How do we know . . . .

[sunlover1]

No. You said only the written word was infallible.
In post #514 of this thread!

Me:Yes, you are the one who said that only the word was infallible.
You: Amen, and that's true right?

Quote:
Yes, you are the one who said that only the word was infallible.

Amen, and that's true right?

I see that. It does not say written.
Written or spoken His Word is infallible.
What's your big beef with it though?
This must be the problem, see, UB was
right, you 'didnt' understand.
(although I'm sure it was my fault)
Forgive me.

Ciao, Sun. You always were wiser than most.

Hmm, so much for that idea

 

[Montalban]

I see that. It does not say written.
Written or spoken His Word is infallible.
What's your big beef with it though?
This must be the problem, see, UB was
right, you 'didnt' understand.

You can play it like that if you want but you've only mentioned infallibility with regards the WRITTEN WORD

Post #32

http://christianforums.com/t7055143-youll-hate-this-thread-i-guarantee-it-2.html&page=4
Me:No. Scripture says it doesn't have everything Jesus said and did.
You: It does indeed say that.

We dont have anything else
that's infallible. so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

You've said that only the written word (in Scripture; that is the Bible) is infallible, because you've said it's the only thing we have. Only excludes all others. So if there were an oral teaching from Paul passed down, whether totally by word-of-mouth, or recorded by others outside of Scripture (because I doubt you'll accept non-biblical sources as 'infallible') then anything he taught that was by word of mouth was fallible - unless it was written down. Not fogetting that Paul himself records in Scripture bits that were not recorded in the Gospels, so what was taught to him orally was not the same as what was in the Gospels - in that those lessons of his weren't recorded earlier. Thus when they were taught to him, but not RECORDED (written down) in Scripture are they not infallible? Why did Paul himself trust such lessons?

You've mentioned fallible people teaching orally
Post #15
http://christianforums.com/t6635279-why-has-christianity.html&page=2
You:Timothys' mom, was she infallible?
She taught timothy Scripture.

I'm sorry that this has been such a long time coming. But at least you've done better than just say "I've never said that", or "You're good at twisting my words". Maybe that's the way people go with things rather than discuss them. If you believe I'm wrong then you should say why I'm wrong. Accusing people of making things up, or distorting them is not the way to go despite this being championed by others here

 

[Montalban]

I had to make a coffee run.

I think it is essential to salvation to partake in Christ, but I don't think it is essential to salvation to perform &/or partake in a ceremonial sacrament.

That's not the issue here. The issue being an answer to a question about what I/Orthodox believe is essential that's not in the Bible.

I answered that. That you disagree with that being 'essential' is not really the point. To be on the point you'd have to disagree that it's not in the Bible!

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm sorry that this has been such a long time coming. But at least you've done better than just say "I've never said that", or "You're good at twisting my words". Maybe that's the way people go with things rather than discuss them. If you believe I'm wrong then you should say why I'm wrong. Accusing people of making things up, or distorting them is not the way to go despite this being championed by others here

even if that is exactly what you are doing?

hmm.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You do so without still showing how something can be infallible only after it's written down! Which is, as I pointed out, something you've never addressed!

And you believe I'm rude!!!

I wonder M. . . . do your traditions say anything about Gal 5:22, 23?

Gal 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control;
NASU

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You do so without still showing how something can be infallible only after it's written down! Which is, as I pointed out, something you've never addressed!

And you believe I'm rude!!!

The issue is not proving that something is infallible only after it is written down . . . the issue is seeing scripture the way that the Jews did first, which was the way that Jesus did, and then the rest of the NT authors . . . and simply showing Scripture that exalts itself above all other forms of communication (save for the direct revelation of Christ). Proving something as infallible after written is superceded by the simple way that Scripture speaks of itself.

And from here we realize that NOTHING else maintains this same level of authority . . . because scripture itself makes exclusive claims of itself.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

All of which only speak of the OT... specifically the LXX.

Forgive me...

NO NOT THE LXX . . . the LXX is a translation . . . much like our English (or whatever language) Bible . . . NO ONE EVER CONSIDERS THE TRANSLATION AS INSPIRED . . . only the autographa. Sure the NT quotes the LXX . . . this is indisputable . . . but the fact is that the LXX is very sloppy in many places and the WORD of God came to the prophets who wrote them . . . not the translators conscripted to translate . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

NO NOT THE LXX . . . the LXX is a translation . . . much like our English (or whatever language) Bible . . . NO ONE EVER CONSIDERS THE TRANSLATION AS INSPIRED . . . only the autographa. Sure the NT quotes the LXX . . . this is indisputable . . . but the fact is that the LXX is very sloppy in many places and the WORD of God came to the prophets who wrote them . . . not the translators conscripted to translate . . .

Yep... The translation that Christ and the Apostles used.

Want proof? Of course you do.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Yep... The translation that Christ and the Apostles used.

Want proof? Of course you do.

Forgive me...

That Christ used? No brother . . . Jesus used the scrolls. The quotes you see in the NT are the quotes of THE AUTHORS quoting Jesus . . . Jesus was a Rabbi and had access to the scrolls of the synagouges . . . the NT authors on the otherhand had no access (save for Paul . . . but not after being rejected) and used the LXX. But this does not prove the inspiration of the LXX. Sorry.

When the term GRAPHE is used (scripture) in the NT it refers to WHAT WAS INSPIRED BY GOD . . . not what was translated by men. So though the LXX was used in quoting the OT . . . when the NT says "Scripture" it is NOT the LXX but the WORD OF GOD as given to the PROPHETS . . . NOT the seventy translators in Alexandria.

 

[Thekla]

That Christ used? No brother . . . Jesus used the scrolls. The quotes you see in the NT are the quotes of THE AUTHORS quoting Jesus . . . Jesus was a Rabbi and had access to the scrolls of the synagouges . . . the NT authors on the otherhand had no access (save for Paul . . . but not after being rejected) and used the LXX. But this does not prove the inspiration of the LXX. Sorry.

When the term GRAPHE is used (scripture) in the NT it refers to WHAT WAS INSPIRED BY GOD . . . not what was translated by men. So though the LXX was used in quoting the OT . . . when the NT says "Scripture" it is NOT the LXX but the WORD OF GOD as given to the PROPHETS . . . NOT the seventy translators in Alexandria.

have you compared the variant passages in the LXX and Masoretic texts ?

 

[disasm]

That Christ used? No brother . . . Jesus used the scrolls. The quotes you see in the NT are the quotes of THE AUTHORS quoting Jesus . . . Jesus was a Rabbi and had access to the scrolls of the synagouges . . . the NT authors on the otherhand had no access (save for Paul . . . but not after being rejected) and used the LXX. But this does not prove the inspiration of the LXX. Sorry.

When the term GRAPHE is used (scripture) in the NT it refers to WHAT WAS INSPIRED BY GOD . . . not what was translated by men. So though the LXX was used in quoting the OT . . . when the NT says "Scripture" it is NOT the LXX but the WORD OF GOD as given to the PROPHETS . . . NOT the seventy translators in Alexandria.

I'd agree with you if we still had the scrolls of old, but we don't. We have the Masoretic Text, a "translation" done many years after Christ.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[sunlover1]

You can play it like that if you want but you've only mentioned infallibility with regards the WRITTEN WORD

Post #32

http://christianforums.com/t7055143-youll-hate-this-thread-i-guarantee-it-2.html&page=4
Me:No. Scripture says it doesn't have everything Jesus said and did.
You: It does indeed say that.

We dont have anything else
that's infallible. so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

You've said that only the written word (in Scripture; that is the Bible) is infallible, because you've said it's the only thing we have. Only excludes all others. So if there were an oral teaching from Paul passed down, whether totally by word-of-mouth, or recorded by others outside of Scripture (because I doubt you'll accept non-biblical sources as 'infallible') then anything he taught that was by word of mouth was fallible - unless it was written down. Not fogetting that Paul himself records in Scripture bits that were not recorded in the Gospels, so what was taught to him orally was not the same as what was in the Gospels - in that those lessons of his weren't recorded earlier. Thus when they were taught to him, but not RECORDED (written down) in Scripture are they not infallible? Why did Paul himself trust such lessons?

Because he was taught by Jesus?

You've mentioned fallible people teaching orally
Post #15
http://christianforums.com/t6635279-why-has-christianity.html&page=2
You:Timothys' mom, was she infallible?
She taught timothy Scripture.

Here's the ACTUAL quote of my post:

Strawman, everyone ISNT nor do they even claim to
be infallible.
WHY would one need to be infallible to read what
God said?
Timothys' mom, was she infallible?
She taught timothy Scripture.

I don't happen to believe there is such thing
as an infallible human.

I'm sorry that this has been such a long time coming. But at least you've done better than just say "I've never said that", or "You're good at twisting my words". Maybe that's the way people go with things rather than discuss them. If you believe I'm wrong then you should say why I'm wrong. Accusing people of making things up, or distorting them is not the way to go despite this being championed by others here

As I mentioned earlier, I'm done with this
foolishness, will discuss Scripture but the
flaming is nonsense and IIRC, I will account
for every idle word (unproductive, unfruitful)

Praying That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit
of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened;
that ye may know what is the hope of his calling,
and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance
in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness
of his power to us-ward who believe, according
to the working of his mighty power...

Grace and peace to you.
sunlover

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So... you don't think that the Apostles were taught the OT scriptures by Christ? Or you think that the translation Christ taught from was different than the one he taught the Apostles with?

St. Paul (and others) quoted the LXX verbatum.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

So... you don't think that the Apostles were taught the OT scriptures by Christ? Or you think that the translation Christ taught from was different than the one he taught the Apostles with?

St. Paul (and others) quoted the LXX verbatum.

Forgive me...

I'd be of a mind that Christ didn't need to refer to any texts to know the scriptures, myself.

 

[racer]

Yep... The translation that Christ and the Apostles used.

Want proof? Of course you do.

Forgive me...

Here’s what I did once. A woman gave me several supposed quotes that were from the LXX. So, what I did is take those quotes and cross-reference them with the OT texts which did not include the deuterocanon. Before I quit, I think I may have found one quote that did not originate from OT without the deuterocanon.

So, can you provide a citation from the deuterocanon that did NOT originate in the OT texts which came before the deuteros?

 

[lionroar0]

I'd be of a mind that Christ didn't need to refer to any texts to know the scriptures, myself.

ZING!!!!

Peace

 

[racer]

You were answering the question...

"What gives scripture it's authority?"

I don't see how you have answered the question here.

Forgive me...

Can you show me where you've answered my questions, please?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'd be of a mind that Christ didn't need to refer to any texts to know the scriptures, myself.

No doubt... but that doesn't mean the Apostles didn't need it. I was talking about what Christ taught the Apostles from...

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Can you show me where you've answered my questions, please?

As for the OP... post #11

Forgive me...

 

[WarriorAngel]

The issue is not proving that something is infallible only after it is written down . . . the issue is seeing scripture the way that the Jews did first, which was the way that Jesus did, and then the rest of the NT authors . . . and simply showing Scripture that exalts itself above all other forms of communication (save for the direct revelation of Christ). Proving something as infallible after written is superceded by the simple way that Scripture speaks of itself.

And from here we realize that NOTHING else maintains this same level of authority . . . because scripture itself makes exclusive claims of itself.

I wanted to chime in here...pardon me.

No, Jesus and the Jews were at odds with what the OT meant, as He plainly said they couldnt see the Messiah [Himself] in the scriptures..
Well, He chastised them for not 'seeing and being blind' to what the scriptures meant.

Basically, only the ones who could see it [Nicodemus as one] would know Who He was.

You have to read Wisdom...check this out;

Wisdom 2
1 For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: 2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, 3 Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: 4 And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. 5 For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

6 Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. 7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. 8 Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. 9 Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. 10 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged.
11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. 12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. 23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.


Do you see what I see?
A very clear prophecy of Christ and the Jews who would not 'see Him for Who He is'.