Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I specifically told you that I want to go through these verses one at a time. This isn't "myopia", this is focus. This verse is your leading verse that you had oft repeated in support of your claim. You now seem to have conceded that this verse does NOT actually say what you claim it says. Is that right? Let's stay focused on this point, on this one specific verse. I can address any other point you want, but this has got to be first, so that we can actually make some ground instead of just talk past each other with shotgun posts. I'm really asking for intellectual honesty from you at this point, not defense mechanisms - from the standpoint of this one verse, do you agree that it can not be concluded that angels or saints know our prayers, or that the prayers were directed to them? That it is something that has to be read into it? If so, then let's move on to your other verses. If not, then explain your argument as to why I'm wrong.

---

Fair enough, we can look at it one at a time.

"Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God's people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God's people, went up before God from the angel's hand."

I see that the angel here is aware of the prayers of the faithful.

If the prayers were addressed to the angels, why do they bring them to God? If they were addressed alone to God, wouldn't they go directly to him? Are you implying that God has to have angels bring our prayers to him? You'll need to find verses that support that.

Does the passage state that the prayers are sealed in a "collection or mailed envelop? Does the passage directly state that the angels are oblivious to the content of the prayers. It doesn't.

Logically, an angelic being, part of the heavenly body of Christ, would have abilities that are beyond the earthly realm.

I argue that the angel does know what the prayers are.

I've discussed that the angels don't need to be "omniscience and omnipresent".

---

"I see that the angel here is aware of the prayers of the faithful." - Aware of their existence, or aware of their contents? The verse does not necessarily indicate that the angel is aware of their contents, OR that the prayers were directed to angels or saints, does it? You see that you're reading that into it, don't you?

"If the prayers were addressed to the angels, why do they bring them to God? If they were addressed alone to God, wouldn't they go directly to him? Are you implying that God has to have angels bring our prayers to him? You'll need to find verses that support that." - stay focused. Don't worry about what you think I'm implying or not implying. Let's talk about this verse. In that verse, the act of the angel bringing or "offering up" the prayers from people does not necessarily indicate that the prayers were directed to the angels or saints, or that the angels or saints are even aware of their contents - correct? That's reading that into it and making assumptions - correct?

"Logically, an angelic being, part of the heavenly body of Christ, would have abilities that are beyond the earthly realm. I argue that the angel does know what the prayers are." - but based on what divine revelation? You're arguing that it's based on Scripture like in this particular verse, but that's what we're debating. And as I am showing, that is not a necessary conclusion that comes from this verse. You see that it has to be READ INTO it, don't you?

"I've discussed that the angels don't need to be "omniscience and omnipresent". - but if they aren't omniscient or omnipresent, then they still have to have the ability of knowing every time you're praying to them, and the ability to read minds. Where are you getting that they can do this? Based on what divine revelation? Scripture? That's what we're trying to get at, and we're talking about this one verse for now. You do agree that in this one particular verse, that it does NOT indicate any of this?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"I see that the angel here is aware of the prayers of the faithful." - Aware of their existence, or aware of their contents? The verse does not necessarily indicate that the angel is aware of their contents, OR that the prayers were directed to angels or saints, does it? You see that you're reading that into it, don't you?

---

Obviously it does NOT explicitly state that the "angels receiving the prayer of the people and the knew in their hearts and cried out to the Lord for His assistance." If I'm reading into it, then so are you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"If the prayers were addressed to the angels, why do they bring them to God? If they were addressed alone to God, wouldn't they go directly to him? Are you implying that God has to have angels bring our prayers to him? You'll need to find verses that support that." - stay focused. Don't worry about what you think I'm implying or not implying. Let's talk about this verse. In that verse, the act of the angel bringing or "offering up" the prayers from people does not necessarily indicate that the prayers were directed to the angels or saints, or that the angels or saints are even aware of their contents - correct? That's reading that into it and making assumptions - correct?

---

Once again, why would they not know their contents? These are pure intellectual beings in heaven sharing in the beatific vision. I don't see that it's a stretch or reading into it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Logically, an angelic being, part of the heavenly body of Christ, would have abilities that are beyond the earthly realm. I argue that the angel does know what the prayers are." - but based on what divine revelation? You're arguing that it's based on Scripture like in this particular verse, but that's what we're debating. And as I am showing, that is not a necessary conclusion that comes from this verse. You see that it has to be READ INTO it, don't you?

---

Again, I could argue that you are denying context clues based off your bias.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"I've discussed that the angels don't need to be "omniscience and omnipresent". - but if they aren't omniscient or omnipresent, then they still have to have the ability of knowing every time you're praying to them, and the ability to read minds. Where are you getting that they can do this? Based on what divine revelation? Scripture? That's what we're trying to get at, and we're talking about this one verse for now. You do agree that in this one particular verse, that it does NOT indicate any of this?

---

From this one passage? Possibly. I see it, and the Church sees it as that these angels MUST have the ability because they are in heaven, in the delivering prayers to God. Your lens does not allow that view or interpretation of this passage in this way.

The Church as always believed this. It wasn't until the 16th when this belief was denied ... But we are saving that for later.

Essentially, it comes down to each of our interpretations of scripture. I see the angels having this ability in this passage, you don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the exegesis of these passages. This may frustrate you, but I can easily say the same thing about salvific baptism and the Eucharist. To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind.

End the end, that is not my job to change minds here. My job is to plant seeds for them be watered by the Holy Spirit.

If you would like to still discuss Church History and the miracles surrounding intercession, great. If not, no worries.

Peace.

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

The Church came before the Bible. As a matter of fact the Church gave the word the Bible.

The Pope does not outrank Scripture.

That treads close to blasphemy, mister.

Scripture is the an objective way to test whether someone is right with God or not.

Consider how often Jesus quoted Scripture to prove His authority.

And the fact that Jesus quoted Scripture utterly destroys the arrogance of thinking the 'Church' gave us Scripture.

Moses was no Pope, son.

I never said that he did.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture is the an objective way to test whether someone is right with God or not.

Consider how often Jesus quoted Scripture to prove His authority.

And the fact that Jesus quoted Scripture utterly destroys the arrogance of thinking the 'Church' gave us Scripture.

Moses was no Pope, son.

---

I believe that you have misread my post. I didn't say that the Church gave us scripture. I stated that the Church gave us the Bible.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"I see that the angel here is aware of the prayers of the faithful." - Aware of their existence, or aware of their contents? The verse does not necessarily indicate that the angel is aware of their contents, OR that the prayers were directed to angels or saints, does it? You see that you're reading that into it, don't you?

---

Obviously it does NOT explicitly state that the "angels receiving the prayer of the people and the knew in their hearts and cried out to the Lord for His assistance." If I'm reading into it, then so are you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"If the prayers were addressed to the angels, why do they bring them to God? If they were addressed alone to God, wouldn't they go directly to him? Are you implying that God has to have angels bring our prayers to him? You'll need to find verses that support that." - stay focused. Don't worry about what you think I'm implying or not implying. Let's talk about this verse. In that verse, the act of the angel bringing or "offering up" the prayers from people does not necessarily indicate that the prayers were directed to the angels or saints, or that the angels or saints are even aware of their contents - correct? That's reading that into it and making assumptions - correct?

---

Once again, why would they not know their contents? These are pure intellectual beings in heaven sharing in the beatific vision. I don't see that it's a stretch or reading into it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Logically, an angelic being, part of the heavenly body of Christ, would have abilities that are beyond the earthly realm. I argue that the angel does know what the prayers are." - but based on what divine revelation? You're arguing that it's based on Scripture like in this particular verse, but that's what we're debating. And as I am showing, that is not a necessary conclusion that comes from this verse. You see that it has to be READ INTO it, don't you?

---

Again, I could argue that you are denying context clues based off your bias.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"I've discussed that the angels don't need to be "omniscience and omnipresent". - but if they aren't omniscient or omnipresent, then they still have to have the ability of knowing every time you're praying to them, and the ability to read minds. Where are you getting that they can do this? Based on what divine revelation? Scripture? That's what we're trying to get at, and we're talking about this one verse for now. You do agree that in this one particular verse, that it does NOT indicate any of this?

---

From this one passage? Possibly. I see it, and the Church sees it as that these angels MUST have the ability because they are in heaven, in the delivering prayers to God. Your lens does not allow that view or interpretation of this passage in this way.

The Church as always believed this. It wasn't until the 16th when this belief was denied ... But we are saving that for later.

Essentially, it comes down to each of our interpretations of scripture. I see the angels having this ability in this passage, you don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the exegesis of these passages. This may frustrate you, but I can easily say the same thing about salvific baptism and the Eucharist. To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind.

End the end, that is not my job to change minds here. My job is to plant seeds for them be watered by the Holy Spirit.

If you would like to still discuss Church History and the miracles surrounding intercession, great. If not, no worries.

Peace.

---

"If I'm reading into it, then so are you" - that doesn't make sense. I'm not reading into it, because I'm taking the text as it is and not injecting my assumptions into the text, as you are. You are the one reading into the passage, not I.

"Once again, why would they not know their contents? These are pure intellectual beings in heaven sharing in the beatific vision. I don't see that it's a stretch or reading into it" - that is exactly what reading into it your own assumptions looks like. Delivering prayers to God does not in of itself indicate awareness of the prayers' contents, no matter how "intellectual" those beings are. That's the assumption you're reading into it. Not to mention that delivering the prayers to God does not necessarily indicate that the prayers were directed personally to the angel, either. Another assumption.

"Again, I could argue that you are denying context clues based off your bias" - on the contrary, the very act of using "context clues" to get to a certain interpretation is rife with bias. It's likely not a good idea to extrapolate something so subjective out to an entire system of belief and practice. It's no different from Waco1937 using "context clues" to argue that gay marriage is not prohibited in the bible. It's how Scripture can be twisted in order to support false teachings. On the other hand, letting the text speak for itself without interjecting such a subjective method of interpretation isn't bias, that's called treating the text with intellectual honesty and rightly dividing the Word.

"Essentially, it comes down to each of our interpretations of scripture. I see the angels having this ability in this passage, you don't" - again, you are injecting that assumption into the passage. NOTHING in the passage actually indicates that. That's the whole point. And I think you realize this, and that's why you're wanting to bail on the topic.

"To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind" - I wouldn't call Scripture "screaming in favor" of the Catholic view if you're having to use subjective "context clues" in a verse to get to the interpretation you want. No, my mind usually doesn't change on such weak and biased Scriptural evidence.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

Coke Bear said:

---

I never said that he did.

---

You clearly said the Church gave us the Bible, even though the Bible/Scripture dates back thousands of years before Christ arrived here.

Come on, you know that, and again Jesus quoted Scripture over and over to not only affirm His Authority but also demonstrate how believers should confirm God's will.

Leaders can and do fall into sin, but Scripture is true and reliable.

If you want to address human interpretation that's fine, but please stop pretending Popes and Cardinals are somehow better Christians who should be trusted even above Holy Scripture.

18 "Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

Matthew 13:18-23

A message from the church of the first millennium.

"XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those 'which have fallen asleep in the Lord'; but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for 'He is the Head of the body, the Church," who said also to His divine disciples and apostles at His ascension into heaven, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo-Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians. Moreover, the Papists themselves know well that the very passage of the Gospel to which the Pontiff refers, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' is in the first centuries of the Church interpreted quite differently, in a spirit of orthodoxy, both by tradition and by all the divine and sacred Fathers without exception; the fundamental and unshaken rock upon which the Lord has built His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, being understood metaphorically of Peter's true confession concerning the Lord, that 'He is Christ, the Son of the living God.' Upon this confession and faith the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors rests unshaken. Whence also the Apostle Paul, who had been caught up into heaven, evidently interpreting this divine passage, declares the divine inspiration, saying: 'According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' But it is in another sense that Paul calls all the apostles and prophets together the foundation of the building up in Christ of the faithful; that is to say, the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church; when he writes to the Ephesians: 'Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the house hold of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.'"

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

On this Labor Day Weekend, what a great time to find a good, Bible believing Church and attend tomorrow.

Enjoying this beautiful time that the Lord has given us. It's nice to have time off sometimes. God bless.

There are some religions out there who teach that there is no such thing as Hell. Some teach that hell is the only the grave. Some teach that hell is a place where souls are burned up in an instant. But that is not what the bible teaches. Today, I am going to demonstrate though the word of God that hell is a literal place of torment.

Where is hell?

Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Hell is down. Most bible scholars believe that it is in the center of the earth.

Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus's body remained on the earth, but His Spirit went to the heart of the earth, or center. Where is the heart of something located? In the center.

What is Hell?

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Hell is a prison.

It is a prison for those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. Hell is no laughing matter. There is no party in hell.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. {strange: Gr. other}

Lu 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

First of all notice that this man was not happy. It says that he was tormented in this FLAME. Hell is fire. It is an eternal flame that never goes out.

Mr 9:3 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: {offend...: or, cause thee to offend} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: {offend...: or, cause thee to offend} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: {offend...: or, cause thee to offend} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

It says where their worm dieth not and the FIRE is NOT quenched. Hell is eternal torment by fire.
Hell is outer darkness. There is no light there. It is pitch black, forever.

Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mt 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Lu 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Who goes to hell, and what is after hell?

Re 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

One day after everyone has been judged, hell and death will be cast into the lake of fire.

Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The devil is going to be cast into the lake of fire. Notice that it is a place of torment and that torment never ends.

Re 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Those who reject Jesus Christ and accept the mark of the beast are going to the lake of fire.

Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Those who reject Jesus Christ won't be found written in the book of life. They also will be cast into the lake of fire.

There is only one way out. That way is Jesus Christ.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Who is God willing to save from hell and the lake of fire?

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How do we do this?

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The bible says that whosoever believeth on Him shall NOT be ashamed. Are you willing to accept Jesus Christ today to be your Savior?

12 For there is no difference between the blah and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

God is willing to save ANYONE no matter what you have done, if you will simply call upon upon Jesus Christ to save you. Will you do that today?

If you want to accept Jesus free gift of salvation, or if you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, you could place your faith in Jesus Christ for salvation by praying a simple prayer:

"Dear Lord Jesus I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I repent of my sins and turn to You, placing my Faith in You as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ and meant it with all of your heart, you are now a child of God and will go to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.

Taking a little tangent on the subject of Catholicism, when the Council met to decide which writings were to be included in the Bible and which ones were not, were all the Council members present? Did they decide based upon logical reasoning or spiritual inspiration?

BUDOS said:

---

Taking a little tangent on the subject of Catholicism, when the Council met to decide which writings were to be included in the Bible and which ones were not, were all the Council members present? Did they decide based upon logical reasoning or spiritual inspiration?

---

Let's start with the Tanakh. The idea that the Bible started after Christ is an error.

Ok start there, at least for now.

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Frankly, there was a strong consensus about what was and was not Holy Writ.

It's a modern conceit that crap like the 'Gospel of Thomas' et al was ever in the same league as the accepted Gospel accounts.

BUDOS said:

---

Taking a little tangent on the subject of Catholicism, when the Council met to decide which writings were to be included in the Bible and which ones were not, were all the Council members present? Did they decide based upon logical reasoning or spiritual inspiration?

---

The Council of Nicea was more of a confirmation of existing books that were already accepted as Scripture for hundreds of years rather than picking which books to include. Yes there were a couple of disputed books, but most of them were not. I don't know who was there and who was not. They had criteria for the books. They had to be written by an Apostle or an Associate of an Apostle. In other words, they had to be an eyewitness to the events and in their lifetime. The Gospel of Thomas and many others were specifically rejected because they were not even written by Thomas, Mary, ect. They weren't written until 200 BC or after, long after their death. They also directly contradict the rest of Scripture in areas.

It's back to work tomorrow I hope you all have a great week. It's been a great weekend.

Thanks for putting so much so concisely. It's refreshing that many of the posts are actually exchanges of information, and, overall, the tone and vitriol appears to be less hostile (I said overall).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

How do you know that Matthew is inspired? How do you know that 2 Peter is inspired?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

I never said that he did.

---

You clearly said the Church gave us the Bible, even though the Bible/Scripture dates back thousands of years before Christ arrived here.

Come on, you know that, and again Jesus quoted Scripture over and over to not only affirm His Authority but also demonstrate how believers should confirm God's will.

Leaders can and do fall into sin, but Scripture is true and reliable.

If you want to address human interpretation that's fine, but please stop pretending Popes and Cardinals are somehow better Christians who should be trusted even above Holy Scripture.

---

Did Matthew 28 day, "Go therefore and write a book'? No, he gave us the Great Commission. He started a Church. That Church complied the scriptures into today's bible.

I never said that the "Popes and Cardinals are somehow better Christians who should be trusted even above Holy Scripture."

The Holy Spirit guided the Church to choose the 73 books of the bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind" - I wouldn't call Scripture "screaming in favor" of the Catholic view if you're having to use subjective "context clues" in a verse to get to the interpretation you want. No, my mind usually doesn't change on such weak and biased Scriptural evidence.

---

I was referring to salvific baptism and the Eucharist here. No context clues needed when Jesus commanded these.

Last request on the previous, to discuss the miracles attributed to intercession or the fact that NO Council has ever rejected intercession.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Taking a little tangent on the subject of Catholicism, when the Council met to decide which writings were to be included in the Bible and which ones were not, were all the Council members present? Did they decide based upon logical reasoning or spiritual inspiration?

---

Let's start with the Tanakh. The idea that the Bible started after Christ is an error.

---

I never said that the Bible started after Christ. It was complied LONG after he ascended. Heck, none of the NT was written, as far as we know, before his ascension.

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Actually, in Jesus's time, there was no ONE canon for the Hebrews. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes all had different canons.

The most common canon in the region was the Septuagint. It was commissioned by Ptolemy II, in the early to mid 3rd century BC, who had established a valuable library in Alexandria, commissioned the translation to include the Hebrew scriptures in his collection. Seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were brought to Alexandria to complete this task, hence the name "Septuagint," which means "seventy" in Latin.

"According to Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno, the New Testament cites the Septuagint in 340 places, compared to only 33 citations from the Masoretic Text."

This indicates that approximately 91% of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

This is why the Catholic Church chose to use the Septuagint and the 46 books that included seven books of the Deutrocanon.

These books remained in the Bible until Martin Luther move them to the back of the Bible in the 16th century, and later protestants ultimately removed them.

BUDOS said:

---

Thanks for putting so much so concisely. It's refreshing that many of the posts are actually exchanges of information, and, overall, the tone and vitriol appears to be less hostile (I said overall).

---

I must confess that my first intention is to spread the Gospel so that may might be saved. Secondarily, it is to discuss Theology. I would also hope that these things could be friendly. I have friends who have different beliefs than I do, some are Catholic for instance. We hang out, we discuss Theology while we do Axe Throwing, Bowling, Pool, ect. and then at the end of the night, we shake hands and are still good friends. It's not personal to ME, but many cannot discuss these topics without getting angry. If you are really secure factually in your argument, then you shouldn't get so upset when it is challenged by others. The biggest goal of this thread SHOULD be to find the real truth. Not win an argument or debate, but to find the truth, the REAL truth. At the end of the day, we are all accountable to God for what we believe and how we lived out lives. My biggest hope is to lead others to the truth of the Gospel that they might be saved. I pray that if I am wrong on something that God will show me the truth.

God bless.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

How do you know that Matthew is inspired? How do you know that 2 Peter is inspired?

---

The Church did not predate Jesus and his apostles. Matthew and Peter are original apostles. JESUS gave them original apostolic authority, not the Church. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Neither did the Church give the authority of divine inspiration to the Tanakh. JESUS himself authorized every "jot and tittle" of it.

So you're claim is just flat wrong.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind" - I wouldn't call Scripture "screaming in favor" of the Catholic view if you're having to use subjective "context clues" in a verse to get to the interpretation you want. No, my mind usually doesn't change on such weak and biased Scriptural evidence.

---

I was referring to salvific baptism and the Eucharist here. No context clues needed when Jesus commanded these.

Last request on the previous, to discuss the miracles attributed to intercession or the fact that NO Council has ever rejected intercession.

---

It's telling that you want to move away from your original argument about praying to saints and angels. Again, I think it's because you know you don't have good scriptural evidence. Would I be right?

And I'll be glad to address the topic of miracles attributed to intercession and the Councils, but before we move on to another point we need to close out the first point - do you concede that Revelation 8:3-6:
1) does NOT necessarily indicate that either angels or saints have the ability to receive our prayers, that this has to be READ INTO it, and
2) does NOT indicate that we can pray to them, that this also has to be read into it.


Do you finally agree with these, regarding this particular verse?

Don't give up. (2 Timothy 3:16) Too many people who call themselves Christians and believe they are give up and just go with the flow. Many church congregations are getting smaller and smaller and some are closing; however too many of us are not actively working to either keep our believers and/or bring new believers in. We just gripe.

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Actually, in Jesus's time, there was no ONE canon for the Hebrews. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes all had different canons.

The most common canon in the region was the Septuagint. It was commissioned by Ptolemy II, in the early to mid 3rd century BC, who had established a valuable library in Alexandria, commissioned the translation to include the Hebrew scriptures in his collection. Seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were brought to Alexandria to complete this task, hence the name "Septuagint," which means "seventy" in Latin.

"According to Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno, the New Testament cites the Septuagint in 340 places, compared to only 33 citations from the Masoretic Text."

This indicates that approximately 91% of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

This is why the Catholic Church chose to use the Septuagint and the 46 books that included seven books of the Deutrocanon.

These books remained in the Bible until Martin Luther move them to the back of the Bible in the 16th century, and later protestants ultimately removed them.

---

Those books were rightfully removed, given that the Jews did not consider them canon. Josephus wrote in the first century about the Jewish canon, and he said it only included the 39 books, which are the same ones that are in the Old Testament today. He did NOT include the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor his disciples/apostles ever quoted the deuterocanonical books. Those books also contain historical errors, so they can not be divinely inspired.

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Actually, in Jesus's time, there was no ONE canon for the Hebrews. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes all had different canons.

---

If the early church fathers are correct, that the Saducees only had the 5 books of the Torah in their canon and not the Prophets, then Jesus clearly showed the Sadducees to be wrong because he referenced the Prophets/Psalms throughout his ministry.

Obviously I don't have near the knowledge ya'll do on this topic. When reading your response, I thought a lot about that last sentence. I agree that the Holy Spirit inspires and guides us. However, as this group set up its criteria and then decided which books would be excluded, did they utilize free will, or were they directed only by the Holy Spirit? Sorry if my question lacks the depth to contribute to the conversation.

I just have difficulty understanding how Catholicism may have biased that selection. ( and I hope I don't insult anyone)