Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ilroy, I already posted this some where but here it is again…

Exodus 21:22 is very clear. The pro-abortion gang likes to misinterpret this verse, they translate the word as “miscarriage” but, this verse really says: “If the woman gives birth prematurely, but no harm follows…”

I’ve spoken with Jewish scholars to confirm my understanding of Ex 21:22 The meaning is clear.

The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children
Gen 21:8 ¶ And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.

The same word is used in Exodus 21:22

How could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb if he wasn’t a person, yet? (Luke 1:15).
 
Two things,
  1. the Bible tells us some people will reject God and some will distort what is written. Why does that comes as a surprise to anyone?
  2. The Bible does not speak of slavery in the same terms as the ld South. You need to read your Bibles. Scriptures don’t support slavery. The people who use it to support wrong-doing are twisting the Scripture as Peter warned us they will do.
 
Also, you are not answering my original question.

Can you think of even one single piece of info that was left out of Scriptures that is essential to our salvation?
 
Ilroy said:
Well, off the top of my head how about the fact that abortion is not to be practiced?
Sure there is the Do Not Kill (murder) commandment, but that doesn’t cover it. There are just circumstances that we can kill, such as self defense etc.
Just got back from lunch so my brain is squishy still…I’ll have to noodle on it some more.😃
Click to expand...
And, there is more to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium than just providing a piece of information not in the bible.
Their bigger purpose is to give us proper interpretation of scripture so that we are not misled as so many have been through the centuries.
They are also there for the correct development of Doctrine. Things like the Trinity although alluded to multiple times in scripture were not clearly defined or expounded on. The understanding of this and other Doctrines has developed over time under the guidance of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Without this proper guidance, you would have hundreds or thousands of different “churches” each believing different things, as has happened already.

Christ was truly correct in setting up the Church as He did with an authority to properly interpret His teachings and to pass them on til the end of time.
 
I thought it was worth taking some time to look up what the Bible says about slavery. Of course their are different situations that are called slavery in the Bible, but when someone complains the Bible has been used to support whites owning black in the old South, they are obviously “ignorant” to Scripture.

Read Deuteronomy 15:12-14

The men these verses are speaking of are borrowing from wealthy Hebrews in the hope of becoming better off themselves. They agreed to work off the debt.

BUT, according to Jewish law, the debt must be forgiven in the seventh year - whether it has been repaid or not!

Not only that, but the so-called slave owner could not send the slave away empty-handed. He was to give the “slave” generously from his grain bins, etc.

What a deal!!!
 
Ginger2 said:
Bishopite asks What criteria do you use to determine that (you) have the “entire Bible?”

I said, the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, not the Bible is the entire word of God.
Click to expand...
I agree that the word of God doesn’t subsist in inscripturated writings only. But again, you’ve not answered the question I posed…How do you know what is the “entire Bible?”

What criteria do you use in order to determine what is the entire Bible?
 
Ginger2 said:
How about that, Ilroy!!!
We can agree on something:)

Where we disagree is that Catholics think they need more information than what is in the Bible.

I say the Bible tells me everything that God felt was essential for me to know.

Can you think of even one single piece of info that was left out of Scriptures that is essential to our salvation?
Click to expand...
The canon for first you have to know what the entire Bible is before you can say “the Bible tells me everything that God felt was essential for me to know.”
 
Bishopite, you assume I think the Catholic Bible with the extra books is wrong. I never said that. I will concede to the Catholic Bible.
 
Ginger2 said:
Bishopite, you assume I think the Catholic Bible with the extra books is wrong. I never said that. I will concede to the Catholic Bible.
Click to expand...
But, as Bishopite pointed out, the canon of scripture, or the table of contents if you will, is not in the Bible. That is information that would definitely be necessary if your Bible Alone theory was correct.
oh, and the Catholic Bible doesn’t have extra books…please…that is just poor scholarship…All books in the Catholic bible have been there since the canon of scripture was decided on in the late 4th century and confirmed by at least 2 additional councils.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Evangelical Christians (Protestants) have often said, read the Bible and you will know the truth. Well, true if you can read it. What if you cannot read. How then can you convince non-believers who cannot read seek Christ?

If you know basic Christian history, the Gospels were spread by oral means starting with the Apostles who were then succeeded by their successors the bishops.

I have read some former Evangelical Christians turn Catholic who went to Latin America and encounter people who cannot read at all. In fact most of the Third Word nations illiteracy is major issue.
Click to expand...
Read it to them… I’m not trying to be a wisenheimer, really…
 
Ginger2 said:
Bishopite, you assume I think the Catholic Bible with the extra books is wrong. I never said that. I will concede to the Catholic Bible.
Click to expand...
Concede what? 🤷
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. What I was specifically speaking of are the 27 New Testament books; that to say that you have the entire Bible presumes you have some criteria which tells you for sure that you have the entire Bible because the Bible as mentioned by someone else, doesn’t have an index with what books are to be in it.
 
Ilroy, are you arguing with me when I’m agreeing with you?

I don’t have a clue as to what you just said in your first paragraph.

As for your second paragraph… a Catholic will say a Protestant Bible is missing book, and a Protestant will say a Catholic Bible has extras.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Good point
Click to expand...
40.png
Montalban:
Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching
Click to expand...
Can you imagine people listening to Paul’s sermon demanding that he show them “Where in Scripture did you find that!”:rolleyes:
 
Montalban said:
Can you imagine people listening to Paul’s sermon demanding that he show them “Where in Scripture did you find that!”:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I never seen Paul and the Apostles use that question in their preaching, nor I have read any ECF who also ask that question.
 
Nella said:
Read it to them… I’m not trying to be a wisenheimer, really…
Click to expand...
Yes, what if they have questions concerning morality and faith? There are some issues in our society that doesn’t cover abortion, contraception, stem cell research, etc? The Bible are silent on these.

Suppose you say stem cell research is immoral but they disagree. You read then the Bible, but the Bible doesn’t say anything about the immorality of stem cell? What then?
 
Better to Give than to Receive

Jesus did not say those exact words, but he cleary taught that message.

Paul may have been paraphrasing. The words are not in quotations.

The point is that Jesus clearly taught that message, so to suggest no one would know if Paul hadn’t told us is ridiculous.
 
Ginger2 said:
Better to Give than to Receive

Jesus did not say those exact words, but he cleary taught that message.

Paul may have been paraphrasing. The words are not in quotations.

The point is that Jesus clearly taught that message, so to suggest no one would know if Paul hadn’t told us is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Was Paul one of the Disciples?

Obviously not. So the ‘message’ of Jesus was not written down by him, nor remembered by him but taught to him. If it was taught by scripture, you’re right, it’s not the exact wors of Jesus, so where is it paraphrased?

That’s the whole point of this example. He was told of it. He didn’t read it.

What happened to the first Christians as they all waited for the Bible’s books to be written. Did they go and preach or did they hang around till they had a book for people to read?

The Christian mission is about the ‘whole’ person; action, experience, prayer, participation, worship. Whilst Protestants do these things they preach that only reading about it is what counts.
 
Have you forgotten that Paul met Jesus face to face?

Paul is not merely repeating something he heard. Paul’s teaching was considered inspired by God. (2 Peter 3:16)
 
Montalban said:
Was Paul one of the Disciples?

Obviously not. So the ‘message’ of Jesus was not written down by him, nor remembered by him but taught to him. If it was taught by scripture, you’re right, it’s not the exact wors of Jesus, so where is it paraphrased?

That’s the whole point of this example. He was told of it. He didn’t read it.

What happened to the first Christians as they all waited for the Bible’s books to be written. Did they go and preach or did they hang around till they had a book for people to read?

The Christian mission is about the ‘whole’ person; action, experience, prayer, participation, worship. Whilst Protestants do these things they preach that only reading about it is what counts.
Click to expand...
It is incorrect to state that Protestants say that only reading counts.
First, there is nothings that says oral teaching is wrong. But the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith. Teaching must be in accord with it. Oral teaching would be the only way of teaching in the apostolic period as the message was being enscripturakised.
In Galatians, Paul indicates that he did not receive the Gospel from any man but through a revelation from Jesus.
The Church has authority to teach, but its teaching must be in accord with the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top