Sola Scriptura (continued)

[hvg3akaek]

Who was it that determined that Revelation was Scriptural, when many religious thought that it was not?

Who was it that determined that Hebrews, John’s and Peter’s Epistles were Scriptural when many thought they weren’t?

Who was it that determined that the Shepherd of Hermes or the Gospel of Barnabus, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, or the Acts of Peter were not Scriptural, when many thought they were?

Ok, yeah, yeah, I understand it was God. But who did the Holy Spirit guide to determine the NT Canon when roughly 110 books were being considered for Canonization?

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it a number of people at a number of councils, over the space of a few hundred years? If it was just one person whom God gave His Spirit to, and they announced it infallible-like (not sure of the correct tense of the word ), why did it take so long?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it a number of people at a number of councils, over the space of a few hundred years? If it was just one person whom God gave His Spirit to, and they announced it infallible-like (not sure of the correct tense of the word ), why did it take so long?

That’s the point. It was first a synod, then a council in Carthage, then one in Hippo.

This is why you believe in the Canon of the NT, because of the Authority of the Church to determine it.

Why did it take so long? I don’t know. The Spirit works in His own way. But yet, knowingly or not, you are following the Church’s authority and trusting that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to come up with the correct Canon.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hello,

I must be missing something. Please try to re-explain it to me like I’m a two year old.

You asked:
How do you know that the Bible is inspired? How do you know what books to include and which not to include?

You quoted:
…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

Physics, chemistry and the rest of the physical sciences are not necessary for salvation. According to Sola Scriptura, all things necessary for salvation are explicitly laid out in Scriptures and easy enough for all to understand. A main tenet of this is that Scriptures are necessary for salvation - how can you know the rest of the necessities without Scriptures to tell you. So if Scriptures are necessary and all things necessary are in the Bible then where does it give the list of inspired books. How would you know you had all of them, or had some that weren’t inspired. If this is necessary for salvation, then it must be explicitly in Scriptures and easy enough for anyone to understand.

Is believing Mary was a Perpetual Virgin necessary for salvation?

For that matter, is having the bible in its fullness necessary for salvation?

It is a different claim to say “Only X is needed for salvation” and “X and only X is needed for salvation”.

Questions!!!

This is trying to prove with the Old Testament. If it was so apparent (remember must be easy enough for anyone to understand) then why are there no Jews who believe in the Trinity (well, maybe the Messianic Jews)? And why did no one at all understand the Trinity until Jesus came down and told us? Remember, the Jews in Jesus’ time knew the Old Testament even better than the Bible Christians today know the New Testament. Why did none of them see this?

I think you answered part of your own question there - there are (and there were) Jews who did believe it. Just as today, there are non-Christians who hear the message and believe.

Look back throughout the Old Testament, and see how well the Israelites did in obeying God. If they kept failing then, when He had His presence with them in their temple, what makes you think they wouldn’t fail when Jesus appeared?

The answer is because we view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. All the prophecies, laws, etc. - we view with a Christological viewpoint.

We do indeed, but that did not stop Paul from reasoning with Jews from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Nor did it stop Apollos from debating with the Jews, “proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:28).

Is it written anywhere that Mark or Luke were disciples of Jesus or present in the upper room at Pentecost? Not saying they weren’t, just that I don’t think it was not written. If they were not, then they had to learn the faith from the Apostles. We know that Mark was the disciple of Peter and his Gospel is consider to be Peter’s account. We know Luke was the disciple of Paul and his Gospel is considered to be Paul’s account.

Speaking of Paul, where did he learn all about the faith? He knew Jesus truly rose and was God after his conversion on the road to Damascus. But where did he learn things like justification, the three theological virtues, etc.?

Note, I am not really trying to make a big argument or apology on this. I am really just positing questions for consideration.

For sure, put them out there for pondering But thinking too long on them might not be the best idea.

After all, we are talking about our God, who can inspire people to write what He wills. I have no problem thinking that Paul never heard the news from other humans until he had been preaching for a while and met them in Jerusalem. Jesus can give him everything he needed.

Similarly, it is more than possible that Mark and Luke both had their ‘gaps’ filled in with God’s Spirit dictating to them. I am not saying that it happened, but why could it not have happened?

That begs the question how do you know the Old Testament is inspired? And what books should be included?

It may indeed. Why don’t you start a thread on whether the OT is inspired or not?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Not a lit, I would think. Fortunately, I was not discussing the foreign drinking market, but ‘agreements within the church’. Yes, they had disagreements. But “did Paul write this letter?” was not one of them. (or at least, not a serious one). Thus, I am quite satisfied to claim that Paul did indeed write it.

 

[hvg3akaek]

continued…

That is why I don’t say that the NIV is the worst, but it is on the list. I think the worst version was some feminist bible where the Our Father began “our mother who might be in heaven”.

So what makes you think that the NIV is poor? What verses in particular are you unhappy with?

And those translators who translated the Greek and Hebrew into Latin knew those languages better than you probably know English.

Well, with the rapid changes that are happening with english these days, I would not disagree with that. however, so what? The point is that any translation based on a translation is not going to be as good as a translation based on the original. Why? Because you are no longer translating the original writer’s words and meanings, but what someone else thinks are the original writer’s words and meanings.

I’ll make all replies on this in the new thread.

OK, link me when you are done

Each Bishop today can trace his ordination back to one of the Apostles. The Apostles couldn’t just ordain one person, but as many as were necessary for the pastoring of the flock.

Interesting. But that is not the succession…as the papal succession is meant to be for life, no? That is, when one of the apostles died, someone should have filled in his role. Thus there should be 12/13 positions higher than the other ordained bishops.

 

[hvg3akaek]

They believed they were inspired because of the testimony of sacred tradition. This is the same basis upon which the inspiration of the NT is derived. Since you deny the testimony of sacred tradition, upon what basis,then, do you claim that scripture is inspired?

The same tradition that Jesus spoke out against?

And what ‘sacred tradition’ was around between Paul’s letters and Peter’s, to allow Peter to believe in Paul?

 

[hvg3akaek]

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that the decisions made about which books were in the NT was not the result of divine inspiration??

Absolutely. I am sure God could quite easily have guided the discussions and so forth, as He can guide the discussions of our church today.

Apparently you don’t feel that you need them at all!

Quite correct! I have, so far, seen no need for the Roman Catholic Traditions.

You are in error, anyway, over the nature of the tradition. The tradition is sacred, just as it was when Jesus used it, and the apostles and their successors before the NT was written.

Could you please point to where Jesus used this 'sacred Tradition"? Ta

You cannot believe as they did, because both believed, valued, recited and practiced sacred tradition, which you reject.

Proof please

News Flash! There is only one Church. Only One Body.

Of course, sorry, my bad. Better tell Jesus that he miscounted

Revelation 1:11
“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”

That is very Catholic of you!

indeed, and is one of the reasons I insist using the term “Roman Catholic” to differentiate the organisation headed by the pope from the “catholic” body of believers, spread over the world and throughout history, and who come under many different denominations

Wow. How can a SS person deny such a blatant promise of Christ?

Where was this promise again, sorry?

 

[hvg3akaek]

On what basis do you assert that the scripture has captured all the sacred traditions? Scripture itself testifies that it has not!

…and here we go around in circles.

Scripture has not collected/recorded all of Jesus’ teachings, no. But then, why would they want to write the same sermon in twenty different ways, with minor alterations in the telling so as to better reach a particular group, just for the sake of completeness?

There is stuff in the Bible that we could cut out, and not loose any knowledge. No, I am not suggesting that we should, but rather, that there is overlap.

So what if other things were taught, but not recorded? If they only overlapped with what we have, they are not necessary.

What

 

[El_camino]

hvg3akaek:

Quote:
News Flash! There is only one Church. Only One Body.

Of course, sorry, my bad. Better tell Jesus that he miscounted

Revelation 1:11
“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”

I guess to hvg3akaeh the Church of Ephesus was baptist, the Church of Smyrna was Methodist, the Church of Pergamum was presbyterian, the Church of Thyatira was Lutheran, the church of Sardis was Reformed, the Church of Philadelphia was pentecostal, and the Church of Laodicea was non-denominational right???

And they all followed Sola Scriptura, and they supposedly followed the same scripture but however their beliefs were different because they did not arrive at the same interpretation of scripture, however each of those churches claimed to have the correct interpretation of scripture and each of those churches competed with the others to make the faithful go to their respectives churches right??

And according to his sarcasm, hvg3akaeh’s claims that this is the way that Jesus intended it, right??

:dts:

 

[HailMary]

What do you think are the essentials?

Personally, I think that:

• *](a) Jesus is the Christ;
  *] He is part of the triune God;
  *] **the Bible is God’s word; **
  *] we all have sinned and gone against God; and
  *] only through Jesus’ death and resurrection can we be made right with God.
  
  are all pretty essential. I am sure there are a few more to add to that, but I also don’t think that Protestants disagree on these…

• 
  Sorry Charlie, you have a very wrong idea of what “God’s Word” is.
  
  John 1:1
  

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  The Word is a Person, not a book. And that Person is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate Himself.

 

[hvg3akaek]

That’s the point. It was first a synod, then a council in Carthage, then one in Hippo.

This is why you believe in the Canon of the NT, because of the Authority of the Church to determine it.

Why did it take so long? I don’t know. The Spirit works in His own way. But yet, knowingly or not, you are following the Church’s authority and trusting that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to come up with the correct Canon.

So, how did they decide on it? Was it not as I have suggested - agreement with other Scripture, consistency in doctrines, written by those who were witnesses or close to witnesses, used close to the time of Jesus and not (successfully) argued with, and so forth? That is not ‘inspiration’ at work, nor is it ‘infallibility’ at work. That is people, lead by the Holy Spirit, using the brains that God gave them, deducing what fitted, what was accurate, and what was legitimate.

That is not Tradition. That is thinking.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Sorry Charlie, you have a very wrong idea of what “God’s Word” is.

John 1:1

The Word is a Person, not a book. And that Person is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate Himself.

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.

=> Is Jesus saying that they nullify Him, or that they nullify what God said in the Old Testament?

Luke 8:11
This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.

=> Is Jesus claiming to be a seed, scattered amongst humanity?

Luke 11:28
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

=> Obey it, not Him.

Acts 6:7
So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

=> But wasn’t Jesus in heaven? How could he spread?

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

=> Ooh, a third thing that is the word of God!

wait - could the term have multiple meanings? Could, possibly, multiple things be the word of God?

yeah, that sounds about right

 

[HailMary]

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.

=> Is Jesus saying that they nullify Him, or that they nullify what God said in the Old Testament?

Luke 8:11
This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.

=> Is Jesus claiming to be a seed, scattered amongst humanity?

Luke 11:28
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

=> Obey it, not Him.

Acts 6:7
So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

=> But wasn’t Jesus in heaven? How could he spread?

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

=> Ooh, a third thing that is the word of God!

wait - could the term have multiple meanings? Could, possibly, multiple things be the word of God?

yeah, that sounds about right

This doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus is the Word and that is the primary meaning by virtue of its placement in the Gospel according to St. John.

Further, all these versus do apply to Jesus directly.
Ephesians 6:17

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Who is your helmet of salvation but Jesus?

Acts 6:7

So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Jesus is in Heaven and on Earth in the Church and in the Eucharist, something sadly, that you do not believe in, despite 2000 years of constant Christian teaching, even your own father, Martin Luther and his followers believed in it. But anyhow, “the word of God spread”, when you are baptized in Christ, you become a new Christ because you are to imitate Him. And if Christ is in your soul and in your body (via Eucharist), yes, He is actually present and spreading as the Church grows.

Luke 11:28

He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

So you mind telling me, according to your interpretation, what is the “word of God” Jesus is referring to here? It clearly can’t be the bible since it was non-existent. Its nothing but Himself! And how would you “hear” a bible, let alone, obey it (obey a book?).

Luke 8:11

This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.

Yes, in a sense. Remember this is a parable. Jesus is that seed that is infused in your soul when you are baptized and practice charity. And unfortunately, some people who have that seed, go to hell, because they fell and never repented.

Anyway you look at it, the burden of proof is on you, where does the bible even say refer to itself as “the word of God”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting. But that is not the succession…as the papal succession is meant to be for life, no? That is, when one of the apostles died, someone should have filled in his role. Thus there should be 12/13 positions higher than the other ordained bishops.

The Papal succession is the See of Rome. As Paul and others went through the world they set up other See’s, which ended up needing a bishop. But every bishop can trace his lineage back to the Apostle.

So, how did they decide on it? Was it not as I have suggested - agreement with other Scripture, consistency in doctrines, written by those who were witnesses or close to witnesses, used close to the time of Jesus and not (successfully) argued with, and so forth? That is not ‘inspiration’ at work, nor is it ‘infallibility’ at work. That is people, lead by the Holy Spirit, using the brains that God gave them, deducing what fitted, what was accurate, and what was legitimate.

That is not Tradition. That is thinking.

OK, so you are saying “consistency in doctrines”, and then you say that the Church disagrees with the Bible? The same church that gave us the Canon due to (among other things) “consistency in doctrines” doesn’t even follow those doctrines?

 

[clmowry]

Peter didn’t “believe” in Paul. He confirmed his teachings were authentic.

A very pope like act, it seems.

Chuck

The same tradition that Jesus spoke out against?

And what ‘sacred tradition’ was around between Paul’s letters and Peter’s, to allow Peter to believe in Paul?

 

[guanophore]

Mr Gandalf claimed that none of the books in the Bible claim that others are inspired. Clearly, that is untrue, as my example states. If that does not convince you that a book i the bible claims that some books in the bible are inspired, then I cannot see you being convinced of anything, ever…

Please show where one book in the Bible states that another book is inspired.

Partly because we see a history of God inspiring people to write his Word down throughout the Old Testament.

Where in the Bible does it state that this is the only record of “the word of the Lord”?

The passage was not to prove inspiration of the bible, but that some of the bible claims that other parts of the bible are inspired, which your previous comment was against.

Perhaps I missed some posts? Perhaps you are quoting Peter, testifying that Paul’s writings are inspired? Why are there some of Paul’s writings that are not in the canon?

The passage was not to prove inspiration of the bible, but that some of the bible claims that other parts of the bible are inspired, which your previous comment was against.

But, where in the Bible is the list of books that belong in the bible?

can you not use the same things that you use elsewhere to determine rain, to determine the news, and so on? Why do you have to turn to Traditions?

Ahh. You just made my case for me. If I want to know if it is raining, I will use the best available evidence. I will study the skies, I will watch the weather channel. I will pull up the sattelite photos. In the same way, Apostolic succession preserves the absolute best testimony to the teachings of Jesus, just like the doppler radar is the best source of testimony about the weather. However, apostolic tradition is one better,because Jesus promised them that He would preserve them in all truth. therefore, when they give testimony about what belongs in the canon, he who hears them hears Jesus.

And once more I ask - why is it only “scripture” or “traditions”? Do we not have something else, something that we can use to see if its raining? Or to reason if we actually exist? Or to work out if a witness is accurate or not?

Sure, textual criticism and study of history also is a witness, but the most reliable witness is God Himself, and and God speaks through the magesterium of the Church.

Outside of the Bible =/= Tradition.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with this formula. Perhaps this is your way of saying that you have rejected the authority that Jesus appointed to be witness to His gospel?

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it a number of people at a number of councils, over the space of a few hundred years? If it was just one person whom God gave His Spirit to, and they announced it infallible-like (not sure of the correct tense of the word ), why did it take so long?

Yes, a number of people and councils took up this debate. Why does it take so long fore people to understand the will of God? Why has it taken the Jews so long to recognize their messiah? Why did it take the messiah so long to come in the first place? Why is it taking so long for Him to come back?

 

[guanophore]

You asked:
How do you know that the Bible is inspired? How do you know what books to include and which not to include?

You quoted:
…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

History does help, but there IS a lot of disagreement and various historical perspectives. How do you decide which one to choose? The one that suits your conclusion?

Is believing Mary was a Perpetual Virgin necessary for salvation?

The rejection of this teaching represents a rejection of Jesus, without whom salvation is impossible.

For that matter, is having the bible in its fullness necessary for salvation?

Since people were obviously getting saved before any of it was written, I can confidently say that NONE of the bible is necessary for salvation.

It is a different claim to say “Only X is needed for salvation” and “X and only X is needed for salvation”.

Whose claims are the most reliable.? Would it not be those of Jesus, and the ones who spent every day with Him for three years, and those whom he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail?

Look back throughout the Old Testament, and see how well the Israelites did in obeying God. If they kept failing then, when He had His presence with them in their temple, what makes you think they wouldn’t fail when Jesus appeared?

Are you saying that the Apostles were fallible?

we are talking about our God, who can inspire people to write what He wills. I have no problem thinking that Paul never heard the news from other humans until he had been preaching for a while and met them in Jerusalem. Jesus can give him everything he needed.

If you believe God could do that then, why not now?

Similarly, it is more than possible that Mark and Luke both had their ‘gaps’ filled in with God’s Spirit dictating to them. I am not saying that it happened, but why could it not have happened?

Better yet, why could it still not happen today?

Fortunately, I was not discussing the foreign drinking market, but ‘agreements within the church’. Yes, they had disagreements. But “did Paul write this letter?” was not one of them. (or at least, not a serious one). Thus, I am quite satisfied to claim that Paul did indeed write it.

Of course that was one of the disagreements! Just like it still is today! Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Jesus instructed them, when they had disagreements, to take them TO THE CHURCH. the failure to follow this commandment has resulted in a fracturing of His body.

 

[nerfherder]

This is a fascinating, if feisty, discussion.

It does raise a number of issues for me:

(1) It continues to be profoundly aggravating for me (and I suspect for other protestant Christians) that CC has arrogated ownership of the scriptures - which it then donates to others - and that it has appropriated unique, divinely-inspired authority to interpret them to the exclusion of any other authority. If doing so is based by CC on the scriptures, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(2) Divine inspiration is difficult to pin down - as we have seen in the reduction of indulgences heavily used in the middle ages, and the increase in annulments currently. We also see it in papal elections which require in most cases a number of ‘votes’ before there is an elected Pope. If selection were divinely inspired, why is a vote required, why might it take more than one vote, and why is it perhaps true to say (although we can never know) that a *minority *papabile can be elected by the College of Cardinals? Why does it take so long? Where is there divine inspiration here? And where does the infallibility suddenly originate from? This is the closest example that I think can be understood by everyone.

(3)

Therefore, the early Protestants targeted for elimination traditions and doctrines they believed were based on distortions of Scripture, or were contrary to the Bible, but which the Catholic Church considered scripturally-based aspects of the Christian faith, such as transubstantiation, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images or icons, and especially the doctrine that the Pope is the head of the Church on earth.

Some of these ‘divinely inspired’ doctrines/dogmas/beliefs/etc have become some of the worst stumbling blocks to re-unification. And good men on both sides of the schism were presumably divinely inspired to antithetical beliefs.

I am attracted by the post that suggested that

that is not ‘inspiration’ at work, nor is it ‘infallibility’ at work. That is people, lead by the Holy Spirit, using the brains that God gave them, deducing what fitted, what was accurate, and what was legitimate. That is not Tradition. That is thinking.

Perhaps it was the CC combination of scripture with ‘tradition’ that has made it so difficult to overcome the reluctance of protestants to trust the self-proclaimed authority of the CC. (I have posited elsewhere that the succession might have moved with Luther and subsequent reformers. Without the emphasis on divine inspiration as to the work of the institution of the Catholic Church, it should have been possible, before or after the fact of the schism, to avoid permanent separation.

(4) Someone asked ‘How do you decide which interpretation (of scripture and/or tradition) to choose? The one that suits your conclusion?’ This is a tough one, for it seems that each time a decision is made, CC comes out on top, by its own admission. Is this simply coincidence? Is it God’s will? How do we know?

We start with ownership of Christ’s Church on earth, understanding of his mission and God’s, interpretation of scriptures and ownership of the Bible, apostolic succession, and the core beliefs of faith. Can I truly believe that God comes down on the side of CC every time? No.

Further, we know, we are aware through the events of history, that there are times that interpretations made by the Magisterium or the Papcy actually reflect, or react to, annoyances, rebellions, heresies, conflicts of other kinds, outside or inside the CC. A 20th century example is seen in the two papal Encyclicals, Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII, 1893: to protect Catholic interpretation of the Bible from attacks by rationalistic science); and Divino afflante Spiritu (Pope Pius XII, 1943: to defend Catholic interpretation from attacks that opposed the use of science by exegetes and that wanted to impose a non-scientific, so-called ‘spiritual’ interpretation of scripture). And we now have The Interpretation of the Bible of the Church Vatican, 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger ed. Things change, slowly, but they do change and at least sometimes, in reaction to events elsewhere.

(5) If 'The Word is a Person, not a book. And that Person is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate Himself ', then it means that CC has also appropriated, arrogated to itself, the very Being of God, incarnate in Christ, by claiming sole ownership of the scriptures (not forgetting they are also used by Moslems and Jews). This is certainly not a correct understanding of intention by anyone’s interpretation.

I suspect some interpretations are simply made up. Reading the Interpretation of the Bible of the Church in the light of propositions made on the Forum suggests this to be true.

 

[hvg3akaek]

This doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus is the Word and that is the primary meaning by virtue of its placement in the Gospel according to St. John.

I never said the Word of God was not Jesus. I am saying that the term can mean a multitude of different things, and one is the Bible. You need to show that it is not the Bible, or that it is only Jesus.

Further, all these versus do apply to Jesus directly.
Ephesians 6:17

Who is your helmet of salvation but Jesus?

SO Jesus is your helmet and your sword? Could not also the Bible be your sword?

Acts 6:7

Jesus is in Heaven and on Earth in the Church and in the Eucharist, something sadly, that you do not believe in, despite 2000 years of constant Christian teaching, even your own father, Martin Luther and his followers believed in it. But anyhow, “the word of God spread”, when you are baptized in Christ, you become a new Christ because you are to imitate Him. And if Christ is in your soul and in your body (via Eucharist), yes, He is actually present and spreading as the Church grows.

The word of God spread - that is, the News about Jesus. What is the News about Jesus, but the Gospel? The Bible?

Luke 11:28

So you mind telling me, according to your interpretation, what is the “word of God” Jesus is referring to here? It clearly can’t be the bible since it was non-existent. Its nothing but Himself! And how would you “hear” a bible, let alone, obey it (obey a book?).

How many people in the entire history of the earth have actually heard Jesus speak? How many people have heard the message of the Bible? Which is really more likely?

How would you ‘hear’ the Bible? Seriously you jest? Have you never been to a service where it has been read out? Have you never heard something in the Bible that you have thought “Gee, I better do that!”?

Your argument has lost credibility.
Yes, Jesus is the Word of God. But fortunately, since all of the Bible is God-breathed, it is also God’s word.

-hvg3

 

[hvg3akaek]

OK, so you are saying “consistency in doctrines”,

As in “I want consistency in doctrine”? You bet!

and then you say that the Church disagrees with the Bible?

“The Church”? No. “Roman Catholicism”? Yes.

The same church that gave us the Canon

Well, not really, no. As of yet, the idea that Roman Catholicism has been “around” for 2000 years has not been shown.

The early church, the first few hundred years was neither Roman Catholic or (clearly) Protestant or Orthodox in any way that these descriptions label thing today. It was simply God’s Church. Then, some time around ~400 AD Roman Catholicism really started up and grabbed power.

So no, it was not the ‘same’ church that gave us the Canon.

doesn’t even follow those doctrines?

Correct. That is, the Traditions and Teachings of Roman Catholicism are not always based in the Bible. (Else, what would be the need for traditions?) Where they are not based in the Bible, there is often needed a great re-interpretation of certain passages to seek harmony between the Bible and the Traditions. Hence, the call for “sola scripture”.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Peter didn’t “believe” in Paul. He confirmed his teachings were authentic.

A very pope like act, it seems.

Chuck

Oh, very

And his actions recorded in Galatians 2:11-21 are likewise very pope-ish.

Galatians 2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

After all, if he were actually a pope back then, I am sure he would have already claimed what he did was right, and the Church would have accepted it as infallible doctrine, then Paul would have been a heretic, right?

But fortunately, Peter knew his place, and the place of God’s word.

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!