Sola Scriptura?biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sancte_joseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"justasking4:
2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees.
Click to expand...
Cinette said:
*Praying to the dead? Who on earth prays to the dead?:confused: :confused: :confused: *
Click to expand...
Don’t fall for this, Cinette. He has already derailed the topic by sidetracking on the Deuterocanonicals, and is now trying to push it even further by throwing out lies.
 
justasking4 said:
God gave men minds to understand the Scriptures. It is with the mind we understand.
Click to expand...
That is one avenue only. And no amount of the “mind” at work will be effective if the heart is not properly inclined:

Prov 2:1-5
My child, if you accept my words
and treasure up my commandments within you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom
and inclining your heart to understanding;
3 if you indeed cry out for insight,
and raise your voice for understanding;
4 if you seek it like silver,
and search for it as for hidden treasures —
5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.
justasking4 said:
Scripture interpreting Scripture means that there are times when verses and passages from other areas of Scripture can be used to add to our understanding of a text. The 2 sermon on mount accounts in Matthew and Luke is a case in point.
Click to expand...
I hope you remember that you wrote this the next time you attempt that preposterous tact of trying to exclude scripture references that don’t agree with your doctrine. 😉
justasking4 said:
Not necessarily. There is no reason not to think that some were writing down what Jesus taught. Secondly, its not impobable that His teachings were not memorized by His disciples.
Click to expand...
No doubt there were many fragments of His teaching written. Luke refers to these in the prologue of his gospel.

Now, how can you acknowledge that tthe disciples were able to memorize the teachings, then assume that this ability ceased to exist when the Apostles died?
justasking4 said:
They, on their own checked out what Paul was preaching with the Scriptures themselves.
Click to expand...
The difference between you, and the Bereans, is that they were noble, where you are not. They received Paul’s teaching eagerly, whereas, you reject the Apostolic Teaching of the Church before you have even heard it!
justasking4 said:
No problem here. However, all we have from them today is the written Word of God.
Click to expand...
T’his is all you have, for the reason stated above. That could be corrected if you aspire to be noble! 👍

You have taken a step by admitting that the doctrine of SS cannot be found in the Bible. Now you could take another one by refraining from purpetrating lies. 😃
 
“People do not want truth - they want reassurance.”

“Of what use is it to have eyes if the heart is blind?”

“Not everyone whose eyes are closed is asleep and not
everyone with open eyes can see.”

“You know exactly where to look - that is the reason why you fail to find God.”

“We first make our conclusions -
then we find some way to arrive at them!”

I noted these in my journal some years ago and was reminded of them as I read through this thread.😃
 
Cinette said:
“People do not want truth - they want reassurance.”

“Of what use is it to have eyes if the heart is blind?”

“Not everyone whose eyes are closed is asleep and not
everyone with open eyes can see.”

“You know exactly where to look - that is the reason why you fail to find God.”

“We first make our conclusions -
then we find some way to arrive at them!”

I noted these in my journal some years ago and was reminded of them as I read through this thread.😃
Click to expand...
Awesome observations, thanks. I think you have rightly applied them here.
 
Sabbath_Keeper said:
[4215149]

So the claim of some RCs that the Bible did not exist before the Chruch put it together is false? So much contridiction, what is one to believe?:confused:
Click to expand...
This is for Sabbathkeeper;
I guess you need a history lesson? The Septuagint existed before Jesus Christ and there after, this was the Greek translation from Hebrew in the Old Testament only no new testament yet.

The Roman Catholic church approved the Septuagint as inspired including the Deuteorcanonical books (which means these books came down to us by the fourth century only in the second language Greek from Hebrew). The Roman Catholic church put the apostolic letters together and canonized them as inspired also, the first century christians had no New Testament Bible until the fourth century, when the Catholic church including the Popes approved them as inspired of God. The first century Christians only had Oral Traditional teachings from the apostles or some letters to learn the apostolic christian faith. Besides many could not read the letters let alone no bible, that is why the Church has always had a teacher from the apostles to hand down the Oral and scriptural (letters) teachings.

One must know the facts that the first century Jews who did not like the christians, used the 7 Deuterocanonical books to discredit Jesus teachings because Jesus and the apostles taught from the Greek only translation, thus making a case to discredit Jesus and remove the 7 books from the Septuagint after they were already used all the centuries leading up to the first century Jews who rejected them in 100a.d at the Jamnia council. Secondly Martin Luther (King James bible) rejected them as well, The only entity that held on to them was the Catholic church since the first century. The first century Jews and the Protestant reformers (Martin Luther) argument did not withstand the test of time, because in 1947 they found the Hebrew counterparts in Qumran in the dead sea scrolls, debunking the Protestants and Jewish argument to remove God’ s inspired Word from his Bible.

I hope this unconfuses you.

Peace
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Secondly Martin Luther (King James bible) rejected them as well,
Click to expand...
Teensy bit of correction: Martin Luther had nothing to do with the KJV. He wrote a German Bible, and was dead and gone more than 60 years before the KJV was published in 1611, and included the deuterocanon.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
Teensy bit of correction: Martin Luther had nothing to do with the KJV. He wrote a German Bible, and was dead and gone more than 60 years before the KJV was published in 1611, and included the deuterocanon.
Click to expand...
Good point, I stand corrected. Sometimes thinking and writing cant keep up with one another. From the surface it looks like that. Martin Luther rejected the books, and today the King James bible later did not include them. Although this is not true anymore, because some protestant bibles are including them now, and calling them the lost books. At least progress is being made.

Hey thanks for pointing out my blunder:thumbsup:

Peace be with you
 
guanophore said:
That is one avenue only. And no amount of the “mind” at work will be effective if the heart is not properly inclined:

Prov 2:1-5
My child, if you accept my words
and treasure up my commandments within you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom
and inclining your heart to understanding;
3 if you indeed cry out for insight,
and raise your voice for understanding;
4 if you seek it like silver,
and search for it as for hidden treasures —
5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.

I hope you remember that you wrote this the next time you attempt that preposterous tact of trying to exclude scripture references that don’t agree with your doctrine. 😉

No doubt there were many fragments of His teaching written. Luke refers to these in the prologue of his gospel.

Now, how can you acknowledge that tthe disciples were able to memorize the teachings, then assume that this ability ceased to exist when the Apostles died?

The difference between you, and the Bereans, is that they were noble, where you are not. They received Paul’s teaching eagerly, whereas, you reject the Apostolic Teaching of the Church before you have even heard it!

T’his is all you have, for the reason stated above. That could be corrected if you aspire to be noble! 👍

You have taken a step by admitting that the doctrine of SS cannot be found in the Bible. Now you could take another one by refraining from purpetrating lies. 😃
Click to expand...
View attachment 4168
 
Cinette said:
Patience is the fortitude to endure!

😛 :whistle:
Click to expand...
All things are possible with God! Remember that there are many more people reading the thread that do not post, so they may benefit much more that a person who is reading your post with a heart hardenend by hate and bigotry.
 
Let me break this down as a “protestant” who is considering joining the “Catholic” church:

As a protestant I upheld sola scriptura because of mainly two things; you shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God, and the scripture appears to be the most important thing in a protestants life. In a protestants mind Christian life isnt based upon traditions or even the church but by the inspired scripture. A protestant would never view the scripture as written tradition.
 
Phillipos said:
Let me break this down as a “protestant” who is considering joining the “Catholic” church:
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF, and welcome Home to the Church that Jesus founded.
Phillipos said:
As a protestant I upheld sola scriptura because of mainly two things; you shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God, and the scripture appears to be the most important thing in a protestants life.
Click to expand...
The fact that we shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word…is very Catholic. We just do not limit His Word to the Holy Scriptures. we consider Jesus to be the Word,and he cannot be confined to the pages of a book.
Phillipos said:
In a protestants mind Christian life isnt based upon traditions or even the church but by the inspired scripture. A protestant would never view the scripture as written tradition.
Click to expand...
I also agree that Protestants never view the Scripture as written tradition. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that most Protestants have no idea where their Bible came from, and were never taught that it’s entire contents is taken from the Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Secondly, most Protestants have been taught to disdain Tradition because all Protestant sects emerged, to some degree, from anti-Catholic roots.
 
Phillipos said:
Let me break this down as a “protestant” who is considering joining the “Catholic” church:

As a protestant I upheld sola scriptura because of mainly two things; you shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God, and the scripture appears to be the most important thing in a protestants life. In a protestants mind Christian life isnt based upon traditions or even the church but by the inspired scripture. A protestant would never view the scripture as written tradition.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting because that’s not what the Apostles taught. St. Paul explicitly includes the written word as well as the spoken word in Tradition:

Thess. 2:15:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
 
guanophore said:
All things are possible with God! Remember that there are many more people reading the thread that do not post, so they may benefit much more that a person who is reading your post with a heart hardenend by hate and bigotry.
Click to expand...
Guanophore,

I am one of those just reading the thread that you speak of and I appreciate all of the work that you and many others have done to stay on course. Your knowledge is inspiring! Great job! Thanks!!
 
guanophore said:
Welcome to CAF, and welcome Home to the Church that Jesus founded.

The fact that we shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word…is very Catholic. We just do not limit His Word to the Holy Scriptures. we consider Jesus to be the Word,and he cannot be confined to the pages of a book.

I also agree that Protestants never view the Scripture as written tradition. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that most Protestants have no idea where their Bible came from, and were never taught that it’s entire contents is taken from the Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Secondly, most Protestants have been taught to disdain Tradition because all Protestant sects emerged, to some degree, from anti-Catholic roots.
Click to expand...
You could also add a couple of other reasons why protestants reject traditions:
  1. Jesus rejected traditions for the most part.
  2. Many Catholic traditions have no foundation in Scripture.
 
elvisman said:
That’s interesting because that’s not what the Apostles taught. St. Paul explicitly includes the written word as well as the spoken word in Tradition:

Thess. 2:15:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
Click to expand...
What “traditions” was Paul referring to specifically?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top