

. . . so that the rest of men may seek the Lord, along with all the nations over whom my name has been invoked, says the Lord, who does these things. Acts 15:17, Amos 9:12 LXX

Compare that to the Hebrew text used for the KJV of Amos:

That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this. Amos 9:12 KJV

The apostles cited the Greek text in preference to the Hebrew text that is used for modern bibles. The apostles and elders were all Jews meeting in Jerusalem; there should have not been any problem with obtaining and understanding the Hebrew text.

And yes, God is the author of scripture. He spoke through both the authors who wrote the books and the church who decided the canon.

its just a translation; like the Vulgate it the King James Version

Get over it

 

[mica]

The apostles believed so. Here is the proof from the New Testament:

. . . so that the rest of men may seek the Lord, along with all the nations over whom my name has been invoked, says the Lord, who does these things. Acts 15:17, Amos 9:12 LXX

Compare that to the Hebrew text used for the KJV of Amos:

That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this. Amos 9:12 KJV

The apostles cited the Greek text in preference to the Hebrew text that is used for modern bibles. The apostles and elders were all Jews meeting in Jerusalem; there should have not been any problem with obtaining and understanding the Hebrew text.

And yes, God is the author of scripture. He spoke through both the authors who wrote the books and the church who decided the canon.

the RCC did not decide the canon.

He does speak to me every time I hear or read about the what catholics believe / the RCC teaches, because it always reminds me of how blessed i am that He called me out of it and a few years later called me to Him.

 

[Theophilos]

the RCC did not decide the canon.

He does speak to me every time I hear or read about the what catholics believe / the RCC teaches, because it always reminds me of how blessed i am that He called me out of it and a few years later called me to Him.

The testimony of the Greek-speaking church kept a larger canon of the Old Testament from the time of the apostles. The Latin-speaking church affirmed that tradition. Protestants effectively reject it in favor of the traditions of Jews who rejected Christ.

A fundamental issue for those who accept the doctrine of sola scriptura is that the only logical way the scriptures can be considered the complete and infallible is if the canon is also complete and infallible. Who decided the canon?

 

[mica]

The testimony of the Greek-speaking church kept a larger canon of the Old Testament from the time of the apostles. The Latin-speaking church affirmed that tradition. Protestants effectively reject it in favor of the traditions of Jews who rejected Christ.

A fundamental issue for those who accept the doctrine of sola scriptura is that the only logical way the scriptures can be considered the complete and infallible is if the canon is also complete and infallible. Who decided the canon?

God

 

[Theophilos]

God

Yes, I agree. The Holy Spirit speaking through the Church.

. . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no further burden upon you, other than these necessary things: Acts 15:28

 

[BJ Bear]

Yes, there were Pharisees who accepted Christ and they may have been Bereans who did not.

The Lord chose to bring forth fruit through the Pharisee, Paul.

On the other hand, a careful reading of the New Testament shows that it supports Catholic and Orthodox practice of using the LXX as the basis the Old Testament canon.

That's that Papal myth again. If that was the accepted practice then the tradition would not have multiple canons, including the thirty nine, among the Greek speakers of the undivided Church of the Roman Empire.

There was no recognized canon among the Jews at the time of Christ,

So is it your claim that the Jews had no idea what Jesus meant when He referred to the law and the prophets? That is a silly idea considering that not one apostolic witness took the time to define it for the Jews or for the Gentiles who were coming to the faith.

and the New Testament did not exist in its current form until hundreds of years later.

That is a story unless you only mean that some books of the now commonly accepted NT canon weren't commonly and formally recognized until centuries later.

The earliest Christian bible was the Greek Old Testament used by the Bereans and Timothy's family since that was the language of the New Testament and the international language of the eastern Roman Empire.

That is again a Papal mythological revision of history. Makng use of some of the language of a pre-existing translation says that the language of the translation is adequate in those instances. It says nothing about what is or is not canonical as the later confusion of the Greek speakers of the one Church of the Roman Empire went on to demonstrate through their use and sanction of multiple OT canons.

The apostles did not accept the modern doctrine of sola scriptura since they never explicitly defined the canon for the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament was not written until after the death of most of the apostles.

That is false. Christ told the unbelievers to search the Scriptures because they testify of Him. He didn't say search your heart for a burning bosom, consult the soothe sayer down the road, consult the high priest or the scribes and Pharisees, read the tea leaves, etc., for a true testimony of Him

On the other hand, it is clear that the apostles favored the version of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews over that used by the Pharisees in Judea.

That is just the same tired Papal myth in this regard because using the common language of those with whom you are trying to communicate isn't a statement regarding the extent of the canon.

Fore example consider Acts 15, when they specifically quoted an Amos LXX verse that is much different than that used in modern Hebrew scriptures.

You weren't specific, but if you referring to the verse actually quoted from Amos, 9:11, I don't see a substantive difference. If you are referring to the context in which it was used, provided, by Acts 15::17, then there is no verifiable evidence for your claim. In other words, without a copy of Amos which predates Acts there is no way to tell if the translation, the LXX, was revised to match Acts 15:17.

They quoted the verse in response to a dispute between Pharisee Christians from Judea and Greek-speaking Christians from outside of Judea.

It is agreed that Acts 15 is an accurate record of what occurred, but there is no evidence to support your claim that Acts 15:17 quotes Amos 9:12 from the LXX rather than Amos in the LXX being revised to match Acts 15:17.

Verses among those most frequently used as proof texts for sola scriptura (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:15) actually support the authority of the Greek Old Testament since that is version that is specifically praised.

That is an assumption. Since they went to the synagogue of the Jews we don't know if the Scriptures they checked were the Targumim, Hebrew, or the LXX.

The Catholic Old Testament canon is consistent with the New Testament.

There is no verifiable evidence that the Papal OT canon is consistent with the NT. It is even worse when one considers the content of the Papal translation of the LXX, for example, see Sirach 1:18 which is a fabrication teaching false doctrine. If you want to stick with the content of the LXX then other examples can be found.

 

[1Thess521]

The testimony of the Greek-speaking church kept a larger canon of the Old Testament from the time of the apostles. The Latin-speaking church affirmed that tradition. Protestants effectively reject it in favor of the traditions of Jews who rejected Christ.

False:
in 5 BC the Jews did not reject Christ:
We use the same collection of Sacred Writings that were kept in God's Holy Temple in 5BC

A fundamental issue for those who accept the doctrine of sola scriptura is that the only logical way the scriptures can be considered the complete and infallible is if the canon is also complete and infallible. Who decided the canon?

False:
Any writing breathed-out by God is more authoritative than anything the Church says.