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?
Another good question: Upon what authority did the Catholic Church change the Sabbath to Sunday?
One answer comes from a book for which the author received a gold medal from the pope for his scholarship:
From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity by Samuele Bacchiocchi
see:
http://www.amazon.com/From-Sabbath-Sunday-Investigation-Christianity/dp/9998203945
This is trivially easy. The Holy Spirit. Whom, you must admit, is in the "church," whether your definition or mine.
There are similarly obvious answers for each of your supposed challenging questions. The real problem isn't that there are no answers; there are answers aplenty. The problem is to conduct an honest and charitable investigation of these answers. If I were discussing these with some local priest at a friendly Starbuck's gathering, what would the tone be? Superior, I hope, to what I see most of the time on these threads. I think we could make real progress if each side actually tried to get inside the head of the other side and try to get past the caricatures. “Bible Christians” have answers for each and every question given, but those answers conflict with fundamental assumptions of the other side, and so they are rejected as non-answers. And so both sides remain intransigent, thousands of words and hours and hours later. To what purpose? Better to admit the answers ARE answers, and that you just don’t like them because of X assumption. Then, and only then, can there be real progress, because only then can we get at the root cause of the conflict. Isn’t that the goal? Or am I missing something?
According to Exodus 21:22-25, abortion is not murder.
I’m surprised you’d go to the frankly moronic pro-choice defense of this practice
Read this
Beg your pardon, but your terminology is incorrect here. Where did you get that idea anyway?
The Catholic Church is centered on Christ, was centered on Christ in the past and will be centered on Christ in the future.
Glory be to God the Father,
God the Son
and God the Holy Spirit
as it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever will be. Amen
What church do you belong to anyway?
A problem with contraception. It is killing or preventing the formation of a baby. It is murder too.
**Euthanasia, all hinges on whether you think mercy killing is murder or not. **
Any murder is a sin, even euthanasia. Let the people die naturally.
Pro _ Life = from the womb to the tomb.
Nyer, your questions about the Bible certainly do bring up interesting thought. Here are my thoughts on the subject.....
I think the reason it took me until age 27 to realize a real relationship with my Lord and Savior (even though I professed belief since childhood), was because I tend to want to fully analyze everything. Normally that was a good procedure, but apparently God is way to complicated for the mere human mind to analyze.
It was when I actually got on my knees and said, “Lord, I give up all to you, I don’t deserve your blessing, your Grace, but I want it and know that only You can give it to me. And, Lord, I want MORE. I see a beauty and total “peace” in the eyes and life of some of my friends. I want that too. My Heavenly Father responded by introducing me to the Holy Spirit (His third Person). I know the Holy Spirit was in my heart already, but I was not listening to Him and allowing Him to control my life.
At that point reading and studying my Bible became a whole new experience. I came to realize how it is the “living Word of God”. It was not so much that someone told me that truth, or that I read it...... it was just a deep and abiding understanding that the Holy Spirit began showing and teaching me. It was not something that I had the capability to understand before, it was another gift God was giving me. The Word penetrated my life and exposed my soul, showing me what was right and wrong. I had read it before, but without full understanding, and now each time I read it, I understand more and more. Like a loving patient teacher, God continues to show me what I need to know and what I can understand as time goes on.
My Bible is a precious possession, but not magical or something to be kept under glass so as to not ruin it. Rather, it is a living part of my life, quite worn, full of notes in the margins, some questions that I know God will answer when He knows I am ready to understand.
And all that .... I take on pure FAITH, just as I take God the Father, Jesus the Son and Savior, and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity) on FAITH. Not because a book told me, but because He continues to prove it to me day after day. Nothing in the book (the living Word) has ever proven to be contradictory or untrue, on the contrary, it proves to be more true the longer I believe. I no longer NEED or require logical proof or material evidence, yet the more I don’t need proof, the more proof the Father continues to show me.
I will pray that you and others reading this thread and frustrated over not being able to answer the questions you have presented, will turn in FAITH to our Heavenly Father, open your hearts and minds to Him, and in time begin to understand the answers.
I'm not interested in anyone or anything that lifts up itself or another, that would in anyway detract from the sovereignty of Jesus.
I have known a few who "claim" Lord, lord...but their actions are anything but Christ honoring. I have watched churches (singular) do things in the name of Christ that are clearly of man. Any man or organization that spends much time or energy building itself up, or its authority, starts becoming about itself and less about Christ, no matter how much it tries to throw around the name of Jesus or God.
ALL glory and praise goes to the father and son. NONE goes to anyone else.
” I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew:
And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman (’ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse’u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The key phrase is “and the children go forth.” The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?
In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:
1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, “None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land.” But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.
2. Rather the word for birth here is “go forth” (ytsa’). “And if her children go forth . . .” This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children “going forth” or “coming out” from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, “And the first came out (wyetse’) red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau.” (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)
So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.
3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Isaiah 33:3). But these words are not used here.
4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. “Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form” (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).
5. Verse 22 says, “[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . .” It does not say, “[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . .” (NASB). The word “further” is NOT in the original text.
The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman (”If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . .”). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.
Likewise in verse 23 when it says, “But if there was injury . . .” it does not say “to the woman,” as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”
Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say,
If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . .
“
If there is a God who created Time then the Earth and then Man and placed them all in it and then He wanted a book with certain things in it that Men must know then THOSE things ARE in that Book. Period.
Post 42 Ephesians 2:20-22, Nicene Creed which many Churches use as well.
So let me see if I have this correct.
You're appealing to the authority of Scripture to give the church its authority after rejecting the authority of Scripture in post 5.
Well, then, I guess it was OK for the Catholic church to do it, right? I mean, after all, everyone else was doing it too.
Not unlike the Douay-Rheims then.
So why would Catholicism have a problem with inaccurate translations when THEY mistranslated passages of Scripture themselves?
The stupidity of that statement screams *agenda*.
Like people couldn't pick up a pen and write.
On the other hand the Bible makes specific mention of worshiping God the Father and emphatically mentions the Son Jesus.
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.