Biases

[Always in His Presence]

When this passage was written, Scripture was the Tanahk. So Paul was saying that the Tanahk is God breathed and profitable. That's all.

Thank you for your opinion - we disagree -

 

[concretecamper]

Thank you for your opinion - we disagree -

You disagree with history, got it

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually this is not true. Peter called pauls letters scripture.

That only covers the Petrine and Pauline epistles, and furthermore St. Peter does not name the letters of St. Paul that are Scripture. Separating the authentic Pauline epistles from the forgeries was a controversial process.

Hebrews was nearly omitted, as were the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) and certain other Epistles, and on the other hand 2 Peter was nearly omitted.

The first complete list including all 27 books of the New Testament we now have, and only those 27 books, was promulgated by St. Athanasius in his 39th Paschal Encyclical in the fourth century.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the oldest intact Bibles and take a look at their New Testaments, and you will see books which ought not to be there, or books which are missing, depending on the manuscript.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

While I do listen to others, I test what they say or wright with Holy Scripture; much of what you are promoting fails that test. In light of Scripture, you are partially correct about John 6, but there is so much more in there based on the context of scripture regarding not only faith but the Eucharist and eternity. Scripture interprets scripture and scripture derives its context from scripture. You see one tree; viewed through the lense of Scripture, we see a forest.

The Bible can not contradict itself.

jesus did not stutter.

He did not say whever does this will nto die. And will be risen, the later go back on his word.

if anyone thinks one can eat the bread from heaven in john 6 and still die. They are not listening to God. And in effect Call god a liar

 

[The Liturgist]

You disagree with history, got it

In defense of my friend @Always in His Presence , while it is true that at the time St. Paul wrote that epistle, Scripture referred to the Old Testament only, it is the case that the Pauline epistles like all inspired writings can be considered prophetic, and it is the case that those books discerned by the Church, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Athanasius the Great to be inspired Scripture, the 27 book canon of St. Athanasius first being established in the Church of Alexandria, then being adopted in short order by the Church of Rome (if I recall by a local council), and from then quickly spreading to the other major patriarchates in Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, and the autocephalous archdiocese of Cyprus, and from there to the remote parts of the Church of the East in Mesopotamia, India, Yemen, Central Asia and the Far East, and to the Churches of Armenia and Georgia, and to the Church of Abyssinia, and the Church in Numidia which was massacred, which would also happen to all the Latin Christians of North Africa west of Egypt following the rise of Islam and the members of the Church of the East outside India and the Fertile Crescent, all of the many hundreds of thousands of Christians in Central Asia, the Far East and Yemen, by Muslims starting in the 12th century with Tamerlane and his sons. These are the genocides that Christianity forgot.

At any rate, I think the idea that St. Paul’s verse can be applied prophetically to the New Testament should be uncontroversial, since everything St. Paul said about the Old Testament is true with respect to the 27 book final cut of the NT canon effected by St. Athanasius for his own Patriarchate in Alexandria, which was adopted subsequently by the Roman Church and then by everyone else. The scrutiny those 27 books had is remarkable, in particular the raging debates of the early fourth century over Revelation and certain books that nearly made it in such as 1 Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter, and also some legitimate books that were not Apostolic, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement, which are edifying Patristic works.

Therefore I believe in this case @Always in His Presence is correct, because the verse, while at the time referring to the Old Testament, can be applied prophetically to the New, and doing so causes no disruptiona at all to anything, and we also don’t want people thinking that the New Testament is less useful or important than the Old. As it is, there is enough of a problem with certain denominations that seem to regard parts of the Old Testament as more important than the new, such as Seventh Day Adventists, who make a great to do about God having written the Ten Commandments with His finger, which seems peculiar given that God Himself became man and spoke to us, and His interactions with humanity are recorded in the New Testament. The Adventists also seem to reject the important hermeneutical principle that the New Testament should interpret the Old. So because of that, an affirmation of the full inspired equality of the New and Old Testaments via a prophetic interpretation of St. Paul as @Always in His Presence has argued for is highly desirable.

 

[The Liturgist]

Let me make a correction for you.

Divine inspiration from The Holy Spirit is not done through a group of people. Take a look in our bible, there is not a single book in there that originated from a group of people. GOD always works through individuals that way. Always has and always will.

Also, piecemealing a creed together using bit and pieces of scripture does not automatically confer inspiration onto it.

Take a look at the Bible and show me a table of contents that was not put in there as a result of a decision made centuries after the books were written.

Fun fact: the first canon of New Testament works was promulgated by Marcion, who modified the Gospel of Luke and grouped it with some Pauline Epistles in order to promote his heresy that the God of the Old Testament is different from the Father of Jesus Christ. It was in response to this, and the modification of Luke, and the proliferation of Gnostic psuedepigrapha, that the efforts of New Testament canonization got underway in the early second century, but due to the persecutions and other factors, it was not until the mid fourth century that the 27 book canon was discerned, by St. Athanasius, who also defended Christianity at Nicaea from the Arians, who denied the deity of Jesus Christ.

For this reason, I regard the Council of Nicea as inspired, although not Scripture; indeed the first three ecumenical synods in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus are undeniably inspired and are central to the Christian faith as we have received it.

 

[ARBITER01]

Take a look at the Bible and show me a table of contents that was not put in there as a result of a decision made centuries after the books were written.

Fun fact: the first canon of New Testament works was promulgated by Marcion, who modified the Gospel of Luke and grouped it with some Pauline Epistles in order to promote his heresy that the God of the Old Testament is different from the Father of Jesus Christ. It was in response to this, and the modification of Luke, and the proliferation of Gnostic psuedepigrapha, that the efforts of New Testament canonization got underway in the early second century, but due to the persecutions and other factors, it was not until the mid fourth century that the 27 book canon was discerned, by St. Athanasius, who also defended Christianity at Nicaea from the Arians, who denied the deity of Jesus Christ.

For this reason, I regard the Council of Nicea as inspired, although not Scripture; indeed the first three ecumenical synods in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus are undeniably inspired and are central to the Christian faith as we have received it.

You are making the mistake of attributing natural talents with the ability of The Holy Spirit.

Inspiration from The Holy Spirit did not assemble the writings of our Apostles, it wrote them at that moment through those people. There is the guidance of The Holy Spirit, yes, but that is not inspiration where you are receiving constant revelation from Him to write such a thing.

 

[concretecamper]

all inspired writings can be considered prophetic

Creative license is the norm now? I wonder what other novel ideas will now be advanced

 

[The Liturgist]

Creative license is the norm now? I wonder what other novel ideas will now be advanced

I didn’t say that by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be saying we should not apply what St. Paul wrote to the New Testament, which was recognized by the Church as canonical Scriptures ,and which would have the effect of making the New Testament inferior to the Old Testament. So while it is true that at the time St. Paul wrote that, only the Old Testament existed, the Church declared the New Testament to be canonical Scripture in phases culminating in the adoption of the definitive 27 book Athanasian Canon, with the Mass or Divine Liturgy having an Epistle and a Gospel lesson (and in the Gallican, Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, an Old Testament lesson, but in the Roman and Byzantine Rites this was done in the Liturgy of the Hours, usually at Vespers).

 

[The Liturgist]

You are making the mistake of attributing natural talents with the ability of The Holy Spirit.

Inspiration from The Holy Spirit did not assemble the writings of our Apostles, it wrote them at that moment through those people. There is the guidance of The Holy Spirit, yes, but that is not inspiration where you are receiving constant revelation from Him to write such a thing.

You seem to be downplaying the ability of individual authors to express themselves in inspired Scripture, which we know to be the case because of the stylistic similarities between, for example, the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the writings of the Holy Prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah and Lamentations).

At any rate, I consider the Nicene Creed to be inspired as a result of the Holy Spirit breathing the essential ideas to the Holy Fathers at the First and Second Ecumenical Synods in Nicaea and at Constantinople. And I regard the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council to be guided, as you would put it, by the Holy Spirit, although I would not say inspired insofar as they did not produce a document comparable to the Creed.

 

[ARBITER01]

You seem to be downplaying the ability of individual authors to express themselves in inspired Scripture, which we know to be the case because of the stylistic similarities between, for example, the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the writings of the Holy Prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah and Lamentations).

At any rate, I consider the Nicene Creed to be inspired as a result of the Holy Spirit breathing the essential ideas to the Holy Fathers at the First and Second Ecumenical Synods in Nicaea and at Constantinople. And I regard the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council to be guided, as you would put it, by the Holy Spirit, although I would not say inspired insofar as they did not produce a document comparable to the Creed.

I'm saying your idea doesn't abide by scripture.

Holy Spirit inspiration is always associated with writing. That is what is mentioned/taught in scripture. Why would I or anyone else need to go outside of that boundary?

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm saying your idea doesn't abide by scripture.

Holy Spirit inspiration is always associated with writing. That is what is mentioned/taught in scripture. Why would I or anyone else need to go outside of that boundary?

The Nicene Creed was written.

 

[concretecamper]

I didn’t say that by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be saying we should not apply what St. Paul wrote to the New Testament, which was recognized by the Church as canonical Scriptures

You should not apply what Paul is saying to the New Testament. Reading 1 Tim 3:15 Paul defines the Scriptures he is referencing.

"And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

There is no way one can deduce that Paul means anything other than what is written. The Tanahk is the Scriptures Timothy knew is his youth, not the Bible.

 

[Valletta]

62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 Butthere are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

66 From that time many of His disciples went [p]back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

It’s funny how peter understood. And the church that calls him their father missed this point>

Jesus became more emphatic when questioned. Then in John 6: 62 he begins to confront them about their faith in what He has told them, asking them what would happen if they saw Him ascending to Heaven. Would that be enough for them to believe? In John 6: 64 Jesus tells them His words are spirit, that means they must believe Jesus no matter what their earthly senses may indicate. Things of the flesh, of this world, are worthless, they must believe in Him.

1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Hebrews 4:11-13 LSB Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall into the same example of disobedience. (12) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (13) And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are uncovered and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we have an account to give.

For the word of God is living, &c. Some understand by the word of God, the eternal word, or Son of God: (to whom may apply all in the 12th and 13th verses) but others rather expound it of the words, promises, and menaces of God, either foretold by the prophets, or preached by the apostles. (Witham) --- All this language is metaphorical, but perfectly well understood by the Jews. In their sacrifices, the Levites made use of a two-edged knife to separate from the victim what was for God, what was for the priests, and what was for the people. Thus in sacrificing sinners to the justice of God, Jesus Christ, like a two-edged knife, will separate what is for God, and what is for man; i.e. whatever is good or evil in the whole of man’s conduct.​

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Jesus became more emphatic when questioned. Then in John 6: 62 he begins to confront them about their faith in what He has told them, asking them what would happen if they saw Him ascending to Heaven. Would that be enough for them to believe? In John 6: 64 Jesus tells them His words are spirit, that means they must believe Jesus no matter what their earthly senses may indicate. Things of the flesh, of this world, are worthless, they must believe in Him.

But he did not just say this

he said the spirit gives life.

Jesus spent the whole conversation speaking of this food which will give life to everyone who believes. he in essence told him, Instead of comming to get fed (physical food) come to seek to get fed with spiritual food. which can give you eternal life.

It was his words. he spoke of.. which came from the spirit

and again, Peter acknowledged this, when he replied, Yu have the WORDS of et4ernal life"

1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

1 cor 10 is about the last supper. Not the food which endures forever.

One is a ceremony, actually the continuance of the feast of unleavened bread. where Israel remembered Egypt. and we remember the cross.

if you have not been given life. you can eat this food all you want. you will still be lost

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But he did not just say this

he said the spirit gives life.

Jesus spent the whole conversation speaking of this food which will give life to everyone who believes. he in essence told him, Instead of comming to get fed (physical food) come to seek to get fed with spiritual food. which can give you eternal life.

It was his words. he spoke of.. which came from the spirit

and again, Peter acknowledged this, when he replied, Yu have the WORDS of et4ernal life"

1 cor 10 is about the last supper. Not the food which endures forever.

One is a ceremony, actually the continuance of the feast of unleavened bread. where Israel remembered Egypt. and we remember the cross.

if you have not been given life. you can eat this food all you want. you will still be lost

The first was done not only to be freed from the bonds of slavery, but also to save lives of the first born as God willed.
The second is done as a remembrance of the first to free the faithful from the bonds of sin, death and the power of the devil; in effect saving the "first born of Christ" i.e. the faithful that believe in the tangible gifts and benefits in the Eucharist the way the Jews believed in God and the promised deliverance.

 

[ARBITER01]

The Nicene Creed was written.

Lol,....

Sometimes you just gotta shake your head and laugh.

Go ahead, believe whatever you wish to believe, that's what you're going to do anyways.

 

[Valletta]

I'm saying your idea doesn't abide by scripture.

Holy Spirit inspiration is always associated with writing. That is what is mentioned/taught in scripture. Why would I or anyone else need to go outside of that boundary?

Inspiration from the Holy Spirit is not confined to Scripture, why do you wish to limit the Holy Spirit?

 

[ARBITER01]

Inspiration from the Holy Spirit is not confined to Scripture, why do you wish to limit the Holy Spirit?

I'm a Pentecostal, I try not to go off of my own personal ideas,........ or of somebody else's. I try to abide by scripture and what it says.