Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Jesus quoted the historical errors? Would you please point those out for me? Give me the quote of Jesus and the historical error He was quoting. Either that or we can just understand that that was just an attempt to give legitimacy to a lie.
In deed we are. There is much about everyday life of the times that is unknown today. Peter was obviously not educated in the polished and elegant way Paul was (Peter being “ordinary and unlettered”) but write he did and movingly so.
How would Peter, and others like him, have learned to read?
Jewish tradition and Torah placed the responsibility for educating a son squarely on the shoulders of the father.
Would he hire a copyist? Do it himself? Would a priest do so? Send the boy to an informal “school”?
The exact means is not always clear but literacy, at least for males, was connected with obedience to God in Israel. “Write ye this song...” (Deut. 31:19)
“Peter? A fisherman? Unlikely” Being a very devote Jew why “unlikely”?
Where that 97% figure comes from I've no idea but consider some ancient libraries like the one found at Ugarit in Syria. It dates from around the 1300-1400 b.c. or the vast library of Ashurbanipal of the 7th. cen. b.c.
This collection of tablets numbered 20 to 30 thousand and covered everything from the most sacred to the most mundane of commercial notes and recipes. Clearly many people were scratching bills and notes of all kinds on shards and clay tablets routinely.
And what was the occupation of one the most honored men of Jewish history? A copyist, name of Ezra.
The motivation to read God's word for ones self is and was a powerful motivation to learn to read.
How about the history contained in books of the Bible that have been proven to be correct? There is ample Biblical evidence that those books contain historical error and much of it has already been posted.
So Jesus quoting the Deuterocanonicals makes Him wrong and you right?
So who pretends to be a scholar?
Got some proof to back up that assertion?
And if I did, who would be the first one to go whining to the RM about personal comments? No thanks.
Jesus quoted the Deuterocanicals. That makes them authoritative in my eyes and the eyes of the Church all by themselves. If you require the NT to quote every OT book as indicating authority, then you must remove Ezra, Nehemiah and several others from your already redacted Bible.
Actually, the Eastern Church has always accepted the apocrypha as scripture. LONG BEFORE THE ROMAN COUNCIL OF TRENT.
Where did MB say Jesus quoted historical error? This is a typical tactic of yours, to falsely quote someone. A very good reason to ridicule your posts.
Would you also claim that because the Koran quotes portions of scripture that we should use the Koran also?
>>>>>>Would you also claim that because the Koran quotes portions of scripture that we should use the Koran also?
Are you claiming that the Koran quoting scripture is equal to Christ quoting scripture?
Coming from you, that would not surprise me.
My point was that simply because Jesus said something similar to what is written in one of those books does not make that book the inerrant word of God. Errors in those books would prove that they are not the inerrant word of God so can not be trusted.
What is the problem with Christ quoting the apocrypha? Do you know?
Well that’s not what you said in 3401, at all.
I would prefer not to discuss anything with you.
Follow those teachers if you wish, but I'll stick with that old time religion: the Church proclaiming Christ.
One of the reasons that Protestants claim to reject the Deoterocanonicals was that they presumed that they were never written in Hebrew. That has historically been proven wrong. The Essene Canon revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls contains significant portions of these books.
The reasons that Luther and Protestantism wants / needs the Deuterocanonical Books excluded is that they clearly support legitimate claims of the Church that are damaging to the Reformation. Most troubling to Protestants are Purgatory, alms giving for the atonement of sins (indulgences), praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshiping (doulia) angels, and the existence of Raphael as the Healing Angel.
That makes sense. Thanks
I’m sure they will be tickled pink to have this “free” advertising done for them. Maybe they’ll give you a discount. Couldn’t hurt to ask, right?
As if. I’m sure they’re proud to be linked to Obsma.
How to know which of the twelve tribes you belong to
and
How to say "endure to the end" in Hebrew
Certainly if this conclusion (proven false) is not the definition one is using for sola scriptura, then the point is moot. But this is not what I've seen from posters on here.
NO ONE said that the Bible is "all that there is" nor that it "contains all truth" or that "nothing is needed but the Bible".
Though it's only somewhat based on my point, I still would not make even that statement on here and be certain no one agrees with some or part of it. Let's see.
How about it, Sola Scriptura proponets? Would you agree or disagree with all or part of these statements:
The Bible is all that there is; The Bible contains all truth; Nothing is needed but the Bible.Clearer still:
Would you agree or disagree that:
1) Scripture alone, by itself, with nothing else, is entirely sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.Who here agrees/disagrees with 1? 2? 3?
and,
2) This is what sola scriptura means.
and,
3)This is proven true by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
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.