Another Proof against Sola Scriptura?

[Old_Scholar]

In commenting on the Pharisees and them getting the Scriptures wrong, remember they were trying to find the Messiah in the Torah and I believe most anyone will agree that there is some problem with that.

That’s why Jesus came to be sure we all understood who He was, why He was and why He came.

The Scriptures He left us are quite clear about Him and His message. Understanding Scripture isn’t difficult, the Scriptures themselves tell us that. It isn’t necessary for a panel of experts to have to tell you what they mean. That allows for too much room for error.

Just look at all the errors today that have been introduced in the last 2,000 years. 98% of it is displayed on this forum. Lack of understanding and placing your faith in some other man’s understanding is not the way to go. False doctrines and false faith arises when you do that.

Irenæus tried to teach that, but so many since him have turned the message around so much.

Simply stated, as Irenæus always said, if tradition and stories can’t be supported by Scripture then they are false. Too many lose sight of that and attempt to ignore Scripture. Sad!

 

[2ndGen]

**Your dates are all wrong. You must remember that when Jesus was 8 days old, they took Him to Jerusalem for circumcision.
They didn’t leave Bethlehem until Mary had accomplished her 40 days for purification. Herod was King for 37 years and Jesus was born in the 35th year. As soon as Herod died, then Joseph was notified and told to take his family back to nazareth. That could have been as little as slightly more than a year, and up to two years. Nothing like four years as you state.

Herod had killed all the children under 2 years old to be sure he got Jesus, but of course he did not.**

Dates, I’m not too concerned with dates.

What I’m asking is about the years.

Revelation 12 tells us that Mary fled to Egypt for 3 1/2 years. This was “after” Jesus was born. Now, being that they returned when Herod died and his son took over (historically, it’s believed that he died in 0 AD), this would mean that Jesus returned to Jeruselum around 0 AD (at least, not before). There’s (again) a four year period that they were “not” in Jeruselum.

Now, even if my dates are wrong, Scripture tells us that Jesus was “not” in Jeruselum for over 3 1/2 years (add the travel time from Jeruselum to Egypt, to and fro and you’ll easily get the 4+ years that I’m talking about).

If what you say is true, then Jesus was gone from Jeruselum for “over” 8 years which actually lends to my argument that Jesus spent most of his early childhood out of the Galilee or Nazareth or wherever it was that the Pharisees stated that no prophet comes form here.

The questions again, how is “where” one is from determined back then?
By the actual birthplace?
By the father’s birthplace?
By the mother’s birthplace? By legal residency?
By where they spent the majority of their years?

 

[Ginger2]

Thank you for “getting it”.

I think we all get the point you are trying to make, James.

Which is the Catholic Church is the only source of correct interpretation and therefore necessary to prevent people from being misled.

This doesn’t fly, because only God can open a person’s mind to understanding.

We have freewill and some people wish to reject the truth. God allows them to remain spiritually blind.

No matter how clear and concise the RC or anyone else explains Scriptures, it’s useless unless God opens the mind of the listener to understanding.

And God doesn’t need the Catechism for assistance. He will reveal Himself to whom He pleases, when He pleases and how He pleases.

This is a known fact. It says so in the Bible.

 

[2ndGen]

I think we all get the point you are trying to make, James.

Which is the Catholic Church is the only source of correct interpretation and therefore necessary to prevent people from being misled.

This doesn’t fly, because only God can open a person’s mind to understanding.

We have freewill and some people wish to reject the truth. God allows them to remain spiritually blind.

No matter how clear and concise the RC or anyone else explains Scriptures, it’s useless unless God opens the mind of the listener to understanding.

And God doesn’t need the Catechism for assistance. He will reveal Himself to whom He pleases, when He pleases and how He pleases.

This is a known fact. It says so in the Bible.

Reminds me of The Pharisees who could quote the scriptures back and forth, but were very selective with which scriptures they applied, enforcing some to the hilt while completely ignoring others altogether.

 

[Ginger2]

Reminds me of The Pharisees who could quote the scriptures back and forth, but were very selective with which scriptures they applied, enforcing some to the hilt while completely ignoring others altogether.

Exactly!

 

[Truarchs]

If we can begin with God is Love and the relationship with Him is one of Love. Submission to God is a powerful form of love. The nature of love requires choice which is why he gave us a free will, so that we could make a choice and have the ability to love Him. Our choice is where we put our faith. We cannot truly prove anything regarding matters of faith, even with scripture. If we could, we would not require faith and a personal decision would not be necessary. Our ability to love would be diminished.

I choose not to submit to my own will; rather, I will follow Jesus who said in Matthew 6:18 He established a Church, “and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mat 16:14 RSVCE). Christ gave the authority to the church and gave it authority saying to Peter, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19 RSVCE) Prayerfully consider that as individuals we are a small challenge to the evil one. You might wish to say I have God on my side and He will protect me from misjudgments reading scripture but you can challenge this by simply trying to find any two people who agree on every point of revelation in scripture, even if they are Catholic. You will never find perfect agreement in all matters.

I deeply respect all who have a deep love of God’s word, cherish it in their heart and lovingly submit to it. I further respect all who deepen their journey by similarly loving the church Christ established. Not to do this is difficult to reconcile with 1 Timothy 3:15, “you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (RSVCE)

Paul beautifully describes the relationship of Christ to His Church in Ephesians 5:21-33 and he begins by stating “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” And later says “The Church is subject to Christ”. So one can argue “what is the church that Paul is referring to; or, which church did Christ establish?”. Ultimately we will always come to a question of belief, of faith, of personal choice. The only thing I cannot agree with the stand-alone statement “the Bible says so”. All that statement has lead to is 33,000 Christian denominations splintering off into a chaos of faith. It is more honest to agree that we always have a three part structure to our relationship with God consisting of a source, an observance and an interpretation. When I say a source I mean a document since we will all agree our source is God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. In the Romans Catholic Church we have 73 books of Sacred Scripture as our source, our observances through Sacred Tradition and interpretation through the Magisterium. Outside the Church there are many variations of what is considered scripture, everyone has traditions they themselves can consider sacred and can submit to any teaching body as their magisterium or they can consider themselves to be the magisterium. But you have to recognize you always have those parts, you never have scripture alone.

[continued, sorry I got long-winded ]

 

[Truarchs]

[continued from above]

This statement by Saint Anselm will seem repulsive to some but it is beautiful to me:
“The desire for knowledge will move our reason, and humility will subdue it when it fails to understand. No Christian ought to discuss whether something that the catholic Church believes in her heart and confesses with her mouth is indeed as she says or not; but rather, always maintaining and loving the same faith without doubting, and living in accordance with it, he will humbly investigate, as far as he is able, why it is so. If he understands let him thank God, and if he cannot, let him not lower his horns to attack but bow his head and adore.”

It is beautiful to me because of issues of faith and morals that I have begrudgingly submitted to on account of church teaching which has opened my life to beautiful, deep revelations of the love God has for us. Issues of Life that are hotly debated by Christians throughout the world each trying to cling to individual interpretations of scripture. Issues which are clearly delineated from Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the Catechism.

Faith is always ultimately an individual’s decision and is confined by one’s tolerance for submission. An intolerance for submission certainly has its purpose since there are so many heresies promoted by people that can ruin the relationship with God we all desire. I happily submit myself to the full truth Christ established on earth with His church which I consider to be the Roman Catholic Church. I pray for those who enjoy much of Christ’s gifts but miss the fullness of relationship we can have with Him.

“For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:29-32 RSVCE)

 

[Old_Scholar]

So it is possible for individuals and groups of individuals - Even important and well respected individuals to mis-interprete scripture. Yes?

James

Certainly, you only have to look at the Roman Catholic Church in order to prove that!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Roman Catholics like to say *sola scriptura *is not proven in the scriptures. Well it is and quite plainly. Paul puts it so clear, anyone can understand it.

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” 1 Corinthians 4:6

This verse actually gives a death blow to oral traditionalists, or else they don’t believe the Scriptures.

*Matthew 16:18, “upon this rock I will build My church”, 1 Cor 1:10-12, “do not say I am of Peter’”. 1 Cor 3:10, “as gardeners and builders…each man must be careful how he builds on it.” *

It seems clear Jesus intended His church to be built upon Scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.

The church at Corinth was beginning to follow men rather than Scripture.

Roman Catholics may ask where does the Bible say Sola Scriptura is taught, but it is because they have not read and understood the Scriptures. ** Paul in 1 Corinthians clearly teaches it is necessary to not build the church by exceeding Scripture.**

But let’s look elsewhere in Scripture.

*Luke 1:1-4, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” *

Here again, Luke is mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that scripture alone will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is. If oral tradition could bring about certainty, then Theophilus would not be puzzled about what the exact truth was.

The RCC and Orthodox Churches are in danger of error by insisting that oral apostolic tradition is as reliable as Scripture. Scripture alone brings certainty and the Bible teaches that.

But then let’s not stop there. We want to prove *Sola Scriptura *is taught in the Bible. How about the words of Jesus Himself?

Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil. ** “It is written.” **Now did Jesus use oral tradition? No! He used the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan. Scripture. Why doesn’t the RCC hold Scripture in the same regard?

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17) That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Many Catholics say that Scripture is not sufficient by itself, it needs tradition. Well let’s see exactly what Scripture says above. Paul says, the scripture will **“equip us for every good work.” ** It doesn’t say it **“will equip us for MOST good work, or PARTIALLY for good works but ALL good work. ** The Bible does not leave out anything that can be considered good works that we need to know. If we follow Scripture, we need not look to oral traditions (which may not be accurate) to learn about any other good works. We all know what the word ALL means. You just need the ability to read.

Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the Scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without Scripture to witness it. Of course the RCC and Orthodox will not recommend you to Scripture because they don’t think you can understand it.

Read Acts 17:11-12, “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. 12) And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.

Now these people were “hearing” the oral teachings, yet searched the Scriptures daily in order to determine whether the oral tradition was true.

It is clear in the days of Jesus and the apostles, Scripture was the sole authority. Jesus referred to Scripture over 100 times and never once referred to oral traditions, except to condemn them.
Virtually all the apostles wrote about Scripture being the authority, even Peter and James. To even think that oral tradition could be handed down without error, with its incongruity, is ludicrous.

Sola Scriptura is indeed taught in Scripture.

 

[2ndGen]

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” 1 Corinthians 4:6

This verse actually gives a death blow to oral traditionalists, or else they don’t believe the Scriptures.

Really now? Ok, let’s examine that text!
(and thanks for using the whole passage!);

Paul never taught that they were to learn “only” what was written, but what was taught traditionally as well as what was written. That quote you used doesn’t in any way state that they were only to learn from what was written, but what was taught (if you had bothered to had read the whole chapter…

17
“For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church.”

Paul tells to learn through the written word AND through what he “teaches”…he went to churches physically and taught them. He didn’t just drop a letter and run.

Where does Paul emphasize “tradition” along with written text?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

“…whether by word of mouth OR by letter from us.”

NEXT!

*Matthew 16:18, “upon this rock I will build My church”, 1 Cor 1:10-12, “do not say I am of Peter’”. 1 Cor 3:10, “as gardeners and builders…each man must be careful how he builds on it.” *

It seems clear Jesus intended His church to be built upon Scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.

Chopped up fragments of verses to support a belief?

If your belief was valid, you could quote the entire passage…you wouldn’t have to chop up and combine fragments of various verses of different books. That’s revisionsist quoting.

*Luke 1:1-4, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” *

No scripture alone there either…Here, written text is used WITH what Theophilus was “taught”. Again, no written text alone.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Dates, I’m not too concerned with dates.

What I’m asking is about the years.

Revelation 12 tells us that Mary fled to Egypt for 3 1/2 years. This was “after” Jesus was born. Now, being that they returned when Herod died and his son took over (historically, it’s believed that he died in 0 AD), this would mean that Jesus returned to Jeruselum around 0 AD (at least, not before). There’s (again) a four year period that they were “not” in Jeruselum.

You certainly don’t understand Revelation 12. Nothing in that chapter refers to Mary. John is writing about the future in the vision Christ gave him and the “woman” referred to here is the Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church of God. How you cold interpret that in the manner you did is a little weird, since none of this has happened yet.

Now, even if my dates are wrong, Scripture tells us that Jesus was “not” in Jeruselum for over 3 1/2 years (add the travel time from Jeruselum to Egypt, to and fro and you’ll easily get the 4+ years that I’m talking about).

If what you say is true, then Jesus was gone from Jeruselum for “over” 8 years which actually lends to my argument that Jesus spent most of his early childhood out of the Galilee or Nazareth or wherever it was that the Pharisees stated that no prophet comes form here.

I don’t know how you can misinterpret what I said so badly. I said that after Jesus was 8 days old they went to Jerusalem to have Him circumcised according to their law. Then they returned to Bethlehem and after Mary had achieved her 40 days to go for her “cleansing”, they were later told to flee to Egypt. And yes it was for the safety of Christ but also to fulfill the prophecy that said, “I will bring my son out of Egypt.” They could have been there for as little as 1 year or as much as 2. No more.

The questions again, how is “where” one is from determined back then?
By the actual birthplace?
By the father’s birthplace?
By the mother’s birthplace? By legal residency?
By where they spent the majority of their years?

 

[2ndGen]

But then let’s not stop there. We want to prove *Sola Scriptura *is taught in the Bible. How about the words of Jesus Himself?

Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil. ** “It is written.” **Now did Jesus use oral tradition? No! He used the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan. Scripture. Why doesn’t the RCC hold Scripture in the same regard?

LOL! You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Where’s Ashton Kutcher? Am I being “punked”? LOL!

Hello? Did Jesus write the Satan a letter or did he “tell” him what the written text was? LOL!

If “Sola Scriptura” was true, then Satan would’ve won that debate with Jesus because Jesus didn’t use the “written” word to counter Satan, but the “spoken” word!

LOL! Jesus told Satan “orally” to defeat him!

Many Catholics say that Scripture is not sufficient by itself, it needs tradition. Well let’s see exactly what Scripture says above.

Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the Scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without Scripture to witness it. Of course the RCC and Orthodox will not recommend you to Scripture because they don’t think you can understand it.

Ok, show me one scripture that The Apostles quoted from The New Testament?

Oh wait! The New Testament didn’t exist then! LOL!

And what’s that? Oral traditions are useless without scripture?

Then, how was it that The Apostles got their revelations?

From a book?

No!

They “orally” revealed what they witnessed!

Did they hand out Bibles at their sermons?

No! The Bible didn’t exist for another 400 years.

It is clear in the days of Jesus and the apostles, Scripture was the sole authority. Jesus referred to Scripture over 100 times and never once referred to oral traditions, except to condemn them.

Virtually all the apostles wrote about Scripture being the authority, even Peter and James. To even think that oral tradition could be handed down without error, with its incongruity, is ludicrous.

If “Virtually all the apostles wrote about Scripture being the authority”, you’d be able to post at the very least that literally states that “Scripture is the only authority”.

Period.

But no where in The Holy Bible does it state that Scripture is the only authority. No where. Not one verse. Not one passage.

If it did, then you would’ve posted it.

 

[2ndGen]

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt,

“that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

(Matt. 2:23).

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds:

“The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice”

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel.

1 Peter 3:19

In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:19).

chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola8.htm

 

[Ginger2]

Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied “It is written.” …Jesus … used …Scripture. Why doesn’t the RCC hold Scripture in the same regard?

LOL!

Hello? Did Jesus write the Satan a letter or did he “tell” him what the written text was? LOL!

LOL! Jesus told Satan “orally” to defeat him!

 

[Old_Scholar]

2ndGen

I surely wouldn’t want to attack anyone personally on this forum, it wouldn’t be nice but do you have a problem with reading? Apparently you didn’t read Matthew at all concerning the Devil tempting Christ. I hate to have to use so much Scripture, because apparently you don’t like it, but I will. If you had read Matthew, you would have seen this:

Matt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5) Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6) And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Christ said, **“It is written” **three times here and even Satan used it once. Satan knows Scripture.

Actually Christ used the term, **“It is Written” **over 100 times and it was used 108 times in the New Testament.

Ok, show me one scripture that The Apostles quoted from The New Testament?

Read 1st and 2nd Peter. Peter refers to Paul’s Scripture often, and as you know, Paul wrote most of the New Testament.

No! The Bible didn’t exist for another 400 years.

Wrong again, the Bible was completed before 100 A.D. It was the Catholic Church that didn’t accept it until the 4th century. Most of the early church fathers had already agreed and accepted all 27 books of the New Testament. The reason the canonization took so long was because so many heretics wanted to change it and teach traditions that were not from Scripture. Irenaeus targeted most of those and condemned them in his “Against Heresies.” I hope you have read them.

Constantine, Emperor of Rome, who was not even a Christian, called the Council of Nicaea in order to combat the heretics and attempt to get them out of the church.

It was Anathanius, the Bishop of Alexandria who made the first official canonization of the 27 books and he was of the Eastern Church, which became the Orthodox when they split. Athanasius did this in 367 in his 39th Festal Letter. This was long before any pope had appeared on the scene.

It is a little disingenuous to say that because Jesus “spoke” to Satan and didn’t write him a letter, he used “oral” teachings to counter him. This statement is just plain dumb. Christ referred Satan to Scripture each time.

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen

I surely wouldn’t want to attack anyone personally on this forum, it wouldn’t be nice but do you have a problem with reading? Apparently you didn’t read Matthew at all concerning the Devil tempting Christ. I hate to have to use so much Scripture, because apparently you don’t like it, but I will. If you had read Matthew, you would have seen this:

 

[Ginger2]

“Christ said,”

He didn’t use a written text,
but literally and verbally and orally quoted the text.

You are cracking me up.

Right, but how did He communicate these Scriptures?
Orally.

He quoted what was written under inspiration of God.

And Paul makes this claim about his own writings:

“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (Cr 14:37)

Did anyone in the OT speak in tongues?

 

[2ndGen]

You are cracking me up.

He quoted what was written under inspiration of God.

And Paul makes this claim about his own writings:

“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (Cr 14:37)

Did anyone in the OT speak in tongues?

LOL!

You reminded me of the Goodfellas scene where Joe Pesci was called funny by Ray Liotta!

LOL!

As for the issue of Jesus quoting Scripture,
if we were to go under the guise of “Sola Scriptura”,
then we would have to stop at the Scriptures Jesus quoted,
then disqualify His words because they weren’t Scripture
at the time that He said them.

 

[Ginger2]

LOL!

As for the issue of Jesus quoting Scripture,
if we were to go under the guise of “Sola Scriptura”,
then we would have to stop at the Scriptures Jesus quoted,
then disqualify His words because they weren’t Scripture
at the time that He said them.

Scriptures are the Word of God.

Did you forget Jesus is God?

BTW, I didn’t see the movie.

 

[2ndGen]

By the way…why are all you guys ignoring my quote where Paul teaches us that we are “not” to hold fast to “scripture alone”, but to hold fast to both scriptural teachings AND traditions.

See? Look…



2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the …Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”