Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

Pardon my butting in, but I concur that scripture is all you need.

So if that very same Bible states that we are to listen to those that God sent to teach us, then that has to be accepted as well (an issue that wouldn’t affect the stranded islander and wouldn’t need to be applied to him because he wouldn’t have alternative sources of information contradicting the one Bible that he has).

Thank you, and you are by no means butting in.
The general topic of the thread, from which we regularly detour, is regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, and the pre-eminent role of Scriptural authority.
Your contribution is sincerely welcomed.

 

[2ndGen]

You took the bait.
That was a throwaway line to try to get you to acknowledge that debating from generalizations and hypotheses is of little value, because it simply provokes more of the same, which it did in this instance.

That’s kind of odd that you would use that as bait in a pond with no fish.

I never debated that nor have I ever denied it.

Matter of fact, my whole insistance here is that no one can argue from two different sources and that was expressed long before you flung your reel out!

 

[2ndGen]

Thank you, and you are by no means butting in.
The general topic of the thread, from which we regularly detour, is regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, and the pre-eminent role of Scriptural authority.
Your contribution is sincerely welcomed.

 

[2ndGen]

I apologise if my written English fails to convey what it is that I mean or intend, but why do you read into my words things not said?

I did not say, nor imply, that the Apostles were only needed to jumpstart the faith.
How did you read that into what I said?
The context, which I thought I had made clear, was that disciples were needed to communicate the Gospel orally, because there was no other way at the time.
I also said that they were needed for interpretation.
Sorry, but I am having difficulty communicating.

CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, BUT THIS IS YOUR WHOLE PARAGRAPH IN WHICH YOU STATE THAT;

“but the reason has to do with the culture and understanding of the recipients of the time, a factor that does not apply to us removed by some 2000 years.”

AM I WRONG TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT HOW THE WORD WAS SPREAD BACK THEN DOESN’T APPLY TO TODAY?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Regarding Jews, remember, it was sinful for them to fraternize with Gentiles. They kept to themselves. Human Dignity is an evolving concept. Many Jews today eat pork, and intermarriage today is much more common than it was even 100 years ago.\QUOTE]

, His Holiness the Holy Father, is not to be compared with someone like Augustine, who while being an influential writer, had no authority.
One final point.
Either you decided that it was not important, or you simply missed it, but you did not address the issue that while the Papal Bull was issued by one man, the edicts it contained were extended by the following two popes, who obviously agreed with Paul IV. This is evidence of systemic behaviour, not simply “the writings of one man”.
I also do not understand why you consider a Papal Bull relatively unimportant, nor do I understand why you consider a written edict not a teaching.
Do you have children?
Tell them that if you behave badly, don’t take any notice, leading by example has nothing to do with teaching. Also tell them that if you put a list of house rules on the refrigerator, they don’t apply to the youngest becasue he/she can’t read yet, and they don’t apply to anyone else who can’t read them for any reason. And also tell them that just because you as the House Father wrote a list of instructions, that is not to say that they need to be obeyed because they are not laws and not teachings, they are just your opinion and you can be wrong, except of course when you say you are not.
And if they then ask why you wrote the list in the first place, and what they are meant to learn from them, you will of course tell them … what?

P.S. Why can’t I get these quote marks working properly? They appear consistent when I insert them, but do not result in consistent behaviour in the post. Does someone know the correct syntax?

[/QUOTE]

 

[qui_est_ce]

[P.S. Why can’t I get these quote marks working properly? They appear consistent when I insert them, but do not result in consistent behaviour in the post. Does someone know the correct syntax?

Your ending \ quote] slash is backwards, it should be / quote]
[/quote]

 

[WayneTalbot]

AN ENTITY THAT IS WILLING TO PUBLISH A WORK SUCH AS THE SATANIC BIBLE IS CAPABLE OF ANY KIND OF EVIL (INCLUDING ALTERING THE TEXT TO MISREPRESENT THEIR MEANINGS, COINCIDENTALLY SUCH AS THE NIV IS NOTORIOUS FOR).

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3125871:

I wonder how far you are prepared to take this.
If I understand you correctly in my heart.
Can we please stick to facts that we can at least verify to some degree?

I wonder how far you are prepared to take this.
If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that the publisher may deliberately alter the text given to him/her to publish.

=============

IF YOU THINK THAT IT IS BEYOND THE ABILITY OR WILL OF MAN TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER WORDS FROM THE BIBLE, ALLOW ME TO SHOW YOU WHAT MARTIN LUTHER DID WHEN HE ADDED THE WORD “ALONE” TO ROMANS TO CREATE HIS DOCTRINE OF “SOLA FIDE”;

"Romans 3:28 states, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (NKJV).

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek.

Martin Luther reportedly said, “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

(Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority–a concept which this author will name prima Luther."

=============

I DON’T PUT IT PAST ANY MAN TO PURPOSELY DECEIVE CHRISTIANITY. LUTHER DID IT. AND LOOK AT WHAT THAT “BIKE BEING RIDDEN TO THE TEMPLE” WROUGHT?

Do you have evidence for this, or is it just an opinion?

IT IS A FACT THAT MEN LIE AND THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. TAKE THE KJ VERSION. WITH OVER 40 REVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL, WHICH IS THE TRUE VERSION? UNLESS THERE CAN BE 4O VERSIONS AND YET STILL BE ONE KJ VERSION (WHICH LAUNCHES THE QUESTION, IF IT WAS RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, WHY REVISE IT?)

Would you be willing to assert this publicy, and expose yourself to a law suit for libel and slander?

BESIDES THE FACT THAT THIS ISN’T THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION HERE, IF I WENT AFTER EVERY VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT WAS FALSE, I’D HAVE TO TAKE A COLLECTION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN ALL TIME CONSUMING “JOB”.

If not, then I would suggest that you examine your own commitment to truth.

NOW THAT’S EASY, WHEN YOU STICK TO THE HOLY BIBLE AND NOT SOME “VERSION” OF IT THAT WAS BASED ON AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE BIBLE.

SO, PICK A UNIVERSAL BIBLE, AND YOU CAN THEN PRECEED TO SHOW ME WHERE IN THE HOLY BIBLE IT STATES THAT SCRIPTURE ALONE IS TAUGHT.

It is all very well to hold opinions, but they should be based on some proof or evidence, and be supportable - otherwise, keep them to yourself.

IF PROOF WAS NEEDED TO BELIEVE, THEN THERE’D BE NO FAITH. I HAVE ALL THE FAITH IN THE WORLD THAT THOSE WHO PUBLISH THE SATANIC BIBLE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.

AND, THEY PUBLISH AND ANTI-GOSPEL WORK.

NOW, HOW’S ABOUT YOU STOP DEFENDING THE SATANIC BIBLE PUBLISHERS AND YOU BEGIN TO STAY ON TOPIC.



You say that the NIV is notorious for altering text and misrepresenting meaning.
Can you provide evidence for this, or is this just something that “everybody knows”, in effect, nothing but rumour and gossip?

OK, HERE GOES…A PROTESTANT (NOT CATHOLIC) WEBSITE:

av1611.org/niv.html

YOU CAN COMPARE THE LIST OF VERSES THAT THEY GIVE YOU TO AN AUTHENTIC BIBLE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

NOW, CAN WE GET BACK ON TOPIC?

Let me restate this, as I believe it is a serious issue for all people, particularly Christians.

HENCE THE NEED FOR THE MAGISTARIUM. WE NEED SOMEONE OUT THERE LOOKING OUT FOR OUR BEST INTEREST SO THAT WE AREN’T MISLED BY PEOPLE WHO CORRUPT THE BIBLE.

It is not acceptable to impugn the integrity of others without evidence.

IMPUNE THE INTEGRITY OF SOMEONE WHO PUBLISHES THE SATANIC BIBLE? OK, LET ME PROFESS, THEY ARE “HONESTLY” PUBLISHING THE SATANIC BIBLE AND THEY “HONESTLY” PUBLISH A BIBLE THAT IS CONSIDERED A FAULTY WORK! OK?

I accept that evidence can be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but it must at least exist in the first place.

TRY LINES THAT ARE COMPLETELY CHANGED AND DELETED.

Can we please stick to facts that we can at least verify to some degree?

AGAIN, PICK A UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN BIBLE THAT IS BASED ON A PRE-16TH CENTURY CANON AND YOU AND I WILL BE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH A GOOD 75% OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNTIY.

 

[2ndGen]

harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399

Matthew 7:16-20
“You will know them by their fruits.
Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree bears good fruit,
but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

DO YOU CONSIDER THE SATANIC BIBLE A GOOD FRUIT OR A BAD FRUIT AND WHAT DOES THAT MAKE THE TREE THAT PRODUCES IT?

 

[Romulus]

My understanding, and I may well be in error, is that sola scriptura concludes that yes, Scripture is sufficient for understanding for salvation.

Since you believe, “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…And I say again, and I noticed that you have not replied to my post #280… Prove using scripture where it is explicit or implied using deductive reasoning that “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”. You mentioned the GOSPELS is all we need…where is that in the GOSPELS??

if Scripture was all you had, you could learn enough to know what it was that you needed for salvation. Naturally, as Scripture does talk about the Holy Spirit, you would turn to Him.

Are you are talking about 1st John?

1 John: 26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you. 27 And as for you, let the anointing, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

Historically speaking, it is believed that this letter was written to the faithful in Asia Minor. If you read it in full context…these faithful in the letter, already know “the truth”…John says,

*1 John 1: 20 But you have the anointing from the Holy Spirit, and know all things. 21 I have not written to you as to those who do not know the truth. *

So the “concerning them that seduce you” or the “any man” he is talking about are the “anyone who leads you astray from what you know is already TRUE”

So yes…these faithful in Asia Minor learned from the testimony and announcements from the SPIRIT guided apostles…both SPIRIT guided oral traditions and SPIRIT guided written…and they also learned with the guidance of the SPIRIT itself…therefore, no contradictions… So at this point they “know all things” thanks to the SPIRIT…but remember the SPIRIT was working thru the apostles too.

I disagree with you Wayne… If scripture was all we had…the SPIRIT will teach us that we must believe in Jesus to be saved… But what does it mean to believe in Jesus?..it means believing in everything he has established… a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law…which include sacred traditions outside of scripture… So we would have no way of knowing for sure what they are from scripture… If it is not our fault that we only have scripture…maybe God will let it slide…he only knows.

If you were on a desert island, by yourself, and all you had was a copy of the Bible, Catholic or Protestant, and naturally a reputable version as discussed here: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
and had a genuine desire to seek the truth, then Scripture would provide all that you needed to know for salvation.

Again, read above…This is a special scenario you have envisioned here…this case could be a special case God would take into consideration…God may decide to reveal everything…and I mean everything concerning salvation…so the stranded person, who has a genuine desire, would miraculously know about what the scriptures actually mean and the traditions outside of scripture…and be able to worship as God wants him to worship. Can it happened? sure…all things are possible with God…but he has given everyone “freewill”…so it won’t be forced.

But we don’t know what God will decide. Sort of like asking, what happened to the aborted babies? They didn’t have a chance to be baptized, believe in Jesus etc, it is not their fault…did God save them? This stranded person does not have the privilege of also being guided by the Church “Pillar of Truth” to teach/guide him/her if him/her is in error…since the stranded person is fallible…stranded person maybe being taught by the Spirit Of Error.

 

[believer112]

Ok, but that is not the same as a Papal Bull, which is what we were discussing, so your point is … ?

Taking what you have said to be true, what was the point of the Papal Bull under discussion?
Did Pope Paul write it simply for his own edification, or did he intend it for a wider audience?
What did Pope Paul expect to happen when he issued it?
If I take your intent correctly, and I may be misunderstanding, you are proposing that the Papal Bull had no effect?
Have I got that right?
And even were that true, how does that argue against the immorality of the Pope’s action, and how does that argue that an edict issued by the Pope is not a teaching or a law.
If you offer that this Papal Bull was not an edict, what was it, what was the intention of issuing it, what did Pope Paul expect to result from him publishing it, did he expect people to implement it, what was it all about.
So far you have offered explanations of what it was not, but not what it was.

There is no way to know what the motives were of PaulIV. I ask that you do not judge him by today’s standards. This document
could be anything from a draft or an actual letter that he sent out to the dioceses. There is no way to know .
But at the very least examine what the document says , It prohibits certain interactions and transactions between the Jew and the Christians . It does not say it is okay to hate Jews or
to take advantage of them. I see restrictions, you see hate.
But the actual motivation of the Pope is lost in history.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that this was meant for general
publication to the dioceses of Rome. Wouldn’t this have caused
an uproar in the Jewish communities in Rome, I have researched this era and I did find any mention of this
I do not see any Jewish-Christian conflict.
The history in this era is sketchy tosay the least but I do not
find any references that say there was a massive migration or movement of Jews within Rome . Maybe I missed something , but I cannot find any writings that mention any conflicts or wars that were fought between the Jews and Christians because of this bull.
Based on the absence of any discord between any Jews or Christians , I submit that the bull was just a private document written by the Pope and sealed with his bull
I only offer the above as conjecture. The actual answers are lost
to history.

 

[WayneTalbot]

This discussion of Sola Scriptura is split across two posts due to length.

Mythology – Part 1

Another reason people favour a broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura is the Catholic practice of blending mythology with tradition (small ‘t’). The problem is that once started, this blending leads the less discerning to accept the mythology as truth, even though the Church does not claim it to be truth, but the adherents are nonetheless allowed to develop a devotion to events that may never have happened.

What is wrong with that, you may ask? From some perspectives, not much perhaps, but from another, a great deal.

Take for example, the ritual of the Stations of the Cross. It is right that we remember Christ’s passion, persecution, death and resurrection, and meditate on His Sacrifice for us, but I don’t understand why the Catholic Church both introduces and encourages mythology – are the bare facts of Christ’s sacrifice not sufficient to stir our hearts, must we introduce additional layers to the script to supplement our faith?

Look at this quotation from Via Dolorosa, a devotion to be read and contemplated during the Stations of the Cross. It matters not who originally wrote it, there are plenty of other examples that would do just as well, it is an example of how mythology creeps in and is allowed to flourish, nothing more. If there is an “official” Catholic version of the liturgy of this ritual, I am sure we could find similar sentiments.

Station IV – Jesus meets His mother

“Jesus’ path takes Him to a powerful source of His strength to continue. All His life, His mother had taught Him the meaning of the words, “Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord”. Now they must look into each other’s eyes. How pierced-through her heart must be! How pained He must be to see her tears! Now, her grace-filled smile blesses His mission and stirs His heart to its depth. Love and trust in God bind them together.”

Firstly, not one of the Gospels relate Jesus meeting His mother on the way to the Cross, not one. Luke alone mentions the meeting with the “Daughters of Jerusalem”. It is probable that John was with Mary, as we know that they were together during the crucifixion, so why would John not mention Jesus meeting His mother on the way to the Cross? This does not prove that the meeting did not happen, just that if it did happen, it seemed strangely unworthy of mention by any of the Gospel writers, particularly John into whose care Mary was entrusted by Jesus.

What is the source of the assertion, ‘All His life, His mother had taught Him the meaning of the words, “Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord” ‘? Does Scripture support this assertion? If not, and the Church cannot authenticate its provenance, then we cannot know it to be true.

What is the source of the contention, ‘her grace-filled smile blesses His mission’?
This statement cannot be found in Scripture, and I would have difficulty in believing that Mary smiled at all during Jesus’ agony, even in sympathy, encouragement, or support. I am confident that she was a very brave woman, and I can accept as possible that she did in fact smile bravely through her tears, but I suspect it to be unlikely, and more importantly, we do not know it to be true. We do not know if she was even there.

There are passages in Scripture that indicate that Mary did not know nor understand Jesus’ mission. His brother James, for example, had no clue, and did not believe in Jesus until later.

…. continued

 

[WayneTalbot]

… continuing …

Mythology – Part 2

Then we have the emotionally charged image of Mary cradling the dead body of her son at Station XIII – is this intended to increase of worship of God, or the honour of Mary, or perhaps even both.

There is no evidence for the image portrayed in this Station, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. After Jesus entrusted John and Mary to each other, “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27). This could indicate that they left even before Jesus died, but we cannot be certain. Matthew 27:57 tells us that there was some interval between Jesus dying and being taken down from the cross, Joseph departing to obtain permission from Pilate, so it is plausible from these passages that Mary was gone before Jesus was taken down from the cross. If John had meant that he was to look after Mary in the future, he would more likely have used the words “from that day”, but he didn’t, he said from that hour, a common language construct in Scripture that says that the subsequent events happened immediately (or close to).

You may choose to interpret or assume that Mary was there when Jesus was taken down, or even that she was still there when He died, but you cannot know it.

Let me say in passing that I have no problem with the concept of the Stations of the Cross as a way of remembering Jesus’ suffering on our behalf, but I wonder how many Catholics understand the lack of support from either Scripture or Tradition (big ‘T’), given that the practice of widespread reading the Bible is only recent in Catholicism. St Sylvia (c 380) does not mention the practice in her “Peregrinatio ad loca sancta", although she describes minutely every other religious exercise that she saw practised; the practice of an indulgenced “stations” probably did not originate much before the 14th century. Over the years, the number of stations varied, even including the Resurrection, the fourteen being finally settled on circa the 17th century. I may have some of the specifics wrong, various sources give slightly different histories, but the essence remains true.

That mythology infects the ritual seems certain, including Station VI – Veronica wiping the face of Jesus. The problem I have with this is that the Catholic Church allows the blending and development of mythology, and even encourages this behaviour with the proliferation of images and statues that show events that it does not know to be true.

I cannot reconcile this practice with a Church that claims to have the “completeness of truth”. Honesty and intellectual integrity do not allow for the inclusion of “perhaps truths”, and do not allow for the promotion and spread of mythologies that the Church, if it has any wisdom at all, should know that some of its less discerning adherents will believe to be actual truth; this is not “caring for the flock”, and in a broader sense, can lead to actual heresy.

Finally, I cannot understand why the Catholic Church lacks faith in Jesus’ promise to be with us, and the uplifting presence of the Holy Spirit within us; why the Church thinks that the bare facts of Christ’s Passion and Sacrifice for us, is insufficient to stir love within us, that we need the addition of mythological and emotionally charged images to bolster our faith

Many Christians embrace the broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura as a refuge from this perceived lack of faith in Christ, the demonstrated lack of faith in the sufficiency of truth, and the demonstrated lack of commitment to the completeness of truth.

 

[WayneTalbot]

harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399

Matthew 7:16-20
“You will know them by their fruits.
Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree bears good fruit,
but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

DO YOU CONSIDER THE SATANIC BIBLE A GOOD FRUIT OR A BAD FRUIT AND WHAT DOES THAT MAKE THE TREE THAT PRODUCES IT?

Be careful with this one, apply this Scripture to the Popes over generations who condoned persecution, torture, and murder, and then ask how it could be that the Holy Spirit would guide the election of such men to lead the Church.
I know that many on this thread choose to downplay the horrific behaviour of Popes past, dismissing it as the sins of individuals, and I could almost empathise with that view, if it wasn’t for the fact that these “sins” were practised over centuries by more than 50 popes.
“By their fruits you shall know them” is a very powerful admonition, and needs to be used with care if we are to avoid hypocrisy.

 

[WayneTalbot]

It does not say it is okay to hate Jews or
to take advantage of them. I see restrictions, you see hate.

I did not say that the Papal Bull says it is okay to hate Jews, I said that it fosters hatred of the Jews.
Today’s Anti-Discrimination Laws are based on that premise, that speeches or writings that discriminate do in fact foster hatred.
The Papal Bull discriminates, and under today’s laws, would be unlawful. You may argue that culture and law evolve, and that it is unfair to judge Pope Paul IV on today’s culture and law, but morality based on love of God and one another was firmly established by Jesus Christ, whom the Pope claims to represent on earth, and I just do not understand how a Pope, any Pope, can harbour discrimination in his heart and yet preach love of one another.
Whether or not the Papal Bull ever reached the people at the time, the fact remains that for the Pope to have written it, even in draft form, he must have had the sentiment, he must have chosen to discriminate against the Jews, and if he was true to his calling, he should have known it to be wrong.
The reasons are important - if nothing else, it demonstrates yet again that the Popes, the leaders of the Holy Roman Empire, often compomise the spiritual needs of their flock to bolster the secular needs of the church and its physical welfare.
You may not consider that important, many do.

Maybe I missed something , but I cannot find any writings that mention any conflicts or wars that were fought between the Jews and Christians because of this bull.

Do you find any writings that mention any conflicts or wars that were fought between Jews and Christians because of the Holocaust, a much greater level of persecution?

Jews have been persecuted for centuries by many nations and groups, do you know of any conflicts or wars resulting therefrom?

If not, why do you think this significant?

 

[2ndGen]

Be careful with this one, apply this Scripture to the Popes over generations who condoned persecution, torture, and murder, and then ask how it could be that the Holy Spirit would guide the election of such men to lead the Church.
I know that many on this thread choose to downplay the horrific behaviour of Popes past, dismissing it as the sins of individuals, and I could almost empathise with that view, if it wasn’t for the fact that these “sins” were practised over centuries by more than 50 popes.
“By their fruits you shall know them” is a very powerful admonition, and needs to be used with care if we are to avoid hypocrisy.

Be careful with this one, apply this Scripture to the Popes over generations who condoned persecution, torture, and murder, and then ask how it could be that the Holy Spirit would guide the election of such men to lead the Church.

ANOTHER THREAD. I’LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT THIS TACTIC OF CHANGING SUBJECTS DOESN’T WORK WITH ME.

NOW, BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND PLEASE…

I know that many on this thread choose to downplay the horrific behaviour of Popes past, dismissing it as the sins of individuals, and I could almost empathise with that view, if it wasn’t for the fact that these “sins” were practised over centuries by more than 50 popes.

DON’T FORGET, THAT 8% OF THE APOSTLES WERE CORRUPT (JUDAS). MEN’S WEAKNESSES IS NOT THE SUBJECT HERE, BUT WHETHER A COMPANY THAT PUBLISHES THE SATANIC BIBLE COULD BE TRUSTED WITH PRODUCING THE HOLY BIBLE.

“By their fruits you shall know them” is a very powerful admonition, and needs to be used with care if we are to avoid hypocrisy.

OK, LET’S GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT: THE FRUITS OF THE COMPANY THAT PRODUCES THE NIV BIBLE IS THE SATANIC BIBLE AND ALSO THE SATANIC RITUAL HANDBOOK.

NOW, SEEING THAT THOSE ARE THE FRUITS OF THAT TREE, DO YOU STILL TRUST THE NIV BIBLE THAT IS PRODUCED BY THEM?

JESUS SAID IF ONE FRUIT IS BAD, THEN THE WHOLE TREE IS ROTTEN. SINCE NO ROTTEN TREE COULD GOOD FRUIT, THEN THE NIV MUST BE A ROTTEN FRUIT AS WELL.

AND BEFORE YOU START SLINGING OFF TOPIC MUD,
CHECK OUT THESE SITES;

WWW.REFORMATION.COM

csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html

DECIDE WHERE YOU WANT TO TARGET WHEN YOU TRY TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF THE SATANIC BIBLE/NEW INTERNATIONAL BIBLE PRODUCERS…ANCIENT HISTORY OR PRESENT TIMES.

AND PLEEEEAAAASE BRING UP THE INQUISITION SO I CAN COMPARE THEIR STATS TO THE PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS (WHICH OUTNUMBER SPAIN’S WORK BY ABOUT 10 TO 1).

I COULD GO ON, BUT I PREFER TO STAY ON SUBJECT.

NOW, DO YOU TRUST THE BIBLE THAT IS PRODUCED BY THE SAME CORPORATION THAT PRODUCES SATANIC BOOKS TO BE THE WORD OF GOD?

 

[2ndGen]

Is the Doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” taught in The Holy Bible?

 

[2ndGen]

“By their fruits you shall know them” is a very powerful admonition, and needs to be used with care if we are to avoid hypocrisy.

Just in case you missed it the first time…

av1611.org/niv.html

Sampling of words removed in the NIV:

Matt. 6:13, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
Matt. 15:8, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth”
Matt. 19:9, “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Matt. 20:7, “and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.”
Matt. 20:16, “for many be called, but few chosen.”
Matt. 20:22, “and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with”
Matt. 25:13, “wherein the Son of Man cometh.”
Matt. 27:35, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots”
Mark 6:11, “Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Mark 10:21, “take up the cross.”
Luke 1:28, “blessed art thou among women”
Luke 4:4, “but by every word of God”
Luke 4:8, “get thee behind me Satan”
Luke 4:18, “he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted”
Luke 11:2-4, “Our … which art in … Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth… but deliver us from evil”
John 1:27, “is preferred before me”
John 3:13, “which is in heaven”
John 3:15, “should not perish”
John 11:41, “from the place where the dead was laid”
John 16:16, “because I go to the Father”
Acts 10:6, “he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do”
Acts 15:18, “Known unto God are all his works”
Acts 20:24, “But none of these things move me”
Acts 23:9, “let us not fight against God”
Rom. 8:1, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”
Rom. 13:9, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
I Cor. 6:20, “and in your spirit which are God’s”
I Cor. 11:24; “Take eat… broken”
II Cor. 10:4, “but mighty through God”
Gal. 3:1, “that you should not obey the truth”
Eph. 5:30, “of his flesh, and of his bones”
Phil. 3:16, “let us mind the same thing”
I Tim. 6:5, “from such wthdraw thyself”
Heb. 7:21, “after the order of Melchisedec”
I Pet. 1:22, “through the Spirit”
I Pet. 4:14, “on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified”
I John 4:3, “Christ is come in the flesh”
I John 5:13, “and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”
Rev. 1:11, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”
Rev. 5:14, “him that liveth for ever and ever”
Rev. 14:5, “before the throne of God”
Rev. 21:24, “of them which are saved”

 

[WayneTalbot]

CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, BUT THIS IS YOUR WHOLE PARAGRAPH IN WHICH YOU STATE THAT;

“but the reason has to do with the culture and understanding of the recipients of the time, a factor that does not apply to us removed by some 2000 years.”

AM I WRONG TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT HOW THE WORD WAS SPREAD BACK THEN DOESN’T APPLY TO TODAY?

Yes, I will correct you, you are wrong, that is not my whole paragraph, and I’ll assume that your truncation of the paragraph was unintentional.
The assertion, in full, was “Yes, they were needed as interpreters, but the reason has to do with the culture and understanding of the recipients of the time, a factor that does not apply to us removed by some 2000 years.”

Your removal of the first sentence removed the context, and I hope that you did not do that with intent.
The paragraph relates to the Apostles’ role as interpreters, not to their wider role in spreading the Gospel. This is very different to the meaning you convey by taking my words out of context.
I’ll stay with what I said, that the “interpreter” role has changed, because removed by culture and time, our understanding of Jesus’ message is not constrained by the prior beliefs of the people at the time, particularly the Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Gentiles.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Be careful with this one, apply this Scripture to the Popes over generations who condoned persecution, torture, and murder, and then ask how it could be that the Holy Spirit would guide the election of such men to lead the Church.
I know that many on this thread choose to downplay the horrific behaviour of Popes past, dismissing it as the sins of individuals, and I could almost empathise with that view, if it wasn’t for the fact that these “sins” were practised over centuries by more than 50 popes.
“By their fruits you shall know them” is a very powerful admonition, and needs to be used with care if we are to avoid hypocrisy.

Brilliant!

Remember to apply this to all noncatholic “clergy”,ministers, youth ministers and people who guide those faith gatherings, as well. “by their fruits you shall know them”. Remember we are to avoid hypocrisy.

There aren’t many noncatholic christian faith communities that are without fault at the ministeral level. “Many” is a gift. There are none…

Now are you able to see how priest, bishops and popes are human as well? I don’t need to point out individual failing, like you did, do I?

The difference… God protects the Catholic Church by not allowing the gates of hell to prevailing against it.

That is the difference…

When a noncatholic minister falls to human error and is not longer effective that church fails, the ideology stops and transfers, people move away The faith can remain in the people but the church fails. When a priest falls to human error, the Church prevails regardless of the failings of the local shepard. It goes on being a Church, Christ’s Church. The ideology remains the same, just as it has since the time of Christ.