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

[thetazlord]

Where does the Bible state that epistles are inspired but not “tracts”?

Book, chapter and verse, please!

Or is this another case of ADDING to Scripture?

“All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16)

“…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters (epistles), speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter refers to ALL of Paul’s writings as “epistles” (not tracts), as well as Scripture. Paul states that all Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed).

 

[thetazlord]

Well, having ZERO errors presupposes that you received the kerygma first, prior to reading the Bible, and then were able to compare the Bible to what you received orally to determine if there were ZERO errors in it, right?

And that…taz…is a testament to…

your belief in…

Sacred Tradition.

You can’t read something to see if it’s correct, unless you already know what’s correct, yes?

If you read a book that says: “this is the alphabet” but it excluded the letter X, you’d know it had an error.

But ONLY if you already knew what the alphabet was…because your mama (here: read “The Church”) had told you what the alphabet was.

No, I was like the noble-minded Bereans & compared it TO Scripture. Once I read Scripture & found no errors in it, I believed it to be Inspired. So, my faith wasn’t based on anyone’s “tradition.” It was based on comparing their “claims” of the Inspiration of Scripture, by actually READING Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

And also very Catholic of you to say.

No because you believe there are errors in the Gospel of Mark, which there aren’t.

So something can have a scientific error and still be inspired–i.e. the Gospel of Mark declaring the mustard seed to be the smallest seed.

That’s because that isn’t a scientific error, which I explained already. And even if I explained to you “why” it’s not an error, you still wouldn’t get it, based on the false accusations & comments you keep making.

But something can have a historical error (what is this historical error again in the epistles of Clement?) but that means it’s not inspired?

Again, I’m NOT making that claim. You aren’t listening!

 

[thetazlord]

So something can have a scientific error and still be inspired–i.e. the Gospel of Mark declaring the mustard seed to be the smallest seed.

How is this logical?

I’ll tell you what. I’ll throw you a bone. When Jesus refers to the mustard seed being “the smaller of all seeds” in Mark 4:31, in context, Jesus never said that He was referring to ALL seeds in existence. Remember, Jesus was in the land of Palestine, & mustard seeds that Jews sewed in Palestine in Jesus’ day, the mustard seed was the smallest. Otherwise, if you believe Jesus was speaking about ALL seeds in ALL existence, then you’re saying Jesus (Who is God) declared something false, which is impossible. I’m saddened to find out that you didn’t learn this as a Catholic which caused you to think that Scripture can contain errors (something the CC doesn’t even believe or teach) & still be God-breathed, but rather had to learn it from a Protestant. This is something you should have learned by now.

 

[Cathoholic]

I want to get this out on this thread as there has been a suggestion that Sacred Tradition has some OTHER form of revelation source apart from Sacred Scripture. It doesn’t.

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same Divine source.

Yet the Church teaches Written Tradition (note that the Bible is “Tradition”) and Oral Tradition flow from the "same divine wellspring (“For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end”).

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum sections 9-10) 9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

The other thing worth noting is that you need an infallible interpretation. Sola Scriptura CANNOT give us that. Sola Scriptura inevitably leads to traditions of men that make void the commandments of God–just as we have seen with the cadre of opposing doctrines all claiming to be “Scriptural” within Protestantisms.

We NEED all three aspects.

• Sacred (Oral) Tradition
• Sacred Scripture (Written Tradition)
• Magisterium (“The living teaching office of the Church”)

(bold of Vatican II mine)

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord stated in post 50 . . . . .

This is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew Ch.15 for their “precepts the doctrines of men” because not only were they contradicting Scripture, they were also ADDING TO Scripture (“precepts the doctrines of MEN”). This is why when Jesus corrected their “man-made traditions,” he used Scripture to correct them (‘As it is written…’ (Matthew 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 14:21; etc) & ‘Have you not read?’ (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:41; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 63; etc).

Thetazlord is talking about “Coban” in Matthew 15.

I have repeatedly asked thetazlord (elsewhere and here) to unpack Scripture instead of merely tossing it out and pretending it means entirely what he says it means. (It is like someone saying Matthew 1:1 teaches about “the Kingdom Hall and the Jehovah’s Witnesses”, etc. It is only his conjecture, it is mere ipse dixit unless you back it up.)

But alas and alack . . . that apparently is just not going to occur except on small scales.

Ipse dixit incidentally, is a fallacious way to argue a point, which basically means:

“This is so, because I say it is so!”

Thetazlord has employed this method of argumentation frequently. This is what happens when hoodwinked into accepting traditions of men such as this.

• Ipse dixit = “It is true because I declare it to be true”

So now thetazlord will probably take me to task for imputing and allegedly impugning the meanings of what he says (but then unpack it yourself taz and I won’t have to).

Matthew 15 centers on “Corban” and its misuse. The practice of Corban merely means to give sacrifice to God.

PARTS of what thetazlord states in post 50 are true (the conclusions thetazlord draws from it are FAR FROM TRUE though).

Corban

The Levitical Priests were telling people if they offered sacrificial money to them, I mean to God through them, the Priests would exempt these people from having to take care of their parents (and presumably other dependent &/or disabled family members).

Basically the misuse of Corban was “Give me (or at least to the Temple) money and I will exempt you from taking care of little brother who is mentally handicapped and exempt you from taking care of aged mom and dad.”

Let’s go to the real Matthew 15 (parenthetical additions mine) to see what it really says . . . .

MATTHEW 15:1a, 3b-9 1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem . . . . 3 (Jesus said to them) . . . why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"

The parallel passage is in Mark 7.

MARK 7:6-13 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is **Corban’ (that is, given to God) **-- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

St. Paul brings out the same point in 1st Timothy 5

1st TIMOTHY 5:5-8 5 She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; 6 whereas she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. 7 Command this, so that they may be without reproach. 8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

(Notice also they are WORSE than an “unbeliever” those who refuse to DO these “WORKS”—so much for justification by faith ALONE—but that is for another thread).

The people should be taking care of their aged parents, disabled brothers and sisters, little babies, etc. And it is not an optional item. And we don’t evade our responsibilities in the name of God.

Thetazlord’s Spurious Or False Assertions

Thetazlord takes these verses from Matthew 15 above, correctly states that Jesus castigates the Pharisees on their traditions of men that make void the commandments of God.

That is correct in what it asserts (so far).

Then thetazlord (with NO EVIDENCE other than his own ipse dixit) proclaims Jesus was drawing upon Scripture (true “honor your father and mother”) but Scripture ALONE concerning the authority of this teaching (and that is false).

• Thetazlord motif = If Jesus draws upon a Scripture teaching it MUST mean Scripture ALONE.

Continued . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

**Thetazlord’s Spurious Or False Assertions (Continued) **

• Thetazlord motif = If Jesus draws upon a Scripture teaching it MUST mean Scripture ALONE.

Thetazlord THEN concludes this new definition that he has thrown into his premise (“alone” now adding the fallacy of equivocation to his cadre of errors) . . . . therefore . . . . this is OUR MODEL to follow.

The problem is, that thetazlord gave NO EVIDENCE for these last two conclusions! Thetazlord just ASSUMES IT.

And I am not going to abide by taz’s ipse dixit fallacy (& fallacy of equivocation) and either should anyone else.

Here would be thetaz’s next question:

OK Catholic. If Jesus wasn’t drawing upon Scripture, WHAT WAS He drawing upon?

But that question itself is bogus. I never said Jesus wasn’t drawing upon Scripture. I am just saying Jesus wasn’t drawing upon Scripture ALONE!

Here possibly could be thetaz’s next question:

OK Cathoholic. Why don’t you just tell us WHERE Jesus is getting these teachings?

Jesus is getting them from Scripture to be sure (“honor your father and mother”). But Jesus is ALSO drawing upon natural law. And Jesus MAY be drawing upon authentic oral tradition too.

OK Cathoholic. How do you know that?

This Teaching Was Authoritatively Held Before Moses Was Born

Partly because people were held accountable for this type of thing even BEFORE it was put out in Sacred Scripture (“For Moses said. . .”).

And people were trying to side-step the authoritative aspect of this concept even before Scripture was written (“am I my brother’s keeper?”—Gen. 4:9).

And also EVEN Joseph’s (of Joseph and the coat of many colors fame) wicked brothers knew they needed to take care of not only their aging father Jacob but even their brother.

**They Knew They Needed To Care For Their Brother (How?) . . . . **

GENESIS 42:21-22 21 Then they said to one another, “In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us.” 22 And Reuben answered them, "Did I not tell you not to sin against the lad? But you would not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood."

NOT what Reuben said . . . .

NOT GENESIS 42 but a PHANTOM VERSE 21 Then they said to one another, “In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us.” 22 And Reuben answered them, "Hey look guys. There is no Scripture written yet. Heck. Moses isn’t even born yet. So we are not held accountable for what we did. This isn’t going to be authoritative teaching, until, well until some day when it is written down in Scripture. So don’t anybody worry here. OK?

And the wicked brothers KNEW enough to care for their father too!

How did they KNOW THAT thetazlord?

They couldn’t have known from Moses writings (Moses wasn’t born yet). They knew they were authoritatively held accountable (or are you going to argue it was “optional” at this point?). WHY? The only possibilities here are oral tradition, natural law, or BOTH.

**They Knew They Needed To Care For Their Father (How?). . . . **

GENESIS 44:22, 30-34 22 We said to my lord, ‘The lad cannot leave his father, for if he should leave his father, his father would die.’ . . . . 30 Now therefore, when I come to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us, then, as his life is bound up in the lad’s life, 31 when he sees that the lad is not with us, he will die; and your servants will bring down the gray hairs of your servant our father with sorrow to Sheol. 32 For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame in the sight of my father all my life.’ 33 Now therefore, let your servant, I pray you, remain instead of the lad as a slave to my lord; and let the lad go back with his brothers. 34 For how can I go back to my father if the lad is not with me? I fear to see the evil that would come upon my father."

Another example. Cain’s murdering of Abel. Cain didn’t transgress what was written in Scripture at that time because there was no Scripture written at that time.

Or are you going to say the Pentateuch was written by Adam (or Eve), Taz? And then you are going to have to show that Adam gave it to Cain too.

You see when you follow after traditions of men; you always have to invent more home-cooked-up religion to explain your newfangled traditions.

Before the Bible was began, lots of people were held accountable AUTHORITATIVELY for things that can only be explained by either Natural Law, Oral Tradition, or both. But not yet placed in written Tradition (Scripture).

That additional drawing upon the same Divine Wellspring, came later.

**In Summary **

So Taz takes Matthew 15, says Jesus draws upon Scripture for this teaching against Coban (agreed), . . . .

. . . . but then concludes (wrongly) that Jesus only drew upon the Scriptures ALONE (again NO EVIDENCE forthcoming from thetazlord), and then takes it a step further (!), or should I say a “tradition of men” further, and CONCLUDES (AGAIN WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE) that WE should do the same. That WE should do just what thetazlord interprets Jesus as allegedly doing.

And I am saying no reader should fall for such tomfoolery.

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

 

[sallybutler]

It is my understanding that when the various Letters and Gospels were written, they did not have chapters and verses. Neither did the Books of the Old Testament. Nor was the punctuation the same as it is today (more like, it did not exist in Greek or in Hebrew).

So, in adding punctuation, chapters, and verses, were not things added and/or taken away.

View attachment 21412

 

[zz912]

Thanks for the links. I took some time to read through them, but if you’re honest with yourself, they don’t decisively state “who” these “brothers” of Jesus are - something the CC should have known if the PVM was passed down by “apostolic succession,” since they are mentioned by name. Unfortunately, all these links to is “theorize” who they were (older step-brothers from an “allegedly” previous marriage from Joseph, cousins or other relatives, etc).

I’m wondering where you arrive at certainty about the parental lineage of these “brothers”, with no room for error in your opinion.

 

[zz912]

Um…really? Do you realize what you just asked? Inspired means “GOD-breathed.” You are saying that something GOD Authored can be in error, even historically? Think about that for a minute, because that is what you are insinuating.

The Church is “GOD-breathed”. So by your own logic, you should submit to the Chuch’s teaching, since it cannot be in error.

We finally agree on something.

 

[zz912]

You’re confusing the criteria for a writing to be Inspired, with the Scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura. Using an extra-biblical source to know that Mark was the writer of his Gospel doesn’t violate sola scriptura, because SS is about traditions, doctrines, dogmas, etc that “ADD” to Scripture/U] that are not found in Scripture. Knowing that Mark was the author of his Gospel, even though he’s not mentioned by name, doesn’t have anything to do with Church doctrine or dogma.

What are the criteria for a writing to be inspired?

Can you cite chapter and verse for these criteria? (since I don’t want to rely upon a faillible human’s opinion)

 

[zz912]

“Sola Scriptura,” “Sola Fide,” “Sola Christos” is Scriptures, PRMerger.

Scripture disagrees with your opinion

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (sola fide).

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912
Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger
Give me the OT Scripture passage detailing the chair of Moses and that the scribes and Pharisees hold this authority.

The “chair of Moses” refers to the authority to teach the OT Scriptures, which includes the Law of Moses. It was this “authority” that the Jewish leaders were placed in the authority by God “in charge” of teaching “the oracles of God” (the OT Scriptures). Unfortunately, they failed miserably.

I asked you for the OT Scripture passage that gives authority to the scribes and pharisees, and notes the authority vested in the chair of Moses. You responded with you opinion. Could you please give the OT citation?

 

[zz912]

I’m afraid you’re not comprehending what I’m getting across. There was a THREE-fold division of the OT Scriptures prior to the time of Jesus (the Law of Moses, the Prophets, & the Psalms). During the intertestimental period, the Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated into the Targums (the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). The Torah was translated first, followed by the Prophets. The writings occured last. The Writings included the Psalms & Proverbs, but no Sirach & Wisdom, because Sirach & Wisdom were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were written during the intertestimental period. It was this THREE-fold division Jesus is referring to (“the Law…the Prophets…the Psalms”). **What Catholics are unable to do is account for “why” Jesus separated the Psalms from the Prophets, even though elsewhere Jesus simply refers to the OT canon as simply “the Law & the Prophets.” **This is the reason why. BTW, “adding” historical reasons why certain books are included in the OT canon & not others doesn’t have anything to do with sola scriptura, which deals with the sole authority of Scripture for Christian doctrine. It doesn’t deal with “why” the canon is the way it is. So, it doesn’t violate sola scriptura. You are unnecessarily blending the two issues.

Could you cite the Scripture passage where Jesus explains why He separated them? Or is this more of just your personal opinion and conjecture?

 

[zz912]

Regarding John 6:53, again, employing sola scriptura (which prevents one’s personal views from being imputed into the text that isn’t in there) you get your answer.

Your personal opinion is riddled in the passages below.

The words Jesus uses (“bread,” “eat,” “drink,” “body,” “blood,” etc) even in the Greek has numerous different meanings & definitions.

So when Christ says His flesh is true food, He really means something else? And what about the multiple words He uses for “eat”? He changes words midway through the discource to use a word that is MORE graphic than His previous word used for “eat”, and cannot be taken symbolically.

Christians who read this fall into 2 camps. One camp chooses to read it literally, while discounting the other meanings & definitions of the words, as well as discounting the entire passage, as well as other related passages in both the OT & NT. Plus, whatever view you take can’t conflict with rest of the Word of God.

This is just your conjecture and opinion, since there are also multiple passages that indicate it is literal, specifically the 3 accounts of the Last Supper, 1 Corinthians, Acts, and other passages. So their opinion holds just as much Scriptural support (actually a lot more) than your opinion.

First, communion isn’t occurring in John 6:53. If you read earlier in the text, the breaking of bread occurred earlier & in a different location.

This isn’t news to Catholics. He said He WILL give His Body and Blood for us to eat. The John 6 discourse is something Jesus tells us will happen in the future.

Second, Jesus never describes any sort of “transubstantiation” of the communion elements (which, again, aren’t even there) like the way it’s understood & taught in the CC.

“This IS My Body.” - Jesus Christ. Seems pretty clear to me, and every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Christian faith.

Third, if Jesus was talking literally there, in the absence of communion food, in order for His disciples to be obedient, they would have to start literally eating Him & drinking His literal blood right then & there.

As noted above, Jesus was referring to something to happen in the near future. If you read the passage again, you will see your error on this point.

Fourth, since the OT Law was still in effect, Jesus would not have commanded them to break the Levitical Law that He commanded to refrain from eating the blood of “any flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14), not “just” not the blood of animals.

Many people accused Jesus of violating the Levitical laws, because they didn’t understand that He was God and could change the law if He chose, they also didn’t understand the Levitical law as God does, and they were using the law against man instead of for man. Are you following in their footsteps?

Fifth, Jesus states that “UNLESS one eats the flesh of the Son of Man & drinks His blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” If Jesus is speaking literally here, then ANYONE who doesn’t literally eat & drink Him, would end up in Hell, which would include baptized babies who die (as well as unbaptized babies who die) & small children or anyone for that matter, those “invincibly ignorant,” those “baptized by desire,” “baptized of blood” (martyrs), because they didn’t literally “eat” & “drink” Jesus literal body & blood.

When Jesus makes these types of statements, He is describing to those who are aware of His commands and refuse to obey them. God doesn’t hold those guilty who either couldn’t carry out His commands or were unaware of them. St. Paul explains this concept some. Have you read his writings?

Sixth, the key to understanding what Jesus meant is with sola scriptura - such as going back earlier in the passage & reading John 6:35, which is clear that Jesus is speaking in figurative, spiritual terms, not literal.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Where did you get this idea that spiritual means figurative? He is being literal AND spiritual in 6:35.

If fact, when many of His disciples walked away, Jesus said that His words were spiritual, not meant to be literal. And this is why they walked away - they believed Jesus “was” speaking literally, & didn’t want to break Levitical Law. And since Jesus knew their hearts, this is why He didn’t call them back & correct them. No matter what He said, or explained, because of their hardness of hearts, they wouldn’t have accepted Him anyways. So, it’s not that I’m just saying “Nah! It’s a metaphor,” because sola scriptura doesn’t allow for that kind of “non-answer.”

This is COMPLETE speculation on your part, as Jesus doesn’t explain why He didn’t call the back. In fact, an honest reading of the chapter indicates the opposite, as Jesus each time reaffirms His teaching in more graphic and definitive terms. He does this several times.

So chapter and verse for where Jesus explains His reasoning for letting them leave, or admit it is just your fallible opinion.

 

[ShanPO]

Shannon, yes, that was a typo. (My bad! ) And, yes, I did look into it myself.

We Catholics are a forgiving lot, but should this happen again, the wrath of all of Catholis shall befall you and your house for 7 generations. Enjoy!

That’s a genuinely fair question. It depends on “what” the issue was. If it was something non-essential, like the frequency of receiving communion, then it’s something I could remain in fellowship with them. If was something that involved salvation or another essential Christian doctrine, then if they wouldn’t listen, then - Scripturally - I would have to break fellowship with them. But I would still love them & pray for them, as I would hope they would me. .

Who gets to determine the non-essentials?

Where in the Bible can I find those essentials or non-essentials? They have to be there, otherwise, you’re adding to the bible and creating what we Catholics call a man-made tradition.

Regarding John 6:53, again, employing sola scriptura (which prevents one’s personal views from being imputed into the text that isn’t in there) you get your answer. The words Jesus uses (“bread,” “eat,” “drink,” “body,” “blood,” etc) even in the Greek has numerous different meanings & definitions. Christians who read this fall into 2 camps. One camp chooses to read it literally, while discounting the other meanings & definitions of the words, as well as discounting the entire passage, as well as other related passages in both the OT & NT. Plus, whatever view you take can’t conflict with rest of the Word of God. First, communion isn’t occurring in John 6:53. If you read earlier in the text, the breaking of bread occurred earlier & in a different location. Second, Jesus never describes any sort of “transubstantiation” of the communion elements (which, again, aren’t even there) like the way it’s understood & taught in the CC. Third, if Jesus was talking literally there, in the absence of communion food, in order for His disciples to be obedient, they would have to start literally eating Him & drinking His literal blood right then & there. Fourth, since the OT Law was still in effect, Jesus would not have commanded them to break the Levitical Law that He commanded to refrain from eating the blood of “any flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14), not “just” not the blood of animals. Fifth, Jesus states that “UNLESS one eats the flesh of the Son of Man & drinks His blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” If Jesus is speaking literally here, then ANYONE who doesn’t literally eat & drink Him, would end up in Hell, which would include baptized babies who die (as well as unbaptized babies who die) & small children or anyone for that matter, those “invincibly ignorant,” those “baptized by desire,” “baptized of blood” (martyrs), because they didn’t literally “eat” & “drink” Jesus literal body & blood. Sixth, the key to understanding what Jesus meant is with sola scriptura - such as going back earlier in the passage & reading John 6:35, which is clear that Jesus is speaking in figurative, spiritual terms, not literal. If fact, when many of His disciples walked away, Jesus said that His words were spiritual, not meant to be literal. And this is why they walked away - they believed Jesus “was” speaking literally, & didn’t want to break Levitical Law. And since Jesus knew their hearts, this is why He didn’t call them back & correct them. No matter what He said, or explained, because of their hardness of hearts, they wouldn’t have accepted Him anyways. So, it’s not that I’m just saying “Nah! It’s a metaphor,” because sola scriptura doesn’t allow for that kind of “non-answer.”

You gave me several quotes from scripture as to why something I believe is not “scriptural.” I can go back and give you a ton as to why it is and we can go back and forth like that until one of us loses a hand from typing, but like the Zax, neither of us will move an inch either way.

So who’s right? I’m reading the same verses you are and seeing something completely different. You can’t tell me I’m wrong, I’m using your standard to prove something I think is right. Unless you can prove that you have the absolute authority to interpret all scripture, everything you say is just as valid as everything I say, and since our views contradict, we can’t both be right, can we?

The point I’m trying to make is that SS fails in this example because one source (the Bible) can’t say 2 contradicting things. And if SS fails in the example, it has to fail altogether because if a theory only works some of the time, it can never be used to prove anything.

Let me ask you, is agreeing with the (correct) stance of the CC that God does not approve of abortion & gay “marriages” & gay/female “pastors” solely based on your “agreement” with them? Or is it because you are able to make this determination from Scripture alone? IOW, do you “need” the CC to tell you they are wrong, or can you discern this solely on Scripture?

I can prove abortion and gay marriage is wrong without the Bible completely. Atheists do it ALL THE TIME! So to answer your question, no, I don’t need the Catholic Church or the Bible to tell me things are wrong. I have a brain and can look at things and say, “Ehhh, that probably ain’t so great.”

From Scripture alone: [Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19] Scripture never states “do not add nor take away” from extra-biblical tradition.

Your authority to determine what Scripture says come from Scripture? I’m going to need a verse that says Taz is DA MAN with Scripture.

 

[ShanPO]

It is my understanding that when the various Letters and Gospels were written, they did not have chapters and verses. Neither did the Books of the Old Testament. Nor was the punctuation the same as it is today (more like, it did not exist in Greek or in Hebrew).

So, in adding punctuation, chapters, and verses, were not things added and/or taken away.

View attachment 21412

I tend to not follow this line of thinking because chapters and verse numbers were added to help study, as a way to clarify things. If I picked up a scroll and read “For God so loved the World…” without a number, it would still mean the same if I said “We all know what John 3:16 says”

 

[sallybutler]

I tend to not follow this line of thinking because chapters and verse numbers were added to help study, as a way to clarify things. If I picked up a scroll and read “For God so loved the World…” without a number, it would still mean the same if I said “We all know what John 3:16 says”

The problem is that often those breaks may cause people to lump things together that weren’t meant to be lumped together or seperate things that should have been together.

That verse is part of a conversation between Nicodemus & Jesus. Starting with verse 22, we are on to a different subject. To me it would be more logical to break chapter 3 into a least two chapters.

All of the verses in Jesus’ answer are important. God sent Jesus, not to judge, but to save. Your works say what you think of the light. You will not perish if you believe.

All work together. By having the verses, it is easier to isolate things that maybe should not be isolated.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You stated in post 196 (here):

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

Yet I have appealed ONLY to Scripture here to back me up on the sola Scriptura issue.

I only defined what a Council said (here), for clarity (because Catholics were being besmirched by redefining doctrines we supposedly believe but don’t).

And I (here and Patrick 457 here & here) corrected an incomplete teaching on St. Jerome & the Deuterocanonicals.

When ALL the data was laid out, all of a sudden someone feigns concern about staying on topic (saying, “But this is really irrelevant, since this thread is about “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…” not the canon of Scripture”).

Yet I wasn’t the one who brought that issue of St. Jerome up. But I wasn’t going to let the shenanigans prevail either.

But in regards to the sola Scriptura issue (minus the two posts above), I have ONLY appealed to Sacred Scripture! Odd behavior for one who you say: Has such a “limited view of Scripture authority.”

I have appealed ONLY to Scripture here to back me up on the sola Scriptura issue.

Go back and re-read my posts (every one of them—I did) and you will never see me saying: “Well this Pope says this about sola Scriptura” or “Trent condemns this truncated view of sources for the Word of God”. I COULD. And those arguments are legitimate. But you wouldn’t accept them (so I have not appealed to them).

Sadly you are not accepting Sacred Scripture either.

I have explicitly said that I affirm the authority of Sacred Scripture.

• It is YOU who deny the authority of Oral Tradition.
• It is YOU who deny the authority of a teaching Magisterium (yet apply it to yourself).
• It is YOU who re-invent Scripture passages such as when I QUOTED SCRIPTURE and said:

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

You restated the Scriptural teaching saying:

benhur Phantom proclamation God uses many things but Scripture is superlative

A “verse” found NOWHERE in Scripture!

Why did you have to re-state the Scriptures DIFFERENT than what the Scriptures say?

You and I BOTH know WHY. You HAD to.

You HAD to do this as the sola Scriptura tradition is . . . a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

And if you want to follow after men, that is your call. But don’t pervert what I am saying and don’t ignore what Scripture is saying either. Just admit it. You have chosen to follow after “traditions of men”.

---

And I asked you to show me the verse that gives us the Canon of Scripture.

**And I am still waiting. **

Which answer is it benhur?

Was the Canon handed down by oral Tradition and clarified by the Magisterium? . . . OR . .

. . OR . . Was the Canon handed down by Scripture itself?

Which one is it benhur?

Where is this verse?

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.

Benhur. I asked you about:

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

Your reply?

God uses many things but Scripture is superlative

WHERE is THAT taught?

Was St. John the Baptist’s inspired word of God prophecies LESS superlative because he never wrote? Is THAT what you are saying? Or . . . .

. . . . Or are St. John the Baptist’s inspired word of God prophecies LESS superlative UNTIL someone came by and wrote them down? Is THAT what you are saying?

When the inspired prophet of God Elijah took on the priests of Baal, were the actions any less “superlative” or did they “evolve” and “become” so “superlative” once those actions got written down later?

Please give me some superlative evidence for your tradition. Not your mere opinion but Scripture to back this up. According to you benhur, when God speaks, His spoken word, is . . . well . . . less superlative unless it some how gets written down.

Did God have to “write” stuff down before His word went forth and He made creation (the Heavens and the earth) too? Or was His creation “not superlative”?

How about “The Word” being made flesh and dwelling among us? Is Jesus not quite that “superlative” too?

Where are you formulating these traditions?

This is a sneak-attack against Scripture by you benhur in the name of you supposedly correcting my alleged “limited view of Scripture authority”.

I asked you about Matthew 2:23 and you had no answer except to pick out 2 or 3 single WORDS in common in completely different passages and pretend they were clearly teaching the same DOCTRINE from Scripture alone.

Playing “Jumble” (here is “Jumble”) with the Scriptures benhur is only one step away from asking Pat Sajak and Vanna White for a vowel to “prove” your sola Scriptura point. This is NOT the way to “defend” Scripture benhur.

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

 

[PRmerger]

No because you believe there are errors in the Gospel of Mark, which there aren’t.

You see how you have backed yourself into another corner, taz.

Are scientific and historical errors necessarily a criterion for dismissal from the Word of God?

If yes, then you have to omit the Gospel of Mark. (No one can deny that it’s FALSE that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds).
If no, then you have to admit the Epistles of Clement.

(Did you ever limn what these historical errors are? Haven’t caught up with all the posts yet.)

A predicament for those who assert that they have read all of the ancient Christian texts and discerned, of their own authority, what is theopneustos and what is not.

I suppose you could say, “Historical errors nix. Scientific errors are ok” but that would be a very peculiar assertion and no one with a reasonable mind could accept.