Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

[Netcurtains3]

I don't like playing theological ping pong so I will not.

A Mary was the only one to know for sure that it was a virgin birth.

From Johns Gospel a Mary was the only one to know for sure that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Our witness for the two most important events in the bible are both from Marys.

I'm not playing games - just pray and draw your own conclusions from this - Christianity is not a tennis match of scoring points (although it can be).

Do you TRUST in the Marys?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "2Peter? You want evidence? ... Peter identifies himself as the apostle that wrote this epistle. What more do you need. There is much more internal evidence, but this one verse settles it for me."

You're kidding with me, right? Just because the epistle claims apostolic authorship, you naively accept it as such?

There are numerous pseudepigraphal writings from this same time period that never made it into the Bible that too claim apostolic authorship.

One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans: "Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea."

Is that enough evidence for you to accept Laodiceans as Scripture?

You seem to be blindly accepting 2 Peter as Scripture.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
I don't like playing theological ping pong so I will not.
A Mary was the only one to know for sure that it was a virgin birth.

Isa.7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
--Isaiah prophesied of this event; the Jews were expecting such an event.

Mat.1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
--Joseph certainly knew of it.

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
--I am sure that Zechariah and Elizabeth knew about it.
From Johns Gospel a Mary was the only one to know for sure that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Our witness for the two most important events in the bible are both from Marys.

I'm not playing games - just pray and draw your own conclusions from this - Christianity is not a tennis match of scoring points (although it can be).

Do you TRUST in the Marys?

No! I trust in the Word of God.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

You wrote, "2Peter? You want evidence? ... Peter identifies himself as the apostle that wrote this epistle. What more do you need. There is much more internal evidence, but this one verse settles it for me."

You're kidding with me, right? Just because the epistle claims apostolic authorship, you naively accept it as such?

How many people could refer and describe the Transfiguration thusly:
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Peter 1:
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--Peter was there, an eyewitness of His majesty, as He describes it. Could it be that the Catholics don't like this book because it is strong on sola scriptura?

There are numerous pseudepigraphal writings from this same time period that never made it into the Bible that too claim apostolic authorship.

Quite true. That speaks for the intellectual capacity of the Apostles and early believers, not the early councils who were no smarter than they. The councils were far removed from the original sources. I think that the earlier believers would be able to tell which were original and which were authentic more than a bunch or arm-chair theologians centuries later.

One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans: "Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea."

It is quite well known that Paul did write a letter to the Laodiceans in fact. Perhaps when you get to Heaven you can ask Paul why the Holy Spirit didn't have him include it in the canon of Scripture.

Is that enough evidence for you to accept Laodiceans as Scripture?

No, it is no evidence at all. The Apostles knew which were inspired and which were not. They passed that knowledge down to the early believers. It did not take a council to decide whether the epistle to the Laodiceans was inspired. Paul could have told them that. So could have his followers.

You seem to be blindly accepting 2 Peter as Scripture.

Not as much as you blindly accept Oral Tradition, and the dictates of the magesterium.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Could it be that the Catholics don't like this book because it is strong on sola scriptura?

Were do you get this idea from? Why do you keep saying that Catholics don't like 2Peter?

It did not take a council to decide whether the epistle to the Laodiceans was inspired. Paul could have told them that. So could have his followers.

So you think that the Apostles wrote letters to various people and churches and then got together later and said, "This is one for the Bible. That's not inspired so let's leave it out."?

Where do you get this from? Do you have any historical evidence that the Apostles picked what writings went into the New Testament?

Ron

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

I noticed that you are starting to escape the issue at hand and change it because your reasoning is fallicious.

You changed the subject from my question, "Just because the epistle claims apostolic authorship, you naively accept it as such?" to asking, "Could it be that the Catholics don't like this book because it is strong on sola scriptura?"

Of course, I completely accept the canonicity of the book, and I love this book as God's Word. I cherish it as His Word to me, and I have read it through in my personal Scriptural study, assimilating it to my Christian life.

With that said, your straw man only serves as a distraction to the question I asked, which you did not answer.

I commented that "there are numerous pseudepigraphal writings from this same time period that never made it into the Bible that too claim apostolic authorship" and you gave a response that is completely irrelevant to the reason why you accept 2 Peter as canonical when you wrote, "Quite true. That speaks for the intellectual capacity of the Apostles and early believers, not the early councils who were no smarter than they."

Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in 325 A.D., tells us that 2 Peter is not Scripture; thus, it was not written by Peter and is not to be included in the New Testament. Yet, you accept it. Why? You still have not answered this simple question.

And then I wrote, "One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans: 'Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea.'" to which you responded, "It is quite well known that Paul did write a letter to the Laodiceans in fact. Perhaps when you get to Heaven you can ask Paul why the Holy Spirit didn't have him include it in the canon of Scripture."

Quite well known? Where in the New Testament does it say that Paul wrote this letter, and where in the New Testament does it say that it isn't to be included in the canon of Scripture? If this information isn't in the New Testament, then where is it?

I then asked, "Is that enough evidence for you to accept Laodiceans as Scripture?" to which you responded, "No, it is no evidence at all. The Apostles knew which were inspired and which were not. They passed that knowledge down to the early believers."

They passed that knowledge down to the early believers?? No, that's tradition, and you can't rely upon tradition; you must stick to Scripture, not tradition. Unless, of course, you want to start defending the Apostolic Tradition that Laodiceans is not Scripture.

Now, you're using double speak. First, you tell us that we are not to adhere to Apostolic Tradition, and yet here, you tell us that we are.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Could it be that the Catholics don't like this book because it is strong on sola scriptura?

Were do you get this idea from? Why do you keep saying that Catholics don't like 2Peter?
</font>[/QUOTE]I had a feeling that when I put that "jab" in there you guys would jump all over it. You are right. It didn't really pertain to the debate at hand.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in 325 A.D., tells us that 2 Peter is not Scripture; thus, it was not written by Peter and is not to be included in the New Testament. Yet, you accept it. Why? You still have not answered this simple question.

For the simple reason that I don't put much stock in the Church Fathers. I did explain that to you before. Some of them (such as Origen) were out and out heretics.

And then I wrote, "One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans: 'Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea.'" to which you responded, "It is quite well known that Paul did write a letter to the Laodiceans in fact. Perhaps when you get to Heaven you can ask Paul why the Holy Spirit didn't have him include it in the canon of Scripture."

Quite well known? Where in the New Testament does it say that Paul wrote this letter, and where in the New Testament does it say that it isn't to be included in the canon of Scripture? If this information isn't in the New Testament, then where is it?

Where in Scripture?

Col.4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

I then asked, "Is that enough evidence for you to accept Laodiceans as Scripture?" to which you responded, "No, it is no evidence at all. The Apostles knew which were inspired and which were not. They passed that knowledge down to the early believers."
They passed that knowledge down to the early believers?? No, that's tradition, and you can't rely upon tradition; you must stick to Scripture, not tradition. Unless, of course, you want to start defending the Apostolic Tradition that Laodiceans is not Scripture.
Now, you're using double speak. First, you tell us that we are not to adhere to Apostolic Tradition, and yet here, you tell us that we are.

It is not double speak at all. I have constantly maintained that the early believers were able to tell which books were inspired and which were not. I may not be entirely clear how they were able to tell that. There were certain criteria by which they had to abide by. But they knew which ones were inspired and which ones were not, just as well, if not better than the early councils did.
DHK

[ November 29, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "It is not double speak at all. I have constantly maintained that the early believers were able to tell which books were inspired and which were not. I may not be entirely clear how they were able to tell that. There were certain criteria by which they had to abide by. But they knew which ones were inspired and which ones were not, just as well, if not better than the early councils did."

You continue to pit the "early believers" who had "certain criteria by which they had to abide by" in knowing "which ones were inspired and which ones were not" against the early councils, and that's all fine and dandy.

But, it still does not demonstrate that 2 Peter is one of these texts that they recognized as inspired.

For in A.D. 324, the great Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us, "we have learned that [Peter's] extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon" (History of the Church, 3:3:1).

So, the historical evidence tells us that these early Christians did not regard 2 Peter as Scripture. This leaves you yet to explain why you accept it as Scripture.

Who told you to accept it as part of Scripture against the expressed written testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea?

That's the big question, DHK... Who???

God bless,

Carson

Hint: hcruhC cilohtaC ehT

[ November 30, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hint: hcruhC cilohtaC ehT

[ November 30, 2002, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hint: hcruhC cilohtaC ehT

</font>[/QUOTE]But it didn't exist until the fourth century.

DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

Mind responding to my post above?

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ ... in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon) ... What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

God bless,

Carson

[ November 30, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hint: hcruhC cilohtaC ehT

</font>[/QUOTE]But it didn't exist until the fourth century.

DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Of course the historical evidence is to the contrary.

On the other hand, historical evidence shows that your baptistic system was invented less than a thousand years ago. In fact some of your beliefs first sprang to life less than eighty years ago.

 

[Netcurtains3]

So luke Chapter 10 v1.

Was it 70 or 72?

I guess to a Sola Scripture person there is a KNOWN CERTAIN answer rather then a good academic guess at 72.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Every version I looked up said 70, ecxept the Douay-Rheims Bible, which says 72.

The King James says "other 70", rather than exacly 70, or another 70.

I would say this means either there was 70 or 72. Perhaps more. I can't devote a whole lot of time right now to it, but it seems rather trivial.

What's your point ?

 

[Netcurtains3]

I was looking at a protestant bible called:

New International Version" NIV - I think that is quite a well known brand name - it says - 72

My point is clear - Sola Scripture is wobbly at the edges - tradition helps keep the ship afloat.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

For in A.D. 324, the great Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us, "we have learned that [Peter's] extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon" (History of the Church, 3:3:1).

So, the historical evidence tells us that these early Christians did not regard 2 Peter as Scripture. This leaves you yet to explain why you accept it as Scripture.

Who told you to accept it as part of Scripture against the expressed written testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea?

That's the big question, DHK... Who???

"F.F. Bruce writes that Origen rejected many letters "not only because they falsely claimed apostolic authorship (as some of them did) but more especially because they taught false doctrine."
--And we know that Origen was a heretic, as some say the Father of Arianism.

"Upon the impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. And yet he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a productive mind, and hence it was out of the question that he should become a second Origen. It was quite certain that Origen's influence over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as such, - a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his, — but at the same time would do little to lessen the real power of the past over him. He continued to get his truth from others, from the great men of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced nothing new for himself."
"A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin, and yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and could be led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction with the book acted as an incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of conduct on his part are quite numerous."
(Page 17,18)Eusebius: Church History from a.d. 1-324:.Translated with Prolegomena and Notes by Arthur. Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.)

Origen was a heretic. Eusbebius apparently believed in a very similar vein. He looked up to him. Origen had a great influence upon him. To deny the authenticity of either the Book of Revelation or of Second Peter would be nothing new to Eusbebius. He questioned many things, and was very liberal in his thinking. He in no way accepted the traditional teachings of the church. Though he wrote many apologies and in some ways defended Christianity, he himself held to many heresies. I suppose that would be akin to a Jehovah's Witness defending the Bible.

However, if you seriously search church history you will find groups such as the Waldenses that can trace their roots back to the time of the Apostles. They remained outside of the Catholic Church, and held to the Bible as their only authority.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

On the other hand, historical evidence shows that your baptistic system was invented less than a thousand years ago. In fact some of your beliefs first sprang to life less than eighty years ago.

Are you just spouting off at the mouth? Or do you have serious evidence that you can present to back up your claim?
My beliefs go back about 2,000 years ago. They are all based on the Word of God.
DHK

 

[Netcurtains3]

Actually early Baptism went like this:

"
As a matter of fact, the earliest Christians may have believed that our Lord was baptized by the method of pouring. At least they drew pictures of that method which are still preserved in the Catacombs. These show our Lord and St. John standing in the water, with St. John's hand over our Lord's head and pouring water. One of these representations goes back to within seventy-five years of the baptism.

In further references to the methods of baptism as known and used in the early Church, I quote a paragraph from a pamphlet published by the Rev. Matthew Poetzl, O.F.M.: "There are many representations of baptism left on monuments of various kinds, but not one of them indicates immersion. In mosaics of early churches, in ordinary pictures, on domestic objects such as dishes, immersion is never depicted. It is never sculptured or engraved on marble. Invariably the person being baptized is represented as standing, with his feet only in water, while water is poured on his head with the hand or a vase. Is it not strange, I ask, is it not wholly incomprehensible, if immersion were regarded as the only valid form in early Christianity, that all the early representations of baptism indicate the method of infusion?"

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:

However, if you seriously search church history you will find groups such as the Waldenses that can trace their roots back to the time of the Apostles. They remained outside of the Catholic Church, and held to the Bible as their only authority.

Thanks for bringing that up. I wanted to mention that I noticed that the date of the "Waldenses Creed" that you previously posted predates the birth of that sects founder, Waldo.

I thought that was a little oddd, so I checked into it. Seems that "creed" has long been discarded as a fraud. Other so called Waldenses historical documents were aslo shown to be fake by virtue of the fact that they included Bible verse number references long before the Bible was so numbered.

The Waldenses "history" is a scam.