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

[thetazlord]

Catholicism gives this an A+.

However, unless you can provide a Bible verse that states that 27 books belong in the NT, you are not subscribing to the Bible Alone.

As soon as you “provide a Bible verse” that states “God is a Trinity” as well as “provide a Bible verse” that states the definition of “Trinity.” See, you still aren’t understanding “what” sola scriptura is, just giving strawman arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it does. The problem is that you don’t even know what your own religion teaches about “Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.” For example, show me the “tradition” of the “theory” of Limbo of infants in the Bible, outside of extra-biblical “Sacred Tradition.”

I think you are operating under some misapprehensions regarding Catholicism, taz.

Limbo is not part of Sacred Tradition.

You are, however, correct in using the small “t” tradition with regards to Limbo.

But surely you are aware that ST is NOT the same thing as customs or practices or traditions (such as blessing ourselves with water when we enter the sacred space of our church). ST is not the same thing as tradition, or customs.

 

[PRmerger]

BZZZZT!!! Again, you are confusing YOURSELF, with me.

Fair enough.

Are you really proposing that you studied the Epistle to the Hebrews, and discerned of your own studies that it was theopneustos?

If so, when did you do this? And did you do this with every other book in the NT?

What was your criteria for deciding them to be inspired?

And, of course, that means you had to study each of the other over 400 ancient Christian texts and use the same application to discern that they are not the Word of God.

You really did this?

OR…

you could really just state the obvious: you really just took the Church’s word and accepted, on her authority, that there are 27 books that belong in the NT.

That sounds more reasonable.

But, I defer to you. If you say you actually read the 400 other texts as well as the 27 inspired texts and decided, ON YOUR OWN, that the Church got it right…well, ok. I’ll have some more questions for you if that’s what you say you did.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, Jesus couldn’t have been saying we can’t “add” to the Scriptures, because, as I’m sure you know, when he lived and breathed on this earth and spoke about the Scriptures…not a single word of the NT had yet been put to writ.

Thus, it was ADDED to, later. Much later.

He was, just like St. Paul, speaking about the OT.

So if we go by your paradigm, we would only be using the OT. A sort of Sola Old Testament paradigm.

Again, you’re still not understanding what sola scriptura is. It does NOT mean that NT Scripture can’t be “added” to the OT. It means that no doctrine can be “added” that God has revealed & has been eventually been written down. Obviously, the NT hadn’t been written down when Jesus walked the earth. That’s not the issue. Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees with OT Scripture, not extra-biblical “tradition,” which is why He said “As it is written” & “Have you not read?” - not “extra-scriptural tradition says…” In fact, when Jesus mentioned “tradition” to the Pharisees, He rebuked it. And, again, when it came to NT, both Paul & Peter affirmed most the NT Scriptures that had been written up to that point, & even referred to it as Scripture. They did NOT do the same thing with extra-scriptural “traditions.” Remember, it was Paul who stated that Scripture is God-breathed, which would include the NT, such as Luke’s Gospel & ALL of Paul’s epistles, since both Paul & Peter refer to them as Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

“Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”

By Jesus “separating” the Psalms from “the Prophets,” He was acknowledging the THREE-fold division of the OT canon which Jesus still considered & called “Scripture,” which both Protestants recognize in their OT, as well as Jews do their TaNaKh, which would exclude the Apocrypha & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther which were not originally part of those OT books, but later “added” during the intertestimental period. This THREE-fold division described by Jesus is not the same as the FOUR-fold division in the Catholic OT, where the later Apocrypha books were “added” & “blended” into the OT:

Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

The CC gives a thumbs up to the assertion that there is a 3-fold division described by Jesus.

You just forgot to include these books in the list of the prophetic/historical books: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judit.

 

[thetazlord]

I think you are operating under some misapprehensions regarding Catholicism, taz.

Limbo is not part of Sacred Tradition.

You are, however, correct in using the small “t” tradition with regards to Limbo.

But surely you are aware that ST is NOT the same thing as customs or practices or traditions (such as blessing ourselves with water when we enter the sacred space of our church). ST is not the same thing as tradition, or customs.

Actually, in the past, the “theory” of Limbo WAS part of “Sacred Tradition,” just not an official dogma. But it WAS taught as “Tradition” (capital “T”) in the past. The same with the extra-biblical Marian dogmas & “Traditions” such as Purgatory, etc previously mentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you’re still not understanding what sola scriptura is. It does NOT mean that NT Scripture can’t be “added” to the OT. It means that no doctrine can be “added” that God has revealed & has been eventually been written down.

Where does the Bible say that everything God revealed was written down?

Nowhere?

Ah. That means you just believed a man who proclaimed that everything was “eventually written down”, taz. You believed him, because he heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…

but no one read, in a single page of the Bible, that everything God revealed was “eventually written down.”

That’s a man-made tradition, taz.

 

[thetazlord]

Fair enough.

Are you really proposing that you studied the Epistle to the Hebrews, and discerned of your own studies that it was theopneustos?

If so, when did you do this? And did you do this with every other book in the NT?

What was your criteria for deciding them to be inspired?

Why do you keep saying “your”? Again, I’m not basing it on “my criteria,” but upon reading Hebrews, as well as the rest of the NT, I found that ALL of them had the EXACT SAME godly criteria that the OT had for being God-breathed (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc, etc) that aren’t found in any other religious or secular text.

And, of course, that means you had to study each of the other over 400 ancient Christian texts and use the same application to discern that they are not the Word of God.

You really did this?

Actually, because of the gift of the Internet, I have been able to study most of them & it’s been rather easy to find the passages in those apocrypha & pseudoepigraphical texts that conflict - and even outright contradict - the OT, the Gospels, as well as the rest of the NT, including 1 Clement. It took some time, but, yes, I “really did this.”

OR…

you could really just state the obvious: you really just took the Church’s word and accepted, on her authority, that there are 27 books that belong in the NT.

That sounds more reasonable.

Again, you are confusing YOURSELF who “accepted, on her authority, that there are 27 books that belong in the NT” - not me. But I didn’t do this when I was Catholic. It wasn’t until I was a Protestant that I looked into all this for myself, & that ONLY SCRIPTURE (Scripture alone) has the godly attributes to qualify as being God-breathed, just as Jesus Himself affirms.

But, I defer to you. If you say you actually read the 400 other texts as well as the 27 inspired texts and decided, ON YOUR OWN, that the Church got it right…well, ok. I’ll have some more questions for you if that’s what you say you did.

See above. Have at it.

 

[thetazlord]

Where does the Bible say that everything God revealed was written down?

Nowhere?

Again, that’s not what I’m saying. You are twisting what I’m trying to get across. NOWHERE does God reveal in His written Word that extra-biblical “traditions” are just as “God-breathed” as Scripture is. The latter is a man-made tradition. And the passages that I cited from BOTH the OT & NT Inspired Scriptures state that we should NOT “add to” the Word of God.

Ah. That means you just believed a man who proclaimed that everything was “eventually written down”, taz. You believed him, because he heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…

Again, that’s NOT what I’m saying. And I believe what God reveals in His Word, not the extra-biblical “traditions” that have to Scriptural support, outside of the “beliefs” of those who ORIGINATED those extra-scriptural “traditons.”

but no one read, in a single page of the Bible, that everything God revealed was “eventually written down.”

Show the passage in Scripture that states that extra-biblical “traditions” are called “Sacred” & commands us to follow those extra-biblical “traditions.”

 

[thetazlord]

The CC gives a thumbs up to the assertion that there is a 3-fold division described by Jesus.

Look again, the Catholic church divides them into a FOUR-fold division, not THREE (see below).

You just forgot to include these books in the list of the prophetic/historical books: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judit.

No, I included them in the FOUR-fold division in the Catholic OT (vs. the THREE-fold taught by Jesus that are in Protestant OT’s & the Jewish TaNaKh). However, the Catholic church doesn’t include them into the Prophetic books (just Baruch). The rest are in the Historical books & the Sapiential (Wisdom) books in their FOUR-fold division of their OT:

1. Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
2. Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
3. Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
4. Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

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”).

 

[Gorgias]

Again, that’s not what I’m saying. You are twisting what I’m trying to get across. NOWHERE does God reveal in His written Word that extra-biblical “traditions” are just as “God-breathed” as Scripture is.

OK… I’ve tried twice, so let me try again. In “His written Word”, God reveals that only some of what Jesus did and said was recorded. In “His written Word”, Jesus commands His apostles to teach all of what He commanded. In other words, while the Bible is precisely God-breathed, it is not everything that was “breathed by Christ”… and, Jesus commanded His Church to teach everything. Therefore, attempting to rely only on the written Word is explicitly disobeying Christ.

God doesn’t call “extra-biblical ‘traditions’ as ‘God-breathed’” – but Jesus does command His other words to be taught. That’s authoritative teachings that the Church identifies as “Sacred Tradition”.

Show the passage in Scripture that… commands us to follow those extra-biblical “traditions.”

For the fourth time: Matthew 28:20, in conjunction with John 20:30 and John 21:25. We are commanded in the Matthew passage, and we see that these extra-biblical traditions are included in the command in the John passages.

 

[thetazlord]

If you say 2+2=5 and I say 2+2=22, by what you said above, we’re both right. Do you see how that position has to fail?

The Catholic Church has not defined everything, but we have a source we can go to to see everything we have defined, where is the non-Catholic source that contains this information?

Then in order not to violate sola scriptura, which Scripture is GOD-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture would neither teach 2+2=5, nor 2+2=22. It would teach 2+2=4, because GOD would teach that. Therefore, anyone who would teach anything contrary to 2+2=4 is NOT sola scriptura even if they “claim” to be, because Scripture alone teaches 2+2=4, not 5 or 22. The problem is that most people don’t understand what “Scripture alone” actually means. But you’re example is a good one that discerns between Scripture alone, not Scripture alone, contradicting Scripture alone, & ADDING to Scripture alone.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes. The paradigm which says, “I get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means.”

Is that not your paradigm?

Yeah, which means that TL here is telling us that he is the authority for interpretation of scripture just because he can read and study a copy of the Bible and if we disagree with him on any point then we are wrong. I see no scripture that indicates such a doctrine so it fails even his SS paradigm.

No, it’s NOT “my paradigm,” which only proves that you STILL aren’t understanding what sola scriptura is:

‘Sola scriptura’ (or ‘Scripture only’) is the Biblically-supported doctrine

that 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). …I’ve already checked these passages and shown that they do not support your position, so unless you can take them one at a time and show otherwise then restating them is irrelevant.

Advocating for abortion, gay “marriage,” & gay & female “pastors” violates

sola scriptura because it isn’t supported by Scripture, because it’s not taught in Scripture. People who “believe” that they “get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means” is not actually professing sola scriptura. In fact, they are doing just the opposite, by violating it.Since these things are counter to Catholic reaching, they are irrelevant and in fact, only prove that SS is a gateway to diverse misinterpretation and errors.

Actually, they do. If not, where in these passages does it advocate “adding to” the Word of God, when they command NOT to “add to” the Word of God

?There is no addition, since the NT quotes the Deuterocanonical books (not the apocrypha since the DCs are not apocryphal). The Catholic Church does not add to scripture and verifiable historical sources show that the writings of the earliest Christians show that they were very much Catholic in their beliefs. They inform our understanding of the Bible since they themselves were taught by the apostles. These Sacred Traditions are part of the Deposit of Faith that consists of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition (the writings of the ECF, which I doubt you have bothered to study), and the Magisterial teachings of the church for 2,000 years.

Your reference to Our Lord’s use of “have you not read” does nothing to support your case for the modern scripture alone SS. He said that because he was speaking to Jews who had that as a reference point…literally as a Jewish teacher teaching Jews.

Show the passage in Scripture that states that extra-biblical “traditions” are called “Sacred” & commands us to follow those extra-biblical “traditions.”

2nd Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I love this verse! I don’t suppose that you’ve noticed here that St. Paul does not say to St. Timothy. “Study the Bible”, or “Study the scriptures”, and so based on what this verse says (and the context nowhere changes this…) then sacred Tradition is included in what Paul is telling Timothy to study. In this he would be following the apostles.

SS is nothing more than an unbiblical error in doctrine with no history over 500 years ago.

 

[thetazlord]

1. How can anyone, claiming to follow Christ, dispute with Him about His Church? As He did not write anything, all of the N.T. is from His Church, defined by Her alone, and feelings otherwise cannot change that reality.
2. He absolutely and finally shows us whom to believe, and who to trust in knowing what to believe in faith and in morals – the Church which Jesus declared solemnly to be “My Church” (Mt 16:18).

**All four promises to Peter alone: **

 

[Church_Militant]

Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.

Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?

---

2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;***

The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look…their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again…St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then… he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.

So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.

 

[thetazlord]

Yeah, which means that TL here is telling us that he is the authority for interpretation of scripture just because he can read and study a copy of the Bible and if we disagree with him on any point then we are wrong. I see no scripture that indicates such a doctrine so it fails even his SS paradigm.

No, that’s NOT what I’m saying. I’ve NEVER said that. And that’s not even what sola scriptura teaches. So, please don’t misrepresent what I said, or what sola scriptura teaches.

I’ve already checked these passages and shown that they do not support your position, so unless you can take them one at a time and show otherwise then restating them is irrelevant.

Really??? So the CC can “make up” anything they want that’s not IN Scripture, & call it “Sacred Tradition”? Do you see the danger in this? Also, “where” does our Lord, or any Bible writer STATE or support that extra-biblical “Sacred Tradition” that is not found in the Bible is at the same level as Inspired Scripture? Please show me that verse, since you are the one making the assertion & the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don’t have to prove a negative (since something is not taught in Scripture, that God hasn’t commanded that we follow it).

 

[thetazlord]

Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.

Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?

---

2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;***

The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look…their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again…St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then… he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.

So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.

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.

 

[Church_Militant]

.

No, that’s NOT what I’m saying. I’ve NEVER said that. And that’s not even what sola scriptura teaches. So, please don’t misrepresent what I said, or what sola scriptura teaches.

Then who’s the authoritative interpreter of scripture? It cannot be scripture itself since it nowhere lays claim to that.

If you’ve already checked them, & you reject that they state “do not add” & “do not take away” *not to exceed what is written

" then what’s the point of going through them one-by-one if you’ve already rejected them anyways?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…

No, these things are counter to Scripture

. The fact that the Catholic church also disagrees with them only demonstrates that the CC is adhering to Scripture alone. So, you DO adhere to sola scriptura, except for those extra-scriptural “traditions” that are have no Scriptural foundation or Authority at all beyond your “tradition” which is just circular reasoning.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.

Actually, they were referred to as “apocrypha” at one point in CC history. The term was later “changed” to DC because of the negative connotation of calling them apocrypha, which they are, because they conflict with prior, as well as later Inspired Scripture.

Cite your source for that please and if you cannot I’ll ask you to retract it.

There are no “apocryphal” books in the Catholic Bible. The 7 books in question are known as the “Deuterocanon” and were in the Greek text of the OT that the Jews used even in the time of Our Lord. The fact is that even F. F. Bruce, a well known non-Catholic scholar points out that one reason that the Council of Jamnia (which was really only a Jewish Sanhedrin that had no authority to decide canonicity, even for them) chose it’s Hebrew canon over the Septuagint is because the early church was using it to spread Christianity.

N-C scholars Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno tell us that that out of the 393 Old Testmant quotes in the New Testament 340 of them cite the Septuagint, while only 33 cite the Hebrew and by that count that means that over 90% of the time they quoted the Septuagint. There is a partial list of those quoted by Our Lord at Scripture Catholic and a very extensive article by my good friend Wolseley on my blog.

 

[Church_Militant]

This is called “quote-mining” Scripture - taking a SINGLE verse out of Scripture, & out of context of what it actually means.

Which is a precise description of your own technique that I took apart earlier.

Really??? So the CC can “make up” anything they want that’s not IN Scripture, & call it “Sacred Tradition”? Do you see the danger in this?

I’d worry about that if it had happened but since the church has not done that then it’s not an issue.

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…

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, because of the gift of the Internet, I have been able to study most of them & it’s been rather easy to find the passages in those apocrypha & pseudoepigraphical texts that conflict - and even outright contradict - the OT, the Gospels, as well as the rest of the NT, including 1 Clement. It took some time, but, yes, I “really did this.”

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?