Posted on 02/07/2005 7:30:07 AM PST by mike182d
You should have but we know how the creationists sort of "modify" everything and anything to try to make the case, including the posts of others.
Darn. If you hadn't just put corners on the compass I would attribute that statement to ignorance.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Hang around and you will.
I bet you have never seen a neutron but that does not make them unfounded.
He really blew it here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1337765/posts?page=302#302
What Is “Scripture”?This is question begging.“Scripture” renders the original word graphe, found about 51 times in the Greek New Testament. The term always refers to a sacred writing. Most commonly it denotes the holy writings of the Old Testament, but the absence of a Greek article in conjunction with graphe in this passage “leaves room for other writings that have a right to be called divinely inspired Scriptures” (Hiebert, p. 100). Without question, the term “scripture” embraces both Old and New Testaments. See 1 Timothy 5:18 and in 2 Peter 3:16 where the term is used comprehensively of both Testaments.
Who decided which New Testament writings would constitute "holy writings," or the New Testament? The New Testament?
Who decided that a New Testament should be written? There is no mention in the New Testament of Jesus commanding the writing of the New Testament.
The canon of the New Testament was much in dispute in the early Church (not just the OT canon but also the NT canon) and wasn't definitively settled until several church councils around the year 400 A.D.
The Church ("the pillar and foundation of truth") decided that some Apostolic writings were divinely inspired and separated these from other spurious writings.
Did you guys catch this? I am going to be a Catholic homeschooling mom. Too much godless evolution creeping into the Church IMHO.
Are you sayin the Bible is in error?
Read again. To begin with, Catholic apologists like to make the assumption that "scripture" refers only to the OT. They use that assumption as a funnel to pout all kinds of things into God's word, including many contradictory things.
Yet Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture."
There is no question to the serious Bible student that the NT writings were inspired. The passage we're talking about in Timothy in fact says that all scripture is "Theopneustos" literally, "God-breathed."
It's evident whether something was "God-breathed" or not. The 1st century church determined the veracity of the word as confirmed by "miracles, signs and wonders" of those who espoused teachings. Compare and contrast that to the numerous "revelations" of the CC over the subsequent centuries. Or to Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Helen G. White, Judge Rutherford....
A point I like to make when I talk to leater revelationists, including Mormons or JV's or Catholics, is "which came first, your church's writings, or the Bible?"
Inevitably, they answer the Bible. Then the real question is, "Did the Bible clearly anticipate or allow for a later revelation/ or did the inspired writers rather claim that it contained "ALL things leading to life and godliness?" Did it or did it not expressly condemn those who would add to or take away from what was written? Did Paul warn aginst those who would come teaching a different message than what he and the others delivered? Did the apostles anticiptate a succession of apostles, or rather did the office of apostle pass, and with it the marks of divine authority: eye-witnesses of Christ, and the ability to bestow miraculous abilities in Christians by laying on of hands? Finally, as to the miraculous gifts of revelation and interpretation, did Paul say or not say that "for now we prophesy in part, but when that which is complete is come, that which is incomplete will pass away"-- and in context is it not evident he was talking about the end of divine revelation when it was all written down ("I write these things so that you can have THE SAME understanding that I have")?
Stop listening to your clergy and read for yourself.
hmmmmmm
What I have been saying all along is that you need to take courses in Biblical exegesis science so you will know what you are discussing. However, that would conflict with your hyper-skepticism and you could never do that.
Which verse are you referring to?
And what about Paul's admonision to "stand firm and hold to the teachings [ Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
And what about the fact that the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth"? (1 Tim 3:15)
There is no question to the serious Bible student that the NT writings were inspired.
There was in the early church. But I guess serious Bible students know better than the Church Fathers.
The passage we're talking about in Timothy in fact says that all scripture is "Theopneustos" literally, "God-breathed."
Again, this begs the question of what books are Scriptural. Since the canon of the New Testament was not defined at this time (and parts weren't even yet written!), Paul could not have possibly been referring to the New Testament as we know it today. Moreover, Jesus and the Apostles cite the Septuagint version of the OT 200 times out of 300 times in the NT, and the Septuagint contains the Deuterocanonical books of scripture.
It's evident whether something was "God-breathed" or not. The 1st century church determined the veracity of the word as confirmed by "miracles, signs and wonders" of those who espoused teachings. Compare and contrast that to the numerous "revelations" of the CC over the subsequent centuries. Or to Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Helen G. White, Judge Rutherford....
Nevertheless, many NT books were in dispute. St. Jerome wasn't the only one who wanted to toss out Revelation. Luther did too. Luther also wanted to dump the book of James, for obvious reasons.
A point I like to make when I talk to leater revelationists, including Mormons or JV's or Catholics, is "which came first, your church's writings, or the Bible?" Inevitably, they answer the Bible.
Uh, Catholics would answer the Church.
Then the real question is, "Did the Bible clearly anticipate or allow for a later revelation/ or did the inspired writers rather claim that it contained "ALL things leading to life and godliness?"
Uh, no. The real question is, where did the Bible come from? The answer is Christ's Church. The New Testament didn't drop down from Heaven at Pentecost. Decades after Jesus' death His Apostles realized that the Second Coming might not come within their lifetimes. Some of them determined to record the events of his life based on their memories and the memories of others (oral tradition). Over a four hundred year period the Church separated the truly inspired writings from other writings and determined the canon of the New Testament.
Did it or did it not expressly condemn those who would add to or take away from what was written?
Was John referring to the book he was writing in the year 100 A.D.? Or was John referring to the New Testament that did not yet exist, and which would not exist for another 300 years?
Did Paul warn aginst those who would come teaching a different message than what he and the others delivered?
Yes. And did he not also command adherence to teachings passed on by mouth? Or should we just ignore that part?
Did the apostles anticiptate a succession of apostles, or rather did the office of apostle pass,
Let's see what Scripture says.
Acts 1:15-26Who determined the method for choosing Judas' successor? Peter. Who interprets the OT passage authoritatively? Peter. What does the OT passage speak of? An office. (In the King James version the word is "bishopric.") What is essential to an office? Succession.In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus– he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “ ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’and, “ ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
and with it the marks of divine authority: eye-witnesses of Christ,
This distinguishes Apostleship. The bishops are successors to the Apostles, but not Apostles.
and the ability to bestow miraculous abilities in Christians by laying on of hands?
This is the way the office of the priesthood is still transferred.
Finally, as to the miraculous gifts of revelation and interpretation, did Paul say or not say that "for now we prophesy in part, but when that which is complete is come, that which is incomplete will pass away"-- and in context is it not evident he was talking about the end of divine revelation when it was all written down ("I write these things so that you can have THE SAME understanding that I have")?
Was Paul referring to the book of Revelation that was written decades later, in the year 100 A.D.?
Stop listening to your clergy and read for yourself.
That doesn't sound Scriptural. Jesus said this:
Matthew 18:17Does Jesus say this about the New Testament? No, because it didn't exist at the time. Did He order the writing of the NT? It's not mentioned in the NT. He says this about His Church.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Stop listening to Luther's false (and non-Biblical) doctrine of "the Bible alone."
The Canon of the New TestamentA. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
1. The witness of the New Testament to itself: The first collections
Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum.
*high five* :-)
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.