Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Could you lead us to the infallible Magisterium's commentary on the whole bible
So where is the discussion on the multiple answers already given in answer to those questions.
No verse in the Bible refers to the Bible as we know it, because the many scrolls which comprise the Bible were written centuries before the Bible was compiled.
Therefore, no reference to Scripture in the Bible can prove the sufficiency of the Bible, because “Scripture,” in the Bible, refers to either the Torah, the Old Testament, or the Book of Revelation.
I don’t think Protestants believe in the sufficiency of the Torah, the Septuagint, or Revelation.
Ironically, Ankerburg makes the common mistake of reading Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura into the verses he cites.
Wrong!!!!
Scripture does not *contain* divine revelation.
Scripture *IS* divine revelation.
The enemy's work always begins with *Did God REALLY say....?????*
The minute Satan can get someone to question the integrity of God's word or the integrity of God Himself, his battle is won.
Wrong again. Scripture tells us that, not history.
But you're not going to be a hypocrite here and appeal to the authority of Scripture to give the church its authority to give Scripture its authority, are you?
When do you believe that Christ established His church ?
Peter called Paul's writings Scripture. They were recognized as such that early on in church history, at the time those very letters were being written.
Nobody needed the RCC to come along and give its stamp of approval to what everyone already knew.
I don’t think Protestants believe in the sufficiency of the Torah, the Septuagint, or Revelation.
You think wrong then. We recognize them as God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired divine revelation
When did the spirit of all truth come?
I asked you to refer me to the magisteriums infallible commentary of the bible .. you do have one right ?
During Ptolemy II of Philadelphus’ reign (285-246 B.C.), 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the entire Hebrew bible into Greek. This canon of the OT, translated by Jews, contained the books that Luther pitched more 1,500 years later. This is the septaguint named for the number of Jewish translators.
The Alexandrian translation was completed by 125 B.C. It it contained the books that Luther got rid of.
Greek was the common language in use in the Mediterranean at the time. This translation was the one in use during Jesus’ time, and was the translation used by the new testament writers and Jesus himself.
The Greek OT scriptures, translated by Jews, remember, reached more people, as Hebrew was dying out in the wider Mediterranean. Jesus himself used the Alexandrian canon of the bible. We know this because the New Testament records direct quotes from Jesus himself.
The septuagint contains 46 books and the Hebrew canon contains only 39. The Hebrew canon was not settled until 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia, in Palestine. It was done in reaction to the Christian (Catholic) Church which was using the Alexandrian canon and gaining converts because the books not used by the Jamnia council were converting MORE Jews to Christianity because they supported (and still do) Catholic doctrine.
Luther used the later Hebrew canon without the Septuagint books. Martin Luther, along with the Jews in 100 A.D. in creating the Palestinian canon, actually discarded the books because they supported Catholic doctrines. Luther’s excuse was that the disputed Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Hebrew copies of the disputed books, nullifying that excuse.
The Hebrew books that the original Alexandrian Jews had included were and are in fact legitimate.
Would you rather use a Martin Luther truncated OT, or an OT containing all 46 books, the one that was used by Jesus, the New Testament Writers, and the early Church? Martin wanted to get rid of even more books (James, Esther and Revelation) but he had no authority and he was talked out of it because it was absurd.
Martin Luther played fast and loose with the bible and thought he could get away with it. At one point he even added the word alone to Romans 3:28 strictly on his own authority, but the discrepancy was discovered quickly.
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
This is a great discussion - but do let’s be polite ;- )
Let’s hear it for the Rock!
Daniel 2:34, 35
While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
You can get answers to all those questions at any 10-12 year old Evangelical Sunday school class. I can make arrangements.
Ohhh yes they did ..they had the Old Testament which speaks of Christ.. read Acts and the epistles and you will see that they quoted it over 200 times..
but another "uncomfortable truth" for Rome is peter called the letters of Paul SCRIPTURE and Paul quotes Luke as scripture
As we say in Texas..."good on you."
That is how I started as well.
Prove it.
>>Check the Aramaic.<<
The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament to be written in Greek. He did NOT inspire it to be written in Aramaic.
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:4)Perhaps you can explain to me why St. James says that STEADFASTNESS (not Scripture) will make one *perfect* (Gk. "teleois": a far stronger word than 2 Timothy 3:16-17 uses) and lacking in NOTHING? Should I start a movement called "sola stabilitas" (steadfastness alone)? I hardly think so... but I'd have a better case for it than you have for using 2 Timothy to prove "sola Scriptura"...
-— Could you lead us to the infallible Magisterium’s commentary on the whole bible-—
Does the Bible require this?
Does the Catholic Church claim this?
Did I?
No.
So why do you ask? This is a red herring.
I presented a simple claim.
The Bible does not, and cannot, refer to itself.
IOW, no passage in Scripture mentions which books constitute the Bible.
So what infallible Authority determined the canon of Scripture infallibly?
You? Luther? Neither claim infallibility.
Few Protestants understand this fatal logical flaw in Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura. And even fewer have the courage to address it directly, without obfuscation.
R.C. Sproul is the rare exception. He recognized the Protestant’s dilemma, calling the Bible “ a fallible collection of infallible books.”
His incoherent answer didn’t solve the problem, but he had the courage to address it.
The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.