The Bible and Protestants.

Two facts are missing from this argument.

1. Jews were not in agreement over the canon. The Septuigent was seen as a product of a hellenized culture by some but accepted by others.

2. The Church made its decision independent of the debate among Jews. It was concluded that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God and that the Church was the vessel of revelation based on the commission given to the apostles by Christ himself.

3. The canonical councils were in far greater proximity to the apostolic age and had access to better information. Whereas Martin Luther considered his own personal opinions 1100 years later to be more valid than the councils were. The first council, the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts, laid down the precident. for how major doctrinal and administrative issues would be resolved; not by the diktates of a single individual, but by council.

 

Some obscure Christian groups claim they are Noahide..

 

What matters to me is what Jesus considered the Scriptures--and that Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing to the Church (as you note with reference to Acts).

 

Obscure being the operative word. Jesus does not work in obscurity.

 

Hagee teaches some aberration of that as well.

 

If I can't identify with Jesus then He is not like me. If He didn't have a fallen nature, then He's not like me, so His sacrifice doesn't stand. I've got to look at Jesus with a nature just like mine, as one who overcame that which I haven't overcome, and see Him as the sacrifice and the example of the life in which I should live. He's my model, so if He's not born with a sinful nature, then He's got an advantage that I do not have.

 

So a holy God must entertain the idea of sinning to gain your approval? Maybe you should be more worried about gaining HIS.

 

What a strange twist... Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

Jesus is teaching the Jews and Gentiles how to cope with first century Roman occupation.

 

Your ability to identify or not with Jesus is not really Jesus' problem.

Yes--he is like we were IN THE BEGINNING. When God created Adam and Eve, they wer originally without sin--that is how man's nature was made "and it was good."

Do you think you're not like Adam? You are, and so is Jesus--only Adam sinned, but Jesus didn't.

I'm sorry you think that is the case. I think you will find it quite hope-giving if you came to understand the perfection of the sacrifice that Jesus made for our sins--none of his own sins. Jesus is the reverse image of Adam's transgression--Jesus and Adam both were without original sin--Adam warped mankind's nature by disobedience, Jesus redeemed mankind's nature by perfect obedience. It makes all the sense in the world!

If He was born with a sinful nature, he could never be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He was the perfect pascal lamb--with no blemish.

I believe this is understood and professed by most mainstream Christian denominations. Ask your pastor about whether Jesus was born with the sinful nature that is inherited through the effects of Original Sin. Ask him/her about Paul's reference to Jesus as the New Adam. Ask about the Judaic Paschal Lamb and how that pertains to Jesus--the Lamb of God. I think you will find that either your pastor will want to think on it a bit, or that what you are told will align fairly closely to what I'm telling you.

 

The canon of the Old Testament I use is the same as the one that the Jews of Israel recognized as inspired Scripture. It is the same that the Jews use today. Its contents are the same as the Tanakh of the Jews today.


Quantrill

 

Strange question. An Old Testament book is alreay recognized as Scripture because it is inspired by God.

Quantrill

 

Early Jewish writings mean nothing. Is it inspired by God, does.

Quantrill

 

Where?

Quantrill

 

Pay attention to the question, my response you quote here, was to.

Quantrill

 

There have been some disagreements about that at certain points in history. Perhaps you should look into that.

 

And how do YOU determine that it is inspired by God?

 

Jamnia.




............

 

I know it is cozy for mentality of athiests I mean Catholics to think that I made only one argument and it is blah blah blah, ladies and gents.

As you see ladies and gents, Catholics have never made a slightest attepmt to invalidate any of my premises. (Because I just use facts obvious to any of you as premises.)

Thus since my premises stand all valid, all my arguments stand strong and intact like a rock.

 

It is interesting to learn that Catholics think that the OT is NOT inspired by G-d.

I guess it is inspired by Pope? Am I correct?

 

The early Church very foolishly made it a heresy to say this nonsense had nothing to do with Christianity and should just be studied as background. They needed the prophecies, I suppose. It has allowed all sorts of sort-of-Jews (bad ones, okay) to go round pretending to be Christians.

 

Obviously you've never heard of Socratic questioning. Why am I not surprised?

 

You are not surprised because in your Catholic mentality everyone else is stupid, ignorant, bigoted and homosexual.

Obviuosly you've never heard about Xn beliefs regarding the OT and the place of Socratic mind games in these beliefs. And nobody is surprised.

 

Thanks for a witness account of those times. Are you sure you were not drunk or high?

 

No more than the apostles in Acts. I read the NT sometimes, you see

 

Thanks again, the 13th.