Here, you two can share this!
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?
There you go again making perfect sense! Stop it right now:) It is out of the norm around these parts:)
Amen and Amen!
You may want to hang your hat on the above in another thread. It is a very good topic to discuss.
Bump for later
I think Christians both Jewish and "Greek" are a bit more advanced in their studies of the Holy Scriptures today. Until a few weeks ago I never knew the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) existed and before that for years I referenced the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB). I use both to reference names and places because I just like doing it. My point? No one posting here seems to be resisting the FACT that in Hebrew Jesus' Name is Yeshua. No one is arguing that. What is argued is the claim that Jesus does not equal:"for He will save His people from their sins" or "God Saves." No one here is worshipping Zeus or any other pagan false god.
The Name Jesus (in English translations) is defined up front and early in the NT, which means all following references reach back to the first reference.
No one is saying they said much different - but they CAN qualify certain passages that are problematic in the Greek - For instance, The Greek says that Yeshua said not to swear at all - That statement is actually transgressing the Torah. And if Yeshua actually transgressed the Torah, He is not the spotless sacrifice. So it is a very important point of debate.
In the Shem Tov Matthew, for instance, the passage says 'Do not swear falsely at all, which is not against Torah, and fits better in the context, because it is known in the Hebrew Tradition that the Pharisees thought it was fine to swear falsely unless you were using the name of Yahweh... Because the Torah says specifically that one was to swear truthfully when swearing by the Name. And since the Pharisees had prevented everyone from using the ineffable Name, One could swear falsely till the cows come home. And it fits the context of the passage very well, as He then goes into an explanation. And btw, He says to swear elsewhere... So in that case, one has to consider what the Shem Tov brings to the table, wouldn't you agree?
And as an aside, in that passage, those Pharisees were 'destroying' the Torah. and Yeshua was 'fulfilling' it... But maybe that little bit of Hebraism is best left for another day.
Now one can say that the Shem Tov, copied by a Jew, was wrong, and that Jews have an axe to grind - but in this case, it actually defends Yashua - So what then is the motive for changing the words?
And speculating on what the Hebrew might have originally said is a waste of time because there’s no way of verifying it. So then we’re left with NOTHING.
That isn't exactly right. But then, that isn't the point. What is more important is if Yeshua and the disciples were speaking and teaching in Greek or Hebrew, because the words that we have convey a different meaning depending upon that very thing. A 'disciple' in a Greek mind is very much different from a disciple in an Hebrew mind.
As another instance, the Hebrew 'believe', as I have said here before, means something close to 'Hear and Do'... What does that knowledge, that very basic thing, mean to the faith v. works debate? What does it say to 'faith without works is nothing'? It is really pretty important to it, no? And it defends the Protestant position btw, because if there are not resulting works, then one never believed in the first place.
All I see in that argument is Satan’s further efforts to impugn the Word of God. Did God REALLY say....?
Did YHWH really say the Torah (which He earlier says is forever) now means nothing, as many who read Paul suggest? Which side of that question do you suppose Satan is on?
(No, He didn’t. You’re missing out on some secret knowledge that God doesn’t want you to know about, but come to us and we’ll tell you)
There is no 'secret knowledge' here. What secret knowledge have I espoused? The knowledge is plain, right there on the paper. What is hiding it is a blanket of Greek thought, and a long history of Roman propaganda.
Remember Islam still believes that the Scriptures were radically altered to say that Jesus was the Son of God who died and rose again, regardless of zero evidence among the thousands of mss, even those antedating Muhammad by hundreds of years.
RCs now can only wish they could have in order to get a prayer to saints or a church looking to Peter as its supreme infallible head. Etc.
WHERE? LIKE I SAID, many, many times now, I use the very SAME Bible you do. All I have EVER done is provide very standard textual criticism, which you are very welcome to dispute, just as soon as you tell me which MS or exemplar is the pure and perfect NT, which you have NEVER done, because, frankly, you can't.
The reason you can't is evident upon it's face: The text is not infallible. It is what is IN the text that is infallible, as I have said all along. And ANY Greek scholar would freely admit the many variations that are present. That does ^nothing^ other than inform. Sheesh! This is worse than the King James Only crowd.
[...] you say that those who call Him Jesus are wrong.
Outside of the textual context, in which is certainly true that His name is 'Yeshua', where have I accused ANYONE? Really, show me, because that is not my intention. Call him how you like, but don't go telling me that a transliteration of the Hebrew name is literally the correct one, because it plainly is not. Transliteration, by it's nature, is punting.
Oh, and btw, what have I obfuscated in the least? I have been VERY straightforward.
Funny, because it seems to be me that is being criticized. And 'legalism' is not what I am preaching at all. I am about knowledge not power.
One of the best definitions of legalism that I’ve ever seen is being personally convicted by God of something and then demanding everyone else do it as well.
I have made no demands of anyone, other than 'Follow Him'.
This is what’s going on here. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that any of this stuff on the name of Jesus is of consequence regarding one’s salvation, any more than what day one worships on is.
Once again, even sommore yet: I have declared over and over and over and over and over... Hear me now: IT IS NOT ABOUT SALVATION.
God knows the heart and accepts the one who trusts His Messiah by faith, whatever language they speak.
Where do you get that idea? My entire journey upon this thread is about context, context, context! Hebrew context v. Greek context. I didn't say anything like that! Shoot, I cannot speak Hebrew myself! Why Hebrew matters is because of the context.
Well then I am baffled, because all I did was contend that the transliteration is defined by that which was transliterated, as it must be.
GarySpFc>>There is not a reputable NT scholar who believes Luke and Acts were first written in Hebrew.
Firstly, the first rule in providing a sound exegesis for a passage, chapter, or book is to address who is speaking to whom, about what, why, when, and where.
Secondly, doesn't it seem strange to you that Luke, a Greek speaking physician, would send his two letters to Theopolis, a Greek speaking official, in Hebrew?
Thirdly, I have been married to a Russian lady for many years. We have a second home in Volgograd. I don't travel there as often as I once did, however when I do write my American family and friends regarding Russia or Russians I include items in my emails which you would label puns.
I am sick of it. This is doing no good.
I can appreciate your being sick of it, but it does do good.
No truth ever escapes without vigorous debate; the adversary does his best to silence it.
You should try the Crevo threads.
Here, you two can share this!
I wish this stupidity really were dead, but...
WRONG! If you want to argue this point, I can guarantee you will lose.
THEOPHILUS (PERSON) [Gk Theophilos (Θεοφιλος)]. The name, meaning “friend or beloved of God,” appears in literature, inscriptions, and papyri of both Jews and gentiles from the 3d century B.C. (BAGD 358). In the NT, Theophilus is the only person mentioned to whom writings were dedicated (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Many scholars believe that he was a real person, because dedications of the time customarily referred to real persons. However, this specific person is not easy to identify, and the pseudonym “Theophilus” was probably used to protect this individual from the political authorities. Any number of suggestions have been made about Theophilus’ identity: (1) Theophilus, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas; (2) Theophilus, an Athenian official convicted of perjury by the Areopagus; (3) Theophilus of Antioch; (4) Sergius Paulus, proconsul (Acts 13:6–12); (5) Lucius Junius Annaeus Gallio (Acts 18:12–17), the brother of Seneca; (6) Titus Flavius Clemens, the husband of Domitilla and the heir presumptive of Domitian, who may have been executed because of his interest in Christianity; (7) Philo; or (8) Agrippa II (Acts 25:13–26:32; Marx 1980: 18–26). The title which Luke gives Theophilus, “most excellent” (Luke 1:3; cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), suggests that he was a person of social and political prominence, perhaps a Roman governor, procurator, or magistrate, but this is by no means certain (Minear 1973: 133). Very likely, he was a leading figure in the group that Luke was addressing (Maddox 1982: 12).
O’Toole, R. F. (1992). Theophilus (Person). In (D. N. Freedman, Ed.)The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
The apostles didn’t carry on conversation in any language but Hebrew, and that is most likely the language that he heard everything in. Most of “God’s People” at that time were still Hebrews.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! In fact when the Jews rejected the Gospel, Paul took the message to the Gentiles.
But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Ac 18:6). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
>> “Many scholars believe that he was a real person” <<
I’d love to sell them some of my ocean front property near Phoenix.
.
>> “In fact when the Jews rejected the Gospel, Paul took the message to the Gentiles.” <<
.
Those few gentiles were attending Jewish synagogues; read Acts 15.
Maybe so in your phantom Hebrew book of Acts, but in the hundred plus New Testaments I own Acts 15 refers to churches, NOT synagogues.
The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Ac 15:3). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
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.