How do we know . . . .

[racer]

That is what THE CHURCH teaches.

Forgive me...

No, that is what a few churches teach, and none of them truly agree on what happens. For instance, EOs believe in consubstantiation and RCs believe in transubstantiation.

You can repeat a statement 7 x 70 times, and that still doesn't make it true.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is what THE CHURCH teaches.

Forgive me...

You know very well that outside the EO, nobody accepts that YOUR church is THE CHURCH. why do you insist on saying it? Does it make it more true, through repetition? Or are you using it to further convince yourself?

 

[Asinner]

What would that measure be?

The Scriptures manifested and expressions of the Holy Trinity.

Love,
Christina

 

[racer]

Why? Because truth cannot be so subjective, based on each person's rendering of God's word.

But, that's exactly what happens Asinner--even with you and those of your faith. There's no escaping that.

 

[Asinner]

But, that's exactly what happens Asinner--even with you and those of your faith. There's no escaping that.

This is why we must have another measure.

 

[racer]

The Scriptures manifested and expressions of the Holy Trinity.

Love,
Christina

Huh? Nevermind, that's a rhetorical question. But, I would refer you to my signature quote. Anyway here are two interesting scriptural verses:

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Scripture so eloquently speaks for itself.

 

[racer]

This is why we must have another measure.

I'll try again--what measure would that be?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You know very well that outside the EO, nobody accepts that YOUR church is THE CHURCH. why do you insist on saying it? Does it make it more true, through repetition? Or are you using it to further convince yourself?

If those outside the Catholic Church do not accept the world is a globe does that make them right?

 

[Uphill Battle]

If those outside the Catholic Church do not accept the world is a globe does that make them right?

no.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If those outside the Catholic Church do not accept the world is a globe does that make them right?

Oh... the irony... Galileo?

Forgive me...

 

[Rick Otto]

If those outside the Catholic Church do not accept the world is a globe does that make them right?

If those inside the Catholic Church insist that the sun revolves around the earth, does that make them right?

The point was that to come to an all denominations forum & refer to yourself as "THE" Church, is provocatively obtuse. It should be obvious that it is counter-productive to fruitful discussion.

 

[Uphill Battle]

If those inside the Catholic Church insist that the sun revolves around the earth, does that make them right?

The point was that to come to an all denominations forum & refer to yourself as "THE" Church, is provocatively obtuse. It should be obvious that it is counter-productive to fruitful discussion.

It's more than obtuse.

this fits the bill:

they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It's more than obtuse.

If it is the Truth then that is all it is... Truth.

Some can see it and some can not.

 

[racer]

Ok . . . the doctrine of inspiration has always held that ONLY the original work written by the original author is inspired in the sense of categorized as Scripture. So if Joe Schmoe picks up a copy of the Greek NT and translates it into English . . . the English is NOT inspired.

Likewise, if a scribe picks up the Gospel of Mark and begins to copy the Gospel . . . that COPY is not considered infallible . . . ONLY THAT WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY MARK IS INFALLIBLE.

The reason? Because we have SO MANY TEXTUAL VARIANTS. Like the whole last portion of the Gospel of Mark (v 9ff) which is NOT in the earliest extant MSS . . . but is in many later MSS. So we have an issue . . . how did it get there . . . should it be there . . . and is it inspired. If it was NOT written by Mark . . . but the clever work of a later scribe that represented the commonly held beliefs and traditions of his time . . . then the latter portion that has been added is NOT inspired as the rest of the Gospel . . . though it may give some neat insight into the common thought of the era.

Likewise with Phillip's "repent and be baptized . . . " to the Ethiopian Eunich which is phraseology completely foreign to Luke and an insert not in the early MSS . . . and the Johannine commata in 1 Jhn 5:7 . . .

So, with all the variants (the overwhelming majority being inconsequential) inspiration CANNOT be said to be transmitted to the copies because the copies are not in unanimous agreement with each other . . . and thereby are not inerrant nor infallible. ONLY the authors are given the ascription of being "carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Better?

Okay, so now that I think I understand, I would ask, which were the original texts? And do you really believe that God would not protect the authenticity of the translations? Are the variations in each different translation obvious?

IOWs, when I read II Tim 3:15 and it's statement that all Scripture is given by God's inspiration, I consider Scripture to be that of the Gospel delivered by Jesus orally. So, are you arguing that only those who were the first to put Jesus' words in writing to be those who were inspired by God?

Where would one find information regarding your assertion here? I would like to read up on it if you can point me to any web-links.

 

[racer]

Being a means and channel of the truth dear does not make one THE truth . . . as some here asserted about the church and the apostles.

All we are saying is that the means and channel are NOT the same as the source. All these other things that you are going on about here have nothing to do with what we have asserted.

Nice articulation, here!

 

[racer]

If those outside the Catholic Church do not accept the world is a globe does that make them right?

Well, let's see the only church I know of that dared to accuse someone of heresy because he suggested that the heavenly bodies (planets) revolved around the sun instead of the earth was . . . well . . . the RCC . . . so what's your point?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

if I understand you correctly, we have no extant "inspired" scripture

We have NO original texts . . . which are the ONLY inspired texts.

BUT what we do have of the copies, as I have said before, grants us about a 95-99% assurance of the original text, the autographa. The other 1-4% is non-essential.

 

[racer]

Oh... the irony... Galileo?

Forgive me...

Found this comment a tad ironic myself . . .

 

[racer]

If it is the Truth then that is all it is... Truth.

Some can see it and some can not.

Then there are those who exist in a vacuum of self-delusion . . . and believe that they above those who disagree with them see the truth . . . delusional people tend to hallucinate.

 

[Asinner]

Huh? Nevermind, that's a rhetorical question. But, I would refer you to my signature quote. Anyway here are two interesting scriptural verses:

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Scripture so eloquently speaks for itself.

There must be another means to measure truth, Racer, besides the Scriptures, because there are so many varying interpretations. When I speak of the Scriptures being manifested, I speak of them coming to life, or being lived and when I speak of spiritual expressions I speak of virtue and holiness. You ask "How do we know whether we are following a false gospel" . . . and my answer is that it cannot be perceived only intellectually (who can discern Augustine or logically interpret John 6). A false gospel does not bear the fruits of the spirit, it does not turn the other cheek, it does not develop unceasing prayer, it does not die to self and pick up one's cross, it returns evil for evil. Truth endures, gives completely, dies for another, and exhibits humility, love, obedience, righteousness. It resembles not the world in any way because it is foolish.

Love,
Christina