The Bible

Not true. The earliest church fathers defended the deity of Christ from the earliest known writings, from the first century. The Nicene creed was a summary.. a clarification of the core beliefs, and were mostly from Irenaeus.

There was never 'debate', about this central tenet of Christian orthodoxy. There were heresies, and departures, FROM Christian orthodoxy, but the truth was not debatable.

The bible is the 'handbook' of Christianity. Departing from essential, clear, biblical teachings is an abandonment of Christianity, not a variation.

 

Oh dear. I've hurt someone's feelings.

Of course it's a strawman fallacy for you. That's the way you look at it. Of course Christianity isn't the only cause of violence. It's been around since time began. I didn't actually mention Christianity. I mentioned the words of the Jewish preacher. I could have equally used Buddhism's 'Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." Confucianism's What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Or many other such sayings.

You still don't get it do you. If you try to impose your will on someone don't be surprised if they resent it and react. As has been admitted, the Western culture has been built around Christianity. That is not only a problem in world affairs, but in national affairs. Human aggression isn't just using force, It's preventing, by subversive means, other nations from fulfilling their potential. It's breaking promises, betrayal of principles for personal/national gain..

The bold above is amusing. You mention 'Christian' nations. I mentioned the US and UK. Aggression, exploitation and oppression never has been, or ever will be, anything to do with PC. It was accepted simply because it was reality. .A conquered nation could not protest.. And we haven't learnt the lesson of millenia of history.

I love being righteously indignant - whatever you mean by that. .I've been called many things - but never righteous.
Revisionism at it's worst? Promotion of false narrative? Correlating all human evils to Christianity?

I really didn't think I could do all that. All I did was post facts.

Of course Christianity isn't the cause of all human evils. It's been around - mainly in Europe, for 2000 years. Human history is 4.500 + years across the world. Christianity', however, has never been true to its nominal head. 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

 

Don't flatter yourself. You just love ad hom.. you move the goalposts, deflect, make strawmen, and resort to ad hom.. it seems there is not a fallacy you don't use and love.

I can only point it out. It does not hurt my feelings, at all. You just wanted to make a little jab at me, personally, to avoid reasoning. There is nothing in this post that even related to my reply.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NIV

The kind of "works" Jesus is referring to - both here and in the Sermon on the Mount - are very specific. What works he is NOT referring to is also quite specific. Obviously Jesus is not referring to what you claim are works - as works.

 

John 6:
28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’

32Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

The old 'faith vs works' argument has been a constant source of division, contention, and heresy. The early church fathers, commentators, and even apostles continually addressed this issue.

Gal 3:2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Faith is the ONLY vehicle of justification.. not works.. not law.. not any performance that is only 'filthy rags!' before a Just and Holy God. Christ's atonement, and His alone, is the only Way of salvation. Any additions, edits, or subtractions are 'not Christianity.'

Justification by faith in the atoning work of Jesus is a central tenet of Christian orthodoxy. Any departures are heresy.. aka, 'false teachings'.

 

I am not sure why you are quoting Pauline scripture and John in a conversation about the Jesus of Mark/Matt ? I have already agreed that the Pauline scripture contradicts the Jesus of Matt/Mark as do your claims in relation to John (which was is a hellenistic Pauline fusion work).

Your first comment is unsubstantiated (and laughable with respect to the apostles of Mark/Matt addressing this issue ) Then you completely ignore the teachings of Jesus in Mark/Matt. It is not my fault that the Jesus of Mark/Matt contradicts Sola Fide - as does James.

Your "heresy" comment is even more laughable given that Sola Fide was declared heretical at the Council of Trent. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your second "Faith Only" claim is contradicted by the fact that the Majority of Christianity does not accept Sola Fide - and does regard works as a component of salvation.

 

Since you only seem to want to stir ad hom and contention, and not address my points of fact, i remember why i avoid your posts, and will resume so.

You can pick and choose passages that fit your beliefs, ignoring the rest, but that is not the historical basis of Christianity. I will defend the entire canon of scripture, as it provides the ONLY basis for the message of salvation, and the orthodoxy of historical, biblical Christianity.

 

If there were heresies and departures then there was debate. And Nicea was called because of the debate about the deity of Jesus.

I could quote you probably 10 Church Fathers that defended the Deity of Christ. Can you tell me how many of the other 300+ bishops at Nicea actually went there with the same belief? That's why the Council was convened. Even then not all bishops turned up. There was no central council dictating what each 'diocese' (probably a few local churches) should believe in the early church. . Each Bishop decided that. .

but the truth was not debatable. So all the various Church councils were unnecessary. And what is the truth? .

Christian orthodoxy, There was no Orthodoxy at the time. Various beliefs were around. It took several centuries to get an 'orthodox church' into being.

Orthodoxy is very much about the straight, true teachings of the Church, teachings that cannot be changed.

One definition of orthodoxy 'The orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church is precisely a deposit of faith, a theology that will never be altered, because it is the truth. It is the straight teaching, the true opinion. .

 

Here is a good overall summary of the reformed view of the bible. It is pretty extensive, and goes into great detail. I would suppose that most Catholics, now, would agree with most of it. This is from the Westminster Confession, 1646.

Chapter I
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2]Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

I left in the numbered footnote references, that referred to scriptural passage(s). This should be clarifying, as to the beliefs in inspiration and infallibility that many Christians hold, regarding the bible.

 

That may be what the Catholic Church thought . I wonder how many Catholics actually believe it. today. You can have all the 'rules' you like. To get people to accept them all is a different matter.

Perhaps the fact that the Catholic Church is in rapid decline throughout the US and Latin America and other parts of the world means that people are not susceptible to Catholic indoctrination any more.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

Compare

What is the flood narrative’s genre?

The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages. Instead, Catholic theologians understand the first eleven chapters of Genesis contain, in the words of Pope Pius XII, “simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis, 3. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

Strange how nearly 400 years of education, archaeology and science can change things.

 

?
I said in the intro that this was from the Westminster Confession, a REFORMED view. My comment was that even modern Catholics would accept most of the points, about the bible, here..

 

I think that was the year that a law was enacted forbidding non-Anglican ministers from coming within 5 miiles (literally) of any English town that has a mayor.

It was before the law that forbid Catholics or anyone married to a Catholic from ascending to the throne of England.

More than 50 years later Catholics were allowed to hold elective office.

We need to be careful about claims of agreement.

 

You really need to google the actual definition of ad hom. Because the way you keep using it is silly.

Nowhere in his post that you quoted, is any semblance of an ad hominem.

 

You can believe whatever you want, Bill.

This thread is about biblical manuscripts, historicity, and its function as 'handbook' for Christian orthodoxy. I'll leave speculations about Catholics to you, as well as the lovely straw men you have built in the last several posts. I'm kind of bored with them, so other than admire how tidy they are, I'll just dismiss them...

 

You posted your "shared" ideology from a time when Chriistians were killing Christians.

That IS history.

 

{quote] The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. [/quote]

Apocrypha for @usfan from The Gospel of Thomas:
"His disciples asked him: When will you appear to us? When will we see you? Jesus replied: When you strip naked without shame and trample your clothing underfoot just as little children do, then you will look at the son of the living one without being afraid."

VERY divinely inspired. Do you understand it? Do you see the spiritual truth it presents?

 

Clearly you do not understand what ad hom is ... and I did address your points - which is why you cherry picked my post to death and then built a big strawman fallacy by accusing me of what you have done.

I did not ignore any of the scripture you posted. You on the other hand are willfully ignoring Mark and Matt .. picking and choosing on the basis of the dogma that you prefer.

The fact of the matter is there are two contradictory salvation formulations within Christianity. The fact of the matter is that Catholic and Orthodox reject "Sola Fide" ... salvation by faith alone.

Since you can not deal with this reality you cherry picked it out of my post in an effort to hide - essentially running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial as you have no ability to address - never mind refute this fact.

Whats more is that you hide from the words of Jesus in his most famous sermon in some fit of avoidance and denial because you can not handle the words of Jesus.

It is not me with whom you have an issue .. it is the teachings of Jesus in Matt/Mark that you can not handle.

 

The Reformed view is being reformed with almost every Pope.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

But however authentical they are they are still open to interpretation?

he Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages. Instead, Catholic theologians understand the first eleven chapters of Genesis contain, in the words of Pope Pius XII, (20th century} “simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis, 3. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

(20th century) mine

 

So you are saying that the great commission of Mark WAS added later, and the the great commission of Matthew MIGHT have been added later?

 

You shouldn't speak of "avoidance" given that you have avoided my challenge to you on Matt 7:21. Too challenging for you?

 

I did not avoid your challenge ? I explained Matt 7:21 to you in detail. Perhaps you missed the post ?

 

Do you mean this post?: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...tate-of-arizona.547548/page-5#post-1070042099

 

What I am saying is that we have no idea what was in those gospels until they actually appear in 'print' later. All we have are scraps and references by church leaders. When do we have the first complete extant Gospels? . It seems to be in the Codex Siniaticus in the 4th century. But that has several ommissions from later, and todays, Bibles. Or were they added later?
Missing Mark 16:9-20
Matthew 6:13
John 8 Woman taken in adultery
Luke 9:55-56
And there are many verses missed or altered by the King James version. In one verse on Mark Jesus is filled with compassion in King James, but filled with anger in the Siniaticus.

There may have been versions of the Gospels around. But what was actually in them? Who actually wrote them? Who actually wrote Pauls Epistles? Who actually wrote the Psalms? Or Isaiah. How does Jesus appear in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time? How could Jesus fulfil a Passover meal when there wasn't the time according to the stories? There's a dozen and more questions I have about the reliability of the scriptures.

Now it's 00.30 hours and my bedtime. Have a good day USA

 

Nope .. that was a long time ago. It was the post where I showed you that Jesus was not referring to what you claimed was "works" .. as works.

 

In this thread? Here are the thread search results for your posts in reply to me: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...post&o=date&c[user][0]=50378&c[thread]=542830

Which post of the three are you talking about?