Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[jcrichton]

If one is strong in their faith, then they don’t worry about what anybody else is “not” doing or what they “are” doing.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…this too is the problem with “Bible study…”

…so far I’ve not come in contact with anyone who truly just studies the Bible for the sake of deepening the understanding… I am very patient (even with the Jehovah Witnesses) but it comes a time when the Catholic Doctrine emerges and they stop focusing on the Holy Scriptures and turn the exchange to their pet project of “converting/teaching” me about how wrong the Catholic Church is and how important it is for me to leave their “error.”

Only the Lord knows why these things happen the way that they do.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Then they put them back in stating that while they aren’t the inspired word of God, their worthy of reading.

Well, if they aren’t the inspired word of God,
then aren’t they guilty of adding books to The Bible
(which is only supposed to be The Word of God)?

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…ah… but if you say that they are not canonical or if you segregate them under terms like “deuterocanonicals” or “apocrypha,” you cannot be charged with removing or adding!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…ah… but if you say that they are not canonical or if you segregate them under terms like “deuterocanonicals” or “apocrypha,” you cannot be charged with removing or adding!

Maran atha!

Angel***

Semantics.

The fact is, The Word of God should only include the WORDS of God.

Reference sections that help one better understand Scripture are ok, but to have complete “books” in there that they believe are “not” The Word of God to me is sacreligious.

If their “not” the Words of God and they created a new bible excluding them and basing their dissent from The Church based on this very action, then what does it say about them?

Aren’t they being hypocrites for criticizing The Church for supposedly having “added” these books then creating a bible of their own without these books, then, adding them back in themselves?

Simple question…(which has never been answered);

Has there ever existed a Christian Bible before the 16th century that didn’t have 73 Books?

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…this too is the problem with “Bible study…”

…so far I’ve not come in contact with anyone who truly just studies the Bible for the sake of deepening the understanding… I am very patient (even with the Jehovah Witnesses) but it comes a time when the Catholic Doctrine emerges and they stop focusing on the Holy Scriptures and turn the exchange to their pet project of “converting/teaching” me about how wrong the Catholic Church is and how important it is for me to leave their “error.”

Only the Lord knows why these things happen the way that they do.

Maran atha!

Angel***

I’ve tried bible study with NCC’s, but they stick to very limited scriptures and they just love to take a fragment of a verse (not even a complete sentence) and base a complete doctrine on it.

They never want to read Timothy or Titus or James (I wonder why?).

Luke 1? Out of the question.

They don’t seek the truth, but comfort.

The NCC’s (non-Catholic Christians) who I have studied with who DID go further into the scriptures with me have had their eyes opened. I’m not saying that they converted or anything, but let’s just say that they no longer say that what Catholics do is “not” scriptural. I believe that these NCC’s could still remain Non-Catholic Christians without feeling that they are “protesting” The Church, and that to me is worth so much more in life…a true common union in Christ even if we’re under different roofs. Amen.

I dont’ want to convert NCC’s or to correct them, but if they ask me and given the opportunity, I will present them with the whole Gospel. And once that’s done, only their hearts stand in the way of them and the truth. Nothing I could say could do a better job than the Word of God itself.

It doesn’t need to be explained, just presented in it’s entirety.

 

[jcrichton]

Aren’t they being hypocrites for criticizing The Church for supposedly having “added” these books then creating a bible of their own without these books, then, adding them back in themselves?

Simple question…(which has never been answered);

Has there ever existed a Christian Bible before the 16th century that didn’t have 73 Books?

***Hi, 2ndGen!

This is another issue they either refuse to engage (visit) or contort definitions to render whatever they desire.

Bible Canon, when?: 4th Century.

Number of Books in the compilation?: 73.

Jewish Sacred Writings (Old Testament)?: Alexandrian (Greek) or Hebrew?

Greek: that which was used by the Church: 46 Old Testament Books.
Hebrew: that which was compile to refute Christ: I do not know the number of books but I reason that it was 39 (66 minus 27).

Number of Books in the Bible prior to the “reformation?”: 73.

Number of Books in the Bible used/preferred by non-Catholic Christians during/after the reformation?: Varied: 66 or less to 73–depending upon the branch of the protestant movement (of course, many non-Catholic Christians believe that they were the ones who Canonized the Bible in the 16th Century and that Catholics sought to impose Church Doctrine on them by inserting another 7 books into their Canon. :bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Luke 1? Out of the question.

…only their hearts stand in the way of them and the truth. Nothing I could say could do a better job than the Word of God itself.

It doesn’t need to be explained, just presented in it’s entirety.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

I concur!

Too many times people take things personally because they think that it is their job to convert others. Didn’t Jesus tell us that one sows while another gathers? …and how does that Old Testament passage goes?.. the sentinel is responsible only for sounding the alarm not for forcing the poeple to take action… (Ezekiel 33).

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

Canon. :bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel***

If I want to shut them down, I ask them to produce one reference to a Bible that existed prior to the 16th Century that had only 66(6) books.

Know what I hear after that?

Crickets chirping.

They say we added books to The Bible,
yet, no Christian Bible ever existed without 73 books “before” the 16th Century.

 

[flewen]

I have found a website regarding this proposition

matt1618.freeyellow.com/soladeb.html

 

[jcrichton]

They say we added books to The Bible,
yet, no Christian Bible ever existed without 73 books “before” the 16th Century.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…and while they continue the only-sixty-six-books argument they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit who entrusted Luther to remove and change Scriptural text–though hundreds of years earlier He demanded that not even a letter be added or removed from the Sacred Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…and while they continue the only-sixty-six-books argument they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit who entrusted Luther to remove and change Scriptural text–though hundreds of years earlier He demanded that not even a letter be added or removed from the Sacred Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel***

It boggles me.

I don’t understand how a Christian could be a non-Catholic Christian knowing this.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the overwhelming amount of Protestants don’t care how we got The Bible and they worship in earnest.

But for the anti-Catholics, it must be sad to be them.

Think about it, they have to continually move from church to church because they continually attempt to reside in churches with sand foundations.

I’ll stay on the House built upon rock!

Once I re-entered this House, I was able to stablize my faith, without one doubt.

 

[jcrichton]

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the overwhelming amount of Protestants don’t care how we got The Bible and they worship in earnest.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

I too believe this to be true. I think that their problem arises when they forget the most basic Command: (paraphrased) If you love one another the world will know you are my disciples.

…if we (Catholic and non-Catholics) ran with Paul’s definition of love (1 Corinthians 13:1-10); there would not be so much as a speedbump between us since “Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth.” (verse 6)

But ego cuts in and rather than seeking unity with the only Church which has Apostolic succession they seek to augment the schism that separates us.

But for the anti-Catholics, it must be sad to be them.

Think about it, they have to continually move from church to church because they continually attempt to reside in churches with sand foundations.

I’ll stay on the House built upon rock!

Once I re-entered this House, I was able to stablize my faith, without one doubt.

---

…as I was reading this portion of your post Jesus’ parable was running simultaneously… you know the one about the house built on rock and the one built on sand… I never put it together:

The Rock building His House on the rock and the seekers of the Rock rejecting the House built on the rock over their own houses built on sand… how cool is that? Were you making that conscious connection or did it just happened as you wrote down your thoughts?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

I too believe this to be true. I think that their problem arises when they forget the most basic Command: (paraphrased) If you love one another the world will know you are my disciples.

…if we (Catholic and non-Catholics) ran with Paul’s definition of love (1 Corinthians 13:1-10); there would not be so much as a speedbump between us since “Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth.” (verse 6)

But ego cuts in and rather than seeking unity with the only Church which has Apostolic succession they seek to augment the schism that separates us.

…as I was reading this portion of your post Jesus’ parable was running simultaneously… you know the one about the house built on rock and the one built on sand… I never put it together:

The Rock building His House on the rock and the seekers of the Rock rejecting the House built on the rock over their own houses built on sand… how cool is that? Were you making that conscious connection or did it just happened as you wrote down your thoughts?

Maran atha!

Angel***

Of course I was thinking of The Scripture. As soon as I read the Scripture, I saw the differences of the Church built on Peter and those built after that.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208568

 

[jcrichton]

Of course I was thinking of The Scripture. As soon as I read the Scripture, I saw the differences of the Church built on Peter and those built after that.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208568

***Hi, 2ndGen!

Thanks for the link… just read it…

…though that particular passage of Scriptures was known to me, I have always associated it with Christ only… till I read your post I did not make the connection with the non-Catholic Christians… as I was reading your post the passage just came to view and I thought, "Wow, how cool is that?.. Jesus is warning us about not leaving His Church way back when… and how cool too that though I’ve read the passage several times over I did not see this aspect of it till just now!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

Thanks for the link… just read it…

…though that particular passage of Scriptures was known to me, I have always associated it with Christ only… till I read your post I did not make the connection with the non-Catholic Christians… as I was reading your post the passage just came to view and I thought, "Wow, how cool is that?.. Jesus is warning us about not leaving His Church way back when… and how cool too that though I’ve read the passage several times over I did not see this aspect of it till just now!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

I’m the same way. I could read a Scripture over and over, but not see anything special about it. Then, out of nowhere, I see something either by someone revealing something to me or by God revealing it to me.

I believe that God purposely wanted the Scripture to be vague so that whoever truly wanted to know His Word would have to be in the right mindset to receive His message. I only see these hidden meanings when I read the passages with a pure heart and intent.

He reveals His Word only to the spiritually poor and meek of heart.

I can’t say that I’m like that all the time, but I’m working on me.

 

[jcrichton]

I believe that God purposely wanted the Scripture to be vague so that whoever truly wanted to know His Word would have to be in the right mindset to receive His message. I only see these hidden meanings when I read the passages with a pure heart and intent.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

I think this is also the reason why true meaning escapes when we become so obstinate was to dissect the Holy Scriptures to find “our” particular meaning or when we want to club someone over the head with them as to instill our brand of enlightenment!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

I think this is also the reason why true meaning escapes when we become so obstinate was to dissect the Holy Scriptures to find “our” particular meaning or when we want to club someone over the head with them as to instill our brand of enlightenment!

Maran atha!

Angel***

We’ve been criticized by anti-Catholics for not being “spiritual” enough, but then they criticize us for being too religious?

What da’ Heaven?

We can’t pick and choose what we believe…we have to believe all of it. Every letter as written.

 

[Harsalter]

“Proof that sola scriptura is not true”

Wouldn’t be much simpler to note that while there were Christians in the 1st century there wasn’t a Bible until the 4th?

Even the earliest component parts of the NT were written down mid to late 1st century. So what did those first Christian do? It couldn’t have been Bible study.

Now you went and hurt the feelings of all those baptists and evangelicals who think Jesus had a printing press and printed a million or so KJV of the Bible.

Yea, the first few hundred years after Christ the Church used ‘Sacred Tradition’, until the New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics and Catholic Bishops put together the Bible as we know it today. But even after the Bible was in existence, hardly anyone could afford a personal copy until a millennium later.

Guess that’s why there were no “Bible Churches” around back then.

 

[2ndGen]

Now you went and hurt the feelings of all those baptists and evangelicals who think Jesus had a printing press and printed a million or so KJV of the Bible.

Yea, the first few hundred years after Christ the Church used ‘Sacred Tradition’, until the New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics and Catholic Bishops put together the Bible as we know it today. But even after the Bible was in existence, hardly anyone could afford a personal copy until a millennium later.

Guess that’s why there were no “Bible Churches” around back then.

Before any one could afford it,
they had to learn how to actually read first.
Most people couldn’t read and had to have The Bible read to them and explained to them.

Thank God for Gutenberg, hey?

 

[justasking4]

If I want to shut them down, I ask them to produce one reference to a Bible that existed prior to the 16th Century that had only 66(6) books.

Know what I hear after that?

Crickets chirping.

They say we added books to The Bible,
yet, no Christian Bible ever existed without 73 books “before” the 16th Century.

Isn’t it true though that the “extra books” in the catholic bible were of a secondary canon and was not totally accepted as being fully inspired-inerrant?

 

[Harsalter]

Isn’t it true though that the “extra books” in the catholic bible were of a secondary canon and was not totally accepted as being fully inspired-inerrant?

The 7 books you speak of were used in the times of Christ by Christ and the original Apostles. Orthodox Jews took them out after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD only because of their Greek origins, no other reasons.

If they were good enough for Christ and the original Apostles, they they should be good enough for everyone else. But Protestants aren’t even satisfied with the Church that Christ instituted, so of course they had to make changes to the Bible.

The original KJV of the Bible had them, did you protestants realize that?