AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
This aren't the gotcha questions you want them to be.
"Where did we get the Bible from?"
- You can't say the Rome because it introduces a problem. The OT existed prior to "Rome as a Church group." So if you want to really take this approach, then you probably need to convert to Judaism.
We absolutely can claim that the Bible was handed down to us by God's chosen people through God's authoritative church. The OT comes to us through the Jews from Moses up to Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the OT and gave His authority to Peter and the Apostles, promised the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, and established His visible and authoritative NT Church. In a very real sense it is through the SAME Church that we received the Bible, both OT and NT. The institutions are not different bodies but one continuous Church. So, I would disagree with you the the OT existed prior to "Rome".
The question was "Where did we get the BIble from?" not whatever your trying to answer. You have a habit of asking and answering the question you want to answer, not the question at hand.
I was responding to your statement that we can't say Rome gave us the Bible because the OT existed before
Jesus "Rome", and that we need to convert to Judaism. I was just highlighting that Jesus was Jewish, and so were Peter and all of the Apostles who were also the very first Christians. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled so you have it exactly backwards above.
AgLiving06 said:
You also present yourself with a problem with your answer.
If the "Church" of the OT was infallible to preserve and pass the Scriptures, why did Jesus spend so much time explaining to the Pharisees and Sadducees where they had gone wrong?
If the Church was infallible prior to Jesus, does that make Jesus wrong?
Here is another example of your changing words to rephrase what I actually said shifting the meaning and setting up your straw-man to beat down. Congratulations. Authoritative =/= Infallible.
With regard to Jesus and the Pharisees remember what he said about them they sit on Moses' Seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do because they are hypocrites. Jesus recognized that at that moment they were the proper authority with the power to bind and loose because they sat on the seat of Moses. Infallible? No. Authoritative? Yes.
AgLiving06 said:
Additionally, there's no way we can claim to be the same Church as the OT. God's people was extremely narrow to the point that it excluded many people of Jewish descent (Canaanites, Moabites, Hittites, etc).
The promise of the NT is materially different.
But finally and just to be abundantly clear, You claim that you are "one continuous Church" with a group who would absolutely not agree with you and dismisses the NT and would say you are misinterpreting the OT that they preserved.
So as I said, it would seem if you wanted to be part of the "church" that infallible collected the OT, you would want to become Jewish.
I would like to point out that that NONE of these words you have posted in your "response" to the question originally asking
Where did we get the Bible from have attempted to address the actual question. NOT ONE. 100% of everything you have posted here is just telling us what we cannot claim and/or what the end result or consequence of our position must mean (which you are very wrong about btw).
And now to address this point First Century Christians like Mary, Peter, the Apostles, Paul, etc. etc. etc. were ALL Jews who became followers of Jesus. The fact that other Jews did not convert to become followers of Jesus but remained Jews changes nothing about the NT Church. The fact that Jews kept being Jews does nothing to change what Christians believe or what the Christian Church believes or teaches. Jesus built his Church on Peter and the Apostles and gave them His authority and the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit and promised that guidance until the end of the ages. That's good enough for me.
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
- You also aren't arguing that the Rome commissioned Paul or Matthew or Luke or Peter to write the books, so the actual writing is also not dependent on the Rome.
Again you fail to grasp the whole point. Nobody is claiming "Rome" is responsible for all things Christian and/or somehow replaces the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus established His visible and authoritative Church on Peter and the Apostles, and it was through these chosen men (the Church) that we have received their writings. It was through this same Church that the writings were collected and then either included in the Bible or excluded from the Bible. This entire process was guided by the Holy Spirit, and this Church is the visible and Apostolic Church going all the way back to Peter, who was appointed by Jesus. Without the church, the writings of Paul, Matthew, Luke, & Peter would not be meaningful and would be unknown to us today.
AgLiving06 said:
Once again, you change the question and answer what you want to answer.
We are still on the question of
Where did we get the Bible from? right? Because thus far you have offered nothing in the way of an answer to that question. Nada.
AgLiving06 said:
Did I say Rome was responsible for all things? No I pointed out that Rome (or any established "Church") did not commission the writing of the books. The most you can say is that the church received the writings that God wanted man to retain so that we knew His Word.
I'm not going to respond to your comments on Peter because they are way off topic, other than to point out that the church has never universally agreed with your claims, which of course presents more problems for your argument.
To be abundantly clear again, no Church or human commissioned the writing of any of the books of the NT (and obviously the OT).
You continue to say that no Church or human "commissioned" the writings that became the NT as if proactively commissioning the writings is somehow necessary. I don't understand the point you are attempting to make or what you think that proves? Jesus Christ chose his Apostles and Disciples and He established his visible and authoritative Church on earth. These leaders, through the course of establishing churches and spreading the good news and teaching the faith did many things. One of those many things was to write letters to instruct, teach, encourage, correct, and reproof. They were not hyper-focused on the documentation part, but some of these many letters were preserved by the Church and were eventually recognized as Scripture. Was that their intent? Probably not, but the Church gathered and collected writings and discerned which of them should be included or excluded from the Bible.
The Church is not a building or a place. The Church is made up of fallible people. The Church did much more than just
"receive the writings that God wanted man to retain so that we knew his word". The Church wrote them, received them, collected them, discerned them, and canonized them. The only way all of this happens is IF there is a visible and authoritative Church, which I am arguing there was and there is today. Last point on this, The "Word of God" is not limited only to the Bible.
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
- But even more simply, "Rome" didn't decide the canon. As has been pointed out in other areas, the Apocrypha literally stands for disputed texts and to this day are treated differently among different groups.
The fact remains that the "disputed and apocryphal" books are/were included in the Bible (East & West) from the time of Hippo & Carthage, translated and included by Jerome in the vulgate, remained after the 1054 Schism, etc. etc. etc. These "disputed" books are now rejected as Scripture by today's Protestants and the question we are asking WHO today has that authority?? What individual or what body rightfully holds that power and authority?
AgLiving06 said:
First, I'm surprised you haven't done the research yet on the "who removed the books?" You've been asking for so long, I assumed you'd look into it.
I have looked into who removed the books from the Bible, and the answer should be very concerning for any "Sola Scriptura" Protestant believer. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and not look into it critically for themselves. When America was born the Bible contained 73 books. In the early 1800's, Protestant Bible societies began a movement to finally have the 7 Deuterocanonical books expunged from the Bible and eventually they were successful. Alarmingly it is not possible to pinpoint WHO was actually responsible and by WHAT authority they made this decision or from WHERE this "authority" derived.
AgLiving06 said:
Second, once again, you change the question to the one you want to answer.
We are still on the SAME question of
Where did we get the Bible from.. You have yet to address that question or make any attempt to provide an answer to the question. Go back and read everything you have written and ignore everything I have written. NOTHING you have offered here goes to the question at hand. All you have done is tell me/us we are wrong and the problem with our position but you have still not made any attempt to answer the question.
AgLiving06 said:
I'll just reply with this: "As has been pointed out in other areas, the Apocrypha literally stands for disputed texts and to this day are treated differently among different groups."
I know you keep saying this but it really answers nothing. I can accept the books are/were disputed which begs the question WHO ended the dispute? By what authority? Saying they were disputed does not give permission to jettison the books and cast them out.
now on to question #2:
AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
"How do we know what books are inspired."
- The simple answer is through the Holy Spirit because Jesus tells us so. John 14:25-26 "25 "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
This is not an answer. Sorry. The Holy Spirit cannot lie and is not confused. The Holy Spirit was sent to guide the Church into all truth. This church includes the 7 "disputed" books in our Bible. Protestants exclude them. Are you saying the Holy Spirit can be divided and lead Christians into different truths?
I don't even know what your trying to say? You must have responded to the wrong thing b/c none of what you claim here is a reply to my statements.
I've included your original for context. You said that we know what books are inspired through the Holy Spirit and you quoted a verse to support your assertion. You hold to a 66 Book Biblical Canon excluding the 7 Books. Catholics and Orthodox have a larger Canon including the 7 Books. The Holy Spirit is God and cannot lead the Church into error so how do we know with certainty which of us is rightly following the Holy Spirit? This is why I go back to the visible, Apostolic, and authoritative truth and NOT the Bible societies of the 1800's.
AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
- Just as Jesus intervened in mankind, the Holy Spirit also taught and gave to us a remembrance of what Jesus said...i.e. the Church and the Scriptures.
What are you trying to say here because you are not making a coherent point?
nice reply. It's quite coherent. You just don't like what it means.
The entire disagreement we are having is about what books belong in the Bible. Your response is vague and ambiguous and thus unintelligible. When you say Church what do you mean and when?
AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgLiving06 said:
"Where in the Bible does it say that an article of faith must be found in the Bible in order to be an article of faith?"
- This is a circular argument. Likewise, I could ask you where Rome's claim of authority resides without reference to the Scriptures. You can't simultaneously rely on the claim that Rome can decide doctrine not found in Scripture, and that you derive this authority from the Scripture. All you're really saying is "I declare this to be true because I declare it to be true."
Again you deflect and avoid answering a straightforward, direct question. The authority of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus Christ. He gave this authority to his Apostles and appointed Peter as their chief. This authority is supported by the Apostolic Traditions of the church and is demonstrated from the very beginning, even before the first word of the NT was written. Yes, the Scriptures testify to this authority and support it, but the Church existed before the NT. Without the Church and her authority it would not be possible to have the NT.
We have very different ideas of deflection.
It's not a deflection to point out that by inserting Rome into the equation, the circular arguments don't stop.
Again, most of what you said here is factually inaccurate. The claims of Rome about Peter have been disputed from the very start with a significant portion of the Church rejecting those claim.
The last statement is bluster without any support for it.
Even with the Scriptures, you claims are disputed, and without them, it wouldn't even be a question.
So, without Scripture, you can't justify your position as the church and yet you claim as the church you infallible collected the Scripture. It's circular.
Let me be more direct in that "Rome" does not DERIVE her authority from the Scriptures, and we do not claim the Church's authority justifies her authority as you said above. Nothing you have said here has any substance whatsoever. Zero. You are just lobbing opinions and hiding behind generic disputes. The historical fact is that the Scriptures, the Holy Bible, is the perfect example of how the Church's authority is properly expressed and the Bible is an example of Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium of the Church working.
The Bible did not drop out of the sky, and the Holy Spirit did not deliver the Bible directly. On the contrary the Holy Spirit worked through the fallible men of the Church in all aspects including the commissioning, the writing, the sending, the reading, the collecting, the deciding, the recognizing, and the canonizing. The visible and Apostolic Church, because it was given all authority through her Bishops, is the only vessel through which we can rightly and confidently know what is and is not Scripture. No individual man can make this decision, and only the one group given this authority can rightly discern the answer (not Bible societies 1800 years removed from the time of the Apostles).
The Bible is the work product of the Church and without the CHURCH we could have no Bible. The CHURCH, through her the Apostles and Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit over the course of hundreds of years, wrote, collected, debated and discerned the question of WHAT is Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided the entire process but without the visible, authoritative Church there would be no Bible. The Deposit of Faith was given to men. This faith came to them orally and through the Sacred Traditions which is what they taught to others and new converts whom they Baptized. The faith did not come to them in written form. As a part of their teaching over time and through the normal course of functioning the Church wrote letters and through some of these letters comes to us the Bible. The Bible is not the exhaustive or exclusive manual or encyclopedia for everything needed for Christians and it was never intended to replace the authoritative Church or Sacred Traditions to stand by itself as the sole authority.
This is not Circular but triangular. You have all 3 authorities working in concert and testifying to each other like 3 legs of a stool supporting the seat. In the beginning, we had the same 3 legs but the Scriptures referred only to the OT as held by the Apostles and Jesus (Septuagint). Over time the Church gave us the gift of the NT. All 3 legs are needed in order for the Church to function properly. We need the infallible word, guided by her Sacred Traditions, and interpreted infallibly in order for the Bible to maintain its infallibility.
edits for formatting and to correct Jesus to Rome.
