Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

[Carpathian Wolf]

Where exactly did he espouse homophobia or anti-feminism? It's kind of hard to pretend to espouse intellectualism when your reply was almost solely based on an emotional knee jerk.

[Admiral Piett]

Where exactly did he espouse homophobia or anti-feminism? It's kind of hard to pretend to espouse intellectualism when your reply was almost solely based on an emotional knee jerk.

He condemns the very social liberal institutions that allows him to flourish in favor of Catholic social traditions. I brought those up as a hypothetical because social liberalism allows someone to hold strong views and religious traditions, never did I actually say he was anti-feminist nor homophobic. It doesn't matter what views he has under social liberalism, but it most certainly does in the world of Aquinas. See what I'm getting at? I understand your confusion, but I wasn't accusing him of that.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I'm pretty sure he's not even "Catholic."

[Matthias]

I would still like to know, as a poor shallow secularist, how one knows that one is following the correct word of God. I know, an obviously stupid question from the incredibly incoherent and spoiled mind of a secularist, so I know how easy it would be to answer for far superior religious minds...

After all, is that not the heart of the issue of the OP? He is telling Protestants how they are misguided and following the incorrect word of God, so surely he has the correct word of God, or must know how to know it is the word of God, since he was able to sniff out this falsehood.

[Carpathian Wolf]

He kind of spells it out.

[Matthias]

He kind of spells it out.

If by "spell it out" you mean, never addresses it, then I suppose that's the case...

I mean, this is pretty huge stuff. A guide to know whether a document is the word of God or not, gees, I'd hope he would be clear about it and lay it out for us laymen.

[Carpathian Wolf]

No it shows which one is the historic document that is older. The Masoretic text was created and finalized during the medieval era. The Septuagint was used before that and is confirmed to be closer to the original Hebrew by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Belief in God is not required to comprehend that.

[Matthias]

No it shows which one is the historic document that is older. The Masoretic text was created and finalized during the medieval era. The Septuagint was used before that and is confirmed to be closer to the original Hebrew by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Belief in God is not required to comprehend that.

I agree, but this does nothing to explain how the Septuagint is the word of God, which is what he must be saying. I mean, when you have to choose which documents to follow or not in a religion, you are determining which documents are the word of God or not.

So what's the secret? Where's the proof that this document is the word of God?

[Carpathian Wolf]

I agree, but this does nothing to explain how the Septuagint is the word of God, which is what he must be saying. I mean, when you have to choose which documents to follow or not in a religion, you are determining which documents are the word of God or not.

So what's the secret? Where's the proof that this document is the word of God?

Where's the proof we aren't the strange dream of a strung out cat high on catnip?

In any case even if all the Bibles in the world ceased to exist tomorrow, Orthodox Christianity would still be complete. The emphasis placed in protestantism runs more in line with Islam.

[Vhaelor]

Where's the proof we aren't the strange dream of a strung out cat high on catnip?

Way to dodge the argument, you're answering his question with a question to prove a negative. (which btw is a pointless exercise)

And this shallow, incoherent, spoiled doctrine is what gives you the ability and the freedom to believe and espouse whatever moral absolutism, social traditionalism (whether it be homophobia, anti-femininsm, etc) you want to believe in. Militant atheism is not social liberalism, btw. Rousseau and Paine have a far greater long-reaching influence on modern politics and social contract than any Maistre or Cortes, so regardless of your perception of it, your assertion that these 'liberal' (what a laughable label to slap on it by the way) writers added so little the equation is historically and politically ignorant. You might as well go ahead and say that Aquinas was more important than Locke. You'll probably get laughed at by any person with an education in this field. Your anti-intellectualism does not make you a rebel nor does it mean you are righteous above the liberal masses, it just makes your position wholly uniformed.

Well said, mate.

[basics]

" I agree, but this does nothing to explain how the Septuagint is the word of God, which is what he must be saying. I mean, when you have to choose which documents to follow or not in a religion, you are determining which documents are the word of God or not. So what's the secret? Where's the proof that this document is the word of God?"

Matthias,

The New Testament upon which we are all supposed to follow is just the same for Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestantism with the latter's deletion of the Apocrypha. Trying to make bones out of what is the original in the Old Testament is just blowing in the wind for blowing's sake, why? Because the writers of the New make the bond to the Old specifically to authenticate all that was said and done by Jesus Christ.

It is rather strange to claim one is much older than the other and yet have to admit that this older version has added the Apocrypha to it especially to make such foolish claims. If any version has later additions then it no longer has any right to claim originality. But as this is no more than a sideshow to cover all the errors that these claimants make, one should take it with a pinch of salt.

Saving grace comes by God in three Persons acting out all that is required to save men. This is exactly what the New Testament does and what the writers establish from the Old. Every book in it points to Jesus Christ and must do so if the Gospel is to be consistent in context and flow. Obviously the Reformers did not see the Apocrypha doing that and so took it out of their Scripture.

So let's look at them that would have it. Do they practise every word that comes out of the mouth of God as Jesus requests? Clearly that is not the case since they rely on idols in the form of pictures, relics, statues, beads, bones, Mary and saints. What has that got to do with the sermon on the mount which lays out a picture of what the regenerate becomes at rebirth?

And what has it got to do with sonship, the very destiny of them that are reborn? It is written that faith is the overriding factor in reaching that position, yes faith of Jesus Christ imputed to the new born believer the moment that regeneration has taken place and must take place if one is to become a son of God through adoption. There isn't any other way because as Jesus said, a man must be born again to enter heaven.

The effect is that a man or woman must know when God acted to change them from one thing to another. It is not possible not to know by the experience itself never mind coming to know Jesus Christ as one never knew Him before. Having Him dwell in the heart and be called by Him brother is the most wonderful experience that anyone could have and most certainly is not something one passes over out of hand.

[Carpathian Wolf]

@ Aruthiel, it's not pointless at all if you can see the connection. If you can't that's your issue.

@ basics, no the difference is not just the Apocrypha but also the fact that the Masoretic text which protestants use is a medieval revisionism of the OT. Christ and the Apostles would have used the Septuagint since no Masoretic existed at the time. So Apocrypha aside you'd still be wrong. The fact that the NT makes references to the Apocrypha is another matter.

[Vhaelor]

@ Aruthiel, it's not pointless at all if you can see the connection. If you can't that's your issue.

@ basics, no the difference is not just the Apocrypha but also the fact that the Masoretic text which protestants use is a medieval revisionism of the OT. Christ and the Apostles would have used the Septuagint since no Masoretic existed at the time. So Apocrypha aside you'd still be wrong. The fact that the NT makes references to the Apocrypha is another matter.

A connection? Do you go to a doctor and ask him to prove that you don't have skincancer? No, u ask him to check a strangelooking birthmark because he then may have cause to investigate. Otherwise we'd have Tdoctors cutting up patients for no good reason. That's why scientists don't run around proving that things do not exist - that's crazy no matter what context you put it in. Also by now you've hung around these boards long enough to know that the lame response you gave won't work.

[basics]

" @ basics, no the difference is not just the Apocrypha but also the fact that the Masoretic text which protestants use is a medieval revisionism of the OT. Christ and the Apostles would have used the Septuagint since no Masoretic existed at the time. So Apocrypha aside you'd still be wrong. The fact that the NT makes references to the Apocrypha is another matter."

Carpathian Wolf,

So, in what respect does it or do they affect man's salvation? And where does the New Testament refer to the Apocrypha? Jesus and the disciples have opened up what was perhaps hidden in a mystery in the Old by writing their explanations of salvation in the New which we all are supposed to follow. The Old is but confirmation and as they have seen fit to open that out where in Protestantism does that make any difference to what they wrote?

[Carpathian Wolf]

A connection? Do you go to a doctor and ask him to prove that you don't have skincancer? No, u ask him to check a strangelooking birthmark because he then may have cause to investigate. Otherwise we'd have Tdoctors cutting up patients for no good reason. That's why scientists don't run around proving that things do not exist - that's crazy no matter what context you put it in. Also by now you've hung around these boards long enough to know that the lame response you gave won't work.

Okay then, prove your belief system beyond a shadow of a doubt. Same effect. You can't do it.

Carpathian Wolf,

So, in what respect does it or do they affect man's salvation? And where does the New Testament refer to the Apocrypha? Jesus and the disciples have opened up what was perhaps hidden in a mystery in the Old by writing their explanations of salvation in the New which we all are supposed to follow. The Old is but confirmation and as they have seen fit to open that out where in Protestantism does that make any difference to what they wrote?

You almost sound Orthodox. You are right though, if the Bible ceased to exist tomorrow not a bit of difference would be made. But since you especially are a stickler for scripture and its importance and its authenticity you run into a bit of an issue. The verses that refer to the Apocrypha were already posted in this thread, but nevermind that. Let's not even get stuck up on that issue before you resolve your first issue. The fact of the matter is, Christ and the Apostles would of been using the Septuagint OT (which included the Apocrypha but nevermind that) how do you use an altered Medieval document of Rabbinical Judaism instead which has been changed from the Septuagint which Christ and the Apostles would be using?

[basics]

" The fact of the matter is, Christ and the Apostles would of been using the Septuagint OT (which included the Apocrypha but nevermind that) how do you use an altered Medieval document of Rabbinical Judaism instead which has been changed from the Septuagint which Christ and the Apostles would be using?"

Carpathian Wolf,

I spent a great deal of time looking at the arguments on youtube which is quite comprehensive giving what appears reasonable debate from all sides always with one accusing the other of being wrong. The thing I found fascinating was that here were men and women arguing about something that the disciples cleared up in anyone's version of the Bible about the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

But let's look a little further back to when Israel were allowed back from Babylonia. They didn't have what they knew to be the earliest Scriptures. Ezra, if I've got his name right, had to gather in what could be found, to remake what Israel once knew of as Scripture. He added into these the works you are shouting about and that is one reason why the Jews after Jesus' death and resurrection removed them from their own Scriptures.

Now I don't know and don't care what the reasons were but the thing is that seventy of their best translaters were involved in the translation of what was avilable then into Greek. My point is that if the Jews didn't know what was the real thing in the time of Ezra as well as them when the Greek translation was made, what right have you and your church to say what is the oldest of anything. Again the point is that whatever they were and wherever the originals are do not stop men and women being saved by God through grace and that after hearing the word.

You are arguing for argument's sake because the simple fact is that people still get turned to God whether they have the written word or not. It was by hearing that in the beginning men and women were saved. Hearing of the wonderful redemption that Jesus Christ made at Calvary or going further back, of that work that He would make in the future, was what saved men and women then. If we look at Peter's Pentecostal speech he never had a Bible in his hands when he addressed the crowds and on that day many thousands were saved.

The New Testament in His blood is an experimental event based on the hearing of the Gospel that we now are quite privileged to have because the disciples of Jesus Christ took the trouble to write down the most important parts of the life and times of Jesus Christ as they were witness to. Why it is New is because by it men and women can be saved and that has not changed from the fall of man because their faith was based on Him doing what was promised by God in the garden and carried until the first writings were made. Even here there is much speculation as to how Moses got the information he did.

So, when you say that you follow the oldest manuscripts, the very important thing is you don't really know that. The question is does it matter? No, it doesn't matter because Jesus Christ preached what He did to His own that were Jews and some were saved but most not, and in turn the disciples preached the same to Jew and Gentile and many were saved but more not. If the apocrypha were essential to salvation then Jew and Gentile alike are lost and yet God has written that He has reserved for Himself a remnant of that people who do not have these works in their Scrolls.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I spent a great deal of time looking at the arguments on youtube which is quite comprehensive giving what appears reasonable debate from all sides always with one accusing the other of being wrong. The thing I found fascinating was that here were men and women arguing about something that the disciples cleared up in anyone's version of the Bible about the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

But let's look a little further back to when Israel were allowed back from Babylonia. They didn't have what they knew to be the earliest Scriptures. Ezra, if I've got his name right, had to gather in what could be found, to remake what Israel once knew of as Scripture. He added into these the works you are shouting about and that is one reason why the Jews after Jesus' death and resurrection removed them from their own Scriptures.

We both know this is BS. They returned from Babylon in what year? And they waited until the medieval era to re-edit their texts? Come on. Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just trying to fit it so you can be consoled?

Now I don't know and don't care what the reasons were but the thing is that seventy of their best translaters were involved in the translation of what was avilable then into Greek. My point is that if the Jews didn't know what was the real thing in the time of Ezra as well as them when the Greek translation was made, what right have you and your church to say what is the oldest of anything. Again the point is that whatever they were and wherever the originals are do not stop men and women being saved by God through grace and that after hearing the word.

If they didn't know what the real thing in the time of Ezra, why would they know it for the Masoretic text? So either way is a lose lose situation for you. In any case you don't know that they didn't know the "real thing" in Ezra's time.

You are arguing for argument's sake because the simple fact is that people still get turned to God whether they have the written word or not. It was by hearing that in the beginning men and women were saved. Hearing of the wonderful redemption that Jesus Christ made at Calvary or going further back, of that work that He would make in the future, was what saved men and women then. If we look at Peter's Pentecostal speech he never had a Bible in his hands when he addressed the crowds and on that day many thousands were saved.

The New Testament in His blood is an experimental event based on the hearing of the Gospel that we now are quite privileged to have because the disciples of Jesus Christ took the trouble to write down the most important parts of the life and times of Jesus Christ as they were witness to. Why it is New is because by it men and women can be saved and that has not changed from the fall of man because their faith was based on Him doing what was promised by God in the garden and carried until the first writings were made. Even here there is much speculation as to how Moses got the information he did.

So, when you say that you follow the oldest manuscripts, the very important thing is you don't really know that. The question is does it matter? No, it doesn't matter because Jesus Christ preached what He did to His own that were Jews and some were saved but most not, and in turn the disciples preached the same to Jew and Gentile and many were saved but more not. If the apocrypha were essential to salvation then Jew and Gentile alike are lost and yet God has written that He has reserved for Himself a remnant of that people who do not have these works in their Scrolls.

What happened to sola scriptura? I actually agree with you, and this is the Orthodox stance. The bible isn't the end all be all of Christian faith. It is merely one of many things that make up God's Church. So the next time you say "What about Orthodox using icons and vestments and this and that" i'm going to remind you of this moment.

[basics]

" We both know this is BS. They returned from Babylon in what year? And they waited until the medieval era to re-edit their texts? Come on. Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just trying to fit it so you can be consoled?"

Carpathian Wolf,

I repeat what is said in youtube as one of the arguments. I don't need consolation as I am born again and can give record of the event. Can you?

" If they didn't know what the real thing in the time of Ezra, why would they know it for the Masoretic text? So either way is a lose lose situation for you. In any case you don't know that they didn't know the "real thing" in Ezra's time."

That being the case why did he have to rebuild the Scriptures and why add in what was not there in the first place? And, why did the seventy take them back out?

" What happened to sola scriptura? I actually agree with you, and this is the Orthodox stance. The bible isn't the end all be all of Christian faith. It is merely one of many things that make up God's Church. So the next time you say "What about Orthodox using icons and vestments and this and that" i'm going to remind you of this moment."

The Bible we have is sufficient for the redemptive work of Jesus Christ so sola scriptura remains perfectly in order. What would you know of God's church? You can't tell when God changed your life from sin to sinless as you've always been a Christian. Regarding vestments show me where in the Bible Christian priests were to wear such? Regarding icons and idols, that you indulge in them already condemns you despite the puny excuses you give for attending to them. I hope you do remind me because by self admittance you heap burning coals on your head. Finally by agreeing with me you actually admit that you don't really know that your scrolls are the oldest. Thank you!

[Angrychris]

Ill go with the "you say tomato and i'll say tomoto" approach.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Ill go with the "you say tomato and i'll say tomoto" approach.

One of those is demonstrably wrong