.

[Alithis]

Where does God say He would not speak? All you've done is say the same thing, show me, back your claim up.

-CryptoLutheran

back up which part .? that Tolbit is a fanciful story nook with historical errors and false doctrine contrary to the scriptures ?
I dont have to back it up. its openly recorded info .public domain .
if you dont believe it there, it is because you dont want to .

me reposting it here wont change your mind .

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible IS the prophets (2 Pet 1:19-21), and the New Testament is what God has said through His Son, and what the evangelists and apostles wrote prophetically (by Divine inspiration).

2 Peter 1:19-21 doesn't say "the Bible is the prophets". As for your reference to the New Testament, you seem to not be aware that Christians were debating the contents of the New Testament Canon for centuries. How do you address the debates over Antilegomena, and the inclusion (and exclusion) of certain books from ancient biblical codices? You haven't actually addressed anything.

Not true. Because the canon was ALREADY ESTABLISHED 400 years before Christ, He spoke of that canon summarily in Luke. You simply do not wish to acknowledge that.

And you're simply wrong on this, from an historic position. If the [Old Testament] Canon was established 400 years before Christ, then how do you account for the Septuaint, and how do you account for the fact that Jews in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries were in continued disagreement over their Canon of Scripture?

The point is NOT to enumerate the books but to present the canon. There are five books in the Torah, eight in the Prophets, and eleven in the Psalms. That has not changed for about 2,500 years.

And yet you have nothing to back this claim up. You have assumed these things are the case, but you don't provide evidence. Mentioning "the Psalms" does not mean the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Esther, etc are assumed already, not unless you can provide evidence of this. And the only evidence you will be able to find for these things as being recognized, within Judaism, as Ketuvim, is outside of the Bible itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

back up which part .? that Tolbit is a fanciful story nook with historical errors and false doctrine contrary to the scriptures ?
I dont have to back it up. its openly recorded info .public domain .
if you dont believe it there, it is because you dont want to .

me reposting it here wont change your mind .

Back up your claim that God said He would not speak during the majority of the second temple period between Malachi and the Lord's first advent.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Jewish Canon as you call it was developed over a couple thousand years before Christ was born. What you are referring to is the so called council of Jamnia which there is no proof what-so-ever that it actually occurred. It is a Catholic invention not a Hebrew council and it is used to indicate that the Hebrew people's religious leaders had a council to finalise the Hebrew Canon. There are a couple of problems with this and the first is that the Romans banished the Hebrews from Israel before the Council of Jamnia was supposed to have been held.

You're right that there is no evidence of a council at Jamnia. But that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that within Judaism there were disputes over several works, notably Daniel, the Song of Songs, and a couple others. What constituted the Torah and Nevi'im was well established, it is the third category of Ketuvim that was in flux. Not until a hypothetical Jewish council, but within the few few centuries of the common era, we're talking Talmudic times.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry if you can't remember what you posted then I can't help you.

No. You don't get to make false accusations against me and then not address them when I call you on it. You can either demonstrate your accusation based on what I said, or you can acknowledge you are merely engaging in slander. You do not get to go around on here and make false accusations about other members.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

No. You don't get to make false accusations against me and then not address them when I call you on it. You can either demonstrate your accusation based on what I said, or you can acknowledge you are merely engaging in slander. You do not get to go around on here and make false accusations about other members.

-CryptoLutheran

Actually it's you that are making false accusations calling other proven falsified stories scripture. The fact is there's little truth in your claims about YOUR extra-biblical claims. So yes I do get to tell you to go back and read your own erroneous claims and the fact that you refuse to listen Christians giving you proof of your errors.

 

[keltoi]

or you can acknowledge you are merely engaging in slander. You do not get to go around on here and make false accusations about other members.

-CryptoLutheran

A little off topic but this needs to be corrected. He isn't slandering you, slander is spoken word libel is written word.

 

[sunlover1]

Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura adherants, and that may account for some of the
strange views in GT.
OTOH, we can find some strange interpretations of Scripture too, and we have milk
drinker, meat eaters and all shades of in-between

That begs the question "Why not?"

Why not what?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking about.

The Muslims proclaim that their Koran is divinely inspired (and flawless), the Orthodox Jews proclaim that their Tanakh is divinely inspired (and flawless) and so on.

Okay, I will probably better understand your point when you clarify.

 

[Job8]

Why not what?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking about.

Why are all Christians not Sola Scriptura, when the Jews, the Muslims, and the Sikhs (and others) all hold to their Scriptures as being authoritative and infallible?

 

[keltoi]

Why are all Christians not Sola Scriptura, when the Jews, the Muslims, and the Sikhs (and others) all hold to their Scriptures as being authoritative and infallible?

Because some Christians hold the traditions of humanity higher than the Word of God. When someone says saint whoever wrote in the 3rd century ad that the Bible says this when it is clear the Bible doesn't say that at all who are they saying is more authoritative.

 

[sunlover1]

Why are all Christians not Sola Scriptura, when the Jews, the Muslims, and the Sikhs (and others) all hold to their Scriptures as being authoritative and infallible?

AH! Great question!
And I have a great answer (biblical of course lol)
Other religions' holy books have no power, and thus they have no enemy or warfare come against them.
Our Scriptures are living and powerful! Worthy of a good battle! (from the kingdom of darkness)
Jesus even warned us that the enemy would come immediately to try to steal "seed".

 

[Goodbook]

Jews dont hold to sola scriptura...the have the talmud, which is commentary on the torah. Mulims dont hold to sola scriptura, they ADDED the Koran. Sikhs...well they dont even read scripture, I think they have something else.


As for SOME christian denoms, they ADD to scripture as well, for example, book of Tobit, the magisterium, pearl of great price, cs lewis, calvinist theology, scofield bible commentary etc etc.

 

[Alithis]

Back up your claim that God said He would not speak during the majority of the second temple period between Malachi and the Lord's first advent.

-CryptoLutheran

what difference would it make ?it already established that its a fanciful story boom with historical error and doctrines opposed to the scriptures .. thus ..not inspired by God.which part of it do you want to push ?
probably the part that says you can purchase salvation by paying alms huh ...
other wise there is not a single reasonto desire to promote that book as scriptural when it plainly is not .

 

[keltoi]

what difference would it make ?it already established that its a fanciful story boom with historical error and doctrines opposed to the scriptures .. thus ..not inspired by God.which part of it do you want to push ?
probably the part that says you can purchase salvation by paying alms huh ...
other wise there is not a single reasonto desire to promote that book as scriptural when it plainly is not .

You know, just saying something doesn't make it true. You were asked to back up your comment and have repeatedly refused to do so so the only thing we can take from that is you have no evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Goodbook]

I dont want to read the whole book of tobit on this forum and the whole bible and then pick out all the passages in there that contradict the bible from tobit but maybe someone else can if they got the time and show people the light.

Yawn. Its like when you show people that the lamb of God is the only one worthy to take the scroll which revelation says about twenty times yet some people still want to believe its the lion. Sigh.

 

[Tigger45]

You know, just saying something doesn't make it true. You were asked to back up your comment and have repeatedly refused to do so so the only thing we can take from that is you have no evidence to support your assertion.

+1

 

[Rick Otto]

Why are all Christians not Sola Scriptura, when the Jews, the Muslims, and the Sikhs (and others) all hold to their Scriptures as being authoritative and infallible?

Totally arguable assertions. Saying "all" just leads to arguing who that does and doesn't include. It ignores all the arguments within each group.
Broad brush over-use.

 

[Alithis]

You know, just saying something doesn't make it true. You were asked to back up your comment and have repeatedly refused to do so so the only thing we can take from that is you have no evidence to support your assertion.

oh good grief ,that's just silly .i would only be posting what is public domain knowledge .. over 1600 years its been debated with the same conclusion .

it contains historical error and doctrines which are opposed to scripture .look it up. there is no point posting information that is there for any one to find .

 

[keltoi]

oh good grief ,that's just silly .i would only be posting what is public domain knowledge .. over 1600 years its been debated with the same conclusion .

it contains historical error and doctrines which are opposed to scripture .look it up. there is no point posting information that is there for any one to find .

The only silly things happening here are your replies. Many people would say Genesis contains historical error or the story of the walls of Jericho falling down are historically inaccurate or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are historically inaccurate. There is evidence plastered all over the internet to back these assertions up, does that make them true? You are posting things others may not agree with, I am not others btw, and not offering anything to support it.

 

[Alithis]

The only silly things happening here are your replies. Many people would say Genesis contains historical error or the story of the walls of Jericho falling down are historically inaccurate or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are historically inaccurate. There is evidence plastered all over the internet to back these assertions up, does that make them true? You are posting things others may not agree with, I am not others btw, and not offering anything to support it.

-Some historical and theological errors in the work have been noted. Among the historical problems noted is that Tobit 1:15 incorrectly notes that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser's son (rather than the son of Sargon II). Also, Tobit implied he was alive during the reign of Jeroboam I (930 BC), but at his death he was noted as 117 years old.

infallible word of god just fell of the throne OR its not inspired word of god ..-it is not inspired word of god .


- One teaching of concern is certainly the apparent condoning of magic in connection with the use of fish body parts to heal or fight off demons.( such activity also know as witchcraft ) Both a demon named Asmodeus and an angel named Raphael are also mentioned in this writing that are found nowhere in the Old or New Testament. This does not make the account inaccurate, yet is unique information not collaborated in the rest of Scripture.like so many rcc doctrines it had NO foundation in the inspired scriptures .

- More concern is the teaching that almsgiving alone would save a person. according to the Book of Tobit (4:11; 12:9), a clear contradiction with the New Testament's teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).
but I strongly suspect you knew this information .

Now the predictable long winded posts ,citing long dead no bodies ,as if their word is authoritative over the word of God will ensue to push the topic into confusing ambiguity and beguile the weaker minded .
this predictable action is so tedious and insidious in its nature that it is why i could not really be bothered posting information most already know . because if a truth is something you do not like ..you will deny that truth and superimpose your own version of it .
but since i use the inspired holy scriptures as a basis for truth and do not accept teachings that contradict the holy Scriptures you will never convince me otherwise on this or any issue where the material being discussed is contrary to what is plainly stated in the holy Scriptures .

for this one reason .. such false teachings force me into a choice to beleive the long winded ambiguous guff out of rome .. Or to beleive the plain word of god as it stands written in front of me . i will ALWAYS choose the unambiguous word of God .

others ../ prefer to beleive a lie .. they actually choose to ., incomprehensible behaviour ..but there you have it .