If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[tqualey]

Hi, Calvin95,

You may be interested in knowing that Christ did not remove the humaniry or sinfulness of the Apostles. You neglected to mention that Peter also denied Christ - and even after three years’s association, Judas betrayed Him! The incident between the two brothers and the rest of the Apostles is a perfect example that weak and sinful humanity was well represented in the Apostles. Oh, and don’t forget the incredible cowardice of the 10 remaining Apostles - with only John standing near the Cross.

So, what is your point? Were the Apostles human? Yes. What next?

Well, the big ‘what next’ happens on Petecost - and this is when these weak and sinful men are filled with the Holy Spirit! This is why Pentecost is the Birthday of the Catholic Church - where the Apostles went out boldly to proclaim the message of Christ. What we must continue to recall that what took place about 33AD - is still going on today. The leadership of Pope Benedict XVI in the teaching of matters of faith and morals is directed by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Think about it. Christ chose to work with weak and sinful men to bring His message to all. Calvin never could get that straight.

God bless

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down. A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Calvin95,

Tell me, how and when did we get the Bible?

And while you are at it, please tell me where the Bible says that it ALONE is the sole authority for God’s Word… ? Hint: 2Tim 3: 16-17 does NOT make such a claim.

God bless

You are being told what the Bible states, not opinion of what it means. For example above you state oral tradition is as important as written and you are using 1 timothy, which doesn’t even imply there is a difference ; in fact it implies it is one in the same. Paul is saying do I have taught you whether in person or by letter; it is the mode of the delivery of the message, not two different and distinct messages. It is so obvious; go back and read the passage. there is no mention of extra traditiona dneven if he did mention it and we were not given it,then god did not want us to have it. you can’t just profess to have a group of people make a claim they have extra revelation and claim to have infallible interpretive skills given by God with out proving it; you cannot prove somehting that doesn’t exist can you? Why do you think you are taught to say we interpret matt 16:18 in the Aramaic, but leave the rest to Greek & Hebrew? Because it deludes and blurs the obvious and if you put that single passage in it’s proper context with the rest of Scripture; you have nothing left but to believe the Bible alone.

I know you will disagree, but you can’t provide solid reasoning as to why that passage is interpreted in Aramaic, when the rest are not. Nor can you argue that if that passage were taken in it proper context or did not exist, then what basis could you have for a self appointed authority? None. you would have to rest on Scripture alone, which is what God intended because it is what god has revealed to man. All religions claim speacial revelation and authority ourside of Scripture or from some divine appartion or dream which appoints a single person or group of persons of having special powers granted from heaven contrary to Scriptural teaching of the plain word of God. The bible says that ignorant and small can understand the gospel and by hearing and understanding comes believing and upon believing one is saved. Not even very complicated; it is man that complicates it.

 

[pablope]

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down. A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

Is this because you do not see the progression of Peter from a sinful man, you do not recognize his repentance after he denied Christ 3 times, and do not want to recognize the recognition given him by the Lord?

And is this the reason why still there are those in the protestant world who call the Pope, Peter’s successor the Anti-Christ?

 

[pablope]

Hi, Gregg,

Excellent post!

Personally, I do not think Richard has any real responses to what you or the others have offered him. He appears to have one verse of a worn out song that he has memorized. Anyone not singing along with his ideas has just not ‘answered’ his question - for he is only open to one answer. SS fails on every count - but, to acknowledge this means that they have nothing else - they refuse to acknowledge Apostolic Tradition and continue to fight against Christ’s Vicar on earth - Pope Benedict XVI.

There is another way to spell “denial” and that is: D.E.K.I.A.L.

It stands for: Don’t Even Know I Am Lying!

God bless

Agreed…very well stated. I like how you put it…DEKIAL.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7718&albumid=1125&dl=1288324193&thumb=1

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Lk 22:32[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 1:13-26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:17-19[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice the last Scripture passage. The Apostles were divided about whether or not you have to be circumcised (among other things) to be saved. If Peter’s decision was NOT authoritative, then, assuming that you are male… it’s ouchie time for you.

A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

They are sinners like almost everyone else. YOU are a sinner; does that mean you can’t teach authoritatively about Scripture? :bigyikes:

The Church doesn’t claim that popes are bishops are impeccable.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are twisting the Scripture; church discipline within the local body has nothing to do with what Richard said. It has to be the local body of assembled people because the Bride of Christ, the true church, has yet to be revealed as the whole of creation wiats eagerly for the revealing of the “sons of God”? Who are the “sons of God”? The bride of Christ, the church.

I doubt I can twist Scriptures since I know it is not my own enterpretation. I dont have the authority giving by God to enterpret Scriptures and I know that. I know my place in the Church of the Living God.
with that being said. I telll you that what you just said works well wiht man made churches. but not with the Church found by God. now, i ask you can you show me how your communty of believers is connected to the communities of believers connected with the Apostles then? which Church was one that you were connected to back then? can you tell me? was the Church of Rome? was the Church in Ephesus? was the Church in Jerusalem? which one is it?

 

[Cat_Herder]

You are twisting the Scripture; church discipline within the local body has nothing to do with what Richard said. It has to be the local body of assembled people because the Bride of Christ, the true church, has yet to be revealed as the whole of creation wiats eagerly for the revealing of the “sons of God”? Who are the “sons of God”? The bride of Christ, the church.

The Church has already been revealed. She is not hidden.

[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 5:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 18:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wisdomseeker,

You may be waiting a long time for an answer … about all I can say is, “Take a number”!

I do have at least a partial answer on Calvin’s church … Chruch in Rome?e Church in Ephesus? Church in Jerusalem? Ah, no to all three … but, how about the man-made church of Geneva? Or, maybe the man-made church of Strasbourg? One thing is for sure - he was quick to kill those who did not agree with him ( e.g., Michael Servetus ).

Best wishes on your wait … I am still waiting on Calvin to answer where he thinks he got his (abridged) Bible from!

God bless

I doubt I can twist Scriptures since I know it is not my own enterpretation. I dont have the authority giving by God to enterpret Scriptures and I know that. I know my place in the Church of the Living God.
with that being said. I telll you that what you just said works well wiht man made churches. but not with the Church found by God. now, i ask you can you show me how your communty of believers is connected to the communities of believers connected with the Apostles then? which Church was one that you were connected to back then? can you tell me? was the Church of Rome? was the Church in Ephesus? was the Church in Jerusalem? which one is it?

 

[Cat_Herder]

You are being told what the Bible states, not opinion of what it means. For example above you state oral tradition is as important as written and you are using 1 timothy, which doesn’t even imply there is a difference ; in fact it implies it is one in the same.

You, and MD, have utterly failed to respond to the verses that state that not everything Christ did or taught was committed to the Scriptures. In fact, you keep changing the topic because you don’t want to address them. For the FOURTH time:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:2[/BIBLEDRB]

This is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Does it contain everything that he told the Corinthians when he visited them? How do you know that except by a tradition of men?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

Not what was written. What was heard.

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 10:17[/BIBLEDRB]

Again… not what was written. What was heard. Why?

[BIBLEDRB]Jn 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

Not everything Jesus taught is in the Bible and the Bible says so; are you seriously arguing that we are not supposed to know everything that Jesus taught? Did He not say…

[BIBLEDRB]Mk 13:31[/BIBLEDRB]

If you’re right, then His words not written in the Bible passed away…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You are being told what the Bible states, not opinion of what it means. For example above you state oral tradition is as important as written and you are using 1 timothy, which doesn’t even imply there is a difference ; in fact it implies it is one in the same. Paul is saying do I have taught you whether in person or by letter; it is the mode of the delivery of the message, not two different and distinct messages. It is so obvious; go back and read the passage. there is no mention of extra traditiona dneven if he did mention it and we were not given it,then god did not want us to have it. you can’t just profess to have a group of people make a claim they have extra revelation and claim to have infallible interpretive skills given by God with out proving it; you cannot prove somehting that doesn’t exist can you? Why do you think you are taught to say we interpret matt 16:18 in the Aramaic, but leave the rest to Greek & Hebrew? Because it deludes and blurs the obvious and if you put that single passage in it’s proper context with the rest of Scripture; you have nothing left but to believe the Bible alone.

I know you will disagree, but you can’t provide solid reasoning as to why that passage is interpreted in Aramaic, when the rest are not. Nor can you argue that if that passage were taken in it proper context or did not exist, then what basis could you have for a self appointed authority? None. you would have to rest on Scripture alone, which is what God intended because it is what god has revealed to man. All religions claim speacial revelation and authority ourside of Scripture or from some divine appartion or dream which appoints a single person or group of persons of having special powers granted from heaven contrary to Scriptural teaching of the plain word of God. The bible says that ignorant and small can understand the gospel and by hearing and understanding comes believing and upon believing one is saved. Not even very complicated; it is man that complicates it.

So I guess you are not man because you perfectly understand Scripture. Right?

(The bold are the answers to your questions.)
Anyway, I can and will answer your questions posed to me unlike you who has yet to answer 1 of my questions. I can prove that something does not exist. I cannot do it definitively but I can prove it. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. If you tell me I cannot fly or something illogical, then I will agree but that would only be facetious. I do not know what that question about the Aramaic interpretation means. I cannot answer it because I have no clue what you are asking. To answer your next question: Nobody has any basis for a self-appointed authority. If you were making a subtle jab at insulting the Catholic Church, I will ignore it and just keep the question answered in the manner it was asked. No need for elaboration because your face will be so red.

First paragraph critique (which is very simple): I do not care that I am being told what the bible states (if that is even the case). The Bible tells me what the Bible states anyway. What is the difference. A living authority can tell me what the Bible means because I am not claiming at all to know even remotely what it means. The Word of God is God. Certainly there is infinite knowledge to be had from the Word but I cannot get even a finite meaning by myself. Apparently you have the infinite knowledge though. I am jealous. And another thing, I did not even mention Timothy! I do not know anything from there. But I will agree with you that all of what Sacred Tradition we claim are one and the same (hence, our one name for it). The written is the same as the spoken, to an extent. A square (written) is always a rectangle (spoken) but a rectangle is not always a square. I did read it and it helps the Church’s case. We do not claim to have “extra tradition” as you claim that we claim. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE! What is so difficult in refraining from telling ME what I believe? It is all part of the same tradition. We have proven our case of infallibility. You just choose to ignore it because you ignore all the posts that prove our case as you did in several threads. I do not blame you though. Being proven wrong is very humbling. I was atheist. I would know.

Second paragraph critique (not as simple as the first but still simple): I mentioned that I have no idea about the Aramaic deal in my first paragraph. And No… We do not have to rest on Scripture alone. That needs proving AFTER you debunk our ideas which you have steered clear from attempting to do. I completely agree with you that most (you said all but I know what you mean) religions claim those things. Problem with your assumptions about the Catholic Church is that we do not take our tradition as “outside Scripture” as you claim. Anyway, how can something (we claim) be outside something when that very thing is claimed to contain it? Is a couch outside of a house when that couch is said to be inside the house? We claim that the Sacred Tradition contains Scripture and spoken. There is nothing “extra”. It is just another part of the picture. I am not contradicting myself here. Jesus’ arm is part of His picture. I would not say that His leg is extra when looking at the whole picture. And I completely agree with your last two or three (depending on how one looks at it).

Notice how I defended my part very honestly and subtly and presented my case. I ripped it apart very well. You insist on telling ME what the Church believes. I know it better than you. Trust me. Notice also how I do not tell you what you believe. Again, in an argument, the person who defends from the standpoint that they are right ALWAYS has the upper hand against someone who attacks from the standpoint that they are wrong.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You, and MD, have utterly failed to respond to the verses that state that not everything Christ did or taught was committed to the Scriptures. In fact, you keep changing the topic because you don’t want to address them. For the FOURTH time:

By my account it is the fifth but you are the one providing, so I will believe you.

Can you teach me how to multi-quote?

 

[Cat_Herder]

By my account it is the fifth but you are the one providing, so I will believe you.

Can you teach me how to multi-quote?

I’m not aware of any special multiple-quote function. What I do is to just hit the quote button on post 1, copy the post to the clipboard, click the back button, click quote on quote 2, paste quote 1 into quote 2, copy the combined quote, then click reply and paste in the combined quote.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down. A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

Considering Matthew wrote the Gospel in Aramaic, that is why. How convenient of you to say that we blur Scripture to fit our error! Well done. That deserves proof. That is, irrefutable proof. Go read the FAITH section of this website and learn about basic Catholic teachings. Go to the apologetics part and click on some of links to our defenses in the Bible. We are not as dumb as you think.

That last sentence of yours actually proves my point of the overwhelmingly glorious pride.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gregg,

If I can ‘piggy-back’ on your ideas in the first part of your post…

So I guess you are not man because you perfectly understand Scripture. Right?

(The bold are the answers to your questions.)
Anyway, I can and will answer your questions posed to me unlike you who has yet to answer 1 of my questions.

You know, Gregg, this has become an interesting phenomena - when refuted, the sincere inquiring poster will note it and eiither respond to the new information and get additonal information or simply move on to another question. The ‘other guys’ just totally ignore you like your answer did not exist… even though it is there for all to see. Some of our distant brothers and sisters are on the list to play games - and, not sincerely seek information about the faith . It would appear that not only are their necks stiff but their hearts have been hardened. And, no matter how you cut it, this is truly a sad state of affairs for any soul.

I can prove that something does not exist. I cannot do it definitively but I can prove it. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. If you tell me I cannot fly or something illogical, then I will agree but that would only be facetious. I do not know what that question about the Aramaic interpretation means.

I think the ‘Aramaic’ argument is s(name removed by moderator)ly a red herring - intended to throw the unwitting off of the track. Let me give you an example - from a non-Catholic source.

Languages of the Bible
The Bible was written in the languages of ancient Palestine: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Old Testament has been transmitted to us primarily in these languages. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) before the text became quite stable. Some chapters and verses seem to have been written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4-7:28 and perhaps a few other verses) or at least they have been transmitted to us in Aramaic. The manuscripts do not distinguish them from the rest of the text.

Aramaic
Aramaic is a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Its dialects have been in use since the ninth century BC. The Assyrians made Aramaic the common language of the Near East. Some parts of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4-7:28 and perhaps a few other verses).

Hebrew in old (Phoenician), Qumran (Aramaic) and modern scripts

In exile and under the empire Aramaic letters replaced the old (Phoenician) script for writing Hebrew, first in everyday life and then for copying the Bible.

The presence of some Aramaic words in the NT (e.g…: “talitha cumi”, “maranatha” and “golgotha”) suggests that Jesus spoke a dialect of Aramaic.

Ultimately, Gregg, God is communicating with His People - and God’s message is coming through both the limitations of time and humabn language. The issue is not that Christ gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter (and Peter’s Successors) in Aramaic … but, that Christ gave the Keys to Peter. And, much to the annoyance of many who hold contrary view - this is what succeeding generations of Catholics believed. The historical proof of that pudding can be found in the multiple writings of the Early Church Fathers - not the johnny-come-lately so-call Reformers 1,600 years later! …

I cannot answer it because I have no clue what you are asking.

He really wasn’t asking a question so much as trying to simply confuse the issue, Gregg,

To answer your next question: Nobody has any basis for a self-appointed authority. If you were making a subtle jab at insulting the Catholic Church, I will ignore it and just keep the question answered in the manner it was asked. No need for elaboration because your face will be so red.

I sincerely do not believe that ignore the barbs tossed by such posters is the best approach - in my opinion, this is viewed as weakness and it seems to encourage more of the same.

If by ‘red face’ you mean embarrassment… I sincerely do not think that is of any concern…

God bless

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Calvin and non-Catholics,

You said this earlier, “I know you will disagree, but you can’t provide solid reasoning…” These are statements I completely despise. We have given reasons for everything from the Bible and pure reason. I realize you were talking about something else but you still said this.

Please answer these questions:

1. Why do you insist on telling us what we believe? Even after we tell you what we believe. Even after we showed that you distort what we tell you about our beliefs.
2. Why do you and others think you know more about Catholicism than Catholics? This is shown by the fact that we say one thing and you say things like, “No, you believe this…” or when some people (you know who I am talking about) claim upfront that they know more than us about us.
3. Did you come to Catholic Answers Forums to educate us or to find answers?
4. Why will you not respond to the questions we ask?
5. Why do you ask over and over again for Bible verses when we give them to you?
6. If a reasonable case were presented, would you come to the Church?
7. Where does it say “Bible only”, “Sola Scriptura”, “the Word of God is Scripure only”, etc… in the Bible?
8. Respond to our responses that we give biblical reasons.
9. Respond to our responses which we give that are just plain reasoned.

10. Calvin, respond fully to my post. The one that is posted at 4:23 p.m. #187

I understand if these are hard to answer. I really am sincerely curious about what it is you all think. Question 6 is the most important though.

Tqualey,
Good post. Agreed. I was just quoting a line from “House” about the red face thing.
Hopefully, we can get non-Catholics to start answering some questions.
Take care buddy and God bless
Gregg

 

[Calvin_95]

and that is why Jesus built His Church, One Church, so this kind of squables would not happened. the CC doesnt have to speculate anything. God never intended for anyone outside His Church to teach His Word to anyone. Sacred Scriptures was never meant to be in the hands of the laity. today, Scriptures have almost lost its Sacredness because people have been going around quoting Scriptures without the True knowledge of God and drawing ridicule to God due to the dissecration of Scriptures. It has caused great loss of souls because of some have decided that they are going to teach anyway no matter what in disobedience to God. but our Lord warned His people that prophets and false teachers would come and deceive many. what a better time to see this prophecy coming true than today.

That is completly contrary to Scripture in oh so many passages in botht he OT and the NT, How many tinmes did Jesus say let those who have ears hear? When the chuirch first began; the preacher was preaching, the people heard and when they believed what they heard; what happened? Salvation. David siad "teach me your ways oh Lord and I will live by your truth. and this is just scratching the surface, but you would need to read Scriptures to see and to understand if the Lord allows for the Scriptures aslso say the natural man cannot understand the things of God and the opposite is the man of God can and does understand. So your whole idea of the layity not being able to understand smacks straight in the face of Scripture.

 

[Calvin_95]

Hi, Calvin95,

I believe the entire Bible was inspired - the particular language is not the issue with God as the Principal Author. It is God Who communicates with men using human words for His Divine Purpose. While your selective view is totally understandable - you really have nothing else to go on - the issue you bring up questions the validity of the Word of God - which are fallen dominos to those who fail to believe it.

What I find truly amazing is that for 1600 the role of Peter and his successors was firmly established - and the Catholic Church brought Christ to the world. Calvin and his fellow heretics developed not only the traditions of men but a theology based on human ideas that claimed to follow Christ while denying the very words of Christ! That is a blasphemous statement concerning who brought Christ down may God forgive you. Revisionist historians always have a nice way of well revising history and I noticed you avoided the core question, which is why that particular passage is interpreted by the church in the aramaic; yet not the rest. The answer is obvious as to why. No one in the first175 years after Christs death believed in apostolic succession except for heretics. Even Paul saw this and warned against this in two passages concerning geaneologies and in one about I am of Apollos, I am of Paul , I am of CEPHAS; isn’t that what you claim to be…of CEPHAS?

Christ claimed Baptism was necessary - yet Protestants can not agree on this.

I believe you have been corrected from Scripture and you avoided the question of why that verse is interpreted in the Aramaic and the others are not because you can’t give a valid reason. If you say it was because He spoke Aramaic, then you must interpret all of it in Aramaic; there is good reason God gave us the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek and a tiny portion in Aramaic, but not Matthew 16:18.

The hate for John Calvin is so contradictive of God’s second commandment which means the first and greatest is also violated; ever stopped to consider that and by your own religious standard the violation of the greatest is a mortal sin. Do you all even adhere to your own standards? You know what; I never considered that and he is right.

 

[joe370]

Calvin 95, what is your answer to My OP below:

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

Did Paul teach that the bible alone was the Christians final authority via private interpretation and reject the tradition, as well as deference to church authority?

 

[Calvin_95]

Hi, Calvin95,

You may be interested in knowing that Christ did not remove the humaniry or sinfulness of the Apostles. You neglected to mention that Peter also denied Christ - and even after three years’s association, Judas betrayed Him! The incident between the two brothers and the rest of the Apostles is a perfect example that weak and sinful humanity was well represented in the Apostles. Oh, and don’t forget the incredible cowardice of the 10 remaining Apostles - with only John standing near the Cross.

So, what is your point? Were the Apostles human? Yes. What next?

Well, the big ‘what next’ happens on Petecost - and this is when these weak and sinful men are filled with the Holy Spirit! This is why Pentecost is the Birthday of the Catholic Church - where the Apostles went out boldly to proclaim the message of Christ. What we must continue to recall that what took place about 33AD - is still going on today. The leadership of Pope Benedict XVI in the teaching of matters of faith and morals is directed by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Think about it. Christ chose to work with weak and sinful men to bring His message to all. Calvin never could get that straight.

God bless

What you just described is the total sovereignty of God in salvation. All of God, none of man, election, some to heaven and the rest to hell. Some believed at penatcost and some did not; the power was in the message, not the messengers as it has been since pentacost. Thank you very much fo all of that - good work! Praise the Lord!!

 

[Calvin_95]

Hi, Calvin95,

Tell me, how and when did we get the Bible?

And while you are at it, please tell me where the Bible says that it ALONE is the sole authority for God’s Word… ? Hint: 2Tim 3: 16-17 does NOT make such a claim.

God bless

We got the Bible from God; since it is His revelation to man about what He wanted to reveal about himself - do you deny this? Who wrote the Bible; man or God? Both because it is a contradiction where both are true; something man cannot do, but which God can.

It is obvious where you are going with this, but in a like manner you would have to show from Scripture first the mention of the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church as we know and understand it; so you are going down a path you cannot defend.

However we can look at what Scripture says about itself. It is enough to bring men to salvation; I could stop right there because what is the purpose of the Scripture but to point to the savior unto salvation. Does it give guidance in holy conduct? yes Does it have the ability to equip the man of God for every good work? Yes

There is a saying in Scripture that goes something like this; they have a form of godliness, BUT deny the power of it; it being the word of God. Isn’t that exactly what you are doing and the direction you have headed? Only you can answer that from all appearances the answer is yes.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; 8 the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9 the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward

What is the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandments and the ordinances all referring to? The Word of God, the Scriptures. What does it have the power to do? revive the soul, making wise the simple, makes the heart rejoice, enlightens the eyes, are righteous and endures forever. you all Scripture is God-breathed and it does not say that any of man’s traditions are - have you ever thought or considered that. If you want more detail the long version and more comprehensive description can be found in psalm 119; try reading it over and over till you cry out to heaven and rejoice!