So to what denomination or body of faith do you belong?

Nondenominational denomination?

Are you at a Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist hospital?

jrico2727 said:

---

Careful brother or next you may point out that Scripture is really Tradition and Works done for Christ are really Faith.

---

I chuckled at this. Thanks for that!

Jabin said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Just to make it clear, that there was a time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament in no way negates Sola Scriptura.

That the Apostles preached prior to things being written down, does not materially matter because what was written down was what they preached. No one is claiming that what they preached is materially different than what they wrote. We know the Holy Spirit made sure of this.

However, as that time passed, there's no support for ongoing revelation.

The Scriptures are perfect and we should feel very comfortable that we can read and rely on them to understand God's Word. As others pointed out, this doesn't mean "nuda Scriptura," but instead that we can look to the church fathers to see what they said and compare it to the Scriptures. Where they spoke in accordance with the Scripture, we say "yes and amen" and where they don't we offer correction and critique.

No man is infallible though. Only the Scriptures.

---

This.

I don't see any logic to the argument, if someone is actually making it, that a short gap between the crucifixion and the writing of the NT negates Sola Scriptura. Is someone actually making that argument and what conclusions or points are they trying to draw from it?

---

That's not the argument at all. The disagreement or argument is not about the question of "are the Scriptures reliable or infallible". Before we can have that discussion we must first agree on what writings are to be considered Scripture in the first place.

The Orthodox and Catholics have always included the Deuterocanon (Apocrypha) as indicated on the chart above with minor variances that are not in dispute by either body. The East accepts a slightly larger collection of writings, but again no real dispute between us. However, the Jews and the Protestants have excluded and rejected these same books. I have included many Biblical examples of these books being used and quoted by Jesus and NT authors, and a link with dozens more examples.

What makes the Protestant collection of books the infallible and complete source for what constitutes the Scriptures for your tradition of "Sola Scriptura"? Who definitively decided the Deuterocanon was out, and when did "they" make this decision?

Sola Scriptura was not practiced by the early Christian Church. Sola Scriptura has never been practiced by the Orthodox or Catholic Churches dating all the way back to the Apostles. Sola Scriptura is not Biblical, is not historical, and is completely unworkable.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes unless someone has produced a 1,980 year old Gospel or has evidence of someone reading from one 1,980 years ago it is speculative. I would be interested in seeing what evidence there would be for it. Although it could have been written 10 minutes after the crucifixion and my conclusion would be the same.

---

I'm confused. What exactly is your point?

And, despite the fact that your point (whatever it is) is not related to the date of the NT books, I'm going to summarize the evidence as best I can simply because I think it is interesting and others may also.

• Paul died in approximately 64/65 AD.
• Paul wrote 1&2 Thessalonians in 50-52 AD, ~ 20 years after the Crucifixion. I think that most scholars agree with those dates.
• Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians in AD 55-6, ~25-6 years after Christ's crucifixion. Significantly, Chapter 15 contains the entire gospel message. References to Paul in Corinthians in the Book of Acts help date the book. AFAIK, no scholar seriously questions that date, although some scholars believe that Paul may have written it much earlier.
• Evidence that Acts had to have been written by the early 60s was that it does not mention the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), the Jewish War of 66 AD, Nero's persecutions (65 AD), Paul is still alive, and James is still alive (he died 62 AD).
• Luke wrote his Gospel prior to writing the book of Acts, so likely before 60 AD.
• Luke incorporates portions of the book of Mark, so Mark was written earlier still.
• In a fascinating bit of Bible sleuthing, Bible scholar Michael Kruger has noted that Paul may quote from Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18. Paul states:

18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

The first half of the quote comes from Deut. 25:4 but the only place that the second part can be found in the Bible is in Luke 10:7. It's not conclusive, but it seems powerful evidence that the book of Luke was written well before Paul's death and was already considered to be Scripture and canonical.

---

The consensus on Acts by scholars is that it was written around 80, and the Acts Seminar places it in the range of 120.

PabloSerna,

This is from St. Aquinas to you. Here he believed everything that St. Augustine believed. Augustine was his hero.

"Clearly predestination is like the plan, existing in God's mind, for the ordering of some persons to salvation. The carrying out of this is passively as it were in the persons predestined, though actively in God. When considered executively in this way, predestination is spoken of as a 'calling' and a 'glorifying', thus St. Paul says, Whom he predestinated, them also he called and glorified'. (164)"
Aquinas in the Summa

"By its very meaning predestination presupposes election, and election chosen loving. The reason for this is that predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving come in. Special, because God wills this blessing of eternal salvation to some, for, as we have seen, loving is willing a person good, chosen loving because he wills this to some and not to others, for, as we have seen, some he rejects. (168)" Aquinas in the Summa

"By its very meaning predestination presupposes election, and election chosen loving. The reason for this is that predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving come in. Special, because God wills this blessing of eternal salvation to some, for, as we have seen, loving is willing a person good, chosen loving because he wills this to some and not to others, for, as we have seen, some he rejects. (168)" From the Summa as well.

And this is how Calvin and we Reformed explain it as well to be the passive will of God for reprobation who choose not to be under Christ but remain under Adam. "Special, because God wills this blessing of salvation to some," as Aquinas puts it.

The fact that God wishes to give grace and glory is due simply to His generosity. The reason for His willing these things that arise simply from His generosity is the overflowing love of His will for His end-object, in which the perfection of His goodness is found. The cause of predestination, therefore, is nothing other than God's goodness. (Providence and Predestination, 116)

And so what about the place of free will?

"God does not act on the will in the manner of one necessitating; for He does not force the will but merely moves it, without taking away its own proper mode, which consists in being free with respect to opposites. Consequently, even though nothing can resist the divine will, our will, like everything else, carries out the divine will according to its own proper mode. Indeed, the divine will has given things their mode of being in order that His will be fulfilled. Therefore, some things fulfill the divine will necessarily, other things, contingently; but that which God wills always takes place." Summa

We explain the will the same way. For it cannot override God's will. Therefore, the freedom of the will as Jonathan Edwards described it, is just like Thomas Aquinas here.






https://credomag.com/2011/09/thomas-aquinas-on-predestination/?amp

Primary sources referenced at the bottom of the article.

eh consensus is a strong word. I'd change that to a majority view. The truth is it's a very wide window where consensus arises usually around 70-150. After that you have little to work with.

The earlier dates struggle with Paul being unaware of the gospels. And since there is almost no doubt anymore of marks priority, everything flows after whatever you date mark as.

So specific facts, data, evidence, and logical arguments are trumped "by the consensus of scholars"?

As I recall, you completely reject Frederick Jackson Turner, yet at one time his Frontier Thesis was held as gospel by "the consensus of scholars". How can that be?

Aggrad08 said:

---

eh consensus is a strong word. I'd change that to a majority view. The truth is it's a very wide window where consensus arises usually around 70-150. After that you have little to work with.

The earlier dates struggle with Paul being unaware of the gospels. And since there is almost no doubt anymore of marks priority, everything flows after whatever you date mark as.

---

I'm missing your point. How does Paul's knowledge of the gospels, or lack thereof, have relevance to the date of Acts?

It relates to the dating of luke. The dating of luke relates to the dating of acts.

it seems clear from Luke that he met with Mary. So any age range needs to include that, which tend to support an earlier, not later date.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It relates to the dating of luke. The dating of luke relates to the dating of acts.

---

Help me out here. I'm still missing your point.

Luke and acts have the same authorship. The books are addressed to "theophilus", who that is we don't really know, some candidates have been proposed, but for this discussion it doesn't matter. At the start of acts the author addresses theophilus and refers to his previous book about the life of jesus (luke).

So acts must come (very likely shortly) after luke. The absence of any reference to the gospels (not even mark) by paul pushes the likely dates for the gospels back until after his death. This sets a floor for acts since it's tied to luke, which is at least somewhat older than mark.

Jabin said:

---

So specific facts, data, evidence, and logical arguments are trumped "by the consensus of scholars"?

As I recall, you completely reject Frederick Jackson Turner, yet at one time his Frontier Thesis was held as gospel by "the consensus of scholars". How can that be?

---

I'm saying that what you're claiming as evidence is not accepted by the large majority of working biblical scholars as evidence for early composition of Acts. There's a lot of evidence in the text that it was written later with a Roman audience in mind.

Turner's not a good example to use as a rebuttal. In Turner's case, the issue was not with the facts used to support the thesis but the interpretation itself and how he ignored many other facts that didn't fit the with his arguments. Here the issue is over what you claim are facts.

I favor the "friend of God" for a general theophilus theory because Rome was very polytheistic. It is two Greek words, which occurs often in Greek. Theo "God" and "Philus" friend…

And theophilus is Greek, which could have possibly been the name of a Roman government official or high ranking soldier but I doubt it is the most probable.

Quote:

---

The absence of any reference to the gospels (not even mark) by paul pushes the likely dates for the gospels back until after his death.

---

Wouldn't you consider that to be rather weak evidence for dating either the Gospels or of Paul's letters? Couldn't there be any number of other reasonable explanations for Paul not mentioning any of the Gospels other than them not yet being written? And aren't those explanations substantively different than the absence of references I mentioned in the book of Acts?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The absence of any reference to the gospels (not even mark) by paul pushes the likely dates for the gospels back until after his death.

---

Wouldn't you consider that to be rather weak evidence for dating either the Gospels or of Paul's letters? Couldn't there be any number of other reasonable explanations for Paul not mentioning any of the Gospels other than them not yet being written? And aren't those explanations substantively different than the absence of references I mentioned in the book of Acts?

---

Doesn't this seem like begging the question?

How so? I have no idea what you're asking.

It's okay. Sapper is an atheist who defends the medieval Masoretic text.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

It's okay. Sapper is an atheist who defends the medieval Masoretic text.

---

Agnostic atheist who could see a form of deism as possible. And the Masoretic text is far older than the Middle Ages. That just happens to be the oldest extant copy.

It is not and I have already pointed that out with a link to support my claim.

And that's good that you are moving towards deism. Good news.

And we should also be going for the oldest and best preserved manuscripts that hold consistency.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

How so? I have no idea what you're asking.

---

You're advancing answers to problems without any evidence to support them. Before you were arguing for an early date for Acts based on several claims that are debatable but based on a possible reading of the text. Now you're ignoring an issue with the text and advancing a kind of hand-waving style of solution. It seems like you're begging the question. You have the answer you want to reach and will frame the issue in whatever way allows to reach that answer without support or strong evidence even in the text itself.

---

LOL. This criticism is from the guy who simply referenced "the consensus of the scholars".

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

How so? I have no idea what you're asking.

---

You're advancing answers to problems without any evidence to support them. Before you were arguing for an early date for Acts based on several claims that are debatable but based on a possible reading of the text. Now you're ignoring an issue with the text and advancing a kind of hand-waving style of solution. It seems like you're begging the question. You have the answer you want to reach and will frame the issue in whatever way allows to reach that answer without support or strong evidence even in the text itself.

---

LOL. This criticism is from the guy who simply referenced "the consensus of the scholars".

---

Would it make any difference to you if I linked to anything? It never has in the past.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

It is not and I have already pointed that out with a link to support my claim.

And that's good that you are moving towards deism. Good news.

And we should also be going for the oldest and best preserved manuscripts that hold consistency.

---

Moving towards? No, I'm less interested in deism than I was when I started posting here.

I've already told you there are older copies of books like Isaiah (found at Qumran) that are identical to the Masoretic text and linked to research showing the Masoretic text is part of an old and consistent textual tradition. The LXX is more problematic in some areas and the oldest copies of some books are quite fragmentary.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

How so? I have no idea what you're asking.

---

You're advancing answers to problems without any evidence to support them. Before you were arguing for an early date for Acts based on several claims that are debatable but based on a possible reading of the text. Now you're ignoring an issue with the text and advancing a kind of hand-waving style of solution. It seems like you're begging the question. You have the answer you want to reach and will frame the issue in whatever way allows to reach that answer without support or strong evidence even in the text itself.

---

LOL. This criticism is from the guy who simply referenced "the consensus of the scholars".

---

Would it make any difference to you if I linked to anything? It never has in the past.

---

That's rich, coming from you. Sapper, meet mirror.

As usual, you immediately go to the ad hominem. Is that why you were banned on the Politics board?

NM

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

How so? I have no idea what you're asking.

---

You're advancing answers to problems without any evidence to support them. Before you were arguing for an early date for Acts based on several claims that are debatable but based on a possible reading of the text. Now you're ignoring an issue with the text and advancing a kind of hand-waving style of solution. It seems like you're begging the question. You have the answer you want to reach and will frame the issue in whatever way allows to reach that answer without support or strong evidence even in the text itself.

---

LOL. This criticism is from the guy who simply referenced "the consensus of the scholars".

---

Would it make any difference to you if I linked to anything? It never has in the past.

---

That's rich, coming from you. Sapper, meet mirror.

As usual, you immediately go to the ad hominem. Is that why you were banned on the Politics board?

---

I wasn't banned from anything. The Politics board is a cesspool with no redemptive value. I just stopped reading anything posted there.

I'm not making any argument, I'm just saying that once you have decided "x" is what you believe, it doesn't matter what experts on the subject say, or the problems with the claims, you're going to believe "x." I've tried engaging in good faith before with sources and it's like arguing with a brick wall. So why should I bother?

Quote:

---

I appreciate your passion for The Lord. It brings encouragement to me. I don't think we can go wrong depending on scripture to the nth degree. Where I have always faultered is the interpretation of it. There are lots of people smarter than me that stand on different sides of issues. This board is an example of that. So it always interests me how individuals handle that uncertainty. I appreciate your thoughts on this!

---

Thank you for your kind words. I am passionate for the Lord now after a long lifetime of skepticism. My passion now may be an example of the saying that there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner!

And interpretation can be hard, especially when that interpretation is colored and filtered by our different faith traditions. What does bother me (although it may not come across in my posts here), is when we allow our varying interpretations to create divisions between us. IMHO, as long as one accepts the core concepts of the Gospel, then we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Our differences create richness, if we allow them to.

To contrast that, I have met many people, and there are many on this board, who claim to be Christians but refuse to fellowship with other Christians because of doctrinal differences that are not central to the Gospel.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

It is not and I have already pointed that out with a link to support my claim.

And that's good that you are moving towards deism. Good news.

And we should also be going for the oldest and best preserved manuscripts that hold consistency.

---

Moving towards? No, I'm less interested in deism than I was when I started posting here.

I've already told you there are older copies of books like Isaiah (found at Qumran) that are identical to the Masoretic text and linked to research showing the Masoretic text is part of an old and consistent textual tradition. The LXX is more problematic in some areas and the oldest copies of some books are quite fragmentary.

---

Oh I see. Was trying to read optimism into your post in charity concerning deism.

Isaiah is the only book confirmed in the Masoretic text by the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's it. Doesn't prove anything. One prophetic book preserved from 500-600 BC doesn't prove validation.

Quote:

---

I'm not making any argument, I'm just saying that once you have decided "x" is what you believe, it doesn't matter what experts on the subject say, or the problems with the claims, you're going to believe "x." I've tried engaging in good faith before with sources and it's like arguing with a brick wall. So why should I bother?

---

And you do the exact same. One thing I've noticed in life is that the traits in others that bother most people the most, are the traits we dislike the most in ourselves. Your criticisms of me could describe you in spades.

You're right about my distrust of experts. I will never concede simply because some so-called "expert" says something. My career was as a litigator, and I succeeded in that career by successfully cross-examining many so-called experts. When one rolls up one's sleeves and examines closely the so-called "experts" conclusions, one frequently discovers that the expert is the emperor with no clothes. I can be persuaded by facts and data, but not by appeals to authority.

And your responses are rarely based on facts or data. Your responses are almost invariably your own conclusions or summary of the facts. You seem to be outraged when people do not blindly accept your opinions as authoritative.

You realize that scholarship works differently from standards of evidence in a courtroom, right? And that one is not always applicable to the other?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

It is not and I have already pointed that out with a link to support my claim.

And that's good that you are moving towards deism. Good news.

And we should also be going for the oldest and best preserved manuscripts that hold consistency.

---

Moving towards? No, I'm less interested in deism than I was when I started posting here.

I've already told you there are older copies of books like Isaiah (found at Qumran) that are identical to the Masoretic text and linked to research showing the Masoretic text is part of an old and consistent textual tradition. The LXX is more problematic in some areas and the oldest copies of some books are quite fragmentary.

---

Oh I see. Was trying to read optimism into your post in charity concerning deism.

Isaiah is the only book confirmed in the Masoretic text by the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's it. Doesn't prove anything. One prophetic book preserved from 500-600 BC doesn't prove validation.

---

That's not it. There are sections of the Psalms and Leviticus from Masada that match with the Masoretic text and the Murabba'at scroll with works of the minor prophets from the 2nd century that also matches the Masoretic text.

Sapper Redux said:

---

You realize that scholarship works differently from standards of evidence in a courtroom, right? And that one is not always applicable to the other?

---

As a generalized proposition, of course. But what specific differences are you considering when you make that statement? They also have much in common.

Don't you agree that the foundation of scholarship should be provable evidence and facts, not opinions or reputations?



(And, by the way, the standards of evidence in the courtroom are simply an attempt to provide logic to what constitutes or does not constitute evidence. It's not an exact science, but it does a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. It keeps out, for example, mere speculation, unfounded opinions from non-experts, hearsay, and the like. It does allow in truly scientific and expert opinions, but quite correctly allows those opinions to be challenged without any deference being given to the so-called scientist or expert. The courts are still wrestling with what is "scientific" since what is science is not easily defined and what commonly passes for "scientific" evidence frequently turns out not to be scientific at all.)

And if I may, and hopefully without causing further offense, you seem to blindly accept secular orthodoxy without subjecting it to the same skepticism that you do conservative perspectives (and by conservative perspectives I mean in history, religion, and other perspectives). We should all be skeptical, but should also be skeptical of the skeptics.