since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[Church_Militant]

You’re still missing the point of sola scriptura. The fact that these verses are IN

Inspired Scripture, by definition doesn’t violate sola scriptura. But just because they were quoted from uninspired writings doesn’t make those “specific” verses uninspired, or the uninspired books they were quoted from, Inspired. It simply means that those particular quotes are Inspired, because they don’t “add” any doctrines that conflict with Inspired Scripture. The problem is that most Catholics, including you, don’t have an accurate understanding of what sola scriptura actually is & teaches, which makes your examples & arguments strawman. Sola scriptura BEGINS with Scripture, & compares “traditions” not found in them TO it.And yet you have not offered anything but verse mined passages that when examined in context did not support your beliefs. You have yet to offer a substantive definition of what you believe SS to be and persist in decrying that no one here understands what SS is. I’m beginning to think that even you have no such understanding. If you’ve got one then bring it…not that I expect it to help your argument much but at least you’ll have set a standard for some discussion…

As for your argument above…you ignored the point, which was the plain fact that Jude indicates that the apostles studied and knew Sacred Tradition which informed their interpretation of scripture which is exactly what the Catholic Church has done for 2,000 years.

I’m outta here for a while…gotta get ready for Mass.

 

[thetazlord]

Then who’s the authoritative interpreter of scripture? It cannot be scripture itself since it nowhere lays claim to that.
You offered them as proof texts of SS…You can easily go back and see that I simply checked them and they do not say what you want them to. If you can show that they are and in their own context then have at it. I don’t think you can…

Actually, it does. If the Church were this Authority, then it would be able to answer simple questions like “who SPECIFICALLY were the ‘brothers’ of Jesus NAMED in the NT?” or “what happens to babies who die who aren’t baptized?” If the Church were the actual Authority to interpret Scripture, these – and other – interpretations of Scripture would be decisive. But the CC can’t. And as far as the proof-texts from Scripture that I provided, I can’t help that you reject those Scriptures “for the sake of your ‘tradition.’” So, since you rejected those Scriptures not believing “that they say” what they actually say, then there’s no point of writing them out, since you’ll reject them anyways.

Not at all…please don’t make false statements about what we believe…it’s fallacious and unjust. The Catholic Church rejects those things because all 3 facets of the Deposit of Faith oppose them.Cite your source for that please and if you cannot I’ll ask you to retract it.

One thing that Catholics overlook is that “part” of the reason that there are so many quotes in the NT from the OT that are in Greek…is because the NT was written – well – in GREEK! So, the Greek translation was already there! And what you failed to bring up, was the 100% of the actual quotes were Greek translations from the HEBREW/ARAMAIC Scriptures, but not from the Apocrypha books. So, you’re using a strawman argument that holds ZERO water. And as even CA Jimmy Akin points out, the PHARISEES acknowledged the exact same OT books as Protestants did, which is significant, because Jesus frequently rebuked the Pharisees correcting them with THEIR Scriptures, but not the 7 Apocrypha books. And as far as Jamnia goes, what you’re also overlooking is that the OT canon had been previously recognized & CLOSED at “The Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C. under the leadership of Ezra, which was BEFORE the 7 Apocrypha books & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther were even penned.

 

[thetazlord]

Which is a precise description of your own technique that I took apart earlier.
I’d worry about that if it had happened but since the church has not done that then it’s not an issue.

Nice try, but sola scriptura avoids that. I find it ironic that a Catholic rebukes sola scriptura, & then in the same breath accuses them of “adding” to Scripture – something that the Catholic is actually doing.

I do however see the danger in doctrines like SS and the other 500 year old errors that have devolved from the Reformation, but I see SS as the fundamental error that all the rest are based upon. It is not taught in scripture and therefore fails its own standard. It has led to nothing but divisions and confusion throughout modern Christianity and since God is not a God of confusion…

Unlike you, I acknowledge the “errors” of both Protestantism as well as Catholicism. You, on the other hand, are quick to point out the Protestant errors, but completely ignore the Catholic errors & inconsistent theology – even in the deciding of the OT canon – because your inability to see them, not because they aren’t there.

 

[thetazlord]

Um…no, taz.

How do you know that the Gospels are theopneustos?

What criteria did you use to discern that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are inspired?

And what, again, told you that Hebrews is inspired?

And that Clement is not?

You can’t compare something to the Gospels until you know that the Gospels are inspired.

And you would know this, how?

I explained this already, which proves that you either aren’t reading everything I’m writing, or not learning. As previously mentioned, Paul acknowledged Luke’s Gospel as being Inspired Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. 1 Timothy 5:18), which Luke acknowledges that he gathered his information from other sources. The sources of Matthew’s & Mark’s Gospels are obvious, since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, & Mark was an apostolic contemporary of Peter who was also a disciple of Jesus. So was John. And – AGAIN! – the same godly attributes that qualify Luke’s Gospel as being Inspired that Paul recognized (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, author as a recognized apostle – or in the case of Luke, a contemporary of one, etc) are the exact same godly criteria that qualify the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, & John, as well as the rest of the NT, including ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), as well as Hebrews. And unlike the Inspired NT Scripture, 1 Clement as historical errors in them, which disqualifies it as being God-breathed. But this wasn’t something I ever learned as a Catholic. I had to LEAVE the Catholic church & learn this from learned godly men, who didn’t want me to just “base the OT & NT canon on faith” (ie: merely trust what “they told me”), but rather on explaining, theologically, “why” these texts are Inspired, & not others.

 

[thetazlord]

And yet you have not offered anything but verse mined passages that when examined in context did not support your beliefs. You have yet to offer a substantive definition of what you believe SS to be and persist in decrying that no one here understands what SS is. I’m beginning to think that even you have no such understanding. If you’ve got one then bring it…not that I expect it to help your argument much but at least you’ll have set a standard for some discussion…

As for your argument above…you ignored the point, which was the plain fact that Jude indicates that the apostles studied and knew Sacred Tradition which informed their interpretation of scripture which is exactly what the Catholic Church has done for 2,000 years.

I’m outta here for a while…gotta get ready for Mass.

And that “tradition” that they learned was from where? The OT SCRIPTURES which foreshadowed Jesus – not some extra-biblical “tradition” that the apostles just “made up.” The extra-biblical “Sacred Tradition” you are referring to came much, MUCH later AFTER the apostolic age. And what YOU have failed to do is that since you insist that these “Sacred Traditions” were passed down from the apostles, you have failed to QUOTE a particular apostle that originated these “Sacred Traditions.” I’m still waiting on those.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. Are you saying (?) (here) that the mere word “branch” in Isaiah 11

Takes this . . .

ISAIAH 11:1 1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.

And turns it into this (?) . . . . .

MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

(Both sets of verses above DO have the word "“shall” and “a” in them. And Nazareth DOES have netzer or “branch” as a root to the word “branch” in Hebrew, so THIS (Isaiah 11:1) is the sola Scriptura reference basis for Matthew 2:23 being derived from Scripture ALONE??)

. . . . . Or . . . .

. . . . OR are you appealing to the Talmud (which was written in segments, long after the Crucifixion of Jesus and didn’t even exist in written form when St. Matthew wrote his Gospel) as part of your sola Scriptura definition? (you said in post 135) . . .

The Talmud suggests this connection of a Messiah from Nazareth.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You seem to be basing your whole sola Scriptura scheme, upon “the word of God” being ONLY the written word (in post 92 here).

Then you link to a page that you purport supports this re-definition of “the Word of God” (here).

So I look it up at your suggestion and . . . .

. . . and the very first instances of your alleged proof for

"word of God” = "Written Scripture ALONE"

had the words (bold & ul mine) . . .

“Proclaim” (not write)
“Advise” (not write)
But the word H1697 of God H430 came H1961 to Shemaiah H8098 the man H376 of God, H430 saying, H559 (not Shemaiah looked up or read the “word of God).​

And it just goes downhill from there.

Your own citations argue AGAINST your own invented re-definitions of “the word of God” thetazlord.

You undoubtedly will say: “Well ‘proclaim’ got written down later.” (and I suppose you could spin SOME of these to pretend they are ONLY concerning “writing”–but certainly not ALL the citations given in your link–and only ONE exception [there are many] undoes your re-definition of the “Word of God”)

But was it “the Word of God” when for example it came to Shemaiah (did a manuscript fall out of Heaven?), or did it only “morph INTO ‘the Word of God’ after it got written down? (in which case I am going to ask you to support not only that concept, but ALL verses that have that.)

Thetazlord. This is not the way to reason. (I gotta tell you. I am broken-hearted you left the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ founded over this kind of shenanigans.)

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the “Word of God” and I am sorry to say, your verses cited only illustrate the fact that sola Scriptura IS INDEED a “tradition of men”.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord. You said:

QUOTE:
Jerome (another “canonized” Catholic “saint”) stated that “the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures.”

Here is my program’s translation (which appears to be the same as yours in this case):

ST. JEROME As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has. thus preserved its own flavour.
–St. Jerome Prefaces A.D. 393

from his Scripture Preface of his translation “Dedicated to Chromatius and Heliodorus, A.D. 393.”

That was in 393 A.D.

If you are going to assert what St. Jerome said concerning the Canonicity issue, please assert it all.

This excerpt from our local men’s Catholic Bible study may help . . .

Pope Damasus (Pope from 366-384) asked Jerome to translate Hebrew books of Old Testament (OT) AND Greek books of New Testament (NT) to make 1 final Complete Latin Bible for all to use. Why Latin? Latin NOW (was) the language of the literate people that’s why. Would increase availability.

This request would ignite debate on which books in OT were truly Canonical.

The Rabbis of Palestine told St. Jerome that the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be in OT Canon, and he shouldn’t translate these into the Latin Vulgate (“vulgur” = “common” language of peo.)

St. Jerome went back to Pope Damasus and said the Rabbis told him these seven books (Deuterocanonicals) don’t belong in Scripture because there were NO HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS of old that exist. Rabbis called stories “fables” (despite 1st and 2nd Maccabees teaching of Hanukah which Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for in John 7 and Jews still celebrate today) and said NO Hebrew manuscripts exist, therefore the Deuterocanonicals cannot be inspired!

(Luther later used the “no Hebrew manuscripts” argument against the OT Deuterocanonicals)

(Here are other things St. Jerome said even earlier which also assert the above)

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a ‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we now turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom… the book of …Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be in Hebrew, the second in Greek, as can be proved from the very style.” Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings [Prologus Galeatus] (A.D. 391).

But notice even as early as 391 A.D. Jerome finding Hebrew manuscripts for 1st Maccabees should already be a clue to possibly more of the Deuterocanonicals existing in Hebrew too. (Dead Sea Scrolls from the 1940’s archeol. also found Hebrew Manuscripts for some of these books)

---

Then what happened with St. Jerome/Deuterocanonicals? Let’s find out . . . .

---

Pope Damasus said Rabbis are custodians of their Tradition, but knew disagreement even amongst the Jews themselves over their Canonicity (Jews in Palestine [no] vrs. Jews outside Palestine [yes]).

Following Jerome’s advice, Pope Damasus then undertook a discussion with the Bishops of the Churches and most of the Bishops said these manuscripts have always been read as Scripture in our Churches right down to the time of the Apostles so we should accept them as Canonical—Pope concurred. St. Jerome, as a dutiful servant of the Church accepted these papal decrees and translated all the books accordingly.

By 402 A.D. St. Jerome said . . .

“What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna (and other stories in Deuterocanonicals) . . . for I explained not what I thought but what they (the Rabbis) commonly say against us.” Jerome, Against Rufinus, 11:33 (A.D. 402).

Also by 404 A.D. St. Jerome was saying things such as this (quoting Sirach 13:2) . . . .

“[D]oes not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’[a quote from Sirach 13:2]?” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404).

Also St. Jerome . . .

“The words of 2 Maccabees v. 17, which say that Antiochus Epiphanes had power to overthrow the Temple, ‘because of the multitude of sins’ [2 Macc 5:17], are quoted in connection with the confessions of Daniel.” Jerome, Against the Pelagians, II:30 (A.D. 415).

The Church as a whole now matter-of-factly affirmed Deuterocanonicals (MANY quotes available):

“o that in them was fulfilled that which is written, ‘The service of God is abominable to the sinner’ [quoting Sirach 1:22].” 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, Canon 6 (A.D. 787).​

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, it does. If the Church were this Authority, then it would be able to answer simple questions like “who SPECIFICALLY were the ‘brothers’ of Jesus NAMED in the NT?” or “what happens to babies who die who aren’t baptized?” If the Church were the actual Authority to interpret Scripture, these – and other – interpretations of Scripture would be decisive. But the CC can’t

. And as far as the proof-texts from Scripture that I provided, I can’t help that you reject those Scriptures “for the sake of your ‘tradition.’” So, since you rejected those Scriptures not believing “that they say” what they actually say, then there’s no point of writing them out, since you’ll reject them anyways.You really do have a problem. You allege that the Church has no teaching on issues that it actually does, It helps these discussions a lot if you really know what you are talking about, but you don’t.
Jesus had Brothers?
Who Are Jesus’ Mother and Brothers?
Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had brothers?
Why does the Bible refer to Elizabeth as Mary’s “cousin” but not use that term when referring to Jesus’ brothers?

Let the Children Come to Me

If your case is so airtight with these scriptures you have used then you should be able to charitably show me my error and specifically where SS is found in each one.

If you will not or cannot, then one can only surmise that you lack conviction of your position. I’m absolutely sincere in asking you to clarify these citations for us. If you can’t or won’t then…

Really??? So, you are unable to discern from reading Scripture alone

the concept of the Trinity, such as Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; etc, which is ever more explicit in the Greek? You are dependent on Catholic church “tradition” for your “belief” in the Trinity? Because that’s what you’re saying. If so, that’s pretty sad. BTW, other Catholics on this thread would disagree with you that the Catholic church doesn’t teach sola scriptura. You might want to correct them.This is nothing more than rhetorical smokescreen, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not the issue here and has always been taught by the Catholic Church. This is just an irrelevant rant I guess.

Okay, just to name a few:

In Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History,” he cites both Hegesippus & Irenaeus who refer to Solomon’s Proverbs as “the All-Virtuous Wisdom,” & he also references them stating that some of the “so-called Apocrypha” were fabricated by certain heretics of his own day.

Athanasius (a “canonized” Catholic “saint”) only included the 22 books of the Jewish Scriptures (which are the exact same as that are in the Protestant OT) in the canon, & refers to the rest as “Apocryphal.

Neither are infallible church sources. Try to stay on topic…

Jerome (another “canonized” Catholic “saint”) stated that “the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures.”

Bad choice by you since he plainly stated that he included them because the church said he should. His only problem was that he couldn’t find them in Hebrew…but that proved moot in the 1950s when they were found in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And in the first century, even historically accurate Flavius Josephus wrote in his “Against Apion” listed the 5 books of Moses & the Prophets, which covered to the time of Artaxerxes. He then states that “From the time of Artaxeres to our own the history has been recorded, but it does not merit equal credence with the rest because there has not been an unbroken succession of prophets.” This “rest” refers to the 7 Apocrypha books in the Catholic OT canon, & more specifically refers to 1 & 2 Maccabees.

Let us know when you get to an authoritative source. I could run around all day digging up n-C sources that disagree with all manner of n-C beliefs, but since they have no authority to decide these things (even as you yourself do not) it would mean precisely what your citations mean. Not very much.

Catholics never deny that there was much discussion and debate as to the canon, but the church discerned and made its selection with their authority and the matter was settled.

There are other examples I could give, but these “should” suffice, unless you choose to ignore these as well, just as you did the Scriptures that DO support sola scriptura.

I haven’t ignored anything… I have examined your scriptural “evidence” and so far found it unconvincing and you simply ignore any requests for clarification with polemics against me. If your citations are so squared away then you should be able (and willing) to explain and defend them.

None of us have any reason at all to accept your position just because you say so.

 

[Church_Militant]

And that “tradition” that they learned was from where? The OT SCRIPTURES which foreshadowed Jesus – not some extra-biblical “tradition” that the apostles just “made up.” The extra-biblical “Sacred Tradition” you are referring to came much, MUCH later AFTER the apostolic age. And what YOU have failed to do is that since you insist that these “Sacred Traditions” were passed down from the apostles, you have failed to QUOTE a particular apostle that originated these “Sacred Traditions.” I’m still waiting on those.

Wrong…none of the things I cited in Jude are set out in the OT…they come from the sources that I linked to, which means that the apostle Jude was familiar with them and referred to those Jewish traditional writings to inform his teaching in his epistle. The Catholic Church has done exactly the same thing for the same purpose (including the traditional writings of the early Christians) and so that is your apostolic example.

It’s right there in that next to last book in your Bible, the short one with only 25 verses.

 

[Cathoholic]

There WERE fights in the early Church over the Canonicity issue to be sure (as thetazlord correctly points out).

But one thing concerning the Canon of Scripture the sola Scriptura proponent CANNOT appeal to (and if sola Scriptura were true instead of false) is a VERSE affirming the Canon.

There is NO VERSE that asserts the Canonicity of Scripture.

You will NOT find this verse anywhere in the Bible . . . . .

Phantom Non-Existent “Bible” Verse In this collection of books, letters, etc. In this, the Bible, belong the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, . . . Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts . . . Jude and Revelation.

WHERE is that verse? Nowhere.

And if you asserted sola Scriptura you’d EXPECT a verse that asserts such.

Otherwise, any verse you appeal to could be challenged on the basis of “is THAT book/letter/etc. even Scripture in the first place?”

(But then you’d have to know that THAT book was Scripture that had that Phantom verse, etc. etc.–showing us even theoretically, Scripture cannot validate itself).

But alas, the Canon is an “extra-Biblical Tradition”.

Not a tradition of men. Not a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God either.

But an Apostolic Tradition that needed men with authority to sort this disagreement that caused disunity in the early Church out.

And the Catholic Bishops HAD such authority and DID settle the issue.

The same type of Apostolic Traditions that came “from us”, or Tradition from us, “the Apostles” or “tradition . . . taught by us” (the Apostles–that’s WHY it is sometimes called “Apostolic Tradition”).

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

And when people get confused as occurred with the Canon issue, there are men (the Bishops) who have God-given, God-protected authority to sort such issues out authoritatively. Which is yet another reason WHY . . . .

. . . Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

God-given, God-protected authority is why the councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) can assert the Canon of Scripture authoritatively when ratified by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as they and he did.

 

[PRmerger]

I explained this already, which proves that you either aren’t reading everything I’m writing, or not learning. As previously mentioned, Paul acknowledged Luke’s Gospel as being Inspired Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. 1 Timothy 5:18), which Luke acknowledges that he gathered his information from other sources. The sources of Matthew’s & Mark’s Gospels are obvious, since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, & Mark was an apostolic contemporary of Peter who was also a disciple of Jesus.

Where does the inspired writer of the Gospel of Mark identify himself?

That seems to be an extra-biblical assertion you’ve accepted (from…the Church, BTW).

That’s fine, of course…except that makes you dependent upon an OUTSIDE source to corroborate a very, very important detail: whether the Gospel of Mark is inspired.

So was John. And – AGAIN! – the same godly attributes that qualify Luke’s Gospel as being Inspired that Paul recognized (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, author as a recognized apostle – or in the case of Luke, a contemporary of one, etc) are the exact same godly criteria that qualify the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, & John, as well as the rest of the NT, including ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), as well as Hebrews.

How, again, is the author of Hebrews recognized as an apostle or contemporary?

And wouldn’t that make the Epistle of Barnabas theopneustos, then?

And unlike the Inspired NT Scripture, 1 Clement as historical errors in them, which disqualifies it as being God-breathed.

What historical errors?

And where does the Bible state that historical errors means it’s not inspired?

Does that mean that scientific errors would also disqualify something as being inspired?
St. Mark, after all, makes a scientific error by declaring the mustard seed to be the smallest of seeds. It actually isn’t.
It is like a mustard seed that, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth.–Mark 4:31

But this wasn’t something I ever learned as a Catholic.

Yep. The Church in the past did an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis for her flock.

I had to LEAVE the Catholic church & learn this from learned godly men, who didn’t want me to just “base the OT & NT canon on faith” (ie: merely trust what “they told me”), but rather on explaining, theologically, “why” these texts are Inspired, & not others.

Firstly, you actually do accept lots of things “on faith” regarding the Bible. To wit: that the Gospel of Mark was actually written by Mark. It certainly doesn’t say that in the text. You believe it because you were told so.

I also propose that you accept “on faith” a lot of what these “godly men” told you simply because you trust them. Nothing wrong with that of course. It would be impossible for us to investigate each and every fact told to us by someone. We accept lots of things simply because “they told me”. For example, I believe, “because Mrs. Caltigarone, my 4th grade teacher, told me” that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. I have never actually been there to investigate whether this is actually correct.

So you and I go by faith in a lot of things.

However, just to be clear, since you acknowledge you were very poorly catechized, the CC does not propose that we accept things only on faith.

That’s why we have some of the greatest theological giants in our faith–they are called Doctors of the Church.

And why we have Theology departments at Catholic high schools and universities.

And why we have, well, Catholic Answers. The existence of the very forum, which you are a registered member of, is testament to the fact that we are as Catholics obligated to seek answers, to question, to wrangle and wrestle with the Truth.

Fides quaerens intellectum is our mantra, taz.

 

[Gorgias]

But this wasn’t something I ever learned as a Catholic. I had to LEAVE the Catholic church & learn this from learned godly men, who didn’t want me to just “base the OT & NT canon on faith” (ie: merely trust what “they told me”), but rather on explaining, theologically, “why” these texts are Inspired, & not others.

PRMerger does a good job addressing what you’ve written here, but allow me to add my words to hers:

If I said to you “I’ve eaten an orange in the past, and it was sour and mealy, and I’m eating an apple now, and it’s sweet and crunchy: therefore, all oranges are bad and all apples are good”… would you credit me with great facility in logic? (I hope not, since this would be the height of illogical reasoning: unwarranted extrapolation is a subtle error in reasoning.)

So, your personal experience with Catholicism – that is, your assertion that you didn’t learn certain facts – leads you to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong? Hmm…

Does the Church ask for Catholics “just to base… on faith” – that is, “merely trust what they tell us”? Of course not. Pope John Paul II wrote, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth … It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.”

 

[benhur]

In the simplest terms: all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

This just seems so Catholic, at least in practice, at least thru much of her history.

Perhaps the only difference is that the CC developed an implementation it, even an interpretation of it all, that became “Tradition”, the “right” way, forming a One ,Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. It worked great for a while (standing against Gnosticism, Arianism). Unfortunately, insisting on your way, even as infallible, will eventually separate you from brethren, and often on trivial matters (unlike previously listed heresies).

So it isn’t about the beauty and superlative authority of scripture we debate, but only our interpretation of it, our faction, paradigm over somebody else.

Some say 30000 denominations is a bad fruit of SS, maybe. But the CC’s bad fruit is forcing the issue, birthing Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Should have left things the way they were. Maybe at the patriarchal development stage.

 

[benhur]

Benhur. Are you saying (?) (here) that the mere word “branch” in Isaiah 11

Takes this . . .

ISAIAH 11:1 1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
And turns it into this (?) . . . . .

MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
(Both sets of verses above DO have the word "“shall” and “a” in them. And Nazareth DOES have netzer or “branch” as a root to the word “branch” in Hebrew, so THIS (Isaiah 11:1) is the sola Scriptura reference basis for Matthew 2:23 being derived from Scripture ALONE??)

. . . . . Or . . . .

. . . . OR are you appealing to the Talmud (which was written in segments, long after the Crucifixion of Jesus and didn’t even exist in written form when St. Matthew wrote his Gospel) as part of your sola Scriptura definition? (you said in post 135) . . .

Well thank you for seeing what is being said . Nazareth has “branch” in it ,which was picked up by rabbis before Christ. That it is in the Talmud, does not mean they “discovered” it but only told of the history of it or agreed with with earlier rabbis on it.

My main point is that there is SOMETHING of a OT scriptural connection and not NOTHING as was suggested.

I would not deny the Holy Spirit from revealing pearls or hidden diamonds, from scripture to seeking, humble, holy men.

I also do not deny that the Holy Spirit can use anything - tradition, legend, myth, history,current events to make an inspired, piercing point.

“I become** all things** to all men so that some might be saved”. St. Paul

That does not make "all things " authoritative.

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition *of men ***that makes void the “Word of God”Reminds me of my daughter’s carpet hallway runner. A corner of the carpet keeps staying up becoming a trip hazard . To fix it I bend it the other way and stand on it for a minute, then lay it out level. Sticking up is not the normal, safe position, nor is it when I bend it totally the other way and stand on it…
I propose the carpet sticking up is man made(inadvertently hitting up with your foot while walking), as is my purposeful bending to fix it . Both ways are “man made”. Level on the floor is the manufacturer’s intent.

Get the picture ?

SS had to be over stressed in order to combat over stressing “Tradition”. Both are not natural intent.

I am not saying SS is bad nor is tradition, just a balance problem.

Stressing SS ,even over stressing it ,would not have had to occur if there was not a "tripping hazard’’ of eternal consequences that needed fixing.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You mentioned (here):

I would not deny the Holy Spirit from revealing pearls or hidden diamonds, from scripture to seeking, humble, holy men.

Amen to that! And that is Scriptural benhur. You and I are shoulder to shoulder on this point.

Not only do I not deny it, but I affirm it.

HEBREWS 1:1 1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . .

NOT HEBREWS 1:1 but a PHANTOM VERSE 1 In one way and one way only which was Scripture ALONE God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . .

I also do not deny that the Holy Spirit can use anything - tradition, legend, myth, history,current events to make an inspired, piercing point.

Amen to that as well. And it is Scriptural that you assert other means of God’s word being transmitted.

You are not far from the kingdom benhur!

But in asserting such things, it is inconsistent with many of the sola Scripturas—at least among many of the sola Scripturas (and there are plural or many definitions of sola Scriptura out there because it is not defined in . . . . you know what I am going to say . . . sola Scriptura is not defined in Scripture) that I have often had defined to me by Bible Christians.

Bible Christians have to invent sola Scriptura, then work backwards and try to “eisegetically” (eisegesis) fit sola Scriptura into a sampling of various verses that they selectively pick out (depending upon what their definition of sola Scriptura is and how they are forced to modify it when other verses they cited actually become a hindrance—as we have already seen here on this thread).

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God. **

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus only recognized a THREE-fold division of OT Scriptures (“the Law (Torah), the Prophets, & the Psalms”)(Luke 24:44-45) - not a FOUR-fold division (“the Law (Torah), Historical books, Sapiential (Wisdom) books, & the Prophets”).

I see. So where does Jesus put Proverbs?

 

[benhur]

benhur. You mentioned (here):

Amen to that! And that is Scriptural benhur. You and I are shoulder to shoulder on this point.

Not only do I not deny it, but I affirm it.

HEBREWS 1:1 1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . .

NOT HEBREWS 1:1 but a PHANTOM VERSE 1 In one way and one way only which was Scripture ALONE God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . .

Amen to that as well. And it is Scriptural that you assert other means of God’s word being transmitted.

You are not far from the kingdom benhur!

But in asserting such things, it is inconsistent with many of the sola Scripturas—at least among many of the sola Scripturas (and there are plural or many definitions of sola Scriptura out there because it is not defined in . . . . you know what I am going to say . . . sola Scriptura is not defined in Scripture) that I have often had defined to me by Bible Christians.

Bible Christians have to invent sola Scriptura, then work backwards and try to “eisegetically” (eisegesis) fit sola Scriptura into a sampling of various verses that they selectively pick out (depending upon what their definition of sola Scriptura is and how they are forced to modify it when other verses they cited actually become a hindrance—as we have already seen here on this thread).

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God. **

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that revived the commandments of God that were voided by tradition. **

That is the best i can hope for you to see with your limited view of Scripture authority.

 

[benhur]

Amen to that as well. And it is Scriptural that you assert other means of God’s word being transmitted.

That is right.Just that scripture is always meant to be authoritative where myth and tradition are not always.

But in asserting such things, it is inconsistent with many of the sola Scripturas

You misunderstood me then . God uses many things but Scripture is superlative

sola Scriptura is not defined in Scripture

Right.As Taz said, neither is Trinity.

Bible Christians have to invent sola Scriptura,

Just as we" invented" 'Trinity" to combat error of Arianism, so to was SS invented to combat some CC tradition error.

 

[thetazlord]

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the “Word of God” and I am sorry to say, your verses cited only illustrate the fact that sola Scriptura IS INDEED a “tradition of men”.

Then why does no Scripture writer, let alone Jesus Himself, use extra-biblical “traditions” to defend doctrine? Why is when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, he corrected their extra-biblical “traditions” with the Word of God (Matthew Ch 15)? Why Paul state that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and not extra-biblical “traditions,” & why does he say that Scripture is beneficial for doctrine & reproof and not extra-biblical “traditions” also? Why is it that when extra-biblical “traditions” are mentioned in Scripture, they are viewed as being a negative thing, & never positive? I’m afraid you are arguing from silence for your position. Sola scriptura doesn’t have to prove a negative, which is what you’re asking me to do. There are a lot of things Scripture “doesn’t say,” but that doesn’t mean that God condones us “adding” beliefs & commands to His Word & call them “traditions” which is what you’re doing. Plus, you are missing the whole point of why God gave us His written Word. Even in it’s infancy, the first century Church was under attack doctrinally, which is why Paul wrote so many epistles to the churches to “correct” them. Even as late as 95-96 A.D. John had written the 7 churches of Asia Minor, & 5 out of the 7 were rebuked. God gave us the Scriptures to compare “traditions” to them, & if they either “exceeded” or added to what was written, was “taken away” from them, or contradicted them, then those “traditions” aren’t God-breathed but as Jesus stated “the doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9).