Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[cides23]

The Triune nature of God is explicit in Scriptures.

The Father is God (Phil. 1:2), Jesus is God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)

There is Only One God
ISAIAH
43:10 …Before me there was no God, and after me there will be none
Jesus is the One God
JOHN
10:33 The Jews answered him, “…you, although being a man, make yourself God.
The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God.

Only one Savior who is the one true God
ISAIAH 43:11 I am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior.
Only one Savior who is Jesus
LUKE 2:11 because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord,…

Only serve the one true God
Luke 4:8 You shall worship the Lord Your God and serve Him only
We serve Jesus
Col 3:24 it is the Lord Christ whom you serve

Only worship the one true God
EXODUS 20:5….because I, YHWH, your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, …
Worship Jesus
MATTHEW
28:17 When they saw him (Jesus) they worshipped him;

Every Knee will bow to God
ISAIAH
45:23 ….that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess…
Every Knee will bow to Jesus
PHIL
2:10-11 …that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,…

God is the Creator of all things
ISAIAH 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth and my right hand spread out the heavens;
Jesus is the creator of all things
JOHN 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

God is the source of life
PSALMS 36:9 For by you is the source of life.
Jesus is the source of life
John 5:21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.

WHO IS THE FIRST AND LAST?
GOD
ISAIAH44:6 This is what YHWH has said, … “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”
JESUS
REVELATION
1:17-18 ….I am the first and the Last, ….and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever,… Obviously, Jesus is the one who became dead but lives forever.

Ex. 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

etc., etc., etc.,…

These seem clear to me.

You have not responded to the Tradition of Scripture. With out the church guided by the Holy Spirit we have the 27 New Testament book, no more no less. With outh the CHurch where in the bible that say the New Testament scripture will be these 27 books?

Please you have not answer this one yet.

 

[Arandur]

Ginger, I think we crossed posts. I address your “Trinity” rebuttal. It supports the Catholic position.

It comes down to this:

These seem clear to me.

Well, those things certainly didn’t “seem clear” to many other people, either now or in the time of the early Church. That’s indisputable. How do you know whether you’re on the right side of the interpretation?

 

[estesbob]

Of course their are no Catholics who would ever approve abortion or homosexuality. The church is absolute authority and they all followed what the Pope has declared.

Father Balasuriya was excommunicated but later was reunited to the Church without retracting his beliefs or denouncing the volume he wrote entitled ‘‘Mary and Human Liberation,’’

How can he be reunited with the Church if he is still a heretic?
Catholics have the same problems with this as Protestants.

Why should this surprise us? The Bible warns us they will do just that.

“False prophets who come in sheep’s clothing” This is not people who opening deny God or curse the church. “Sheep’s clothing” indicates they are pretending to be one of you. For Catholics, this would be someone who poses as a Catholic.

Are you unaware there are priests spreading false testimony in Catholic Churches, too?
If that particular parish all likes hearing certain lies, should I hold it against the entire Catholic Church?

But even if all Catholics agreed explicitly, that is no reason for me to believe things that are taught contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Afterall, JW’s are all consistent in their heresy. That stands as proof , believing something doesn’t make it true, not even if a great number of people agree to believe it.

Ginger

Of course they are Catholics ,including priests. who are teaching things contrary to Catholic teaching. BUT a Catholic can easily see though their falsehoods by consulting the Cathecism.

The fact that Protestant denominations may be consistent in their heresies is irelevant as they can not back their heresies up with anything other than their personal interpreation of Sctipture.

The Church can trace it Doctrines back to the Apostles. What the Church teaches was what nearly all Christians accpeted for the first 1,500 years after the ressurection of Chirst.

Again we need to look at the three pronged test for determining the truth;

is it supported by scripture?
is it supported by sacred tradition?
is it supported by the consisten teachings of the magestrium?

Protestants can ., at the most, pass only the first test and then ONLY if they reject the common interpretation of Scriputre that was taught for the first 1,500 years of Chrsitianity.

To accept ANY protestant doctrine contrary to the teachings of the Church one must beleive:

-That the gates of hell did prevailed aginast the Church for 1,500 years

-That salavation is obtained by understanding a book that was not available for the first 400 years of Chrisitnaity and not readily avaialble for the masses for the first 1450 of Christianity

-That their personal interpreation of scripture is correct in spite of the multitude of denominations that say they got it wrong.

Modern Protetanism is a mixture of predestination and gnosticism. Salvation though knowledge of a book, the truth found in this book revealed to a select few. That is the only way you can explain the multitude of different , often contradictory vesions of what it takes to gain heaven,

 

[onenow1]

Hi.All
Personal Opinions Have no bearing whatsoever On Doctrinal Truth. St. Peter once again leads the way with revelation from God.

“Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a persons status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” Mark 12:14

"They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status.”"Matthew 22:16

"They posed this question to him, “Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.”"Luke 20:21

Jesus did not accept the opinions of men, as shown in Matthew 16:13-17:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesar ea Philip pi he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

His disciples mostly expressed personal opinions, which meant little to Jesus.
The one exception was Simon Peter, the only one who answered with authoritative doctrinal truth.

Much to be discerned here about St. Peter.

Just my 2cents worth, Peace and God Bless All, onenow1 Lunch Time

 

[po18guy]

SS is not the topic of this thread, but I would like to point out I agree the Catholic definition of SS is heretical.

You err here. the term heresy applies only to that which is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Catholics adhere to a definition of SF that means works are irrelevant in Christian living. Protestant agree that is a false doctrine.

Where on earth did you get this? Not true.

Luther said this about faith: "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! "

Please provide documented proof that Luther ever said this. It sounds very much like the letter of James which he wanted to throw out.

 

[BibleAnswer]

None of your Scripture verses say what you think they do–namely, that Scripture is the ONLY authority. “Precepts” can come from other sources, and “teachings” clearly have. 2 Timothy 3, for instance, earlier in the same passage, has Paul FIRST instructing that people keep to HIS TEACHING. He had teaching authority, as a specially-ordained part of the Church. What do you think he did in his personal visits? Just read his writings that became Scripture? No, there was very obviously more to it. Writings were only a part. And of course we even have writings as scripture that are explicitly not directly from God, but Paul’s own advice. So he’s telling people that it is essential to follow his teachings not contained in writing, while even writing some things that he says need not be followed absolutely.

Again, you have refused to comment on any of the instances of Scripture that point to Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. You choose to willfully reject those Scriptures that clearly refer you to tradition and the teaching authority of the Church, so how can we even believe that you accept Scripture wholly, rather than just picking and choosing what fits your worldview, your own preferences?

Wow, it is difficult to grasp basic principals isn’t it. Paul was teahing from SCRIPTURE. he was teaching from what was considered the bible. Moses and the prophets, would be the Old Testament. Paul didn’t teach his teachings, Paul taught HIS teachings. That would be Gods.

Catholics love to twist the same verse to suit the church desire. Why would Paul be teaching something from his own mind, he is not the way to salvation.

Secondly, what happened to Paul once he died. Did his special knowledge derived from the same scripture you and I can read, magically transport in the ether from pope to pope. No. Paul was emphasizing that his teachings, were HIS teachings. Dont twist the words around now, please

You need to rectify this yourself before you can read a verse and understand it.

All of Psalms 119 from 1-174 is talking about the instruction of Scripture, Doctrine, and Precepts.

Also, if you choose to define certain words inacurractely because your pride only allows you to argue and not listen, then this still does not change the fact that scripture, doctrine and precepts all refer to the Word of God.

Your argument is Null.

 

[BibleAnswer]

The trinity is not a Biblical word, but it means three. the bible is very mysterious about that. The bible has a lot to say about God, but we cannot understand it all.

God insists there is one God, and yet, He clearly reveals Himself as three distinct person, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

God says of the Lord Jesus in

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God head bodily.

Jesus says of Himself in John 10:30: I am my Father are one.

He says in John 14:9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Philippians 2:5,8 : Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

In order to be Messiah, Christ emptied Himself of His glory. He had to take on a human nature and humiliate Himself, and nothing could be worse than identifying Himself with rebellious, sinful man. He had to be laden with the sins of these He came to save. God says in

Galations 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth of a tree.

christ became a curse for us. God the Father was not cursed, and therefor, in that sense, Christ became lower than the Father. We read in

john 17:5 :And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the word was.

Jesus said that my Father is greater that I, nevertheless, from eternity past and eternity future, the Lord Jesus Christ is as glorious as the God the Father

 

[davidv]

Wow, it is difficult to grasp basic principals isn’t it. Paul was teahing from SCRIPTURE. he was teaching from what was considered the bible. Moses and the prophets, would be the Old Testament. Paul didn’t teach his teachings, Paul taught HIS teachings. That would be Gods.

Catholics love to twist the same verse to suit the church desire. Why would Paul be teaching something from his own mind, he is not the way to salvation.

Secondly, what happened to Paul once he died. Did his special knowledge derived from the same scripture you and I can read, magically transport in the ether from pope to pope. No. Paul was emphasizing that his teachings, were HIS teachings. Dont twist the words around now, please

You need to rectify this yourself before you can read a verse and understand it.

All of Psalms 119 from 1-174 is talking about the instruction of Scripture, Doctrine, and Precepts.

Also, if you choose to define certain words inacurractely because your pride only allows you to argue and not listen, then this still does not change the fact that scripture, doctrine and precepts all refer to the Word of God.

Your argument is Null.

All this post proves to me is that you will not accept anything that you don’t agree with because you believe you are the only one who has the truth. I reject this claim based on the content and tone of your posts, particulary the uncharitableness expressed in this last sentence.

 

[BibleAnswer]

All this post proves to me is that you will not accept anything that you don’t agree with because you believe you are the only one who has the truth. I reject this claim based on the content and tone of your posts, particulary the uncharitableness expressed in this last sentence.

Show some grace and humility when speaking with people on the forum, instead of immediately being rude from the get go.

I appoligize for my tone. However there is a point my friend. it is a two way street after all

 

[onenow1]

Catholics love to twist the same verse to suit the church desire. Why would Paul be teaching something from his own mind, he is not the way to salvation.

From: onenow1. Acts 20: 35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak," REMEMBERING THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"

These words of Paul it is more blessed to give then to receive is, nowhere to be found in sacred scripture BA. I believe he is quoting from Greek philosophy.

Peace,onenow1

 

[BibleAnswer]

BibleAnswer;5506962:

Catholics love to twist the same verse to suit the church desire. Why would Paul be teaching something from his own mind, he is not the way to salvation.

From: onenow1. Acts 20: 35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak," REMEMBERING THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"

These words of Paul it is more blessed to give then to receive is, nowhere to be found in sacred scripture BA. I believe he is quoting from Greek philosophy.

Peace,onenow1

interesting, ill check this out. Thanks!!

 

[Ginger2]

"28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [Acts 15:28]

You really should not try to argue points from memory, as you have accidentally twisted the meaning of this one verse.

Back up a little starting with verse
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.…
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

The Apostles were not making a decision on their own but determined that since God gave the Holy Spirit to the gentiles without circumcision, they had no right to override God’s decision and impose circumcision as mandatory.

12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

They did not consult scripture but rather claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

Once again you are mistaken. They most certainly did consult Scripture to discern God’s will:

13
After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
14
Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name
15
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

They used Scripture to verify their decision was correct.

Besides, the Judaizers were legalists who were holding to the law of Moses. They would not have accepted a new “Tradition”, but they had to accept the decision of the council when it was shown it agreed with the law.

 

[Ginger2]

Now maybe you can show us how, in light of 2 Thess 2:15 you can claim sola scriptura is a doctrine taught by either scripture or Jesus.

I didn’t realize we were discussing Sola Scriptura, but here goes…

The early Christians had Jesus, then the eyewitnesses (ie the Apostles) then the complete Scriptures, which were finished before the close of the first century.

Since you obviously can’t name one thing Jesus said or did that is not recorded in Scripture, I’ll ask if you Can you name one dogmatic teaching Paul or the other Apostles handed down that is not found in the Holy Scriptures?

Please cite legitimate writings of church fathers giving exact quotes from one of the Apostles that they heard with their own ears that is not found in Scriptures.

Ginger

 

[inkaneer]

Ginger wrote the following:

"Please, Name one thing Tradition teaches Jesus said or did that is not recorded in scripture.

Just one church father who quoted Jesus saying something that is not already written in the Scriptures."

I posted before that this is not what Tradition is. Tradition is more correctly called Apostolic Tradition. It is the teaching of the Apostles that comes to us in two forms, the written and the oral. This is what Paul was referring to in 2 Thess 2:15 when he commanded the Thessalonians to hold onto the traditions they received either by word of mouth or by letter.

Ginger has apparently ignored my earlier post in which I posted several instances where the Apostles taught something that was not taught by Jesus or taught in the scriptures alone. I mentioned the ordination of deacons and priests as well as the naming of successors to the Apost and the ordination of bishops. I also showed where the Apostles claimed they had a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and the authority to ignore the OT command to circumcize new convertsas the Judacizers [the sola scripturists of their day] insisted. To this list I can add the practice of Christian worship on the first day f the week rather than the Sabbath.

Now as far as the Church fathers are concerned they also attributed some teachings to the Apostles that neither Jesus nor the scriptures mention. For instance Origen wrote:

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Origen would also write regarding Apostolic tradition:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

And Augustine would write on the subject of infant baptism:

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

Again He wrote:

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine would also write:

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

And the Great Basil would nail it:

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

 

[BibleAnswer]

Ginger,

I am very impressed with your understanding of the word.

I am just curious to hear what you have to say on this study on the rich man and Lazarus.

The Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16

The parable describes two individuals. The rich man has all of the joys and comforts this present world can bring, but he is not saved. The poor man, Lazarus, has none of the good things of this world, but he is a saved man. Finally, both men die. The rich man is buried, and Lazarus is carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22). To be in the bosom of Abraham is a picture of being in the highest blessing in the presence of God. To be buried is to be placed in the grave. The parable then continues with a conversation between the dead rich man and Abraham (GOD), who is in heaven. Remember, “grave” and “death” is the same thing as hell. Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that the rich man was in hell (Luke 16:23)

But you must understand, that lifting up his eyes and seeing Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, and speaking to Abraham, are all hypothetical. That is, God has set up a completely imaginary tableau, or a three dimensional picture, or in other words a parable, in order to convey spiritual truth. These truths include important doctrines such as the following.
#1 The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water to cool his tongue (Luke 16:24). There is NO MERCY or GRACE to those who have died unsaved.
#2 There is a great gulf between heaven and hell. Heaven is eternal life. Hell is death forevermore. Never, never will those who are dead ever come to life again.
#3 The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers because he thought that such a miracle will cause them to become believers. The truth is, they have Moses and the prophets, the Old Testament. If they will not believe the Bible, then they will not believe even if they witness some great miracle.
#4 The rich man is tormented in this flame. The Greek word that is translated “tormented” is used only in verse 24, in verse 25 (“thou art tormented”), in Luke 2:48, and in Acts 20:38. The “flame” emphasizes the rich man is being punished by God, who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). The word “torment,” which is defined by its usage in Acts 20:38 and Luke 2:48, indicates the nature and character of the torment he is experiencing. Now we will look carefully at this word and its usage in these two verses.
Acts 20:38: Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.
Luke 2:48: And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

In both of these verses, the word that is translated as “tormented” in Luke 16 is translated as “sorrowing.” This sorrowing has nothing to do with physical pain. It is the sorrow of not seeing a loved one again. The rich man was in torment because he was sorrowing that he could never again have the joys and comforts he had experienced in his life on earth. While Lazarus was safe and secure with the greatest blessings forevermore.

In other words, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us nothing at all about eternal pain in a place called hell. It is teaching us about the penalty of losing all the blessings of this life, and gaining none of the blessings of eternal life.

 

[cides23]

I didn’t realize we were discussing Sola Scriptura, but here goes…

The early Christians had Jesus, then the eyewitnesses (ie the Apostles) then the complete Scriptures, which were finished before the close of the first century.

Since you obviously can’t name one thing Jesus said or did that is not recorded in Scripture, I’ll ask if you Can you name one dogmatic teaching Paul or the other Apostles handed down that is not found in the Holy Scriptures?

Please cite legitimate writings of church fathers giving exact quotes from one of the Apostles that they heard with their own ears that is not found in Scriptures.

Ginger

You have not yet answer the questiong about the NT writings… there were not a complete canon to the NT, the early christians used the 27 as well as other writings from the early Christians…

So you asked for a Tradition that was not found in Scripture is the NT writings that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit declared as the inspired Word, no more no less…

to say that after John’s Rev all the Christians new they had the complete NT would be wrong. Where in the NT does it state the NT is the 27 books no more no less unless you have the authortative Church guided by the Holy SPirit to decide.

You have not yet answer this

 

[wmscott]

You have not yet answer the questiong about the NT writings… there were not a complete canon to the NT, the early christians used the 27 as well as other writings from the early Christians…

So you asked for a Tradition that was not found in Scripture is the NT writings that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit declared as the inspired Word, no more no less…

to say that after John’s Rev all the Christians new they had the complete NT would be wrong. Where in the NT does it state the NT is the 27 books no more no less unless you have the authortative Church guided by the Holy SPirit to decide.

You have not yet answer this

Fact is there has been some very informative post here that deals with Sacred Tradition, and all we get is either ignored, or an attempt at an end run to skirt the issues.

 

[inkaneer]

nd i

 

[inkaneer]

I didn’t realize we were discussing Sola Scriptura, but here goes…

The early Christians had Jesus, then the eyewitnesses (ie the Apostles) then the complete Scriptures, which were finished before the close of the first century.

Since you obviously can’t name one thing Jesus said or did that is not recorded in Scripture, I’ll ask if you Can you name one dogmatic teaching Paul or the other Apostles handed down that is not found in the Holy Scriptures?

Please cite legitimate writings of church fathers giving exact quotes from one of the Apostles that they heard with their own ears that is not found in Scriptures.

Ginger

REPLY: See my other post on the early church Fathers. Now, you say you want “legitimate writings of church fathers giving exact quotes from one of the Apostles that they heard with their own ears that is not found in Scriptures”. My response to you is if God didn’t preserve any of the original New Testament writings then by what right do you impose on me a demand that even God did not see fit to do?

Now back to sola scriptura.and 2 Thess 2:15. If we claim [and all christians do] that God is immutable. That He is unchanging or as protestants like to say, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Then it only follows that His word is unchanging also and therefore what Paul penned almost 2,000 years ago is still as inerrant today as the the day he wrote it. Then his command in 2 Thess 2:15 is just as valid today as it was then. But sola scriptura contradicts scripture by denying the Oral Tradition as if everything spoken was eventually written. But nowhere does scripture makes this claim. Sola scriptura is a man made tradition and a tradition of 16th century man at that.

 

[Arandur]

Wow, it is difficult to grasp basic principals isn’t it. Paul was teahing from SCRIPTURE. he was teaching from what was considered the bible. Moses and the prophets, would be the Old Testament. Paul didn’t teach his teachings, Paul taught HIS teachings. That would be Gods.

Oh really? Paul was just teaching the Old Testament? Then why are his writings in the New Testament? Was there anything new or special that happened with Christ that Paul was teaching?

Remember, Paul did not have a NT to teach from. He had authority to teach Christ’s Word that did not rely on ink marks on paper.

Catholics love to twist the same verse to suit the church desire. Why would Paul be teaching something from his own mind, he is not the way to salvation.

What am I twisting? You’re doing twisting here–I never said Paul was teaching something just from his own mind. The Scripture is clear that Paul (as he says himself) and the apostles taught what the Holy Spirit led them to teach.

This is where you err so greatly. You think it is men teaching, that the only interpretation there ever is comes from mere men, and so it makes no matter that you, a mere man, also get in on the game. This could not be further from the truth. GOD teaches. The Spirit teaches through the Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, the Spirit is its soul. When you reject those whom He sent, you reject HIM. In rejecting the apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church you are very clearly rejecting Jesus Christ Himself!

Secondly, what happened to Paul once he died. Did his special knowledge derived from the same scripture you and I can read, magically transport in the ether from pope to pope. No. Paul was emphasizing that his teachings, were HIS teachings. Dont twist the words around now, please

I’m not twisting anything. You’re making a false assumption. I’m not talking about teachings of Paul the man, but teachings of the Spirit of which Paul was just a messenger. Paul is rather explicit in his writings about this–he has a specific passage where he clarified several times that he was speaking in his own voice and not from God, because all the other times he was speaking absolute truth from God.

Also, if you choose to define certain words inacurractely because your pride only allows you to argue and not listen, then this still does not change the fact that scripture, doctrine and precepts all refer to the Word of God.

Your argument is Null.

What am I defining inaccurately?