Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?

As Jesus said in Mark 11:29, "I too will also ask you a question; which [if] you answer me, I will answer yours".

Question: How did a Jew living 50 years before Christ, know that (let's say) Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were infallible Scripture?

You haven't answered the questions. Answering a question with a question doesn't count.

Excuse me, but if it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me! He utilized this mode of response because He recognized the hypocrisy of his hearers, just as I recognize yours. Jesus knew, as well as I do, that no matter what you answer, it will totally overthrow your position. His critics also recognized this, saying amongst themselves, "if we answer this, He'll say that, or if we say that, He'll say...etc, etc". And they were right. Then, like you, they played dumb and said they couldn't answer.

So I am delighted to have refuted and exposed your fallacious reasoning, which, even though it had to remain unspoken----if brought into a court of law, would be THROWN OUT for lack of evidence.

This, without a doubt, has got to be the most fallacious non-response (nonsense is more like it) I have ever encountered.

Hey Not-by-works, I can say with absolute certainty, you ain't no Jesus.

Not by = FAIL

We are to strive after Jesus' example, which is exactly what I've done and is exactly what Holy Writ says we should we do. And you condemn me for it. Will wonders never cease?
Your criticism of me in the way I handled your situation is unwarranted and cowardly. Looks like you are running scared because someone is able to refute you on the same level of the Creator of the Universe----something you were not expecting. By the way, I am still willing to answer your question. One would think everyone on this message board would agree, that if the Roman Catholic argument is so strong, you wouldn't hesitate to take me up on the challenge. But the fact is, you can't---because you know you will lose. Therefore, just as Jesus told His critics that refused to answer HIM: "Neither will I then, answer you."

Hey, it's not my fault that you can't answer my questions.

Can't we just say the Jews knew what was inspired because of Tradition and/or the teaching authority of the seat of Moses? Does this not answer his question and point to the need for the Church to define and close the canon? Someone else jump in if this answer does not do what I think it should.

Wow. You sure think highly of yourself to place yourself on the same level as God.

So, using your question as a guide, are you saying that you know the Bible of today is infallible the same way the Jews before the time of Christ knew which writings were infallible?

God bless,
--Amy

Not-by-works,

How do you know the canon of the NT?

I'm kind of glad you answered with this question. The answer is; there was no definitive Canon. What they had, was a teaching authority - those sitting on Moses's Chair. Christ later removed their authority and gave authority to the Apostles.

As a lutheran priest in Norway, Dag Øivind Østereng, said in DagenMagazinet (a Christian newspaper), May 13th 2008 (writing about Christ's missionary commandment, Matt 28, 18-20):

"The commandment [is not generally] given ... to an udefined heap of Jesus-followers, but to the Apostles, so that the mission was to have an apostolic character and order from the beginning. Mission (the consignment), baptism and training are therefore to happen with Apostolic authorization, or as our lutheran confession expresses it, with a regular call. ... This tells us that the sacraments (here: baptism and the Eucharist) is given to the Church as a community for orderly administration. A Christian life on the side of the regular liturgical life and the unity in the sacramental life trusted unto the Church through an apostolically ordered service is a life in conflict with the commandment." (Rather poorly translated from Norwegian)

Edit: fixed typos.

Well between myself and Closet Catholic, I think we've answered your question. Not get on answering ours (Siggy's).

The 'Jews' living 50 years before Christ did NOT 'know' that those books were inspired. There were various opinions among the priests and rabbi as to which books were the word of God an which were not.. The Sadducees and many others among the priestly class held to only the Torah as inspired and some of them held only those parts of the Torah where God was actually speaking as His word. Among the scribes and rabbis, especially the Pharisees, extended the 'Word of God' to those parts of the Prophets where God was speaking and others to the entire books. There was no real general consensus concerning which of the Sapientcial and historical books belonged and which did not, though all of the books were held in high esteem by all and read and taught from in the synagogues although only the Torah was read in the Temple along with the singing of Psalms. The current Hebrew bible we owe to the Massoretes, who had schools in Galilee and Babylon. They flourished from 500 to 1000 A.D. Since it was the Pharisaic school of Shammi which was the primary inheritor of Judaism after the Roman War it was the books they accepted which became the basis for the text eventually standardised by the Massoretes. A Work finished around 600 - 700 A.D.

Is Not-by-works another 'Hit-and-Run' poster?

If you were Jesus, I would listen to you. He spoke with power and authority. You are running.

'We are to strive after Jesus' example,' true
'which is exactly what I've done' if you mean strive, perhaps - but Jesus stood strong - you are running
'which is exactly what I've done and is exactly what Holy Writ says we should we do. And you condemn me for it.' not so, however, we might comment on your sentence structure ...

'Your criticism of me in the way I handled your situation is unwarranted and cowardly.' Hows running? Who's the coward?

'you wouldn't hesitate to take me up on the challenge.' your question on Judaism is not relevant to Roman Catholicism in the sense you seek to force it to mean.

'Neither will I then, answer you.' Surprise, in a sense I agree with you. Silence is your only defense, Not-by-words

He's ticked because I have him on post moderation. I will review any post he makes and only allow it if it is in answer to any question he has been asked already.

I'm no heavyweight here nor am I a talented debater, so you have to be nice to me! I don't really intend to fight this one out; I've got a lot of other things I'm studying and dealing with right now. But I notice that there isn't much 'chatter' from my fellow Sola Scripturaists here. Not that they need my help here, but at least this might keep you entertained in the meantime...

How to prove the canon of Scripture using Scripture. I admit I don't have a complete argument here... at least not yet. In case you were wondering, no I am not smart enough to come up with all of this on my own. I remember some of this from New Testament 101 in college... I wish could remember all of what my professor used to prove what belonged to Scripture and what did not. I will dig around and perhaps I will find my notes. Either way I doubt it would leave anyone "quaking in their boots." But here goes...



Okay here we have Jesus explaining what was prophesied about Him in the Old Testament Scriptures. Ordinarily this would just be one of many references to Scripture, but we do see a glimpse of what Jesus was thinking about when He was thinking about Scripture. He began with Moses... I'm sure someone can bring up the point that Luke does not specifically mention Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy by name. Fair enough. But I think we can probably assume Jesus is talking about the Books of Moses here. The Prophets are mentioned as well, thought not by name. However the list of books he was referring to here is (for the most part) pretty obvious.

I was always taught that there were roughly three divisions of the Old Testament: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. I also remember being taught that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem this three-fold division was thought of as a two-fold division of the Law and Prophets. So you could argue from this standpoint that Luke is establishing the general collection of the Law and the general collection of the Prophets as Scripture. You can make of that what you like. I think the many quotes from the Law and Prophets (including the books often grouped as the Writings) prove at least that those books are thought of as canonical. Overall I think that the Old Testament is accepted as a Scripture. Don't even ask me about how the DC fits into all of that, I don't know that much.

As for the some books in the New Testament...



The subject here are the letters of Paul. Admittedly they are not named, but it seems to be that they are well known enough to Peter's audience. Anyways, these letters are compared to "the other Scriptures." I can't help but think that phrase places the letters of Paul in the category of Scripture.

Perhaps if the letters of Paul could be called Scripture then the letters of Peter could as well, therefore making 1 and 2 Peter canonical. If that is true then perhaps the writings of the other Apostles could be thought of as Scripture as well in John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation... even Matthew. But this would be making a real stretch to try and prove that from this verse I think. Even I can admit that.

Of course in that case I do have a problem here: both of the books of the Bible I quote from to prove the canonicity of the OT and Letters of Paul... I can't prove that they are canonical themselves! Leave it to me to shoot down my own proof. Maybe someone more skilled than me can flesh out what I've started. Peace out!

BB

Plz scroll up and read my post.