Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
I maintain that unless one can cite the OT prophecy that tells Simeon he would not see death before seeing the Messiah, it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon's own words as "the Holy Ghost was upon him," the Bible is not the entirety of God's word.
Do they not have the word "most" where you come from?
Wrong:
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.Apparently they don't have "ratchets" where you come from, either.Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Do you ever tire of being the fool?
Then I’m back to being unabashed and uncorrected. (sighhh)
Then stop projecting.
I asked first but have received no reply.
Since I don’t accommodate do as I say, not as I do, when the proof and cites are forthcoming about the charges against Protestantism, then the ones about Catholicism will be addressed.
Please don't get drawn into the tit-for-tat exchanges with people with closed minds. I've tried to play that game with them and the result is always the same. Any proof you can produce has already been discounted and rejected a priori. Some believe themselves to be effectively infallible and to them the possibility any information to the contrary is impossible.
"To those with faith no proof is necessary, to those without faith no proof is sufficient" - St. Thomas Aquinas
I preceded that with "I can only surmise". Would you rather that I used a different wording like "it appears" or "All Protestants".
Peace be with you
I understand, dear FRiend.
Nevertheless, some of us serve as witness against the stiff necked.
If you believe I’ve demonstrated the myopia and dogmatism of our opposition on this thread, I’ll take my leave.
“it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon’s own words as “the Holy Ghost was upon him,” the Bible is not the entirety of God’s word.”
I recalled you made this argument before, however, as then, holding to Scripture as the supreme and sufficient authority does not require that all that can be known is in Scripture, which itself confirms there is more, (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4; 2Cor. 12:4) but that it is the assured established Word of God and supreme authority, and that what is necessary for salvation and growth is formally (very limited) or materially contained therein. And which provided for additional writings being added, as what “the Word of the Lord/God” revealed was normally written down, as a study of the phrase reveals. And thus we know what was revealed to Simeon, versus eons-old textually unverifiable nebulous traditions.
And while Scripture also provides for illumination and communication from God (esp. during the offering:), all such are subject to the Scriptures, as being the established assured word of God and supreme authority.
In contrast is a group of men asserting that whatever they and their successors will ever speak universally on faith and morals will be as sure and faultless as if it came from the lips of the Lord Jesus, and or require the same full assent of faith. This was not necessary for Truth to be provided and preserved as seen by Scripture, nor was that promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this based upon promises of guidance, etc., and which even writers of Holy Writ did not claim, as i previously (654) posted on.
Not at all. I am only cautioning you that the requests for "proof" are rhetorical at best and typically disingenuous. Just don't waste a lot of time or emotional energy in responding.
Peace be with you.
If His teaching is interpreted to mean something against the word of YHWH which came before, then that interpretation is flat wrong - simple as that. The only other option is that He is teaching falsely, and therefore cannot be the Messiah, and cannot be known to be the 'maker of the universe.'
The problem with 'precept upon precept, line upon line' is that the thing said before MUST carry more weight than the thing said later, as the previous word is already uttered, and YHWH does not change.It is the same problem as the Pharisee's laws making the immutable Law of YHWH to be made null. His word will not come back to Him empty. This is unique to YHWH among all the pretender 'gods' and proves He is the I AM.
I will not be quick to throw that away.
Inserting "all that can be known" for my assertion simply evades the core issue of the dilemma I pose to devotees of Sola Scriptura.
We have in Luke 2 text that clearly tells us Simeon, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, calls the promise made to him God's word. A promise further endorsed by the Gospel writer, himself.
Apart from an OT verse outlining that same promise, the inescapable conclusion must be that all gratuitous assertions claiming that which is NOT in the Bible CANNOT be the word of God, is falsified.
There is no other alternative for those positing the Scripture as the supreme authority in faith and practice.
Further restatement of the rationale that forms the basis of Sola Scriptura is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
You aren't really suggesting that we should observe Kosher dietary practices, stone adulterers and those who work on the sabbath, perform animal sacrifices, refuse to eat with Gentiles, and the other 600+ laws of the Halakha are you?
Peace be with you.
Discuss the issues instead of the poster.
Also, the Apostles and more importantly their MESSAGE/SCRIPTURE was authenticated by God via the miracles they performed.
The Popes/Magesterium have no such authentication from God for their extra biblical tradition.
Well seeing as how he made no effort to "explain" himself to those who interpreted his statement as you have and left him, and he is still undoubtedly The Christ, I'd say the one needing a new hermeneutic is you!
Obviously, "God in the Flesh" does not share your dogmatism on the particulars of how this passage is to be understood.
Nothing could be further from the truth! The problem is Protestants habitually declare these miracles, which occur even into the present day, to be "lying signs and wonders."
just the miraculous transformation of discarded consecrated hosts into human flesh and blood is a study in its own right.
There are several points of history that must be considered. You are free to draw your own conclusion, but not free to claim that conclusion is completely valid if the data you considered was incomplete or inaccurate.
- Jesus ministry lasted about three years during which time He taught not only the Apostles and a cadre of Disciples, but preached and performed miracles in front of many thousands of witnesses, both friendly and hostile.
- Following His resurrection Jesus instructed His Apostles and Disciples to preach the Gospel to every nation and people which they diligently did at great personal risk.
- At the Pentecost the Apostles and Disciples were given the gift of tongues, not some incoherent babbling, but the actual ability to fluently speak languages they did not know such that they were able to preach the Gospel to all corners of the earth.
- Nowhere is Scripture does it record Jesus or any of His followers writing anything down, carrying any writing materials, or provide any instructions to actually produce any written documentation after the fact.
- Nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to a Bible, a table of contents of a Bible, or a set Canon criteria or process.
- There are numerous specific references to a Church with a mission, a hierarchy and structure, and an authorization.
- The Church functioned for over 300 years without a Bible, relying on Tradition. In fact, so prevalent were fraudulent and compromised versions of the Gospels and the Letters that the actual production of the Bible was met with a great deal of skepticism and it was only the authority of the Church that made them credible and acceptable to Christendom.
- The works selected for the Bible were based only upon their being judged inerrant when compared to the Tradition of the Church.
- The Canon was set by the Church, repeatedly reaffirmed by the Church and remained unchanged and unchallenged for over 1200 years.
- Now you can form an opinion as to whether the Church deviated over time from its initial teachings, but you cannot credibly claim that the Bible came about ex nihilo and that the Catholic Church never had a role or an association with its production.
- Since we all agree that Scripture is indeed God Breathed and infallible it is evidence that the Church was an instrument of the Holy Spirit.
Peace be with you.
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.