Posted on 07/01/2003 10:22:12 AM PDT by ksen
Give attention to would be work. I think the language is a problem for you. Poor flock.
A sheep to the slaughter. There was no defending in front of High Priest or Pilate. Pay attention to detail.
Lie.
I think it is interesting that the on the scene hearers understood exactly what Jesus said (no greek interpretaion needed for them). But now we are to believe that the Jewish scholars hearing the words first hand did not understand what Steves mentor does. There is a disconnect here somewhere.
I agree.
Certainly the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day didn't accept what Jesus claimed for himself.
But they clearly understood what he was claiming (messiahship and equality with God) ... and these claims Jesus never denied, ... despite the fact that it cost him his life.
Your whole premise, and the reason why I think that Luther was wrong, opens a pandora's box for a cafeteria style canon. i.e. one guy accepts all while another denies James, Jude and Hebrews.
This situation of cafetria style is what we are saddled with, whether we like it or not. God has not told us which books belong and which don't. The group that put the origional so-called NT together was not necessarily inspired. Well, I just thought of something. Perhaps it was inspired, but how do we decide whether it was or not? We have to examine the books one by one, just like they did, and we are thus unable to escape the cafeteria. In fact, I don't see how you can say the cafeteria is bad, granting that the origional assemblers of the NT were forced to go to that exact same cafeteria.
These are either the word of God, carrying all the weight that implies, or they are not. This is not just simple logic but basic to the faith.
I agree with you on individual books. Cutting out certain verses and not others is irrational and destroys faith. However, I am sure that one can (and must) make descisions at the book by book level: for example, War and Peace is NOT scripture.
By your standards, the same thing could be said about the Letter to Philemon!
Philemon was written by Paul, and hence, by virtue of being written by Paul, it is golden. So, no, by my standards it clearly makes the cut, since "everything written by Paul" is one of my standards. :)
BTW, how do you know the Apostle John wrote the gospel with his name on it? Or for that matter, how do you know Mark or Matthew wrote the gospels with their names on them. Who are you trusting to get this information?
I trust that the church has correctly attributed these works to the correct authors, from the earliest times to the present day. Moreover, skeptical researchers have tried very hard to debunk them, and have failed. This makes the attributions very strong.
A sheep to the slaughter. There was no defending in front of High Priest or Pilate. Pay attention to detail.
The accusation (that Jesus claimed to be God) came up well before JESUS was before the High Priest or Pilate (i.e. John 10).
Though Jesus (non-silently) addressed the issue here (John 10), once again, ... he didn't deny it.
The gospel of Luke and Acts are believed written 60-62 AD. The Letter(gospel) having been written first.
Paul wrote Timothy and Titus after his realease from prison 62-64AD
The letter written by Luke would have had wide circulation.
There are some that believe that Pauls use of the word "scripture" in that passage is meant for both the OT quote and Luke...But that is not as important a point as the fact he quoted it with authority
Does this mean you are unable to articulate exactly what you believe? At least I can tell you what I believe.
How are you saved by a man like your self?
Every book has to give the plan of salvation, has to be self-contained? Where did this principle come from?
No, salvation plan is just an indicator. It makes me go "Hmmmm". I do not argue the point strongly. And "self-contained" has nothing to do with it (as far as I can tell).
It sounds to me like you have a pre-conceived notion of exactly what Scripture should tell you, and that you reject that which doesn't fit your notion. Perhaps James is there for a reason after all.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me. In other words, James does not quite appear completely of a piece with the rest of what is clearly and definitively Scripture. It is certainly not a pre-conceived notion with respect to the 24, however, since the 24 is the basis for the notion in the first place. And, incidenally, Hebrews and Jude pass with flying colors. They are without any doubt of the same warp and weave, the same "stuff" as the others.
You responded
Lie.
Here is your response to Alex's earlier question. I remember being impressed you could turn out such lengthy posts in a short time
Your answer
Gee. If it bothered you that much I'd expect not to see my name in "ping" format. The material in question however is my own. So thank you for confirming you're too busy responding in your little world of non-negotiable theologies to pay much attention. Lol. Wake me up when you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute.
SD
No it actually doesn't. It just means that I'm actually tired of your "comfort of Calvinism" and talking to you.
At least I can tell you what I believe.
Lol. How are you saved by a man like your self?
By YHWH. Adonai Echad. Cya later busybody.
The point is what follows ...John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.The point is ... Jesus never denies this accusation.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Wouldn't you think that, as a Torah-observant Jewish rabbi, ... he would have been obligated to do so ?
You did say:
It is unlikely that the book of James alone could give a man a proper understanding of Redemption, which is criticle for salvation.
This seemed, to me, to be arguing that a book must, alone, be capable of giving "a proper understanding of Redemption." This seems to be your main basis for rejecting it.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me.
So you have this idea of what "a proper understanding of Redemption" is, based on 24 books. Rather than make that "understanding" jibe with the remaining canon, you reject the canon and hold onto your "understanding" as the rule.
SD
It is not MY theory *grin* it a point of scholarship, I am not that smart.
We accept the canon because we believe the Holy Spirit worked in that group of men to preserve the books that were inspired. One thing does not negate the other. It is simply a point of interest that Paul would comfirm Luke's Book as scripture.
So what? They were going to listen to him if he did? Take off those trinity glasses and try to read objectivly. by the way. you're no longer a breath of fresh air. The true colors are showing.
Same group of men that gave you Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papacy & apostolic succession. Oh to be consistent.
You would like to pretend that you will not state what you believe because you do not like me. But that has nothing to do with you explaining how you see salvation.
It is my guess you have not worked that out just yet. Because part of you believes you are saved by grace , but the doctrine you are moving toward demands works.
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.