But you keep on missing verse 14:
So zach you don’t believe that there will be or was after 100AD any more prophets? Why on earth would the Holy Spirit give the gift of prophecy?
Unbelievable! I cannot believe how many have been telling him the same thing over and over and over and over. No where does 2 Tim 3:15 state **ONLY scriptures **are able to make us wise unto salvation. Dear Lord open up his heart!
pablope you made this mistake once before and I corrected you. Now you are posting the same mistake. I’m beginning to think that it is intentional. 2Yim3 14 does not say “from whom you have learned them” It says "14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing **of whom thou hast learned them; ** This says of whom thou hast learned them.
Its good to stand up for what you believe in.
Key words: HE THINKS he is right. I have news for Richard,he is DEAD wrong and no amount of posts or discussions on his behalf will change the facts of history. It is called denial in the most obvious way. Plain and simple.
That is what I said. He thinks he is right. He is right to himself.
I totally understand you,but get Richard to understand? That is the issue,his deep denial of facts.
He thinks hes right. He thinks he is helping you by informing you of whatever he thinks.
I admire his efforts,but it is not the first time nor the last I have hear this type of argument from Sola Scriptura advocates. Richard may turn blue in the face and write a million page book on what he thinks is right,but facts are facts and he will not change them.
I agree with your points to some degree, Nicea, but what you may not be recognizing is that Sola Scriptura advocates are people too. God loves them just as much as He loves you. Let’s try to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. I’m sure you have been trying. Some posts I have read in this thread from fellow Catholics have seemed to be less than charitable, occasionally throwing in a spirit of sarcasm or cynicism, and even judgmentalism. Not saying you per se. But some have. Go back and look.
I have definitely meant some cocky and rude people on this site that claim they were Christians. Being straight forward, is one thing, but rude and cocky are another.I agree with your points to some degree, Nicea, but what you may not be recognizing is that Sola Scriptura advocates are people too. God loves them just as much as He loves you. Let’s try to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. I’m sure you have been trying. Some posts I have read in this thread from fellow Catholics have seemed to be less than charitable, occasionally throwing in a spirit of sarcasm or cynicism. Not saying you per se. But some have. Go back and look.
It’s easy to allow ***pride ***to drive you when the other guy does the same. It’s much more difficult to allow humility to drive you, in spite of the other guy’s prideful attitude. Just as it’s easy to win an argument, and lose a soul. Just some food for thought.
1rst Timothy 3:15. interesting Richard. you admit, it is one of the functions of GODS CHURCH is to uphold the Word of God. ok then does it not stand to reason, that no scripture is of private interpretation, and if we attempt such, we can lead ourselves into grave error? is it not also plausible, that the scripture being talked about here, is not the N.T., (because it did not exist yet) but the O.T.? so since all the information needed for salvation, is found in the scriptures alone, then you do not need a N.T. when the apostles were refering to the scriptures, they were refering to the law and the prophets. trust me. timothy, did not sit down and study the book of revelation. when the eunic met phillip, was he studying the gospel of john? no. he orally had to be taught what the prophets meant. phillip orally transmitted the true faith. in conjunction with scripture. phillip could have just said, all you need to know is contained here. just go to verse such and such. he didnt. he explained what these writings meant. and transmitted the Gospel orally. where is baptism found in the O.T.? it is alluded to, but not clear. i.e. moses sprinkling the congregation in blood before they approached the holy mountain. the eunic could have read the scriptures till the cows cam home. but without phillip, transmitting orally, he still would have been in the dark. Peace
I agree with you 100%. I have never meant to insult or question Richard’s love for God. I know he loves God and he is free to believe what he wants. I tried my best to make him understand the historical aspect,but he chooses not to hear it or accept it.Fine with me,but as I said,facts are facts,cannot change them.I agree with your points to some degree, Nicea, but what you may not be recognizing is that Sola Scriptura advocates are people too. God loves them just as much as He loves you. Let’s try to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve. I’m sure you have been trying. Some posts I have read in this thread from fellow Catholics have seemed to be less than charitable, occasionally throwing in a spirit of sarcasm or cynicism, and even judgmentalism. Not saying you per se. But some have. Go back and look.
It’s easy to allow ***pride ***to drive you when the other guy does the same. It’s much more difficult to allow humility to drive you, in spite of the other guy’s prideful attitude. Just as it’s easy to win an argument, and lose a soul. Just some food for thought.
i know you are very intelligent, and well versed in the bible. so maybe you can answer this question. other than moses sprinkling the congregation in blood, and the israelites walking through the dead sea, alluding to baptism. where in the o.t. is baptism clearly taught. apparently, the Lord Jesus Christ thought it was essential, so that all obedience might be fullfilled, and the apostle peter, most certainly believed it to be essential for salvation. and phillip was able to transmit this to the eunich. was this not an oral tradition passed down by the Jews, for converts, that the apostles kept, because it was essential? i cant find a clear reference to the practice of baptism in the law, the prophets, or the deautracannonicals. thx for your help my brother. Peace The prophets are in the bible right? and altho Timothy had to be taught orally, he was being taught the message that would later be written down in the scriptures. I’m more than willing to admit that the apostles taught and preached orally. What I am not willing to admit is that they taught and preached anything other than the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.1rst Timothy 3:15. interesting Richard. you admit, it is one of the functions of GODS CHURCH is to uphold the Word of God. ok then does it not stand to reason, that no scripture is of private interpretation, and if we attempt such, we can lead ourselves into grave error? is it not also plausible, that the scripture being talked about here, is not the N.T., (because it did not exist yet) but the O.T.? so since all the information needed for salvation, is found in the scriptures alone, then you do not need a N.T. when the apostles were refering to the scriptures, they were refering to the law and the prophets. trust me. timothy, did not sit down and study the book of revelation. when the eunic met phillip, was he studying the gospel of john? no. he orally had to be taught what the prophets meant. phillip orally transmitted the true faith. in conjunction with scripture. phillip could have just said, all you need to know is contained here. just go to verse such and such. he didnt. he explained what these writings meant. and transmitted the Gospel orally. where is baptism found in the O.T.? it is alluded to, but not clear. i.e. moses sprinkling the congregation in blood before they approached the holy mountain. the eunic could have read the scriptures till the cows cam home. but without phillip, transmitting orally, he still would have been in the dark. Peace
I beg your pardon, Richard, I have not posted on this thread lately and have not received this post you are talking about.