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 ?
       By: Twinc Date: May 17, 2015, 8:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kerry link=topic=215.msg1926#msg1926
       date=1431825556]
       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?
       [/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 ?
       By: Kerry Date: May 17, 2015, 10:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Twinc link=topic=215.msg1931#msg1931
       date=1431869827]
       it behoves all Christians to accept that as the word of God all
       Scripture is totally inerrant
       [/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[/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 ?
       By: Twinc Date: May 17, 2015, 3:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kerry link=topic=215.msg1933#msg1933
       date=1431875444]
       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?
       [/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 ?
       By: Kerry Date: May 17, 2015, 4:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Twinc link=topic=215.msg1935#msg1935
       date=1431893763]
       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[/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[/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 ?
       By: Twinc Date: May 18, 2015, 1:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kerry link=topic=215.msg1936#msg1936
       date=1431896556]
       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.
       [/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 ?
       By: Kerry Date: May 18, 2015, 6:24 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Twinc link=topic=215.msg1938#msg1938
       date=1431973346]
       all scripture is inspired by GOD[2 Tim 3:16 - all supposed
       contradictions in the past have been refuted - twinc
       [/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 ?
       By: Piper Date: May 18, 2015, 6:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [font=trebuchet ms]Never mind . . .[/font]
       #Post#: 1943--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Moses and Jesus ?
       By: Kerry Date: May 18, 2015, 8:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Piper link=topic=215.msg1940#msg1940
       date=1431992007]
       [font=trebuchet ms]Never mind . . .[/font]
       [/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 ?
       By: Twinc Date: May 19, 2015, 6:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kerry link=topic=215.msg1943#msg1943
       date=1432000707]
       Yes, if Twinc has something to say, I wish he'd tell us what he
       wanted to say.   These other discussions are distractions.
       [/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 ?
       By: Kerry Date: May 19, 2015, 6:59 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Twinc link=topic=215.msg1955#msg1955
       date=1432078760]
       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 -[/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 [/quote]
       Never heard of him.
       [quote]- bur lets just for now stay with the original post and
       simple question - twinc
       [/quote]I already answered it, and you  chose to debate the
       definition of "follow" instead.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page