[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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?[/quote]
This is a very good question. I’ll give it some thought and answer you later. I have to work for awhile.
[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]
Then how do I know which books are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, &c?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
Do you really think Genesis is not valid as it stands without a scientific treatise. You are way off track. I reject what contradicts scripture, not what supplements it. In the case of Genesis, what you can see with your telescope.
[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]
Okay, I want to know truth. That is my par excellence goal in life is to follow truth no matter where it goes, even if it leads me to the German Manichee monasteries. So, please tell me how I know which were forgeries, authentic’s, and non-divinely inspired letters of Paul?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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?[/quote]
This is a very good question. I’ll give it some thought and answer you later. I have to work for awhile.[/quote]
Well in deed. I never put it against a man for working.
Anyway, regards.
BC
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
Do you really think Genesis is not valid as it stands without a scientific treatise. You are way off track. I reject what contradicts scripture, not what supplements it. In the case of Genesis, what you can see with your telescope. [/quote]
“Contradicts?” “Supplements?” The cosmology in Genesis is clear. You’re now outside of ‘scripture alone.’
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
Okay, I want to know truth. That is my par excellence goal in life is to follow truth no matter where it goes, even if it leads me to the German Manichee monasteries. So, please tell me how I know which were forgeries, authentic’s, and non-divinely inspired letters of Paul?[/quote]
[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]
Well, since they weren’t THE Apostles, he can’t tell you how to know.
I’m pretty much done. Looked like a very specific topic at first, but you know how that goes.
My apologies to kamui. If you wish to discuss this further, let’s take this to another thread or PM me.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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?[/quote]
Okay first for this one.
Jesus Christ derives His authority from the Father. He said as much Himself. He even stated “I and my Father are one”. Actually, I could just stop there. But how did He demonstrate He is God, and that He had this authority is of course your question:
- By the miracles which He did.
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (Joh 3:2)
But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
(Mat 8:27)
- By His sinless manner of living.
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: (1Pe 2:22)
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. (Luk 23:4)
- By the astounding power of His words.
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
(Joh 7:45-46)
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
(Mar 1:22)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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]
I think the above might lend us some help when considering the question of what books are actually Scripture. You might ask this general question- Does this book manifest any power, like a book inspired by God? Is it full of grace and truth. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (Joh 1:17) The above question might be framed specifically- Does this book produce substantial changes in the lives of those who adhere to it with piousness and humility? (This does not include hypocrites, or those that merely make intellectual professions.) Do these people exhibit a peace of heart and moral quality in their behavior, that you would expect in someone who has a relationship with the Author of all that is good? What is the opposite result, that is the rejection of this book, or the superseding of this book by traditions? When you read it yourself, does it minister to your own soul?
I realize these measurements are subjective at least in some degree. At some point along your journey, faith will have to come into play. God does not intend to allow man to discover all via intellectual endeavors. Although even faith doesn’t need to reject reason. For example- If you have concluded your Creator also has interest in your life, and desires for you to know Him, then what better way than to give you a book, is a reasonable conclusion. Of course the next step is what book, which is where we’re at. Would He make it so hard to find this book that a lifetime of study might not yield a solid answer? I’ve concluded no.
You certainly could pick up an apocryphal book and read it. I read some of them many years ago. After one reading it seemed to me they were not on par with the protestant canon, and I didn’t explore them further. If you think a certain book deserves consideration, look into why that book was rejected.
In any case, the books of the Protestant canon are not rejected by Catholics. For sure it’s a good start. Read them for awhile, before you do the above.
I think I’ve covered as much as I should in one post. Feel free to follow with more questions/comments.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
We both know they did not collect them into a single book. What is your point? Are you trying to say the were hidden, and no one had any idea which ones they should be reading? Go and read some stuff on the canonization process; this is not the case at all. You will find that these councils are acknowledging those books that had already obtained prominence in usage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
Do you really think Genesis is not valid as it stands without a scientific treatise. You are way off track. I reject what contradicts scripture, not what supplements it. In the case of Genesis, what you can see with your telescope. [/quote]
“Contradicts?” “Supplements?” The cosmology in Genesis is clear. You’re now outside of ‘scripture alone.’ [/quote]
My Dear Mr. Sloth-
In my post before you started in with the tradition quotes, I think I was pretty clear in contrasting Scripture alone vs. commentators/tradition that contradict Scripture. If you didn’t follow, I can only apologize. I have already clarified my meaning for you, you can describe it how you like. As far as the verses you quote referring to tradition, there is no reason to think Paul is referring to anyone else besides what he said or wrote himself, or what his coworkers said. He is the “apostle to the Gentiles”. Could he authorize something that contradicts what he himself teaches? It is absurd to suggest that some tradition taking shape after he writes could both contradict what he said, and have his approval.
In your posts, it appears you advocate for tradition outside of scripture, and I define this as those that contradict Scripture. If it does not, it’s really just a reiteration of Scriptural truth. Obviously, if we are on some scientific topic, the bible alone won’t have any technical detail, and that goes without saying. Expounding on black holes or the ATP cycle is not outside of scripture in the sense I’m discussing here.
By the way, are you advocating for a certain school of traditions? Romanism perhaps? Or are you merely against a literal reading of Genesis?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My apologies to kamui. If you wish to discuss this further, let’s take this to another thread or PM me.[/quote]. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_q_a?id=4262621&pageNo=40
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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?[/quote]
Okay first for this one.
Jesus Christ derives His authority from the Father. He said as much Himself. He even stated “I and my Father are one”. Actually, I could just stop there. But how did He demonstrate He is God, and that He had this authority is of course your question:
- By the miracles which He did.
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (Joh 3:2)
But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
(Mat 8:27)
- By His sinless manner of living.
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: (1Pe 2:22)
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. (Luk 23:4)
- By the astounding power of His words.
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
(Joh 7:45-46)
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
(Mar 1:22)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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]
I think the above might lend us some help when considering the question of what books are actually Scripture. You might ask this general question- Does this book manifest any power, like a book inspired by God? Is it full of grace and truth. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (Joh 1:17) The above question might be framed specifically- Does this book produce substantial changes in the lives of those who adhere to it with piousness and humility? (This does not include hypocrites, or those that merely make intellectual professions.) Do these people exhibit a peace of heart and moral quality in their behavior, that you would expect in someone who has a relationship with the Author of all that is good? What is the opposite result, that is the rejection of this book, or the superseding of this book by traditions? When you read it yourself, does it minister to your own soul?
I realize these measurements are subjective at least in some degree. At some point along your journey, faith will have to come into play. God does not intend to allow man to discover all via intellectual endeavors. Although even faith doesn’t need to reject reason. For example- If you have concluded your Creator also has interest in your life, and desires for you to know Him, then what better way than to give you a book, is a reasonable conclusion. Of course the next step is what book, which is where we’re at. Would He make it so hard to find this book that a lifetime of study might not yield a solid answer? I’ve concluded no.
You certainly could pick up an apocryphal book and read it. I read some of them many years ago. After one reading it seemed to me they were not on par with the protestant canon, and I didn’t explore them further. If you think a certain book deserves consideration, look into why that book was rejected.
In any case, the books of the Protestant canon are not rejected by Catholics. For sure it’s a good start. Read them for awhile, before you do the above.
I think I’ve covered as much as I should in one post. Feel free to follow with more questions/comments.[/quote]
I’ll ask further questions at the link below, since it is disrespectful to continue this conversation in this thread, even if it is fundamental to the conversation at hand even if seemingly abstract to some.
Anyway, regards.
BC
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_q_a?id=4262621&pageNo=40