URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Religious Convictions
  HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 1931--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Twinc
       Date: May 17, 2015, 8:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Kerry link ---
       >
       > My guess is it would be Joshua who followed Moses just as
       Jesus followed the John the Baptist.  The name is even the same.
       Who is qualified to say this?   In school, sometimes teachers
       would grade tests 100%, as completely right.  I understand that.
       The teacher knew all the answers and could grade our tests; but
       what human knows all the answers so he can grade the Bible and
       give it a 100% grade?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       it behoves all Christians to accept that as the word of God all
       Scripture is totally inerrant - btw Jesus did not follow John
       the Baptist - twinc
       #Post#: 1933--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: May 17, 2015, 10:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Twinc link ---
       >
       > it behoves all Christians to accept that as the word of God
       all Scripture is totally inerrant
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The idea of the Bible as inerrant was a Protestant invention to
       justify breaking with Rome, saying they did not need Tradition
       but could determine truth solely from the Bible.   The official
       traditional position of the Catholic Church before that was that
       the Bible was infallible, not inerrant.   Some famous
       theologians had asserted it was infallible; but that was not
       part of Church dogma.   When the Protestants began saying this,
       the Catholics found it awkward to say, "Wait, there are errors
       in it."   It was still be debated at Vatican II.
       --- Quote ---
       > - btw Jesus did not follow John the Baptist - twinc
       --- End Quote ---
       According to the Bible, he came after John.  Certainly he
       followed John.
       Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before
       the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
       John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but
       there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
       27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose
       shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
       John played a critical role.  It was necessary for him to come
       first.
       If people say the Bible is inerrant, I suspect they either
       haven't read it or  can't recall what they read.  Which is it
       here?   Do you think the Bible teaches that Jesus came before
       John?
       #Post#: 1935--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Twinc
       Date: May 17, 2015, 3:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Kerry link ---
       >
       > The idea of the Bible as inerrant was a Protestant invention
       to justify breaking with Rome, saying they did not need
       Tradition but could determine truth solely from the Bible.   The
       official traditional position of the Catholic Church before that
       was that the Bible was infallible, not inerrant.   Some famous
       theologians had asserted it was infallible; but that was not
       part of Church dogma.   When the Protestants began saying this,
       the Catholics found it awkward to say, "Wait, there are errors
       in it."   It was still be debated at Vatican II.
       > According to the Bible, he came after John.  Certainly he
       followed John.
       >
       > Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before
       the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
       >
       > John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water:
       but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
       > 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose
       shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
       >
       > John played a critical role.  It was necessary for him to come
       first.
       >
       > If people say the Bible is inerrant, I suspect they either
       haven't read it or  can't recall what they read.  Which is it
       here?   Do you think the Bible teaches that Jesus came before
       John?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       John it seems did his own thing and did not follow Jesus in fact
       he even told his own followers to follow Jesus who said the
       least real Christian is greater than John - twinc
       btw the Catholic Church states the Bible is totally inerrant in
       all its parts but it is only our English Catholic Bishops in
       their recent 'The Gift of Scripture' in conflict with Church
       teaching that say it is only partially inerrant - twinc
       #Post#: 1936--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: May 17, 2015, 4:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Twinc link ---
       >
       > John it seems did his own thing and did not follow Jesus in
       fact he even told his own followers to follow Jesus who said the
       least real Christian is greater than John - twinc
       --- End Quote ---
       The definition I found of "follow" is: " to come or go after; or
       proceed behind."
  HTML http://www.thefreedictionary.com/follow
       Can we drop this please?  John came first, and Jesus came after
       -- so what is this squabble about?
       --- Quote ---
       > btw the Catholic Church states the Bible is totally inerrant
       in all its parts but it is only our English Catholic Bishops in
       their recent 'The Gift of Scripture' in conflict with Church
       teaching that say it is only partially inerrant - twinc
       --- End Quote ---
       I tell you it was still being debated at Vatican II.
  HTML https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441
       On October 2, 1964, Cardinal Franz König of Vienna spoke before
       the Council Fathers on behalf of all the German-speaking
       bishops' conferences, stating that the Bible does, in fact,
       contain errors of science, history and incorrectly-attributed
       quotations. He then proceeded to provide several examples of
       apparent contradictions and misinformation.12 Of König's
       intervention, Cardinal Alois Grillmeier writes,
       His speech mentioned a few examples [of errors]: according to Mk
       2:26 David had entered the house of God under the high priest
       Abiathar and eaten the bread of the Presence. In fact, however,
       according to 1 Sam 21:1 ff., it was not under Abiathar, but
       under his father Abimelech. In Matthew 27:9 we read that in the
       fate of Judas a prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. In fact it
       is Zech 11:12 f. that is quoted. In Dan 1:1 we read that King
       Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King
       Jehoiakim, i.e. 607 B.C., but from the authentic chronicle of
       King Nebuchadnessar that has been discovered we know that the
       siege can only have taken place three years later."13
       One can go on and on with the errors in the Bible.   The Jews
       will frankly tell you the Old Testament contains some errors.
       How peculiar then when the Protestants jumped up and said all
       the books they had gotten from the Jews were inerrant; and then
       the Catholics followed suit a few hundred years later.
       Honestly now, if you believe the Bible is without errors, then
       either you haven't read it or you didn't remember what you read.
       
       Why not start with  Acts 7 where the speech of Stephen is
       clearly a later addition by someone who didn't know the land of
       Israel or the Old Testament.
       2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of
       glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in
       Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
       This contradicts Genesis.
       4  Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in
       Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed
       him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
       Terah was still alive when Abraham left him behind in Haran.
       14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all
       his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
       This also contradicts Genesis which says 70.
       16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre
       that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the
       father of Sychem.
       Wrong again, and anyone living in Israel then would have known
       where Abraham's tomb was in Hebron -- it was and remains a
       landmark.  Jacob bought the field from Hamor, the father of
       Shechem.
       The whole speech is a later addition by some unknown Gentile
       hand.
       #Post#: 1938--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Twinc
       Date: May 18, 2015, 1:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Kerry link ---
       >
       > The definition I found of "follow" is: " to come or go after;
       or proceed behind."
       >
       >
  HTML http://www.thefreedictionary.com/follow
       >
       > Can we drop this please?  John came first, and Jesus came
       after -- so what is this squabble about?
       > I tell you it was still being debated at Vatican II.
       >
       >
  HTML https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441
       >
       > On October 2, 1964, Cardinal Franz König of Vienna spoke
       before the Council Fathers on behalf of all the German-speaking
       bishops' conferences, stating that the Bible does, in fact,
       contain errors of science, history and incorrectly-attributed
       quotations. He then proceeded to provide several examples of
       apparent contradictions and misinformation.12 Of König's
       intervention, Cardinal Alois Grillmeier writes,
       >
       > His speech mentioned a few examples [of errors]: according to
       Mk 2:26 David had entered the house of God under the high priest
       Abiathar and eaten the bread of the Presence. In fact, however,
       according to 1 Sam 21:1 ff., it was not under Abiathar, but
       under his father Abimelech. In Matthew 27:9 we read that in the
       fate of Judas a prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. In fact it
       is Zech 11:12 f. that is quoted. In Dan 1:1 we read that King
       Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King
       Jehoiakim, i.e. 607 B.C., but from the authentic chronicle of
       King Nebuchadnessar that has been discovered we know that the
       siege can only have taken place three years later."13
       >
       > One can go on and on with the errors in the Bible.   The Jews
       will frankly tell you the Old Testament contains some errors.
       How peculiar then when the Protestants jumped up and said all
       the books they had gotten from the Jews were inerrant; and then
       the Catholics followed suit a few hundred years later.
       >
       > Honestly now, if you believe the Bible is without errors, then
       either you haven't read it or you didn't remember what you read.
       >
       > Why not start with  Acts 7 where the speech of Stephen is
       clearly a later addition by someone who didn't know the land of
       Israel or the Old Testament.
       >
       > 2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of
       glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in
       Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
       >
       > This contradicts Genesis.
       >
       > 4  Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt
       in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he
       removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
       >
       > Terah was still alive when Abraham left him behind in Haran.
       >
       > 14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and
       all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
       >
       >
       > This also contradicts Genesis which says 70.
       >
       > 16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the
       sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of
       Emmor the father of Sychem.
       >
       > Wrong again, and anyone living in Israel then would have known
       where Abraham's tomb was in Hebron -- it was and remains a
       landmark.  Jacob bought the field from Hamor, the father of
       Shechem.
       >
       > The whole speech is a later addition by some unknown Gentile
       hand.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       all scripture is inspired by GOD[2 Tim 3:16 - all supposed
       contradictions in the past have been refuted - twinc
       #Post#: 1939--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: May 18, 2015, 6:24 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Twinc link ---
       >
       >
       > all scripture is inspired by GOD[2 Tim 3:16 - all supposed
       contradictions in the past have been refuted - twinc
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       You're using circular reasoning.  "How do I know the Bible is
       true?  It says so."     You have also refuted nothing since you
       explained nothing.
       Moreover, Paul was writing about the Old Testament there.
       2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy
       scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
       through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
       I don't think Timothy was reading the New Testament as a child.
       Or do you think Timothy had copies of all the books  in New
       Testament including 1 and 2 Timothy as a child?   I can imagine
       his surprise getting letters from Paul and saying, "Why is Paul
       writing this to me?  Doesn't he know I read all this as a
       child?"
       Yes, all the books in Old Testament (the Protestant version, not
       including the Deuterocanonical ones) were considered by Jews to
       be  inspired. That does not mean they are inerrant.   Again your
       logic is flawed since "inspired" does not mean "inerrant."
       People sometimes can hear things but hear them wrong,  thus they
       make mistakes in writing down what they heard.
       As for the Catholic view on what books belong in the
       "Scripture," I am still amazed they believe the book of Judith
       is inspired.  That book was a historical novel, meant to be read
       as fiction.  It signals as much in the first line:
       RSVCE -- Judith 1:1 In the twelfth year of the reign of
       Nebuchadnez′zar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great
       city of Nin′eveh, in the days of Arphax′ad, who
       ruled over the Medes in Ecbat′ana—
       Was Nebuchadnezzar really the king of the Assyrians ruling from
       the city of Nineveh? The Jews say this book is a historical
       novel and that the opening line is meant to inform the reader
       that it's fiction; but along came Christians and took it as a
       serious book that was inspired, even perhaps "inerrant."
       #Post#: 1940--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Piper
       Date: May 18, 2015, 6:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Never mind . . .
       #Post#: 1943--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: May 18, 2015, 8:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Piper link ---
       >
       > Never mind . . .
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yes, if Twinc has something to say, I wish he'd tell us what he
       wanted to say.   These other discussions are distractions.
       #Post#: 1955--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Twinc
       Date: May 19, 2015, 6:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Kerry link ---
       >
       > Yes, if Twinc has something to say, I wish he'd tell us what
       he wanted to say.   These other discussions are distractions.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       twinc in the original post asked a simple question hoping for a
       simple straightforward answer - btw are we to presume that Paul
       like Peter and John and others was not and could not and must
       not project into the future - btw the gospel as scripture
       reached Roman England within three years of the Resurrection
       having been copied in shorthand by Matthew as he went along -
       update and read 'The Authenticity of the New Testament' - part 1
       'the Gospels by Bill Cooper - bur lets just for now stay with
       the original post and simple question - twinc
       #Post#: 1956--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
   DIR By: Kerry
       Date: May 19, 2015, 6:59 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Twinc link ---
       >
       > twinc in the original post asked a simple question hoping for
       a simple straightforward answer - btw are we to presume that
       Paul like Peter and John and others was not and could not and
       must not project into the future -
       --- End Quote ---
       Oh Lord, what did I do to deserve this?
       --- Quote ---
       > btw the gospel as scripture reached Roman England within three
       years of the Resurrection having been copied in shorthand by
       Matthew as he went along - update and read 'The Authenticity of
       the New Testament' - part 1 'the Gospels by Bill Cooper
       --- End Quote ---
       Never heard of him.
       --- Quote ---
       > - bur lets just for now stay with the original post and simple
       question - twinc
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I already answered it, and you  chose to debate the definition
       of "follow" instead.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 4
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page