Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He often mentions scripture

He (Jesus) often mentions a body of writings that Christians have, starting long after His time on Earth, referred to as the Old Testament. The earliest Christians, and the Jews then or now, would not have referred to an Old Testament.

True. Of course, that doesn’t change the nature of the text.

 

[JonNC]

Then how do we know Paul’s writings are truth?

I certainly agree that we accept the authority of the Church Catholic.

The same way we know the truth of the Decalogue.

See above.

I have no objections to this. I was speaking about authority. My point is sure God wrote it but what good would it have been with out the authority He gave to Moses.

It’s all about authority

Agreed. My objection has been, in this thread, two fold. 1) What appeared to be a marginalizing of the importance of scripture in an attempt to dispute sola scriptura.
2) A misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means, including the misunderstanding of how sola scriptura is used.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve read the contents of @MT1926 's previous post and see no reason for it to be flagged.

 

[MT1926]

I’m guessing it was the mans name I used will change it when it lets me. Need to get back to work and it makes you wait 10 minutes for some reason.

Thanks for standing up for me

 

[LeahPaz]

None of the Protestant churches I have been to follow Sola Scriptura, though they claim to. The Reformers deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit (the charisms) and believe that miracles no longer happen today. They also believe that after the church was founded by the apostles that there can be no more apostles, yet Martin Luther formed a new kind of church. (Anyone know what I mean or do you think I am way off, if an apostle is to found a church for example, …that is basically what Martin Luther did, right? while denying the authority of the Church someone correct me if I’m wrong because I still have a lot of reading to do)

The Charismatics, in my opinion, seem to lack spiritual discernment when it comes to false doctrines and have some famous televangelists as their authority (they trust the wrong people) leading them to believe the prosperity gospel (not all Charismatics, but the majority I have met fall for the prosperity gospel at least in part, while others are more into the prosperity gospel).

The Bible has different verses about submitting to authority that God put in place. I don’t know how you can read the entire Protestant Bible (with books taken away even) and justify the Protestant Reformation. To me it just seems like a rebellion.

 

[mcq72]

Who wrote the bible? Did it fall from the sky?

Did Jesus fall from the sky?

 

[mcq72]

Where our Lord wrote it Himself?Where our Lord commanded that it be written?

Where our Lord commanded that it be written?

well he certainly wrote on some tablets,and certainly told
Moses what to say, and certainly had seven letters dictated. St.Peter tells us scripture is inspired, and that not out of what man contains , but by God Himself.Beyond that explanation is pedantic catering

 

[mcq72]

The community he formed wrote the book.

That makes no sense? Could you explain where you are going with this statement?

The community did not author the bible , but they wrote as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Inspired to me is equivalent to “authored”.

At best it is co author but to say only one end of partnership (the “community” and not the Lord is misleading and false

An equal falsehood would be to say that the Jews created the Messiah, not God.

That also was totally inspired and directed by God, in partnership with the Jews/Mary.

While some may go to far with bible role, some go to far with community/church role. Both are probably motivated out of justifying, or quibbling about, ones faith community, over another.

 

[goout]

goout:

JonNC:

goout:

It is not a straw man at all. We continually see in many places what amounts to a denial of the Incarnate Christ, as if Christ is a figure in the bible, but did not walk the earth in human flesh, in human history, touch people, breathe on people, speak to people, give people work to do.

Source. Which Christian community/communion/tradition/ denomination teaches such? You won’t find one because, by definition, they wouldn’t be Christian.

I find this a little disingenuous. Look at the posts here. Read the large volume of protestant objections to Tradition and the charism of authority.
It’s all around you, and yet you ask this question.

Really and truly, what are you objecting to here? Why are we here? One the one hand you claim concordance with just about all we believe, all the while objecting.
What are doing here…

I object to the characterizations here. @goout stated this:

We continually see in many places what amounts to a denial of the Incarnate Christ, as if Christ is a figure in the bible, but did not walk the earth in human flesh, in human history, touch people, breathe on people, speak to people, give people work to do.

I see no true Christian communion reject the Incarnation. I see no where where Christians reject the fact that He was a living, breathing human being.
All I did was ask for a source of a communion that does this, and I would join in a condemnation of it.

The fact is that among Christians, there is a significant concordance. It seems there is no need to create differences where they do not exist, such as in the nature and person of Christ.

If a Christian community says yes to the Incarnation but gives no credence to the visible, real, and continuous Tradition of the one Church founded by Christ, then that “yes” is lip service.
If a Christian community separates or gives supremacy to scripture over Tradition, that community gives lip service to the Incarnate Christ.

You can’t have it both ways. If Christ is God Incarnate, that just mean something real, and that reality encompasses all that is human. Those human realities include human continuity, ie Tradition, Scripture written in that Tradition, and a living continuous Magisterium.
If Christ is living, then so is the Church one living organism, continuous with it’s seed in all things.

The Incarnation is not just an idea on a page.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus was born by a special grace from God. Jesus race could not have conceived Jesus with their laws and prophets b/c the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus. Abraham’s DNA did not conceive Jesus.

But, we love Abraham too.

this is conjecture, that no part of man’s seed was linear to Christ. As far as i know , no one has decreed the exact nature of His dna. All we know is that the HolY Spirit, did the work that a man would, or better , that no male took part, Mary being a virgin. I do not know if Mary contributed half of dna and the HS the other half…God/man combination. or did Holy Spirit contribute entire dna, like a test tube baby implant…i prefer the former.

So, to say Jesus had no linkage to Abraham, much less David, or even Adam and Eve, is new to me.

 

[JonNC]

None of the Protestant churches I have been to follow Sola Scriptura, though they claim to. The Reformers deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit (the charisms) and believe that miracles no longer happen today. They also believe that after the church was founded by the apostles that there can be no more apostles, yet Martin Luther formed a new kind of church. (Anyone know what I mean or do you think I am way off, if an apostle is to found a church for example, …that is basically what Martin Luther did, right? while denying the authority of the Church someone correct me if I’m wrong because I still have a lot of reading to do)

If you ask a Lutheran, Lutheranism is a tradition within the Church, not a new Church. I’ve never heard it said that Lutherans deny the existence of miracles today. In fact, a knowledgeable Lutheran will affirm the miracle of the Eucharist when the true body and blood of Christ are distributed and received.

The Bible has different verses about submitting to authority that God put in place. I don’t know how you can read the entire Protestant Bible (with books taken away even) and justify the Protestant Reformation. To me it just seems like a rebellion.

The eastern Church would probably say the same about all of us in the west.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Conception is an action. So, it is not conjecture.

 

[goout]

Bon_Croix:

Jesus was born by a special grace from God. Jesus race could not have conceived Jesus with their laws and prophets b/c the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus. Abraham’s DNA did not conceive Jesus.

But, we love Abraham too.

this is conjecture, that no part of man’s seed was linear to Christ. As far as i know , no one has decreed the exact nature of His dna. All we know is that the HolY Spirit, did the work that a man would, or better , that no male took part, Mary being a virgin. I do not know if Mary contributed half of dna and the HS the other half…God/man combination. or did Holy Spirit contribute entire dna, like a test tube baby implant…i prefer the former.

So, to say Jesus had no linkage to Abraham, much less David, or even Adam and Eve, is new to me.

Is Jesus Christ truly and fully human or not?
(@JonNC are you listening? Here is the point illustrated which you call “straw man”)

 

[mcq72]

Conception is an action. So, it is not conjecture

The conjecture was what kind of “conception”. You speculated with no Jewish dna.

My conjecture is that it was half Jewish dna

 

[JonNC]

If a Christian community says yes to the Incarnation but gives no credence to the visible, real, and continuous Tradition of the one Church founded by Christ, then that “yes” is lip service.

I am in that one True Church, which is not only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That said, I would entirely disagree with your assertion.

If a Christian community separates or gives supremacy to scripture over Tradition, that community gives lip service to the Incarnate Christ.

Ridiculous. While I think it misguided when people ignore Tradition, or reject Tradition, it is not evidence of a giving lip service. Your opinion actually contradicts 817-819 in the Catholic Catechism.

You can’t have it both ways. If Christ is God Incarnate, that just mean something real , and that reality encompasses all that is human. Those human realities include human continuity, ie Tradition, Scripture written in that Tradition, and a living continuous Magisterium.
If Christ is living, then so is the Church one living organism, continuous with it’s seed in all things.

The Incarnation is not just an idea on a page.

And yet here you seem to be taking magisterial authority on yourself by these claims. Where in the Catholic Catechism is this taught?

 

[goout]

Sola Scriptura - unifier? Non-Catholic Religions

this is conjecture, that no part of man’s seed was linear to Christ. As far as i know , no one has decreed the exact nature of His dna. All we know is that the HolY Spirit, did the work that a man would, or better , that no male took part, Mary being a virgin. I do not know if Mary contributed half of dna and the HS the other half…God/man combination. or did Holy Spirit contribute entire dna, like a test tube baby implant…i prefer the former. So, to say Jesus had no linkage to Abraham, much le…

 

[JonNC]

mcq72:

Bon_Croix:

Jesus was born by a special grace from God. Jesus race could not have conceived Jesus with their laws and prophets b/c the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus. Abraham’s DNA did not conceive Jesus.

But, we love Abraham too.

this is conjecture, that no part of man’s seed was linear to Christ. As far as i know , no one has decreed the exact nature of His dna. All we know is that the HolY Spirit, did the work that a man would, or better , that no male took part, Mary being a virgin. I do not know if Mary contributed half of dna and the HS the other half…God/man combination. or did Holy Spirit contribute entire dna, like a test tube baby implant…i prefer the former.

So, to say Jesus had no linkage to Abraham, much less David, or even Adam and Eve, is new to me.

Is Jesus Christ truly and fully human or not?
(@JonNC are you listening? Here is the point illustrated which you call “straw man”)

I look forward to the answer, and if it isn’t consistent with the Athanasian Creed:

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

I, too will dispute it.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Let us settle by saying that the Holy Spirit is not Jewish.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus was born by a special grace from God.

Indeed! And that grace was working from the time of Abraham to the coming of the Messiah.

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law…” (Gal. 4)

God prepared the nation of Israel for the coming of the Messiah, who was of the Jews.

 

[JonNC]

Let us settle by saying that the Holy Spirit is not Jewish.

I just posted that portion of the Athanasian Creed that covers the nature and person of Christ.
Are you in agreement with it? If not, what portions do you dispute?