J
jcrichton
Guest
Could you expand on this?“To those knowledgeable of the the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, Barnabus
I haven’t a clue.
Maran atha!
Angel
Could you expand on this?“To those knowledgeable of the the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, Barnabus
Yes, agreed!Wannano:![]()
Notice the Writing… “false teachers” and “bring the way of truth into disrepute;” these are active works against the Truth… just as Satan, the murderer and liar from the Beginning, who took the Word of God and perverted its Teaching: ‘you should not die’ and ‘go ahead, do as I say, make bread out of rocks, jump from the tallest building, God will not let anything happen to you.’ (paraphrased)Maybe and probably and also probably included some who were bringing in false traditions and pagan rituals.
It is not just about contradicting teaching or inventing things; it is about taking the Word of God and twisting its Teaching/Meaning.
Maran atha!
Angel
St. Paul exampled the use of Pagan ritual to point to Christ. Granted he wasn’t able to effect a mass conversion but there were people including canonized Saints converted to Christ by Paul’s sermon to them.Maybe and probably and also probably included some who were bringing in false traditions and pagan rituals.
Could you site actual examples of “the method?”Wannano:![]()
St. Paul exampled the use of Pagan ritual to point to Christ. Granted he wasn’t able to effect a mass conversion but there were people including canonized Saints converted to Christ by Paul’s sermon to them.Maybe and probably and also probably included some who were bringing in false traditions and pagan rituals.
Myth in the measure it is true can be pointed to it’s true object which is Christ. This is the method Paul sanctioned and the Church used effectively to convert the pagan nations. Now it’s acussed of paganism for it. The conversion of the pagan nations is for the most part a done deal and the Catholic Church carries in it’s treasury the truth expressed in the past. No matter where it’s found she loves truth.
I think it’s more about how the Holy Spirit is active when it comes to Oral and Written Tradition. The Spirit can breath on those who hear the Word. Those who read the Word must be given the gift of the Holy Spirit to be led to all truth to receive it. Truth as it pertains to an individual personal life is not the same. The Holy Spirit does that to any heart disposed to receive.Do you truly believe that any aspect of the powerful life changing oral gospel was left out of Sacred Writings?
Exactly!Nope because the Holy Spirit and Christ are God
This is not the case for the Catholic Church, because we only have One Faith.Depends on who is in what position of the church and what agenda that individual wants to push.
Since the NT had not yet been formed, then this would be a reference to the Septuagint.“To those knowledgeable of the the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, Barnabus
I am curious to know what your definition of Sola Scriptura is. What you have posted is quite different from the modern definition.It doesnt need to do sola scriptura, That doesnt take a genious to figure out
This seems an odd thing to say. You are supporting your claim to sola scriptura by using a quote from Jesus that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Jesus used quotes from the Septuagint to fight the devil. If God did not “need the OT scriptures”, does this mean you believe that Jesus is not God?God didnt need the OT scriptures because he already knew them by heart, technically speaking he created them
While it is true that they carried the Word of God within them, and relied on the Spirit to tell them what to say, the main reason they did not carry a copy of the Scriptures is that they were bulky and expensive! They were copied by hand on parchment or sheepskin, and kept in scrolls, usually in a cool dry location. Travelling with such valuable documents that would have taken years to copy by hand was not reasonable.When the deciples went out to all the world, they didnt carry a copy of the scriptures with them because they had the Holy Spirit to give them words to say.
Yes, it is taken that way, but that is not the apostolic teaching.the Scripture sufficient to lead on to salvation
This is one reason the Church differentiates between material and formal sufficiency.
The Tridentine decree on the
canon of Scripture, promulgated in 1546, stated that Scripture and tradition form a unity.
But although it insisted that the two contain every saving truth of the gospel, it did not
clarify how that truth is contained.2
The distinction between formal and material
sufficiency can be said to illuminate the matter. According to this distinction, the
Scriptures are materially sufficient in that they contain all the truths necessary for
salvation. Truth has its formal existence in the mind alone, however, and so the
Scriptures, because they can be misinterpreted, are formally insufficient. Formal and
material sufficiency belongs only to the entirety of what has been transmitted from Christ
and the apostles.
Yes, of course! Scripture itself testifies to this. The New Testament was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. If that were the case, there would be no need for a Church.Do you truly believe that any aspect of the powerful life changing oral gospel was left out of Sacred Writings?
This is a very good example of how the Pharisees not only misunderstood the Scripture, but that Jesus was bringing a new way of living and understanding, replacing the old.But He also said" you have it in the scriptures but I say"
Ok, well, that does explain a lot.Now maybe i have it wrong but when i say sola scriptura from my pov it means using the bible only, not the catacism or anything else but the bible alone
It appears you do not realize that you have been informed by a Calvanistic point of view, and are interpreting the Scriptures according to this Reformation theology.
If feed me is as confused with this answer as I am I feel sorry for him. How in the world can you say “yes, that is exactly the intended meaning” and then immediately say “Actually it means : …something totally different ?”Yes. That’s exactly the intended meaning.
Actually, it means: denouncing the Authority of the Church and claiming direct knowledge/revelation/inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
Is the Holy Spirit set against Christ?
Maran atha!
Angel
Just a tradition, this sciptura as normative rule“To those knowledgeable of the the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, Barnabus
No, just that he cites a tradition, almost in command, that scripture is normative rule. ( and by this time, including Christian scripture).Are you saying Barnabus is Scripture?