Sola Scriptura is True

  • Thread starter Thread starter DD2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A Christian has the Holy Spirit to help them understand the bible. They cooperate with His grace as they rightly handle the word of truth.

That is the problem with the RCC they tell you you are too stupid to understand the scriptures so you must listen to them, who many times understand it less that anyone who can just read the text.
Oh me oh my, What was God thinking when he said that he would give them the Power of the HS, And then he did, and the Power of the HS that he gave them screwed up scripture so bad. I never ever had Father tell me I was too stupid to understand the scriptures. Wonder why he takes the time to teach me, (on the sly at times too, because as you did pick up on I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer:D)

But anyway if I am too stupid to understand why does he waste his time? Oh well I guess only God knows.

But all that aside lets me and you play a little game. Just you and me okay. And you must admit you have the advantage because as you stated you can just read the text.

Now lets start this game ALL OVER.

My first question to you. ITs a easy one.

What authority do we rely upon for our belief that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God?

Now we know the answer can’t be the bible because the bible does not claim that. And if its not in the bible we don’t believe it right? So first thing what is your answer. Because we can’t consult the bible to find out what books are to be in the bible right. So help me out here. How did that get done?

Remember you are dealing with a stupid person here who was told (according to you of course) that Im stupid. So lets start here.

If at all possible, lets this be just you and me. The sharpest knife in the drawer, (thats you) and the dullest knife in the drawer thats me I guess:blush:
 
If sola scriptura is untrue why should sola Christe not also be untrue?

If I am saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone why not also because of Scripture alone?
 
If sola scriptura is untrue why should sola Christe not also be untrue?

If I am saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone why not also because of Scripture alone?
WoW!. Faith alone? Scripture please. Wanna see it! Thanks
 
DD,
Can you show me where in the Scriptures we are equipped to dig ditches or draw up blueprints?

Or are those not good works?
Be serious. No, those are not good works that have anything to do with faith and practice.

Only God is good. To be a good work it must glorify God.
 
Excellent point.

The ESV Bible that DD2007 is fond of quoting from was first published in 2001.

Here are some portions of quotes from their website “The ESV is an “**essentially **literal” translation”, ““as literal as possible””, “But the ESV Bible also **builds **on the best Christian scholarship of the last 100 years. The result is a **fresh **and compelling Bible translation”

The site shows who did the translating/review, and where they received their degrees,
but not what those degrees are in. We have no way of knowing what their knowledge in ancient languages really is.

All of this information can be found at esv.org
On a side note:

I quote from the ESV on-line because it is very well accepted in most Christian communities. It is the English Standard version. RSV 3 so to speak. I imagine you guys will be using it soon as well. The apocrypha was just released for it this year.

However, I personally prefer the KJV and among the RCC versions that Cathoilcs have availabe the most accurate is the Douay Rheims, in my opinion.
 
Be serious. No, those are not good works that have anything to do with faith and practice.

Only God is good. To be a good work it must glorify God.
Does not any job that you do when you are honest, and do the best you can glorify God. I thought that no matter what you do as long as you do your best with the ability that God gave you is giving him the glory.

Thats funny because Im a hairdresser, got my shop in my home and I just gave the most awesome haircut today. The person say you did great. I said I can do nothing without the help of God. The talent that I have and the good that I achieve I always gives thanks be to God. For without him I can do nothing. BUt then again I am a dummy!😃

I guess I should have accepted the glory all myself and not counted him in huh:blush:🤷
 
Can anyone show in the bible where it says " the bible is all, if its not written here it doesnt apply?" You cant find it because its not there.

What about when the apostle John said all of the words of God can never be contained in all the books of the world? How about that? Doesnt that imply it cant all be put in writing?

What about when at the end of certain books in the bible the writers said " I have so much to tell you but will wait to see you" Explain that!

If it has to be in the bible to follow it why do you put up a christmas tree when it pertains to Christs birthday. Nowhere in the bible does it say to do that but you do it because it was passed down generations. Thats called Sacred Tradition. So are we all sinning by celebrating christmas with our little traditions because nowhere in the bible does it say to celebrate that way? No of course not. There is written word and oral words passed down as well as actions.

If you believe the bible word for word how do you explain Christ giving his church to Peter, the first pope whose bones are buried under the vatican. Its the only church that was passed down right from christ. Do you deny it? Jesus said to peter himself he will build his church on him. Either you believe the bible or you dont.

Fraternities of St Dominic
St Joseph Province
USA
 
Can anyone show in the bible where it says " the bible is all, if its not written here it doesnt apply?" You cant find it because its not there.

What about when the apostle John said all of the words of God can never be contained in all the books of the world? How about that? Doesnt that imply it cant all be put in writing?

What about when at the end of certain books in the bible the writers said " I have so much to tell you but will wait to see you" Explain that!

If it has to be in the bible to follow it why do you put up a christmas tree when it pertains to Christs birthday. Nowhere in the bible does it say to do that but you do it because it was passed down generations. Thats called Sacred Tradition. So are we all sinning by celebrating christmas with our little traditions because nowhere in the bible does it say to celebrate that way? No of course not. There is written word and oral words passed down as well as actions.

If you believe the bible word for word how do you explain Christ giving his church to Peter, the first pope whose bones are buried under the vatican. Its the only church that was passed down right from christ. Do you deny it? Jesus said to peter himself he will build his church on him. Either you believe the bible or you dont.

Fraternities of St Dominic
St Joseph Province
USA
Talk about the Good Lord meaning what he said. He did built that Church on Peter in more ways then one. Sorry had to put that in:D But you will still people wanting to dig up the bones and still not believe its Peter. So When the Good Lord said he would built the Church on Peter he meant it. Both ways:rotfl:
 
Oh me oh my, What was God thinking when he said that he would give them the Power of the HS, And then he did, and the Power of the HS that he gave them screwed up scripture so bad. I never ever had Father tell me I was too stupid to understand the scriptures. Wonder why he takes the time to teach me, (on the sly at times too, because as you did pick up on I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer:D)

But anyway if I am too stupid to understand why does he waste his time? Oh well I guess only God knows.

But all that aside lets me and you play a little game. Just you and me okay. And you must admit you have the advantage because as you stated you can just read the text.

Now lets start this game ALL OVER.

My first question to you. ITs a easy one.

What authority do we rely upon for our belief that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God?

Now we know the answer can’t be the bible because the bible does not claim that. And if its not in the bible we don’t believe it right? So first thing what is your answer. Because we can’t consult the bible to find out what books are to be in the bible right. So help me out here. How did that get done?

Remember you are dealing with a stupid person here who was told (according to you of course) that Im stupid. So lets start here.

If at all possible, lets this be just you and me. The sharpest knife in the drawer, (thats you) and the dullest knife in the drawer thats me I guess:blush:
:ehh::yawn:
 
Be serious. No, those are not good works that have anything to do with faith and practice.

Only God is good. To be a good work it must glorify God.
:hammering:Then we’d all better quit our day jobs (or night shifts) and stand on the corners with one of those signs:

THE END IS NEAR! REPENT!!!:amen:

Hey buddy, you got any change?:winter:
 
Whenever a discussion about the Canon of Sacred Scripture and Sola Scriptura comes up I think of this:

Once upon a time there were the early Christians. Although Sacred Scripture had been written, it had not been sorted out from the other writings and collected into the bible. Some tried to sort them and collect them together, but it was no use. So after 300 years since Sacred Scripture had been written God got upset. Crack. Boom. God decided to create the first bible. When he sorted through all the writing and collected what he liked then he threw the bible down to earth. It entered into the atmosphere like a fiery comet, but it slowed down when it hit the atmosphere (so it wouldn’t kill anyone). Whoosh it flew. On that same bright sunny day, Saint Jerome was walking along. “Life is good” he said. Then suddenly he was hit by the bible. Bam. When he regained consciousness he saw the bible on the ground. “Eureka!!!” he cried. “We have a bible!!!” he wept with joy. “And it is in my language” he exclaimed. And all lived happily ever after. Well…… until they started to misinterpret it. Crack. Boom.

😃
 
40.png
humblelurker:
**Luke is not a prophet or apostle. He may have been with the apostles, but he was not an apostle. So Luke’s Gosple and Acts are his and not an apostles. *
END QUOTE

The Greek word a·po′sto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stel′lo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Mt 10:5; Mr 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·po′sto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18,*43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36,*38; 6:29,*57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

Matthias was not a mere apostle of the Jerusalem congregation, any more than the remaining 11 apostles were. His case is different from that of the Levite Joseph Barnabas who became an apostle of the congregation of Antioch, Syria. (Ac 13:1-4; 14:4,*14; 1Co 9:4-6) Other men also are referred to as “apostles of congregations” in the sense that they were sent forth by such congregations to represent them. (2Co 8:23) And, in writing to the Philippians, Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “your envoy [a·po′sto·lon] and private servant for my need.” (Php 2:25) The apostleship of these men was clearly not by virtue of any apostolic succession, nor did they form part of “the twelve” as did Matthias.

The correct understanding of the wider application of the term “apostle” can help to clear away any apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:26,*27 and Galatians 1:17-19, when applied to the same occasion. The first account states that Paul, on arriving in Jerusalem, was led “to the apostles” by Barnabas. In the account in Galatians, however, Paul states that he visited with Peter and adds: “But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” James (not the original apostle James the son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alphaeus, but the half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an “apostle” in the wider sense, namely, as “one sent forth” by the Jerusalem congregation. This would allow for the Acts account to use the title in the plural in saying that Paul was led “to the apostles” (that is, Peter and James).—Compare 1Co 15:5-7; Ga 2:9.

Luke was also “sent forrth”…hence an Apostle Consider:

Although Luke is not named in Acts, certain passages use the pronouns “we,” “our,” and “us,” indicating that he participated in some of the events described in the book. When Luke traces the route taken by Paul and his companions through Asia Minor, he says: “They passed Mysia by and came down to Troas.” It was in Troas that Paul had a vision of a Macedonian man who made the entreaty: “Step over into Macedonia and help us.” Luke adds: “Now as soon as he had seen the vision, we sought to go forth into Macedonia.” (Acts 16:8-10) The switch from “they” to “we” suggests that Luke joined Paul’s party in Troas. Luke then described the preaching activity in Philippi in the first person plural, indicating that he participated in it. “On the sabbath day,” he writes, “**we **went forth outside the gate beside a river, where we were thinking there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women that had assembled.”

Again: Luke was also “sent forrth”…hence an Apostle*
 
:hammering:Then we’d all better quit our day jobs (or night shifts) and stand on the corners with one of those signs:

THE END IS NEAR! REPENT!!!:amen:

Hey buddy, you got any change?:winter:
Isn’t there a T-shirt that says: “Jesus is coming…Look Busy!!”
 
Whenever a discussion about the Canon of Sacred Scripture and Sola Scriptura comes up I think of this:

Once upon a time there were the early Christians. Although Sacred Scripture had been written, it had not been sorted out from the other writings and collected into the bible. Some tried to sort them and collect them together, but it was no use.
😃
SINCE the inspired Scriptures are commonly referred to as the Bible, it is of interest to inquire into the origin and meaning of the word “Bible.” It is derived from the Greek word bi·bli′a, which means “little books.” This, in turn, is derived from bi′blos, a word describing the inner part of the papyrus plant from which, in ancient times, a “paper” for writing was produced. (The Phoenician port of Gebal, through which papyrus was imported from Egypt, came to be called Byblos by the Greeks. Various written communications upon this type of material became known by the word bi·bli′a. Thus, bi·bli′a came to describe any writings, scrolls, books, documents, or scriptures or even a library collection of little books.

Surprisingly, the word “Bible” itself generally is not found in the text of English or other-language translations of the Holy Scriptures. However, by the second century B.C.E., the collection of the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures was referred to as ta bi·bli′a in the Greek language. At Daniel 9:2 the prophet wrote: “I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books… Here the Septuagint has bi′blois, the dative plural form of bi′blos. At 2Timothy 4:13, Paul wrote: “When you come, bring … the scrolls [Greek, bi·bli′a].” In their several grammatical forms, the Greek words bi·bli′on and bi′blos occur more than 40 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures and are usually translated “scroll(s)” or “book(s).” Bi·bli′a was later used in Latin as a singular word, and from the Latin, the word “Bible” came into the English language.

What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect** for his name **and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E., in his work Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]), refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today

We today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures; the traditional Jewish canon, while including these same books, counts them as*24. Some authorities, by putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22, though still holding to exactly the same canonical writings. This made the number of inspired books equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The following is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon:
The Law (The Pentateuch)
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus
  3. Leviticus
  4. Numbers
  5. Deuteronomy
    The Prophets
  6. Joshua
  7. Judges
  8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)
  9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)
  10. Isaiah
  11. Jeremiah
  12. Ezekiel
  13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)
    The Writings (Hagiographa)
  14. Psalms
  15. Proverbs
  16. Job
  17. The Song of Solomon
  18. Ruth
  19. Lamentations
  20. Ecclesiastes
  21. Esther
  22. Daniel
  23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)
  24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)
This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God. (Rom. 15:9)

Jesus, in speaking of the complete inspired Scriptures written up till the time of his ministry, referred to the things recorded in “the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” (Luke 24:44) Here “Psalms,” as the first book of the Hagiographa, is used to refer to this whole section. The last historical book to be included in the Hebrew canon was that of Nehemiah. That this was under the direction of God’s spirit is seen in that this book alone provides the starting point for reckoning Daniel’s outstanding prophecy that “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” until the coming of the Messiah there would be a period of 69 prophetic weeks. (Dan. 9:25; Neh. 2:1-8; 6:15)

The book of Nehemiah also provides the historical background for the last of the prophetic books, Malachi. That Malachi belongs in the canon of the inspired Scriptures cannot be doubted, since even Jesus, the Son of God, quoted it a number of times. (Matt. 11:10,14) While similar quotations are made from the majority of the books of the Hebrew canon, all of which were written prior to Nehemiah and Malachi, the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make no quotations from any so-called inspired writings written after the time of Nehemiah and Malachi down to the time of Christ. This confirms the traditional view of the Jews, and also the belief of the Christian congregation of the first century*C.E., that the Hebrew Scripture canon ended with the writings of Nehemiah and Malachi.

MORE…*
 
A Christian has the Holy Spirit to help them understand the bible. They cooperate with His grace as they rightly handle the word of truth.

That is the problem with the RCC they tell you you are too stupid to understand the scriptures so you must listen to them, who many times understand it less that anyone who can just read the text.
“”"“A Christian has the Holy Spirit to help them understand the bible”"""
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is why we have over 35.000 non-cathloic church in the world today and Cathloics are to stupid to understand. WOW please tell me what church you have stated, do we now have 35,001 church
 
“”"“A Christian has the Holy Spirit to help them understand the bible”"""
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is why we have over 35.000 non-cathloic church in the world today and Cathloics are to stupid to understand. WOW please tell me what church you have stated, do we now have 35,001 church
No we have more than one denomination because people disobey God and sin.
 
“”"“A Christian has the Holy Spirit to help them understand the bible”"""
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is why we have over 35.000 non-cathloic church in the world today and Cathloics are to stupid to understand. WOW please tell me what church you have stated, do we now have 35,001 church
Its called the Church of DD. Sorry DD you know Im am just messing with ya:hug1:
 
**Luke is not a prophet or apostle. He may have been with the apostles, but he was not an apostle. So Luke’s Gosple and Acts are his and not an apostles. **
END QUOTE

The Greek word a·po′sto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stel′lo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).”

So everyone who is “sent off” is an apostle?

If we have a vision of Christ like St. Paul did, then can we write sacred scripture and call ourselves apostles?

If there is a limit on scripture writings, then who determines that limit? On whoes authority? Please prove it “literally.”

None of the Gosple writers pinned their names, so where does that come from? How do we know where they come from and who wrote them?

How do we know the books in the bible are truly canon? Where is the canon, book by book, listed “literally” in the bible?

Who drew up the canon of sacred scripture other than God? Who were the humans that were inspired that compiled the “bible?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top