Question...

[trofimus]

Acts is history, and we can develop doctrine from it.

Big deal. Verse numbering and Chapter numbering were added later. It helps.

Quantrill

So, do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

I am eagerly waiting for your response.

 

[Quantrill]

So, do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

I am eagerly waiting for your response.

I am waiting for Scripture that you are basing these questions on. Yes I could find it, but it's your questions.

Quantrill

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

We both have the same sources, so you cannot have some special Bible I do not have. Therefore you must also solve this problem and have some answer to it, not just attack a person who says it.

My friend, I never said the bibles I read are any better or from a different source. However, I am not the one who is rejecting the ability to take doctrine from Acts.

14-17 But don’t let it faze you. Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother’s milk! There’s nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us.(2 Timothy 3)

All scripture(The Message says 'Every part of scripture') is God-breathed and is for showing us truth. That even includes the book of Acts of the Apostles my friend.

I am leaving this here and I will not bother you anymore, as you seem to be allergic to being taught.

 

[trofimus]

I am waiting for Scripture that you are basing these questions on. Yes I could find it, but it's your questions.

Quantrill

"...be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Acts 2:38

"You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols"
Acts 15:29

"Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company."
Acts 15:38

Do you accept this as inspired doctrine? Yes/No.

 

[trofimus]

All scripture(The Message says 'Every part of scripture') is God-breathed and is for showing us truth. That even includes the book of Acts of the Apostles my friend.

I am leaving this here and I will not bother you anymore, as you seem to be allergic to being taught.

Yeah, leaving, as always. You fundamentalists are quick in attacks, but slow in giving answers.

So, what was inspired, the authors, or the autographs? Or the ones writing their words down? What about additions? Which textual version is inspired?

Was inspiration about every word or about message? Is poetry or history as inspired and for doctrine as words of Christ etc?

What makes Scripture to be a Scripture? Where did you get your list of Scriptures from?

Do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

Which version of Jeremiah is inspired, the shorter or the longer one?

Are Greek additions to Daniel inspired?

Are additions to books of Moses inspired?

Are proverbs added by other persons than by Salomon also inspired?

Please, answer.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Yeah, leaving, as always. You fundamentalists are quick in attacks, but slow in giving answers.

So, what was inspired, the authors, or the autographs? Or the ones writing their words down? What about additions? Which textual version is inspired?

Was inspiration about every word or about message? Is poetry or history as inspired and for doctrine as words of Christ etc?

What makes Scripture to be a Scripture? Where did you get your list of Scriptures from?

Do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

Which version of Jeremiah is inspired, the shorter or the longer one?

Are Greek additions to Daniel inspired?

Are additions to books of Moses inspired?

Are proverbs added by other persons than by Salomon also inspired?

Please, answer.

Its not that I am leaving as if I am afraid of answering you, but its just that when I do answer, you will turn around and reject what I write, my friend. I think it is best that I put you on ignore and on my prayer list. You are heading down the road to either a) agnostic or B) Atheism.

 

[trofimus]

Its not that I am leaving as if I am afraid of answering you, but its just that when I do answer, you will turn around and reject what I write, my friend. I think it is best that I put you on ignore and on my prayer list. You are heading down the road to either a) agnostic or B) Atheism.

Lol, yeah, put me on ignore, best solution.

You are not intelectually honest to yourself, you are full of fear of truth. Like many fundamentalists, who just repeat what they been taught without actually studying the issue.

Make useless judgement where is somebody heading to, but no useful answers to presented problems. I have a surprise for you. Christianity does not equal to fundamentalism.

 

[Quantrill]

"...be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Acts 2:38

"You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols"
Acts 15:29

"Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company."
Acts 15:38

Do you accept this as inspired doctrine? Yes/No.

Concerning (Acts 2:38) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. The Israelite always must repent and be baptized in Jesus name, as the Jews had the truth but turned away from it. See (Acts 2:22-36). "Ye men of Israel...."

Concerning (Acts 15:29) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. As it says, "...from which if ye keep yourselves, you shall do well..."

Concerning (Acts 15:38) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. It shows the different way God uses men through the Holy Spirit. Paul had the mission in view. Not wise to take a new believer on such a mission, especially since he abandoned them the first time. Barnabas had the person in view. Barnabas would be instrumental in developing Mark's maturity as a believer. Both men were right, the Holy Spirit was using both in different ways.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

Concerning (Acts 2:38) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. The Israelite always must repent and be baptized in Jesus name, as the Jews had the truth but turned away from it. See (Acts 2:22-36). "Ye men of Israel...."

Concerning (Acts 15:29) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. As it says, "...from which if ye keep yourselves, you shall do well..."

Concerning (Acts 15:38) of course it is inspired Scripture and part of our doctrine. It shows the different way God uses men through the Holy Spirit. Paul had the mission in view. Not wise to take a new believer on such a mission, especially since he abandoned them the first time. Barnabas had the person in view. Barnabas would be instrumental in developing Mark's maturity as a believer. Both men were right, the Holy Spirit was using both in different ways.

Quantrill

OK, you are the only one trying to answer, so what about this?

What was inspired, the authors, or the autographs? Or the ones writing their words down? What about additions? Which textual version is inspired?

Was inspiration about every word or about message? Is poetry or history as inspired and for doctrine as words of Christ etc?

What makes Scripture to be a Scripture? Where did you get your list of Scriptures from?

Do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

Which version of Jeremiah is inspired, the shorter or the longer one?

Which version of Isaiah is inspired, the MT or the Old Greek?

Which version of Daniel is inspired, the Old Greek, Theodotion or the MT? Are Greek additions to Daniel inspired, too?

Are additions to books of Moses inspired? Was Adam created before or after animals?

Are proverbs added by other persons than by Salomon also inspired?

Is Esther inspired? Why? Which version of Esther, the one without word "God" in it (the masoretic version) or the one with the long prayer to God (the LXX)?

Is Sirach inspired? Why not?

 

[Quantrill]

OK, you are the only one trying to answer, so what about this?

What was inspired, the authors, or the autographs? Or the ones writing their words down? What about additions? Which textual version is inspired?

Was inspiration about every word or about message? Is poetry or history as inspired and for doctrine as words of Christ etc?

What makes Scripture to be a Scripture? Where did you get your list of Scriptures from?

Do you believe people should be baptized "in the name of Jesus"?

Or, do you believe that meat sacrificed to idols is not allowed to eat?

Or, do you believe that the workers of God should argue with each other and not give another chance (Paul, Barnabas...)?

Which version of Jeremiah is inspired, the shorter or the longer one?

Which version of Isaiah is inspired, the MT or the Old Greek?

Are Greek additions to Daniel inspired?

Are additions to books of Moses inspired? Was Adam created before or after animals?

Are proverbs added by other persons than by Salomon also inspired?

Is Esther inspired? Why? Which version of Esther, the one without word "God" in it (the masoretic version) or the one with the long prayer to God (the LXX)?

Is Sirach inspired? Why not?

I have already answered some of these which shows you are not paying attention to what you are presenting. You have a ready made list you are trusting in to always use.

I knew you would come back with a laundry list. You are as an atheist who says the Bible is full of contradictions and gives you some to answer. If you can happen to answer them, guess what? He doesn't believe. He just goes and finds more. And if all of these you give were answered, you would do the same as you just did.

Lets address the questions concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Both the writers of Scripture, and that which they wrote was inspired by God. Inspiration is to every word that they wrote down. All of the Bible is for us to develop doctrine.

The Bible consists of 66 Books. 39 in the Old. 27 in the New. The apocryphal books are not inspired as I have already told you before. The Old Testament comes from the Jews Old Testament. It is the exact same. The New Testament is that which has been accepted as Scripture by the believers in the early years of the Church.

The best and safest version, I would say, is the King James Version.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

I have already answered some of these which shows you are not paying attention to what you are presenting. You have a ready made list you are trusting in to always use.

I knew you would come back with a laundry list. You are as an atheist who says the Bible is full of contradictions and gives you some to answer. If you can happen to answer them, guess what? He doesn't believe. He just goes and finds more. And if all of these you give were answered, you would do the same as you just did.

Lets address the questions concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Both the writers of Scripture, and that which they wrote was inspired by God. Inspiration is to every word that they wrote down. All of the Bible is for us to develop doctrine.

The Bible consists of 66 Books. 39 in the Old. 27 in the New. The apocryphal books are not inspired as I have already told you before. The Old Testament comes from the Jews Old Testament. It is the exact same. The New Testament is that which has been accepted as Scripture by the believers in the early years of the Church.

The best and safest version, I would say, is the King James Version.

Quantrill

It is a list I made from the top of my head in like 2 minutes and its first use was in post #185. But its irrelevant, it does not matter how frequently I use it or not. I have no obligation to write everything from A-Z when repeating it to somebody else.

How did you get to conclusion that the Old testament must have 39 books?

Why is Esther there?

Why is not Sirach there?

Why do you prefer the masoretic version when apostles did not prefer it?

How exactly inspiration works, according to your opinion?

 

[Quantrill]

It is a list I made from the top of my head in like 5 minutes and its first use was in post #185. But its irrelevant, it does not matter how frequently I use it or not. I have no obligation to write everything from A-Z when repeating to somebody else.

How did you get to conclusion that the Old testament must have 39 books?

Why is Esther there?

Why is not Sirach there?

Why do you prefer masoretic versions when apostles did not prefer them?

Sure it is.

Because it is the Old Testament of the Jews.

Because Esther is inspired.

Because Sirach is not inspired.

Because it is the Old Testament of the Jews. And the apostles did use them.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

Sure it is.

Because Esther is inspired.

Because Sirach is not inspired.

Because it is the Old Testament of the Jews. And the apostles did use them.

Quantrill

Without any reasons? Just because you say so?

No, the apostles did not use the masoretic version. If you did not study it, let us make it short, because I need somebody who knows what I am talking about.

 

[Quantrill]

Without any reasons? Just because you say so?

No, the apostles did not use the masoretic version. If you did not study it, let us make it short, because I need somebody who knows what I am talking about.

I gave you the reasons. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews as inspired by God. The believers in the Old Testament era knew the books that were of God. They either carried with them a 'thus said the Lord' or the accepted ministry that inspiration produces in Gods people. The New Testament was virtually the same way.

The Masoretes used the Scriptures that the apostle's used.

That is really short...as you have to prove you know what you are talking about. And that is pretty foggy.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

I gave you the reasons. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews as inspired by God. The believers in the Old Testament era knew the books that were of God. They either carried with them a 'thus said the Lord' or the accepted ministry that inspiration produces in Gods people. The New Testament was virtually the same way.

The Masoretes used the Scriptures that the apostle's used.

That is really short...as you have to prove you know what you are talking about. And that is pretty foggy.

Quantrill

Its short, but the first half is irrelevant (the Jewish canon was not established until 90 AD) and the second half is not true at all. If you think that the first church, apostles or even Jews used the masoretic text, then you simply did not study the issue.

Therefore, I still did not get any answers to my questions.

 

[Quantrill]

Its short, but the first half is irrelevant (the Jewish canon was not established until 90 AD) and the second half is not true at all. If you think that the first church, apostles or even Jews used the masoretic text, then you simply did not study the issue.

Therefore, I still did not get any answers to my questions.

No, the Old Testament was established sometime between 400 and 200 B.C. It was already established in Christ day as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. (Luke 24:44) "...were written...."

The early Church, and the apostles used the Old Testament that the Jews had. It is the same we have today. Consists of 39 Books in our Bible.

You got answers. You just always need to produce another list, or pretend you really didn't get an answer.

Why do you ask me many questions concerning inspiration and then after I have answered you ask me my definition of inspiration. If you think it is significant, then give your definition at the beginning. We both know what we mean when we speak of inspiration. If you think your's is different then let me hear it.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

No, the Old Testament was established sometime between 400 and 200 B.C. It was already established in Christ day as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. (Luke 24:44) "...were written...."

The early Church, and the apostles used the Old Testament that the Jews had. It is the same we have today. Consists of 39 Books in our Bible.

You got answers. You just always need to produce another list, or pretend you really didn't get an answer.

Why do you ask me many questions concerning inspiration and then after I have answered you ask me my definition of inspiration. If you think it is significant, then give your definition at the beginning. We both know what we mean when we speak of inspiration. If you think your's is different then let me hear it.

Quantrill

You say that the apostles used the masoretic text. Can you explain me this??

 

[Quantrill]

You say that the apostles used the masoretic text. Can you explain me this??

View attachment 190617

No. So?

Quantrill

 

[lightbearer]

You say that the apostles used the masoretic text. Can you explain me this??

View attachment 190617

There are quotes from both the LXX and Masoretic. For example in your example, Paul does not quote LXX or consider it when he paraphrases Deut. 30:11-14 in verse 10:6-8.

 

[trofimus]

No, the Old Testament was established sometime between 400 and 200 B.C.

"But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles (Didaché) and the Shepherd.
Athanasius, 367 AD

"The Canonical Scriptures are these:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.
Canon of Carthage, 397

Can you explain?