I mean the idea that it is perfect, without blemish, mistake, or issue.

Laughable, man. Just laughable.

SanChochino,

You mean this part....?

Mat 14:6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
Mat 14:7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask.
Mat 14:8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
Mat 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
Mat 14:10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
Mat 14:11 And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.

And this conclusion.....?

The head of John the Baptist was the first birthday present ever recorded in the Bible. (little_whip)

And this is what you said:

Um, she came to that conclusion because that's what it says, Aeryck - in the part you just posted. You're so dense that it makes me giggle.

Normally folks get presents on their birthdays, right ? Is there something that I am missing ?

Aeryck.

I mean the idea that it is perfect, without blemish, mistake, or issue.

Aeryck bings up a good point SanChonino.... give us an example of it's error, mistake or blemish?

.H.

I mean the idea that it is perfect, without blemish, mistake, or issue.

Ummm...SanChochino,

Which other historical source are you comparing it with, to arrive at such a conclusion ?

Aeryck.

SanChonino, I have studied this word out some 28 years and the only error I have found is where compilers (men who compiled) who put together their version of the study bibles have erred. These errors were in reference to notes, comments and references to other text.

I must admit that I have run across portions of His word that I don't understand (that does not warrant error only ignorance on my part) and even sometimes I misunderstand only to come back some time later and say (laugh) "boy it is amazing..... the Word of God it is".

Error? Help me see what you are talking about.

.H.

Aeryck bings up a good point SanChonino

Remember that it is SanChochino, who said the Bible was not infallible. I think the word that is being considered should be 'innerancy', because 'inspiration' cannot be proved. Personally I would love to explore the historicity, as it is such a big topic at the moment, but I am happy to sit back, while you guys consider this passage and that passage. Not that I am not going to participate, for I did a little course in Biblical Criticizm a year or so ago, but this requires patience and research and I am more interested in the arguments for and against the third quest.

Shalom,
Aeryck.

Error? Help me see what you are talking about.

Hamartano,
SanChochino, will need to consort with Kali and a pot of 'erbal, before attempting to prove that the Bible is infallible.



Patiently waiting,
Aeryck.

"To attempt a theological definition of the Scripture is no easy matter. This results from its unique origin and character. All Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore all our human definitions will remain inadequate. Just because it is divine, it arises above our knowledge, and we shall never fully realize “what is the breadth and length and height and depth” (Eph. 3:18). This applies also to its authority and infallibility. Its authority is much greater than we are able to express in human words. But at the same time we have to acknowledge that this Word of God has entered so very much into the human and has so identified itself with it that we shall always again stand before the question as to what the unassailably divine and what the relativity of the human in Scripture mean concretely. We stand before a very deep and mysterious task, transferring thoughts from the life and the world of persons of two thousand years ago and more to the world of today. Here lies the great question of hermeneutics, with which many today are engaged very intensively."

It appears Ridderbos has hit the nail squarely upon its head.... it may be as Carmel- for he is a god; either he is talking, or is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.

If only left to the discussion with the unlearned, Ridderbos maybe right, the discussion has no value.

Peace while you patiently wait.
.H.

If only left to the discussion with the unlearned, Ridderbos maybe right, the discussion has no value.

Hamartano,

This is definitely THE POINT!
Scholars trying to blunt the Sword of the Spirit, find their own arguments blunted and themselves needing to become theologians (howbeit evil ones) caught up in an arm wrestling match with the uniquely inspired word of GOD. Even the brilliant Einstein unleashed a Lion's Roar from the physical map, that was so horrific that it destroyed the lives of millions. So catastrophic will be the end of those who think that they can match their minds with the mind of God, without any consequences. His word is as fire, and can one hold it to ones breast without being burned ?

Peace wihle you patiently wait.

His peace is like no other.

Aeryck.

I would have figured SanChonino would have gathered his minions against the truth of God's Word by now. It may be that the wrestling match is not what one would choose, unless he / she finds joy in such folly.

How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: .... your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.


.H.

I could have written what you said here exactly except for the fact I've been studying this bible now for about 35 years and still for the life of me can't find a mistake or contradiction anywhere. It all fits together like a warm glove to a cold hand. Everything is all wrapped up and covered quite nicely. I too have gone my way shaking my head in amazement at times to see exactly how perfectly it all fits together.

I could have written what you said here exactly except for the fact I've been studying this bible now for about 35 years and still for the life of me can't find a mistake or contradiction anywhere. It all fits together like a warm glove to a cold hand. Everything is all wrapped up and covered quite nicely. I too have gone my way shaking my head in amazement at times to see exactly how perfectly it all fits together.

When I consider His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts and see how He has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation through the Word of God, it is the most amazing thing for my simple mind. I would to God KFC every one see this same truth. Thanks for your post and Merry Christmas.

.H.

Hi Hamartano and KFC,

I began studying the Bible in 1976, and as time progressed the roles switched. I have learned from studying B.C. that one has to get ones attitude sorted out before one attempts to consider difficult passages, or one might end up doing what so many unbelievers do and that is only reading to find fault. After what I know now, the errors are in us, and measured against the Scriptures we will eventually find ourselves either being humbled and agreeing with God or proudly walking away and covering up with a religion of our own making, what was exposed. The earnest student of B.C. and there are quite a few outstanding scholars are either trying to create a new Bible and a new Jesus, or they are humbled by the sheer volume of manuscripts both young (not so young copies) and old (not so old). The deeper one goes into these studies the deeper His studies go into us and it is inevitable, hence the scholars soon begin to fall on either side of the equation. Some reject the Bible and try to present a mystical Christ, with no apparent historical background; others allow the Sword of the Spirit, this Scripture that is inspired of God, to change our lives.

Dr Donald Carson has continually amazed me, and especially with his studies about the use of OT passages by the NT writers. It was a bone of contention for the Rabbis but this scholar spent years going through each and ever quotation and exploring the context as it was drawn from in the OT. He especially worked on Matthew and Hebrews and I have listened to a few lectures and have been thoroughly amazed at what sort of dedication the NT writers had.

The current trend to attack the Pauline writings has also come out of the cabbage patch of various scholars, from the Jesus Seminar etc, who seem to have painted themselves into a corner and now want to reject the historical Christ and the gospel in favour of some general Christ principle. It is clear that they want us to believe that Paul was not accurately portraying the Jewish beliefs and the whole thing ends up stinking like the Papal idea of the doctrine of justification.

The following lecture, I found quite inspiring.

Apologetics.com – The Historical Jesus, or the Jesus of faith.

Aeryck.

Aeryck posts:

Aeryck,

There is only one true doctrine of justification. It’s either the Catholic doctrine (we are justified by a faith that worketh by charity) or that of Martin Luther (we are justified by “Faith alone”). If you believe Luther’s, then you must also believe that Christ didn’t keep His promise to be with His Church at least for 1500 years until Luther, an apostate monk, came along and founded Protestantism upon a distortion of Romans 1:17 and a falsification of 3:28.

You talk about the current trend attacking St. Paul's writings and then cite a link in which Matt Slick attacks Catholicism by lamely defending Luther's impudent perversion of St. Paul's writing to the Romans 3:28. Go figure!

After citing a few Biblical passages, Slick concludes, "Therefore, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Slick follows Luther’s teaching: that there is only one requirement: believing that God has already pardoned all our sins. One who believes in Christ as his personal Savior becomes a “believer”, and is therefore "saved”. “Saved” by his confidence...THIS Luther labeled “faith” and called his new system of salvation, “faith alone”, Sola Fides.

Even though St.John says that nothing defiled will enter Heaven, Luther and Calvin taught that Christ died to save us IN our sins; that we are saved by “faith alone”. But this isn’t the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Luther was wrong in holding that justification was a purely external process. When the merits of Christ's Redemption were applied to the soul, no internal change took place in the sinner; he did not thereby become any better than he was before. His sin's were merely covered by Christ's merits, which were imputed to him as though they were his own. This fundamental heresy has no warrant in either the Gospels or Epistles of St. Paul, St. John or St. Peter.

Luther's teaching that faith alone justifies was condemned by the Council of Trent for good reason...becasue it clearly contradicts and cannot be reconciled with Scripture. "Faith" with Luther meant a man's confidence that his sins has been forgiven by God for Christ's sake, whereas Christ and His apostles always taught that faith implied the acceptance of all of God's revelation on His word St.Mark 1:15, 16:16; St.Luke 18:8; 24:25-28; St. John 11:25-27; Rom. 3:22-25; 9: 30-33; Eph. 3:8-12; Heb. 11:6.

What does Protestantism teach of the supernatural (divine) virtues of faith, hope and charity? Now all this might be “stinking” to you, Aeryck, but this is what Catholicism teaches of the gifts of faith, hope and charity and how they relate to justification. Faith is the divine virtue by which we firmly believe the truths which God has revealed. Hope is the divine virtue by which we firmly believe God will give us eternal life and the means to obtain it. Charity is the divine virtue by which we love God above all things for His Own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

To grasp the proper place of the virtue of faith, we must first understand what is meant by justification which derives its name from the Latin meaning, to make just. The Council of Trent a assigned the faith the only correct status in the process of justification by declaring it to be the beginning, the foundation and the root at the front of the whole process. The Redeemer Himself made belief in His teaching a necessary condition for salvation when He solemnly commanded His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world. “He that believeth and is baptized....”

By faith for over 2,000 years, the Church understands a firm belief in all those revealed truths which form the body of Revelation, written and unwritten, and demands other acts of preparation for justification, as our sanctification is an on-going process. Faith is the beginning of salvation because no one can be converted to God unless he recognizes Him as his supernatural end and aim. It is the foundation as well, because upon faith all the other predisposing acts rests securely.

St. Paul tells us that we are not saved by faith alone rather we are "justified by a faith that worketh by charity" Gal. 5:6. It’s true that faith is the root of all justification and the beginning and foundation of man’s salvation.” Other dispositions are required, for faith necessarily leads to action. We must not only believe, but we must hope, repent, and love. “We are saved by hope” Rom. 8:24. “Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” Acts. 2:38. “If I have all faith so as to move mountains and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” 1Cor. 13:2.


Trent said that justification is not merely the remission of sin, but the sanctification and renovation of the interior man by his voluntary acceptance of graces and gifts; where unjust is made just; the enemy is a friend, that he be made the heir according to the hope of everlasting life” Titus 3:7.

So we are not merely reputed just (by a legal fiction), but are so in name and fact, receiving in ourselves everyone according to his measure, the justice which the Holy Spirit divides according as to His will 1Cor. 11:11 and according to everyone’s disposition and cooperation. For although no one can be just unless the merits of Christ's Passion be communicated to him.
In the act of justification, with the remission of his sins, the man receives all at once, through Christ on whom he is ingrafted, the infused gifts of faith, hope and charity For faith without hope or charity, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His Body.

St.John describes the grace produced by justification as a new life, really communicated to the faithful, 3:5; 7:52; 15:5, implying freedom from sin, 8:34-36, and a divine peace that in Christ will overcome the world. 14:27; 16:33. St.Paul calls our justification the resurrection of the soul, Col. 3:1, making us the adopted Sons of God, “heirs of God” and “joint heirs with Christ.” Rom, 8:16-17. He identifies it with our regeneration and renovation by the Holy Spirit Titus 3:5, and in a parallelism between Adam and Christ, He shows that Christ imparts justice to our souls just as truly as Adam transmitted Original Sin Rom. 5:19.


So, there is a process or progression if you will of justification, from faith to fear, from fear to hope, hope to incipient charity, and from incipient charity to contrition of sins with a firm purpose of amendment. Since a real conversion is inconceivable without faith and contrition, the sinner has been transformed from the state of sin to that of justification or sanctifying grace. With this, the state of habitual holiness and sonship of God begins.


Last but not least, consider Christ’s own use of the words justification which is clear He is not using it in the Protestant sense of a one-time act. St. Matt. 12:36-37, Christ says, “But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Here, Christ mentions the judgment that each man must face at the end of time for the works he did on earth. This in itself is a big problem for Matt Slick’s theology, since a salvation based upon “faith alone” would have no room for a final judgment based upon works. Although Christ’s words imply the requirement of faith, His focal point is that it is the individual’s works that justify or condemn him. Not only that, but no bad works escape His scrutiny since the verse specifies that He will judge “every careless word”.


So just as Matt Slick tries to pooh, pooh St.James, he would also have to pooh, pooh Christ, for St. James takes seriously what Christ teaches---that our works play a primary role in determining our justification.

So, Aeryck, once again, there is only one true doctrine of justification....and it is preserved in the Catholic doctrine and has been ever since Apostolic times. Your calling it “stinking” doesn’t change it one teeny, tiny bit.

To entrap no, to think yes. It wasn't loaded. Only a question to make you think.

You call yourself learned, then you of all people should have known that the Pharisees used the Oral Law (see Mishna) against Jesus not the WRITTEN law (Torah). My question was about the written Word and birthdays. So your comparison of me with the Scribes and Pharisees is fundamentally baseless.

I asked you a question regarding birthdays. I WAS actually interested in starting a dialog with you about this but I think instead it may have revealed your heart. Your following up with



This is hardly an olive branch.