Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 355

Thread: Innerancy.

  1. #341
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    546
    Amen (Given)
    97
    Amen (Received)
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Did you even read that? Be honest.
    Same Hakeem is not interested in a meaningful conversation.

  2. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #342
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    427
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Did you even read that? Be honest.
    Sure I do. I have been reading the Bible(s) since I was 17 years old. I am now 37.

  4. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  5. #343
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    761
    Amen (Given)
    2199
    Amen (Received)
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Same Hakeem View Post
    So the Bible is not one; there is the 66 books bible of the protestant, the 73 books bible of the Catholic, and 79 books bible of the Greek orthodox.

    Each Christian of Protestant, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox claims that their bible is inspired and cannot be from God because God is not the author of confusion according to 1 Corinthians 14:33
    A fair argument, but it fails to recognise the massive overlap between the different canons of Scripture. In a treatment of the topic of canonicity, one must give all due attention both to the disagreements (which are real, and need to be accounted for) - and also to the agreement (which also needs to be accounted for).

    All 3 sets of Christians agree as to which books, and their constituent chapters, constitute the New Testament writings. All 3 have a canon of the same 27 books, with the same 260 chapters. The differences are not in those 2 matters, but in which verses - & readings of them - are “inspired and canonical”. That is a matter, not of Church affiliation, but of textual scholarship - and that raises the same questions for all 3 Churches.

    The differences of canon do not affect 39 of the OT books. There are 2 main differences in OT canons between the 3 groups:

    Some books, such as Ecclesiasticus, are canonical for Catholics and Orthodox, but not for Protestants.
    Some books common to all 3 have a significantly different text - Jeremiah and 1 Samuel (AKA 1 Kingdoms) in the LXX are examples.
    A further type of variation: the Protestant Esther lacks the “Additions to Esther” that are received as canonical by Orthodox and Catholics.

    Some books and parts of books are peculiar to the textual tradition of the LXX:

    Psalm 151
    The Odes of Solomon
    The Psalms of Solomon
    3 Maccabees
    4 Maccabees

    4 other books have at times appeared in MSS. and editions of the Vulgate:

    The Prayer of Manasseh
    3 Esdras
    4 Esdras
    The Letter of Paul to the Laodiceans.

    In practice, some books are more theologically central than others. To find the Gospel, people are going to go either to the 4 Gospels, or, to the Letters, such as those of St Paul. The former reflects catholic practice - the latter, Protestant practice. What neither group doubts is that all those writings, regardless of how one uses them, are parts of the NT canon. What nobody is going to do, is go to Proverbs, Micah or Nahum to find what the Gospel is. They are not theologically central to the Gospel, unlike the NT writings just mentioned. They are parts of God’s Revelation, but they do not preach Christ or His Gospel. For the same reason, no-one is going to read Ecclesiasticus or 3 Maccabees for the Gospel - it is not in them either, nor could it be, since they are pre-Christian. For the purposes of Christian theology, not all books are equally central. And in practice, major Christian theologians like Origen, St Augustine, Calvin, Newman or Barth may be drawn upon far more than some books in the Biblical canon - an author such as St Augustine has shed light on what it is to be a Christian, in a way and to a degree that Nahum, Joshua, and Obadiah have not. Obadiah does not cast any light on justification by faith - Calvin does. So a theologian with an interest in that doctrine, will not expect Obadiah to say much about it - but Calvin has a lot to say about it.

    So the difference in lists of canonical books, though important in principle, is of relatively slight importance in practice.

    Some books are more central to the OT than others. This may be - in part - why different Jewish groups, at different times, valued different books. The Pentateuch is the most sacred part of the Jewish OT, and the Samaritans recognise no other books as Scripture. Daniel enjoys nothing like the same degree of esteem, even though it is part of the Jewish Scriptures.

    In addition, it happens that books judged by a Church not to be canonical Scripture are nonetheless used in that Church’s liturgy. The Church of England appoints part of Ecclesiasticus 44 - part of a book it lists as apocryphal - to be read on Remembrance Day; and the “Tridentine” Missal uses a quotation from 4 Esdras in the Mass for the dead. A book judged to be no part of Scripture, can still be “useful for reading” by Christians, even when it is not used to establish points of doctrine.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-27-2019 at 05:45 PM.

  6. #344
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,085
    Amen (Given)
    5271
    Amen (Received)
    23033
    Quote Originally Posted by Same Hakeem View Post
    Sparko, does your bible have 66 books of the protestant or 73 of the catholic or more?
    Yes, it does.

  7. #345
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    427
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Yes, it does.
    Does it have 66 books or more?

  8. #346
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,085
    Amen (Given)
    5271
    Amen (Received)
    23033
    Quote Originally Posted by Same Hakeem View Post
    Does it have 66 books or more?
    Yes

  9. #347
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    427
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    The facts remains that (1) protestant, catholics and greek orthodox christians have different number of books in their bibles. The protestant bible have 66 books, the catholic binle have 73 books and greek orthodox have 79 books, and (2) each of these christian either claims these extra books are inspired by God or not inspired.

  10. #348
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    761
    Amen (Given)
    2199
    Amen (Received)
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    Same here is your answer from Christian scholar, Sam Sam Shamoun:

    The 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible are called the Jewish Apocrypha, literature compiled after the last O.T. book Malachi. These books are not inspired nor are they part of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestants reject these books for the following reasons:

    1. They were never recognized by the Jews as being part of the canon of scripture since they were not written by inspired men of God. The Talmud states:

    Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)

    This clearly demonstrates that the Jews viewed all the literature written after Malachi as being uninspired. It also affirms that the New Testament picks up where the Old leaves off, since the authors affirmed inspiration for their writings. (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16; Rev. 1:1-3)

    In fact, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration. (Cf. 1 Maccabees 9:27) This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status of these writings.

    2. At the Council of Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan ben Zakkai acknowledged the 39 books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant OT canon as the official Word of God. Everything else was discarded. It should be pointed that this Council did not make the books canonical, but arrived at the conclusion that only these particular books were received throughout the generations as being that which God inspired.

    3. The Lord Jesus personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the time of Christ, the Old Testament was classified into three sections: "The Law," containing the five books of Moses. "The Prophets" which included two subdivisions. The first called "the Former Prophets" and included the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second is called "the Latter Prophets" which included the books beginning with Isaiah to Ezekiel with the exception of Lamentations; and from Hosea to Malachi. These books were also subsumed into smaller lists such as combining the books from Hosea to Malachi together into one scroll called "the minor Prophets."

    The third is "the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of Psalms, Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This gives us a total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by Christ:

    "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV

    Jesus affirms the OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings as being those books which prophesied his coming. No mention of the Apocrypha at all.

    4. The 7 books were not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent, A.D. 1546. This was primarily in response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay), praying for the dead that they may be loosed from sins is commended. Hence, it is not hard to imagine why Catholics would want to include such a book since it supports their doctrine of praying for souls caught in purgatory, something rejected by the Reformers.

    Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing of books which supported Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.

    5. The Quran acknowledges the canon of the Bible which existed at the time of Muhammad as being the Word of God. (Cf. S. 2:113; 3:79; 10:94) The canon which was in existence at that time were the 39 books of the OT and the 27 N.T. books. These are the books that form the present day canon of the Protestant Bible.

    As was indicated, the canon of the OT had been finalized in the latter half of the first century. Whereas the New Testament canon was officially decided upon in the fourth century at the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

    Hence, any books which were added to the Bible after these Councils cannot be accepted as the Word of God. God has given the Church the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to form his infallible rule of Christian faith. This is a fact which the Quran affirms.
    Did the Churches known to Mohammed have the Protestant 66-book canon ? I don’t think so. The CC can be left out of the reckoning, as Mo displays no knowledge of Latin Christianity - which leaves Byzantine, Syriac & possibly Coptic & Nestorian Christianity. Shamoun’s tilting at the canon of another Church spoils his article, & adds nothing to it. There is a place for Evangelicals to argue against the canon of a different Church; this article is not it.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 12-23-2019 at 06:17 PM.

  11. #349
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    427
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    Same Hakeem is not interested in a meaningful conversation.
    You are not right. I quote the same Bible you quote from. I say there are theological contradictions. For example, John 1:18 says "No one has EVER seen God" but Job said to God "my eyes have seen you" in Job 42:5.

  12. #350
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,939
    Amen (Given)
    6490
    Amen (Received)
    12398
    Wow, is this riddled with error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    Same here is your answer from Christian scholar, Sam Sam Shamoun:

    The 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible are called the Jewish Apocrypha, literature compiled after the last O.T. book Malachi.
    The last OT book was 1/2 Chronicles.
    These books are not inspired nor are they part of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestants reject these books for the following reasons:

    1. They were never recognized by the Jews as being part of the canon of scripture since they were not written by inspired men of God. The Talmud states:

    Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)

    This clearly demonstrates that the Jews viewed all the literature written after Malachi as being uninspired. It also affirms that the New Testament picks up where the Old leaves off, since the authors affirmed inspiration for their writings. (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16; Rev. 1:1-3)
    Which Talmud - Babylonian or Jerusalem/Palestinian? What is the context of the statement? Regardless, it affirms no such thing about the New Testament.
    In fact, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration. (Cf. 1 Maccabees 9:27) This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status of these writings.
    It does no such thing:
    Source: 1 Mac. 9:27 NRSV

    27 So there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Didn't know that, e.g., Solomon was a prophet.
    2. At the Council of Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan ben Zakkai acknowledged the 39 books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant OT canon as the official Word of God. Everything else was discarded. It should be pointed that this Council did not make the books canonical, but arrived at the conclusion that only these particular books were received throughout the generations as being that which God inspired.
    The assembly at Jamnia did not, as is rightly stated, make the books canonical. The rest of the statement regarding the "council" is bunkum:
    Source: Blue Letter Bible

    The passage in the Mishnah merely indicates that the status of two books, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, were under discussion by the religious authorities. The debate was not about the writings in general or which books belonged, or did not belong, in the canon of Scripture.

    © Copyright Original Source


    source
    3. The Lord Jesus personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the time of Christ, the Old Testament was classified into three sections: "The Law," containing the five books of Moses. "The Prophets" which included two subdivisions. The first called "the Former Prophets" and included the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second is called "the Latter Prophets" which included the books beginning with Isaiah to Ezekiel with the exception of Lamentations; and from Hosea to Malachi. These books were also subsumed into smaller lists such as combining the books from Hosea to Malachi together into one scroll called "the minor Prophets."

    The third is "the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of Psalms, Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This gives us a total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by Christ:

    "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV

    Jesus affirms the OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings as being those books which prophesied his coming. No mention of the Apocrypha at all.
    This begs the question that the deuterocanonical books could not be placed in one of the three categories; in fact, they would fit just fine under "Writings".
    4. The 7 books were not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent, A.D. 1546. This was primarily in response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay), praying for the dead that they may be loosed from sins is commended. Hence, it is not hard to imagine why Catholics would want to include such a book since it supports their doctrine of praying for souls caught in purgatory, something rejected by the Reformers.

    Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing of books which supported Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.
    Let's see:
    Source: 2 Esd. 7:105 NRSV

    ...so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall anyone lay a burden on another; for then all shall bear their own righteousness and unrighteousness.”

    © Copyright Original Source


    Context is rather important here: it's in reference to prayers for another on the Day of Judgment.
    5. The Quran acknowledges the canon of the Bible which existed at the time of Muhammad as being the Word of God. (Cf. S. 2:113; 3:79; 10:94) The canon which was in existence at that time were the 39 books of the OT and the 27 N.T. books. These are the books that form the present day canon of the Protestant Bible.
    Let's see:
    Source: 2:113

    The Jews say "The Christians have nothing [true] to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Source: 3:79

    It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied."

    © Copyright Original Source


    Source: 10:94

    So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Evidence points to the Quran supporting no such assertion.
    As was indicated, the canon of the OT had been finalized in the latter half of the first century. Whereas the New Testament canon was officially decided upon in the fourth century at the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).
    The NT canon was never officially decided upon; the referenced councils at Hippo and Carthage were local in nature and did not presume to speak for the entire church.
    Hence, any books which were added to the Bible after these Councils cannot be accepted as the Word of God. God has given the Church the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to form his infallible rule of Christian faith. This is a fact which the Quran affirms.
    Books now classified as Apocrypha by the West were quoted in the same manner as scripture for centuries before those councils (which even Shamoun concedes were not pertinent to the OT canon), and continued to be quoted similarly after them.

    You need to find a better "scholar".
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •