[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
…stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Chris,
Why go outside the bible if you haven’t done that yet.[/quote]
You brought up a valid question, but this begs the question: why do we look in the canon of Holy Scripture, how do we know that it is the authoritative Word of God and where does it get its authority?
[/quote]
We look at the Holy Scripture, not the canon of Holy Scripture. It was the Scripture from the beginning, no matter how long it took the early Christians to come into general agreement. Of course, as a Roman Catholic, you are taught we have the bible because of the church, which is not true at all. We have the bible because it is “given by inspiration of God…” (2Ti 3:16 KJV), not because it’s recognized or authorized by any certain council. The scribes are responsible for putting the OT in your lap. Would Christ have you rely on them for authoritative doctrine? As soon as you make tradition of equal authority with Scripture, you have violated Christ’s clear admonition in Mark 7.
Here’s how it happens- A certain passage will yield a teaching based on a conservative and contextual approach. Rather than accept what you have learned from the Scriptures alone, you seek out some church commentator and put his work next to this. If they are different, you rely on the commentator’s “interpretation”. In so doing “ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mar 7:9) You have effectively put tradition above Scripture thereby “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mar 7:13)
This is the fundamental problem of the Roman church, which has led you to believe so much that is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture.
[/quote]
Wow. I am terribly sorry, and let me very and truly apologize for upsetting you so much. I can see that I must have angered you from your argumentum ad hominem: that I am somehow lack the ability outside of the Catholic Church teaching me so, to know where the Bible gets its authority.
Or, the non-sequitor and begging the question/circular reasoning in which you explain the authority of the Bible…with the Bible.
Yes, I am a Catholic. No, I am not a Roman Catholic. However, even if I was a Roman Catholic, this Roman Catholic wants to know why we look into the Canon of Holy Script as the authoritative Word of God and how do we know that it is authoritative?
And to let you know as I studied history, as an agnostic not as a Catholic and surely not as a Roman Catholic, it became evident who gave authority to the Canon of Holy Scripture and it became clear who gave authority to the Catholic Church, and it became clear who gave authority to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, it became clear through the historical accounts of the Jewish, Roman, Greek and Christian historians (including the Evangelists).
Anyway, regards.
BC
P.S. I am not a philosophy student (unless you mean as a side study), I study economics & finance, mathematics, and a little bit of history (read: only a minor). I think I may have taken an intro to philosophy once, I probably skipped most of the classes, I don’t remember. Which means that I likely slept through the classes I was there. I am not a fan of philosophy…hurts my feeble and inferior and contingent brain. I’d much rather, as a Roman Catholic, say, “because the Church teaches so.” But, you know someone might ask me where the Church gets its authority.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
…stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [/quote]
[/quote]
“have been taught” is past tense. He is referring to himself, or one of his coworkers. Again, not some council that hasn’t happened yet.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Chris,
Why go outside the bible if you haven’t done that yet.[/quote]
You brought up a valid question, but this begs the question: why do we look in the canon of Holy Scripture, how do we know that it is the authoritative Word of God and where does it get its authority?
[/quote]
We look at the Holy Scripture, not the canon of Holy Scripture. It was the Scripture from the beginning, no matter how long it took the early Christians to come into general agreement. Of course, as a Roman Catholic, you are taught we have the bible because of the church, which is not true at all. We have the bible because it is “given by inspiration of God…” (2Ti 3:16 KJV), not because it’s recognized or authorized by any certain council. The scribes are responsible for putting the OT in your lap. Would Christ have you rely on them for authoritative doctrine? As soon as you make tradition of equal authority with Scripture, you have violated Christ’s clear admonition in Mark 7.
Here’s how it happens- A certain passage will yield a teaching based on a conservative and contextual approach. Rather than accept what you have learned from the Scriptures alone, you seek out some church commentator and put his work next to this. If they are different, you rely on the commentator’s “interpretation”. In so doing “ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mar 7:9) You have effectively put tradition above Scripture thereby “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mar 7:13)
This is the fundamental problem of the Roman church, which has led you to believe so much that is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture.
[/quote]
Wow. I am terribly sorry, and let me very and truly apologize for upsetting you so much. I can see that I must have angered you from your argumentum ad hominem: that I am somehow lack the ability outside of the Catholic Church teaching me so, to know where the Bible gets its authority.
Or, the non-sequitor and begging the question/circular reasoning in which you explain the authority of the Bible…with the Bible.
Yes, I am a Catholic. No, I am not a Roman Catholic. However, even if I was a Roman Catholic, this Roman Catholic wants to know why we look into the Canon of Holy Script as the authoritative Word of God and how do we know that it is authoritative?
And to let you know as I studied history, as an agnostic not as a Catholic and surely not as a Roman Catholic, it became evident who gave authority to the Canon of Holy Scripture and it became clear who gave authority to the Catholic Church, and it became clear who gave authority to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, it became clear through the historical accounts of the Jewish, Roman, Greek and Christian historians (including the Evangelists).
Anyway, regards.
BC
P.S. I am not a philosophy student (unless you mean as a side study), I study economics & finance, mathematics, and a little bit of history (read: only a minor). I think I may have taken an intro to philosophy once, I probably skipped most of the classes, I don’t remember. Which means that I likely slept through the classes I was there. I am not a fan of philosophy…hurts my feeble and inferior and contingent brain. I’d much rather, as a Roman Catholic, say, “because the Church teaches so.” But, you know someone might ask me where the Church gets its authority.[/quote]
I’m not upset or angry at all Chris. I have a son older than you. You’re not being sarcastic are you? I seems possible though. Honestly, you couldn’t make me angry if you tried;-]
You say I am begging the question, if I look to Scripture to authoritate Scripture. I must do so, as Scripture has claimed to be the very Words of God. In any other case you would be right.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Nor are any other persons oral traditions okay, only the apostles, that is Scripture. To do anything else is to walk disorderly.[/quote]
And the council, were they Apostles?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
…stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. [/quote]
[/quote]
“have been taught” is past tense. He is referring to himself, or one of his coworkers. Again, not some council that hasn’t happened yet.
[/quote]
Okay I still want to know where the Canon gets its authority, but this is such an interesting question I have to ask…since the Bible wasn’t put together until just before 400 AD or if you’re a Protestant 1500’s. Where do we go for truth? I mean of course after Paul is executed in Rome. And, why can’t anyone teach after Paul’s execution?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I’m not upset or angry at all Chris. I have a son older than you. You’re not being sarcastic are you? I seems possible though. Honestly, you couldn’t make me angry if you tried;-]
You say I am begging the question, if I look to Scripture to authoritate Scripture. I must do so, as Scripture has claimed to be the very Words of God. In any other case you would be right.[/quote]
No, I am serious. I thought I had angered you as I thought it to be absurd that someone should believe something that hasn’t proven its authority.
And, not just in any other case. In all cases. If Jesus Christ, our King of kings, has to answer by what authority he speaks…Canon of Scripture has to answer by what authority is it reliable. I mean really what is the bulwark and pillar of truth, after all?
Look at it this way Chris- The order can be 1)Scripture 2)a council or commentator’s pronouncement 3)you. Or you can switch positions 2 and 3. In effect it’s still the same, man bow’s before the BOOK.
Then you should show us, scripture alone, an explanation for Genesis cosmology. Nothing but scripture, now.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Look at it this way Chris- The order can be 1)Scripture 2)a council or commentator’s pronouncement 3)you. Or you can switch positions 2 and 3. In effect it’s still the same, man bow’s before the BOOK. [/quote]
The books were drawn together by Apostles?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
since the Bible wasn’t put together until just before 400 AD or if you’re a Protestant 1500’s. Where do we go for truth? I mean of course after Paul is executed in Rome. And, why can’t anyone teach after Paul’s execution? [/quote]
I actually answered this above. Just because it wasn’t collected in one book, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Scriptures didn’t need a council’s stamp of authentication before it became Scripture.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
since the Bible wasn’t put together until just before 400 AD or if you’re a Protestant 1500’s. Where do we go for truth? I mean of course after Paul is executed in Rome. And, why can’t anyone teach after Paul’s execution? [/quote]
I actually answered this above. Just because it wasn’t collected in one book, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Scriptures didn’t need a council’s stamp of authentication before it became Scripture.
[/quote]
They existed along with many ‘scriptures’ and forgeries.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you should show us, scripture alone, an explanation for Genesis cosmology. Nothing but scripture, now.[/quote]
A very poor 2D picture of a 3D universe.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
since the Bible wasn’t put together until just before 400 AD or if you’re a Protestant 1500’s. Where do we go for truth? I mean of course after Paul is executed in Rome. And, why can’t anyone teach after Paul’s execution? [/quote]
I actually answered this above. Just because it wasn’t collected in one book, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Scriptures didn’t need a council’s stamp of authentication before it became Scripture.
[/quote]
They existed along with many ‘scriptures’ and forgeries.
[/quote]
The forgeries were always that. The authentic letters Paul wrote were always that.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you should show us, scripture alone, an explanation for Genesis cosmology. Nothing but scripture, now.[/quote]
A very poor 2D picture of a 3D universe.[/quote]
This is your answer?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Look at it this way Chris- The order can be 1)Scripture 2)a council or commentator’s pronouncement 3)you. Or you can switch positions 2 and 3. In effect it’s still the same, man bow’s before the BOOK. [/quote]
The books were drawn together by Apostles?[/quote]
Sorry, don’t see at all what you’re trying to get at here.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
since the Bible wasn’t put together until just before 400 AD or if you’re a Protestant 1500’s. Where do we go for truth? I mean of course after Paul is executed in Rome. And, why can’t anyone teach after Paul’s execution? [/quote]
I actually answered this above. Just because it wasn’t collected in one book, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Scriptures didn’t need a council’s stamp of authentication before it became Scripture.
[/quote]
They existed along with many ‘scriptures’ and forgeries.
[/quote]
The forgeries were always that. The authentic letters Paul wrote were always that.[/quote]
And did the Apostles themselves collect them together into what you call the bible?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Look at it this way Chris- The order can be 1)Scripture 2)a council or commentator’s pronouncement 3)you. Or you can switch positions 2 and 3. In effect it’s still the same, man bow’s before the BOOK. [/quote]
What is the purpose of this order and why is it in this order?
How about this, lets pretend I am still a cold skeptical agnostic. I know who the historical figure Jesus Christ is and I believe I had a personal experience and had a conversion of my soul and mind. I want to be a Christian, but I don’t know where to start besides prayer for guidance.
I come to you and I ask you, by what authority do we know that the books of your Canon are divinely inspired? How do I know that there are too many or too little?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Look at it this way Chris- The order can be 1)Scripture 2)a council or commentator’s pronouncement 3)you. Or you can switch positions 2 and 3. In effect it’s still the same, man bow’s before the BOOK. [/quote]
The books were drawn together by Apostles?[/quote]
Sorry, don’t see at all what you’re trying to get at here.[/quote]
I’d like a ‘scripture alone’ explanation as to why our spacecraft do not disintegrate upon striking the firmament.