Posted on 07/21/2014 10:28:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It seems to me that Matt Slick uses a lot of verbiage to confuse what should be an easy-to-understand matter, and to gain...what?. I regret reading this post.
Not all and we as Christians, especially those of us that love apologetics, must not run from them and claim copying errors. Some of the "difficulties" are nothing more than perspective and to whom the text was written. For example, one passage in Samuel relates a Philistine claimed to have killed King Saul, but another passage says that Saul killed himself. Both are true. The Bible is merely relaying an accurate account of one person boasting, coupled with the actual account of Saul's suicide.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Yesterday saw...a forceful plea from a key papal advisor [Bishop Salvatore Fisichella, the rector of the Lateran University and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life] to reject the idea of Christianity as a “Religion of the Book”...........the big debate over Dei Verbum at the time of the council pitted what was then known as the “two-source theory,” which held that Scripture and tradition are essentially two separate streams of revelation, against the “one-source theory,” which posited that Scripture is the lone source of revelation and tradition is an elaboration of it. In effect, Dei Verbum held that Scripture and tradition are interdependent and integrally related to one another.
-- from the thread Synod: Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book'
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said........The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible”....
....In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
-- from the thread How to Read the Bible as a Catholic
If the article’s author would spend more time in the Word than trying to confuse himself and others, he would be better off.
My understanding is the "Word" = Christ
The Cristian Church recognizes a collection of 73 books. This author seems a little weak on the historic Christian canon.
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
When you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit takes residence in your body (temple - see references below).
Protestant or Catholic, it would be wise to ask the Holy Spirit to help guide you as you read the Bible. . .God’s Holy Word.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ESV
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
Romans 12:2 ESV
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
1 Corinthians 6:20 ESV
For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Romans 12:1 ESV
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
RE: The Cristian Church recognizes a collection of 73 books. This author seems a little weak on the historic Christian canon.
OK, let’s say the author is weak on the Christian cannon, what ‘s your response to someone who tells you that scripture is not 100% the word of God?
If they weren’t accepted universally, they aren’t canon. Isn’t that what being “catholic” is supposed to be about?
Catechism, para 104
“I was trying to be on the level with God, but something remained unspoken. At last the Holy Spirit freed me to say it. ‘Father, I am going to accept this as Thy Word–by faith! I’m going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be Your inspired Word.’”
We won't know all the answers to our questions until we see Him face to face. Until then, I believe that no faith can be described as Christian unless God's Word in the form of Jesus is the center of that faith. If anyone believes things that are clearly refuted in His Word, maybe they should call themselves something other than Christian, like those who admire Jesus's life and teaching but reject Him as being God Incarnate. They are not Christians.
Exactly. I’m not sure what this author is trying to prove about a difference between Scripture “being the Word” and “containing the Word” but it is clear that the Logos (Word) preexists even the wrold, and was made flesh via the Son.
You might want to consider the first 1500 years. Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Christian people for 1500 years, just to pop in again in the 16th century and reveal: "You got the canon wrong"?
And as for those who had split from "Catholic," who exactly gave them the authority to subtract books from the Canon? Some king?
And if that's something the British throne and her licensed liturgists in the Anglican Church had the competence to do, do they still have it? Could Queen Elizabeth II and Abp Justin Welby split off a couple more books if they felt divinely called to do so?
Or, instead of 1500 years, switch your focus to 2,000 years. The big majority of Christians still have the full canon --- 73 books. There has been a Christian church in continuous existence for 1900 years in Mosul, Iraq. They speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They have the same canon as the rest of us Catholics. I think it's a good bet that they're clinging to their whole Bible as they high-tail it outta there --- as we speak. If the ISIS couldn't make them give it up, I very much doubt the Anglicans would be very persuasive.
Agree fully with the thread up until the last sentence. My understanding is that angels will do the separating on the right and the left.
As long as they’re still living, and it is called “Today” these fence-sitters still may wake-up. As Someone said, “he who is not against us is for us.”
This puts everything into perspective. One Minute & 39 seconds sermon. Why should it take any longer ?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/WGnEuGwvXqU?rel=0
Simple (maybe overly simple, but simple) answer: if the Bible "contains" the word of God, then there are parts of the Bible that made it in, not on the basis of God's will, but human cultural additions. To put it even more simply, if the Bible "contains" the word of God, you don't have to worry about all those silly anti-homosexual-act references, or how divorce is a really bad idea, or wives submitting to their husbands (or husbands having to love their wives sacrificially), or how God loves Israel and will whoopa$$ anyone who attacks it, etc., etc.
Well stated.
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.