Posted on 10/27/2013 5:25:55 AM PDT by NYer
There are 38 questions + a few bonus questions. I have split them into two separate posts of 20 and 18 + bonus questions. In case you missed it, here is the link to Part 1. Are you ready?
21. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
22. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
23. Why do Protestants follow postapostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
24. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
25. If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
26. How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
27. If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
28. If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
29. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
30. If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
31. The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?
32. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
33. Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?
34. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
35. Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
36. The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
37. How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?
38. What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?
Where does the Bible . . .
. . . say God created the world/universe out of nothing?
. . . say salvation is attainable through faith alone?
. . . tell us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the New Testament?
. . . explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?
. . . tell us the name of the “beloved disciple”?
. . . inform us of the names of the authors of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
. . . who wrote the Book of Acts?
. . . tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?
. . . .tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn't infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete)?
. . . that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?
. . . that Protestants can have an invisible unity when Jesus expected a visible unity to be seen by the world (see John 17)?
. . . tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father?
Clinging to nonsense does not look ‘intellectual.’
Nicolaitan ‘scholars’ belief has nothing to do with the reality for which I suggested that you search.
Once you find the first one, the rest start jumping out at you as you read. This is not meant as a derogatory assessment of the text; Acts comes through quite well to a careful reader.
Awesome! Thanks.
Initially, religion was a motivation for war as Protestant and Catholic states battled it out even though they all were inside the Holy Roman Empire. Changing the relative balance of power within the Empire was at issue. Gradually, it developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe.[11] In this general phase the war became less specifically religious and more a continuation of the Bourbon–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, leading in turn to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers.[12]
A major consequence of the Thirty Years' War was the devastation of entire regions, denuded by the foraging armies (bellum se ipsum alet). Famine and disease significantly decreased the population of the German states, Bohemia, the Low Countries, and Italy; most of the combatant powers were bankrupted. While the regiments within each army were not strictly mercenary, in that they were not units for hire that changed sides from battle to battle, some individual soldiers that made up the regiments were mercenaries. The problem of discipline was made more difficult by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing; armies were expected to be largely self-funding, by means of loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated. This encouraged a form of lawlessness that imposed severe hardship on inhabitants of the occupied territory.
The Thirty Years' War was ended with the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia.[13] Some of the quarrels that provoked the war went unresolved for a much longer time.
>> “The problem of discipline was made more difficult by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing; armies were expected to be largely self-funding, by means of loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated” <<
.
Pillage! (early democrats?)
>> Interesting piece here...<<
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Sinaticus/sinaticus.html
Interesting indeed! For those who have been tempted to believe the nonsense we have been striving against or those who want to be able to contest the nonsense that is a must read. I like how it ends.
“Beware of those people who attempt to “correct” the name of the Savior through spurious reasoning and appeals to vanity,
>> “Beware of those people who attempt to ‘correct’ the name of the Savior through spurious reasoning and appeals to vanity” <<
That would be you.
The Greek MS proffer the ‘Y’ sound, but you demand the modern ‘hard’ J.
If one’s hermeneutics rely on a self determined infallible magesterium, then any Bible verse can mean whatever fits.
Why don't you tell us your opinion on the motivation for why the translators would do such a "deliberately, slyly deceptive" thing? What possible reason could they have had to go out of the normal, common name Jesus was known by?
>> “Why don’t you tell us your opinion on the motivation for why the translators would do such a “deliberately, slyly deceptive” thing?” <<
.
Pretty obvious! - They had consulted with the Pharisee scholars of their day to do the translation of the Masorite scrolls, and they had been heavily influenced by them in that process to NOT disclose his name because part of his name reveals the name of Yehova.
You do realize the site is a Jewish Christian site?
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
But He really didn’t mean that. He meant for some group to hide the real gospel and only allow certain people to have access to it. Or He was incapable of giving those who were to “go into all the world” the tools they needed.
What a concept those people who teach this nonsense proclaim.
Shhh!
Never wake a sleeping bear. :o)
Through common usage ALL THESE THOUSANDS OF YEARS, the name of Jesus is comprehended as that of the Savior, the Son of God, and is that name “which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:8-10) and “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet (Eph. 1:21-22).
>> “But He really didn’t mean that. He meant for some group to hide the real gospel and only allow certain people to have access to it. Or He was incapable of giving those who were to “go into all the world” the tools they needed.” <<
.
You’ve outdone yourself with this raving strawman!
I cannot even imagine how this nonsense relates to the subject of the post to which you replied.
Revealing is not hiding in any context. How can you see revealing the true language as hiding anything?
>> Tell me, if you went up to an unbeliever today and started telling him he needed to “believe on Yeshua” to be saved, he probably would look at you like you were a little “off” <<
.
Quite to the contrary!
“Jesus” is an offensive name to almost all Jews, and Muslims, due to Roman Catholic persecution in the middle ages, and also to the nonsense of the “Replacement” theology gang.
I find that they welcome his real name, and warm up quickly.
>> Nobody called Yeshua “Jesus” until the late 16th century.<<
It would seem that there are those who actually have documentation that would refute that.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Sinaticus/sinaticus.html
Claims with actual documentation! You should try it.
Who are these "Pharisee scholars" they conspired with to prevent anyone from knowing the name of Yehova and why would they? It sure didn't work very well, regardless, as we know what the Hebrew words are that were transliterated into the name "Jesus" we use today. When I learned that Jesus was a combination of Hebrew words that meant "God who saves us", I praised the Lord and I knew what people meant when they said "Yeshua HaMashiach", but it didn't prevent my salvation or change the way I spoke His name in my prayers, my sharing of the gospel nor in reference to Him. I felt no urging by the Holy Spirit to cease using "Jesus" and switch to Yeshua HaMashiach. The obstinate insistance that Christians MUST use Yeshua HaMashiach whenever they speak of Jesus Christ smacks far more to me of Phariseeism than anything else.
You should have read that piece more carefully!
It supports my position quite well.
You need to study up on Orthodox Judaism.
They do not want the name Yehova, or any part of it revealed. (the Pharisees anyway)
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.