How do we know . . . .

[racer]

But I'm not going to... I'm tired of being beaten up. Perhaps some of you have forgotten that I am a human too.

BTW ~ I never spoke of myself being of any authority. I speak of The Church's authority.

Forgive me...

But you based your churches authority upon your own authority when you determined that you church possessed "said authority."

 

[Philothei]

Your facts do not answer

1. why would they allow them to be used if not inspired?
2. Why would it take so long to go back to the original if the ones they had were not "inspired by God" does not make any sense....

The obvious assertion would be that they contained too many pointers to Christ and in fact they do...


You even stated the reason ....

BUT the LXX variant used by the NT author, assuming the soveriegnty of God, is a viable understanding of the same text in a NT light.

 

[Thekla]

The obvious assertion would be that they contained too many pointers to Christ and in fact they do...

for example, Wisdom of Solomon, ch 2:12-20

 

[Philothei]

But you based your churches authority upon your own authority when you determined that you church possessed "said authority."

Racer, the Church had a council to come up with the canon of the scripture or not? Do not try to play up again with that... You follow that canon that the Church put together for you... period.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But you based your churches authority upon your own authority when you determined that you church possessed "said authority."

And you submit to nobody... on earth. Typical Western.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But you based your churches authority upon your own authority when you determined that you church possessed "said authority."

I knew I was wrong and submitted myself to their authority.

Forgive me...

 

[Asinner]

Matt 7:29
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes

 

[Uphill Battle]

I knew I was wrong and submitted myself to their authority.

Forgive me...

you speak as if submission itself is the good thing.

no.

submitting to something your find false is hypocritical.

submitting to something that IS false, is useless.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sorry, the assertion was made that Mary taught Jesus scriptures. that he knew them because of her.

I see no reason to believe this. The "instructions' of the mother in that passage are not detailed as the scriptures. Mothers teach children much, that is not in the scriptures.

Again, I state the assumption is being made that Mary was literate. The literacy rate for Jewish males was extremely high. Jewish women, not so much.

The mothers attended Jewish services and learned Scriptures along with everyone else! You think women are stupid? Only men can recall Scripture they were taught?

2 Timothy 1:5 (New International Version)
"I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also."
​

Timothy had no Jewish father.

He was brought up by his mother and grandmother in the Scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:14-15 (New International Version)
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
​

Timothy was brought up in the Scriptures by women. His grandmother and mother.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary
​

"The absence of any personal allusion to the father in the Acts or Epistles suggests the inference that he must have died or disappeared during his son's infancy. The care of the boy thus devolved upon his mother Eunice and her mother Lois. (2 Timothy 1:5) Under their training his education was emphatically Jewish. "From a child" he learned to "know the Holy Scriptures" daily."
​

http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&id=4311
​

That took place at the same time in history as when Jesus was a boy! Mothers could teach their sons Scriptures, and did! If Timothy? How much more so Jesus?


​

Grace and peace, GeneZ




.
​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Ergo, the translation is not inspired in the same way as the ORIGINAL HEBREW/ARAMAIC of the first writ of the OT.



Thus translating the NT into English is not inspired? because it is a translation??? nice...

Yep. God did not inspire English. God did not have Paul or John say "propitiation" . . . He inspired ilasterion.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

PROBABLY? according to who.

Not according to The Church.

Forgive me...

You are not getting it . . .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The reason we know the scriptures are the Word of God is because we trust in the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Your facts do not answer

1. why would they allow them to be used if not inspired?
2. Why would it take so long to go back to the original if the ones they had were not "inspired by God" does not make any sense....

The obvious assertion would be that they contained too many pointers to Christ and in fact they do...


You even stated the reason ....

Because they are still useful . . . but they are not inerrant. The message remains the same . . . as we have with English.

Do you know how many MSS of the NT we have? About 5000 from extant to pieces . . . do you know how many of them agree exactly? Very little. Even the MSS that are in Greek are NOT INERRANT . . . inerrancy ONLY extends to the ORIGINAL . . . not the copies . . . either Hebrew (OT) or Greek (NT)

2. Why would it take so long to go back to the original if the ones they had were not "inspired by God" does not make any sense....

Could you clarify? Thanks.

 

[GenemZ]

The reason we know the scriptures are the Word of God is because we trust in the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

And, I always thought it was the Holy Spirit that was to guide us into all truth.

I do not trust in your church. Why? Because I place my trust in the Word of God.

Matthew 23:9 (New International Version)
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
​

I wonder why they refused to listen? For, it was such an easy passage to be obedient to. They found, instead, rationales to do just the opposite.
​

Many do not trust your church. So, stop promoting it here, please. Stick to the Word, please.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The reason we know the scriptures are the Word of God is because we trust in the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

And, I always thought it was the Holy Spirit that was to guide us into all truth.

[bible]1 timothy 3:15[/bible]

 

[racer]

I dont think so.
And here is why...
How come Christ did not tell the Jewish ppl to get out the scrolls to obey the word?
No He didnt, but He did in fact tell them to obey the chair of Moses. Didnt He?

So now tell me where the actual authority laid.

So, Moses was infallible? Who was the successor to his chair? Did he have a chair, or did he wander in the desert for 40 years?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Chair of Moses.

[bible]matthew 23:2[/bible]

 

[racer]

Racer, the Church had a council to come up with the canon of the scripture or not?

I fail to see the relevance of this question to the quote you have cited here? The Church had many councils, and even the ECFs debated what consituted the "canon."

Do not try to play up again with that...

Excuse me, try to play what up again? If you are paying attention at all that is the whole purpose of "MY" OP, if you don't like the subject, feel free to "unsubscribe" as OUSA frequently does. If you really want to get into using brash commanding language, let me know and we'll be on . . .

You follow that canon that the Church put together for you... period.

I do? How do you know that?

 

[racer]

The Chair of Moses.

[bible]matthew 23:2[/bible]

Oh, the unnamed person who succeeded Moses' chair was a Pharisee? Verrrly intellesting . . . .

 

[racer]

The Chair of Moses.

[bible]matthew 23:2[/bible]

Let's see, we know Peter's Chair was in Rome. Where was/is Moses' chair?