Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleOnly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RobHom said:
Sheesh…are you now reduced to asking the same stupid question redundantly? Or did you spill chocolate milk on your play book…😛
Click to expand...
I answer these for the sake of the lurkers. I have little expectation that ja4 will benefit, since these same questions and answers have been covered with the group that uses this login hundreds of times. 🤷
 
=RobHom;4281335]No, you have already grown up repressed. You are merely acting it out now and attempting to transfer your repressed id onto others.
Click to expand...
I grew up as an atheist. But even then I knew that Freudian psychology was quackery.
If so it is only by those physically within literally arms reach of you. Beyond that on a “societal level”…if you reside in North America, not much chance of being “oppressed” unless you suffer from deeper idiomatic psychosis.
Click to expand...
Do not mix your Catholicism with humanistic psychology.
On that… you are right… be careful…you could end up like this guy: google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht
Deadpan humor has its limitations in this medium…I recognize that now.
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I grew up as an atheist. But even then I knew that Freudian psychology was quackery.
Click to expand...
The growing up as an atheist explains most of it…

I never cared much for Freud…too much nonsensical drivel.
Do not mix your Catholicism with humanistic psychology.
Click to expand...
I never do…I merely call them as I see them. 😃

You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who believes that Psychiatry and Psychology are "black arts’, hmmmm?
Deadpan humor has its limitations in this medium…I recognize that now.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is your “lacking a sense of humor” that afflicts you as well?😃
 
RobHom;4281413]The growing up as an atheist explains most of it…
Click to expand...
I never cared much for Freud…too much nonsensical drivel.
Click to expand...
I thought the reference to the ID was a give away
I never do…I merely call them as I see them. 😃
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who believes that Psychiatry and Psychology are "black arts’, hmmmm?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is your “lacking a sense of humor” that afflicts you as well?😃
Click to expand...
Absurd. I am very funny. I laugh at my own jokes all the time.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
Each one of the things you mentioned is implicitly referred to in the New Testament and is prophetically foreshadowed in the Old Testament. I can get you the chapters and verses if you want. But more important is that if you want to show Catholic teaching to be in error, you have to show that it contradicts the Bible, not that it simply “isn’t in” the Bible. Because lots of things happen that God wills which aren’t in the Bible. For instance, is the fact that the personalities of the angels aren’t explicitly described an indication that angels have no personalities? Or is the fact that Enoch’s virtues are not explicitly described in the Bible to be taken as an indication that he had no virtues?

Those ideas would be ludicrous. If something isn’t in the Bible, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If it contradicts the Bible, then it didn’t happen. Does that make sense?

And by the way, papal infallibility, though it wasn’t always defined with precision (Neither was the Trinity, at first), was in a general sense believed in from the very origins of the Church. It’s easy to back this up from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Here are important sections of their writings that refer to it:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
Click to expand...
We have been here many times before. Mary could not be without sin because of he own admission of her stating, “my God and my Saviour.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that she couldn’t have been without sin because of this in Scripture. And again, Scripture never says anything about her being assumed into Heaven body and spirit, nothing. And we could get into the whole debate about Jesus’ brothers and sisters here by why when there are other threads to deal with that. Anyhow, much in the Bible speaks to Mary not being perpetually virgin. There is nothing there to make us assume that she didn’t have a normal marriage with her husband. There is nothing sinful abut having sex with your spouse. And then all of the titles given to Mary by the RCC do contradict Scripture. They raise her to the level of divinity with Christ. Jesus said that nobody enters onto the Father except through me, yet Catholicism calls Mary co-redemptrix. Not possible. We can go on, but those are a few.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I thought the reference to the ID was a give away
Click to expand...
Though Freud was responsible for the “Id” thing…as one of the parts of the overall personality structure…usage of the word has spread…it kind of refers to the basic inner being.
Absurd. I am very funny. I laugh at my own jokes all the time.
Click to expand...
That is good to know…I have been known to do that even when others haven’t…:o
 
SIA said:
Apparently he thinks it does as he has certainly did it to me alot.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I have actually “insulted” you. Not once. If you believe that you have been insulted…then maybe you are a tad too sensitive for your own good. You throw rocks, but expect special treatment with “kid gloves”. That’s not how the real world works. Get over yourself.
 
RobHom said:
I don’t believe I have actually “insulted” you. Not once. If you believe that you have been insulted…then maybe you are a tad too sensitive for your own good. You throw rocks, but expect special treatment with “kid gloves”. That’s not how the real world works. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...
You are a real expert on the real world aren’t you?
 
adstrinity said:
Please explain how this is a tradition of Christ. Ta muchly.
Click to expand...
Do you not think Jesus knew which books He wanted in the NT?

What do you think He meant when He said:

John 16:13-14
" When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
 
guanophore said:
Do you not think Jesus knew which books He wanted in the NT?

What do you think He meant when He said:

John 16:13-14
" When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
Click to expand...
Very well said.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Neither do we use emoticons!
Click to expand...
Okey-doke. :aok:
Will:newidea: use them :compcoff: twice as much to:egyptian: make up for you.
justasking4 said:
You mean that the table of contents of the canon by itself is considered a Sacred Tradition or is the table of contents the summation of the group of the 27 books**?**
Click to expand...
**Yes, of course. **Where did you think it came from?
(Hint: It:nope: didnae fall from the sky ontohttp://bestsmileys.com/panic/3.gif King James’ wee:frighten: head, laddie…and a guid thing too. Puir wee mon dinnae need :blackeye: concussion!!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top