How do we know . . . .

[TexasSky]

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

See the examples of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al.

The same thing could be said about those who think they are following the Holy Spirit.

Scripture, and prayer, and sincere desire to follow God will allow the Holy Spirit to guide you, so use all 3.

 

[racer]

Let us not forget that no many could afford to have a copy of the scriptures... excuse me reality (history) check here!

Yes, a reality check is due. Once again, from Augustine:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 39 - He who is mature in faith hope and love, needs Scripture no longer And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone must possess a bible or read it for themselves.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The same thing could be said about those who think they are following the Holy Spirit.

Scripture, and prayer, and sincere desire to follow God will allow the Holy Spirit to guide you, so use all 3.

And The Church... so use all 4.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

its not a "semantic argument", though. We do not posess original copies of the Gospels. If only the originals are inspired, then nothing we have is inspired. We cannot compare for interpolation and error ...

further; if, as is thought, one of the Gospels was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek, we have only 3 Gospels.

It was not my assertion that only the originals are inspired.

Who Matthew's Gospel? I have a copy of the Khaboris MSS . . . it is less than convincing. Matthew was written in Greek as the rest of the NT because MOST of the Jewish population had forgotten how to read and write Hebrew/Aramaic anyway. That is a tenuous assumption.

The MSS by sheer logic cannot be inerrant because of all the divergences . . . no where does scripture affirm inspiration beyond what was written originally . . . no where do we have a doctrine of providence IN THE SCRIPTURES for the keeping of the Scriptures.

We cannot compare for interpolation and error ...

Actually we can by date and philosophical school (Byzantinian and Alexandrian schools of transmissional thought) . . . we can be 100% sure for about 99% of the text . . . and the rest are inconsequential save for inerrancy.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

When you start twisting others' words to purposefully distort what is said or meant, it's a "game of sematics."

So? What does that have to do with anything?

I don't believe any sane or right-minded Christian made that argument. If they did, feel free to show me and extract an apology.

What is your point?

Then who did? Just refer me to the quote number.

I asserted the inerrancy of only the autographa.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Some people cannot pass through their eliticism ....true elements of gnosticism.... The scripture is only open to those who are of higher intelligence or elected.... So, where it that in the Scripture? That those of us with lower intelligence can not grasp it?

Actually this is a straw man of SS . . . it has always been held that the average man can access the Scriptures . . . it has been the NON SS's that have asserted otherwise . . . that is history.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

There is a great Christian who said that you cannot have God for the Father without the Church for your Mother.

There is a Church that the Apostles wrote about and that Church has continued since the Apostles with unbroken successions to this day. If you seek this church then you will find it with the RCC and the EOC and the OOC, the Catholic Church (as was written about 100 AD by the Bishop of Antioch).

Unbroken? Accept for that whole papal confusion in the early centuries huh?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Luk 2:25-35
¶ And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.


This same St. Simeon is also the translator of the greek version (Septuagint) of the book if Isaiah.

Forgive me...

You have no support of this save for your circular reasoning of tradition. Bad form . . . give some substance to this please.

 

[racer]

I asserted the inerrancy of only the autographa.

. . . of the whut?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You have no support of this save for your circular reasoning of tradition. Bad form . . . give some substance to this please.

I could not care less if you like the form or not.

The Truth is still the truth.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

What I wrote:



Seems pretty simple to me.

Like 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=

Ever here of Apostolic Succession?

If you check with RCC or EOC or OOC you will find that their Bishops/Patriarchs have a line of succession going all the way back to an Apostle.

I would then ask if you understand that Matthias had hands laid on him with his ordination in Acts 1. But that would be lengthy because of Sola Scriptura that would argue it. Funny thing Sola Scriptura... it lacks truth because it lacks cohesion.

I would then ask if you understand that Matthias had hands laid on him with his ordination in Acts 1. But that would be lengthy because of Sola Scriptura that would argue it. Funny thing Sola Scriptura... it lacks truth because it lacks cohesion.

That is certainly in interesting assertion . . . how so? Never mind . . . pm it to me unless the thread starter wants to go here.

 

[Asinner]

There are martyrs in other religions that also "seem" to be
so very pious, humble etc.

50,000,000 Christians, sunlover. I was not referring to a different religion.

True humility is turning the other cheek and accepting death, although undeserved. This cannot be faked.

I have friends who are sikh, and they LOOK better
than most Christians I know, but it's 'their' own
righteousness.

I am speaking of Holiness. Not "looking better" or being good people.

That will never be "good enough' no matter how
good it is.

I am not speaking about being good enough.

So I'd not use men to measure anything.

Men moved by the spirit penned the Scriptures you oft speak of. Do they not bear witness to Christ. It is most definitely by men that truth is measured! For even Paul says that "it is not I who live, but Christ who liveth in me".

If we do that, no one will turn to Christ,
because we Christians look pretty ugly sometimes.

IMO

Actually, the saints convince many people of Christ. How many turned to Christ from the testimony and lives of Paul, John, Timothy?

Love,
Christina

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Nor do I, The Church has the authority. And she is the author of the NT.

Forgive me...

Not according to Paul . . . there goes your tradition in contradiction to the Scripture again . . . the Holy Spirit is . . . scripture writing was never a general ministry of "the church."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Holy Scriptures were never meant to be used by anyone outside The Church.

Twist it any way you want.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And The Church... so use all 4.

Forgive me...

THIS I would agree with . . . but I would not agree with exalting the church to a place never given it in Scripture.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

THIS I would agree with . . . but I would not agree with exalting the church to a place never given it in Scripture.

Never given in scripture?



Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

. . . of the whut?

auto (him/her/his own) graphe (writing) . . . IOW what was written by the author (or dictated through amanuensis) ORIGINALLY . . . IOW NOT a copy.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I could not care less if you like the form or not.

The Truth is still the truth.

Forgive me...

Can you support this or not? And even if you could . . . what difference does it make? NONE.

 

[Philothei]

Actually this is a straw man of SS . . . it has always been held that the average man can access the Scriptures . . . it has been the NON SS's that have asserted otherwise . . . that is history.

You cannot dismiss an argument saying it
"it is history.." it is not, my reply was to your post

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Holy Scriptures were never meant to be used by anyone outside The Church.

Twist it any way you want.

Forgive me...

I agree that they are written to believers . . . but what of the thousands of testimonies of those who were converted by just having read a portion of a Gideons in a hotel? In this case the Scripture was used to reach a believer before they believed . . .?