Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[daniel1212]

Been using this extension which enables pop-up viewing of most bible references. For Firefox and Chrome. As usual with most every extension, you get the scary "can read" or access data on websites," but and thus read what this means.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks!

[wita]

Ya gonna believe James or Jesus?

Ya can’t do both.

...and you believe that ya can’t do both? Seems to me James was present at the transfiguration, which might give you a clue.

Your position is contrary to logic, reason, truth, common sense, much less The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Ya can’t do both.

If you believe in the ONE He sent, you will believe also in the book of James.

Then there is this: Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

[wita]

Do you believe in “by faith and by works”?

A question that came immediately to mind.

I’ll bet I know the answer, but thanks for asking.

[metmom]

Perhaps the Bible is incomplete (if it is) because the Lord expects the Holy Spirit indwelling believers to reveal its meaning and truth.

The Bible is NOT *incomplete* because it does not contain all knowledge and a detailed record of everything Jesus said or did.

But it DOES contain everything we need to be fully equipped and complete for the work God has for us to do.

God put in all that was necessary, not everything some person decides needed to be added to make it *complete*.

[metmom]

God put in all that HE knew we needed to be complete and mature in Christ.

[RoosterRedux]

Whether the Bible is incomplete or not is NOT my point.

My point is that the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals the Truth of the Bible to the believer.

[metmom]

That is most certainly true.

The most complete spiritual work in the world will make no sense to someone who is dead spiritually.

[Big Red Badger]

I’ll check it out...
Smart phones——meh
Thanks !

[daniel1212]

I had some excellent writing composition courses in college. My professors drilled into me the fact that no one wants to read long rambling essays. They used to say, "Write like Hemingway...no extra words, no rambling paragraphs, be extremely economical, try to write without using adjectives and adverbs." They called wordiness an exercise in vanity.

Well, there is wordiness and there is comprehensiveness, esp. in apologetics, in which case not only are there arguments to be countered but anticipated responses to the later as well. Although, in dealing with persistent posters of RC propaganda, this is usually that of dealing with past iterations of refuted RC polemics, and which may warrant posting from past ignored refutations in response.

And since encyclicals can be quite long (John XXIII's final encyclical, Pacem in terris, is over 15,000 words), then they have their papal prolixity.

[daniel1212]

I spend all day reading. Like most people, I have to cut to the bottom line pretty quickly in the material I digest or I wouldn't be able to cover much ground.

I myself usually skim an article quickly for the meat, esp. in posting an article here so as to provide the reader with it. Those who carelessly just post the leading content, sometimes with repetition extraneous content, are not being mindful and considerate of those who skim the article page for content worth reading.

[RoosterRedux]

Good points. But what is comprehensiveness to the writer is often wordiness to the reader.

If you are one of those folks who reads footlong comments (or longer), my hat's off to you.

[RoosterRedux]

Amen.

When I post a thread at FR, I usually include just the most important points from an article.

Doing so might be a violation of the "Fair Use Laws" but I haven't had any complaints yet.

[daniel1212]

Amen. When I post a thread at FR, I usually include just the most important points from an article. Doing so might be a violation of the "Fair Use Laws" but I haven't had any complaints yet.

I often use https://wordcounter.net/ to compile snippets up to the normally allowed 300 words.

[daniel1212]

Good points. But what is comprehensiveness to the writer is often wordiness to the reader. If you are one of those folks who reads footlong comments (or longer), my hat's off to you.

No, aside from replies to me, I usually skim for the meat.

[Elsie]

When you’re paid by the word; and have a word processor, you just gave yourself a raise!

[Elsie]

The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

Now; as Paul Harvey would state: the REST of the story...

The New Testament itself teaches that it DOES contain enough to get any person to heaven that follows the narrow path.

John 20:30-31

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

[Elsie]

Seems to me James was present at the transfiguration, which might give you a clue.

Was James present when Jesus made His reply in John 6:29?

Did Jesus mention that His reply was not quite everything that one MUST do; and that He'd fill in the blanks when Joe Smith moved to Missouri?

[RoosterRedux]

There are other requirements and prohibitions to the Fair Use Laws (other than just a 300-word-ish excerpt)...like not taking the heart out of an article when borrowing freely from it.

The entire purpose of the Fair Use laws is to permit the use of otherwise copyrighted material to create something "new." Not to do what I do--which is to reduce an article to a handful of statements and then republish them on FR.

I hate to admit it, but I violate the spirit of the Fair Use law.

I do this out of a fondness for FR and Freepers.

[Cronos]

1. "Our Lord Himself never wrote..."

Well, ebb is wrong -- The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. As you point out the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God.

I would note that ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.

1b " If reading the Bible were a necessary means "

You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that "reading" the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation -- and similarly Luke 24:44-45 is explaining to the Apostles why Jesus came and not a warlord Meschiach

Similarly John 20 does NOT in any way state that "reading is a necessary means of salvation" - nor could that be construed by reading the text

2. "How many of the Apostles actually wrote..."

well, I agree with you - it isn't an argument for or against sola scriptura. Thaddeus and Bartholomew went to preach to the Jews and gentiles in Iraq and Iran while Thomas went to preach and convert Jews and gentiles in southern India

The fact that they didn't write anything could just mean that they didn't have anything to add i.e. were not inspired to expound on what was taught to them by Jesus

2.b. "If the Bible privately.."

ebb is correct on this - Thaddeus and Bartholomew and Thomas at the most would have had the Jewish scriptures to rely upon when they visited the Jews in Iraq, Iran and India. But they also converted gentiles there.

They highly likely - and in Thomas' case most definitely - did not rely on Pauline epistles to create the foundations of the Assyrian or the Marthomite churches

You quote Acts 17:2 -- but that was Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees

Then you falsely say "sola ecclesia" - which is not what the Church nor ebb has said. The Church does not say "sola ecclesia" -- you did that

Next, you make a completely spurious - meaning false statement of "the word of God consists of and means what Rome says, according to her interpretation" -- false - this was as per councils, not "Rome"

The only ones claiming that the Bible says only what they themselves say tend to be sola scriptura folks

3. "Jesus founded a Church"

"an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD

The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews

Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD -- The Mishnah, compiled at the end of the 2nd century CE, describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular over whether or not they render the hands ritually impure. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to a debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta'anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century

Neusner argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in 2nd-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine, pp. 128–45, and Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism, pp. 1–22.

Scripture i.e. the Prophets and the Torah and to some extent the other writings, was the foundation for the Church's dogmatic claim, but it was not claimed as the SOLE method for dissemination of grace and/or salvation

Next, your claim that "Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul. The Old Testament books provided verification for the claims of Jesus as the anointed one

"Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture" - scripture was the means for validating, not for dissemination of salvation as is abundantly clear in the entire book of Acts of the Apostles

Argument 4 "Difference"

I don't get ebb or your points -- there is no one "Protestant Bible" in any case as some denominations have their own interpretations

comment "How would it have been possiblef or 2nd century christians"

ebb is correct that there was NO private interpretation of the teachings of Christ - except by heretics like Marcion etc.

2nd century Christians were taught by the spoken word - the bishops were very active in going around trying to ensure that only the exact teachings of Jesus were repeated. There were few written texts until Mark's writing in 50 AD