"Sola Scriptura"

[lofktis14kr]

Here, in full, is what I believe about the Bible. Tell me which part you don’t agree and we’ll go from there.

The Bible (OT and NT) are God’s revelation and the complete expressed will of God to man, inspired in thought and word, and infallible in the original writings; that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and the source of Truth. I believe all teachings contrary to the Holy Bible are false. I do not accept the Bible AND some other sacred writings; I accept the Bible alone.

The Scriptures indicate that you stand on a very solid conviction despite what some uninspired and fallible traditions of Rome teach.
Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the Church has the right to establish a Magisterium to be the final word. But this is just what has happened. And although the Scriptures are undeniably clear that Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles are the foundation upon which God builds His Church, the Roman Catholic Church does not dare stray from the dictates of the Magesterium.

 

[mattkubes]

Is there anything wrong with my logic? Again:

1. “The Christian faith is not a religion of the book.”
2. “Christianity is the religion of the Word of God.”
   If “the book” is the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God, then statement 2 becomes:
   “Christianity is the religion of the book.”
   If there’s nothing wrong with my logic, then I don’t see how it makes perfect sense. It’s contradictory.

The syllogism comes apart when you say “the Bible is the Word of God.” It certainly is the written Word of God, but the Word of God is not limited to a book. See, we’re coming from two different stand-points when we read that.

Anyway, I’ve got this question: Are ALL the teachings of the RCC consistent with the teachings in the Bible? Just a simple yes or no. You don’t have to go through all that Tradition-interpretation-magisterium thing again. I know all about that.

Yes

I suppose my follow up would be - is the notion of sola scriptura consistent with the teachings in the Bible? What about when we are told to hold fast to the teachings by both word and written epistle? Is the canon listed anywhere in the Bible that tells us which books we should trust?

 

[mattkubes]

The Scriptures indicate that you stand on a very solid conviction despite what some uninspired and fallible traditions of Rome teach.

That’s a rather strong comment - do you have any logic to back it up?

Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the Church has the right to establish a Magisterium to be the final word. But this is just what has happened.

Not at all - Matthew 18 makes the case quite clear that the church has a fairly strong (and final) say in matters of faith:

“But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

You clearly just disagree with the 2000 year-old interpretation of this verse. That hardly backs up your rather sweeping statement.

And although the Scriptures are undeniably clear that Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles are the foundation upon which God builds His Church, the Roman Catholic Church does not dare stray from the dictates of the Magesterium.

Again, it’s only your interpretation of Scripture that leads to this conclusion. When Jesus called Peter “rock”, He meant it. The gender change between the two words in the Greek doesn’t make one iota of difference (too bad native English speakers have never been exposed to the use of masculine and feminine nouns). This was one of those important name changes that we hear about in the Bible. It happened to Abraham, Israel, and now Kephas (rock). You have simply chosen to reject this interpretation.

 

[po18guy]

Here, in full, is what I believe about the Bible. Tell me which part you don’t agree and we’ll go from there.
(Disagreement in red)
The Bible (OT and NT) are God’s revelation and the complete expressed will of God to man, inspired in thought and word, and infallible in the original writings; that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and the source of Truth. I believe all teachings contrary to the Holy Bible are false. I do not accept the Bible AND some other sacred writings; I accept the Bible alone.

According to sola scriptura, I disagree with you, so you are wrong. It’s that simple. There’s nothing you can do to be correct, except to agree with me. Does that sound rather off-putting? You bet! Private interpretation makes that not only possible, but inevitable. And it is the reason that the Body of Christ has been shattered over the past 500 years.

The bible says it is incomplete. There is no honest way around that. See **Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25, as well as Acts 4:20. ** There’s clearly more to the faith. Paul said so.

God alone is the “Supreme and final authority” To elevate the book to His stature is to make an idol of it, IMO.

God in Christ is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”. He is the living source of truth. A tiny sliver of Christ is in the bible. Man’s fallible interpretation of scripture must not be trusted more than Christ Himself.

Teachings contrary to scripture are indeed false. You do not understand Catholic teaching, and that is the source of your confusion. Catholic teaching does in no way conflict with the bible. The two are inseparable.

So, you clearly reject the authority of Christ’s Church. OK. You clearly reject Papal infallibility. OK. Yet, to trust your bible, you must believe that the Catholic Council that argued the canon of scripture WAS infallible. You see the dichotomy here?

Someone had to be infallible for the bible to be assembled in the form you accept. Many writings were excluded. The early Catholic Church had to have infallible authority to determine what went in and what stayed out.

As well, you trust the infallibility of the Pope who stamped his approval on the bible, but after that you have no need of either his authority or his Spirit driven teaching on faith and morals? Curious.

I’m just telling you that you cannot separate the bible from the authority which wrote portions of it (NT) and assembled it. They are inseparable. To do so invites error. 33,000 disagreeing “non-denominations” have certainly proved this.

 

[PrestonPrice]

My only question to this is, How do we know when the Magesterium has interpreted scripture correctly? Wouldn’t we have to have the same confirmation within us?

Also, in Acts 4:20, i don’t see that as refering to extrabiblical witness in the form of tradition. I think that Peter and John are merely stating that they cannot hold back from speaking about Christ.

 

[guanophore]

My only question to this is, How do we know when the Magesterium has interpreted scripture correctly?

Jesus gave the gift of infallibility to the Church. The Church wrote the NT. the Church is the custodian of the Teachings of Jesus. The Church interprets the NT in the light of the Teachings of Jesus.

Wouldn’t we have to have the same confirmation within us?

We will, when we are fully united to Christ. When Jesus said “upon this Rock I will build my church”, he recognized the infallible proclaimation of Peter as coming from the Father. He grafted Peter into Himself, and Peter became a foundation stone, next to His cornerstone, that is the foundation of the Faith.

Also, in Acts 4:20, i don't see that as refering to extrabiblical witness in the form of tradition. I think that Peter and John are merely stating that they cannot hold back from speaking about Christ.

At the time this occurred, none of the NT had been written.

 

[po18guy]

MAlso, in Acts 4:20, i don’t see that as refering to extrabiblical witness in the form of tradition. I think that Peter and John are merely stating that they cannot hold back from speaking about Christ.

Sorry! It is actually Acts 2:40. Dyslexics of the world, untie!

This is biblical evidence that the bible is incomplete. The Church produced the bible and thus had extra-biblical authority as well - from the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. Jesus did not found His Church only to write a bible. He founded it to lead all generations, in every nation, to the truth, which is found only in Him.

The bible is only a tiny sliver of Jesus’ life. Ever wonder of there is more to Him than that glimpse?

I just might read the red-letter (Jesus’ quotes in red) edition of the bible out loud, timing it from start to finish. Even counting the redundancies of the synoptic Gospels, there is not three years worth of teaching there, meaning that Christ’s fulness is to be found partially in the bible and mostly in His Church.

 

[RobGentner]

**OK … STOP!! **
EVERYONE TAKE A DEEP BREATH!

OK Catholics let it out! :extrahappy:

Do you know about the "mistakes made in Bibles? (You guys really make me work to educate you!) :coolinoff:

The Bible of Kells, circa 800
The genealogy of Jesus, which starts at Luke 3:23 has an extra ancestor for Jesus. also Matthew 10:34b should read “I came not to send peace, but the sword”. However rather than “gladius” which means “sword”, Kells had “gaudius” meaning “joy”. Rendering the verse: “I came not [only] to send peace, but [also] joy”.

“Bug Bible”: Myles Coverdale’s 1535
This Bible was known as the “Bug Bible” because Psalms 91:5 read: “Thou shall not nede to be afrayed for eny bugges by night”. In Middle English, the word “bugge” meant a “specter that haunts” or a ghost. The King James Bible used the word “terror”.
This use of the word “bug” was repeated in the 1539 Great Bible and in Matthew’s Bible, 1551.

“Treacle Bible”: (Beck’s Bible): In the 1549 edition of the Great Bible, Jeremiah 8:22 was translated “Is there no tryacle [treacle] in Gilead?” Modern translations usually have “balm” or “medicine” instead. In Early Modern English, “treacle” could mean “a cure-all” as well as “molasses.”

“Breeches Bible” 1579: Whittingham, Gilby, and Sampson : mistranslated Genesis 3:7 as “and they sowed figge-tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches.” The accepted meaning is aprons.

“Place-makers’ Bible” 1562: the second edition of the Geneva Bible, Matthew 5:9 reads “Blessed are the placemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” rather than “peacemakers”. In its chapter heading for Luke 21 it has “Christ condemneth the poor widow” rather than “commendeth”.

“Rosin Bible” 1604: Jeremiah 8:22 reads “is there no rosin in Gilead?”. “Rosin” is a brittle and sticky substance used on the bows of stringed instruments to provide friction with the strings. (The KJAV has a note at Ezekiel giving “rosin” as an alternative to “balme” It isn’t)

“Manchester edition” 1793: The heading on Chapter 3 of Leviticus and the first verse has “bees” rather than “beeves” (plural of beef). It reads: “How the pacifique hosts must be of bees, sheep, lambs and goats” (“pacifique hosts” = “peace offerings”)

“The Debased Bible” 1815: and reprinted seven times. Although it used the Catholic Rheims NT text, this was a Protestant edition. Philippians 2:7 said that Christ “debased himself”. Other Douai-Rheims editions said: “emptied himself”. The original 1582 text had said “exinanited himself”. (Jesus peed???:bigyikes: )

In various printings of the King James Version of the Bible, some of the more famous examples have been given their own names. Among them are:

The Blasphemous Comma Several editions: Part of Luke 23 reads “And there were also two other malefactors. [crucified with Jesus]” It should have read “And there were also two other, malefactors.”

“Judas Bible” 1611: This Bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying “Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray.” (Matthew 26:36)

ONE OF THE BEST: The “Wicked Bible”, “Adulterous Bible” or “Sinner’s Bible” 1631: Barker and Lucas: Omits an important “not” from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read “Thou shalt commit adultery.” The printers were fined £300 (a lifetime’s wages) and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today. (They are being used by a cult of solo scriptura’s I am sure - Rob!:extrahappy: )

“More Sea Bible” 1641 “…the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was more sea.” rather than “…the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea.” (Revelation 21:1)

“Unrighteous Bible” or “Wicked Bible” 1653: Cambridge Press: Another edition carrying this title omits a “not” before the word “inherit”, making I Corinthians 6:9 read “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?..” In addition, Romans 6:13 reads “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin…” where it should read “unrighteousness”. (We have to love you protestants! )

“Printers Bible” bef. 1702: Psalm 119:161 reads “Printers have persecuted me without cause.” The first word was changed, possibly by a disgruntled typesetter, from “Princes”.

“Sin On Bible”: 1716: John 8:11 reads “Go and sin on more” rather than “Go and sin no more”. ( Followed by another cult of solo scripturas I am sure - Rob )

“Vinegar Bible”: 1717: J. Baskett, Clarendon Press: The chapter heading for Luke 20 reads “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of “The Parable of the Vineyard.” One reviewer called this particular edition “a Baskett full of errors,” what with its being replete with numerous other specimens of typographical errata throughout. One copy recently sold for $5,000. ( :whackadoo: Probably by another cult of Solo scripturas - Rob )

“The Fools Bible”: 1763: Psalm 14:1 reads “the fool hath said in his heart there is a God”, rather than “…there is no God”. The printers were fined three thousand pounds and all copies ordered destroyed.

“Denial Bible”: 1792: The name Philip is substituted for Peter as the apostle who would deny Jesus in Luke 22:34.

“Murderer’s Bible” 1801: “Murmurers” is printed as “murderers”, making Jude 16 read: “These are murderers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”

“Lions Bible” 1804: 1 Kings 8:19 reads “thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions”, rather than “loins”. This edition had another error in Numbers 25:18 which read: “The murderer shall surely be put together” rather than “…put to death”.

Continued on next post!..

 

[HannahLisa]

I don’t necessarily believe in Sola Scriptura.

But Sola Scriptura is different from believing that the Bible is the final authority. Sola Scriptura is more along the lines of the Bible as the only authority.

If anything a church is doing directly contradicts the Bible, properly interpreted, then it is wrong. The church cannot brush aside the Bible. So in that sense, the Bible is the final authority. (Example: premarital sex is not okay.)

And to the person who, I think, I posted between: printers’ errors do not make the Bible itself error-ridden.

 

[RobGentner]

**Page 2:

“Mistakes in the Bible”

“To-remain Bible” 1805: In Galatians 4:29 a proof-reader had written in “to remain” in the margin, as an answer to whether a comma should be deleted. The note inadvertently became part of the text, making the edition read “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain, even so it is now.”

“Discharge Bible” 1806: “Discharge” replaces “charge” making I Timothy 5:21 read “I discharge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

“Standing Fishes Bible” 1806: “Fishes” replaced “fishers” making Ezekiel 47:10 read “And it shall come to pass, that the fishes shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.” ( The old Walking fish dance as practiced by another cult of solo scripturas - Rob:egyptian: )

“Idle Shepherd” 1809: Zechariah 11:17 reads “the idle shepherd” rather than “idol shepherd”.

“Ears To Ear Bible” 1810: Edition which makes Matthew 13:43 read: “…Who has ears to ear, let him hear.” The correct phrase should be “ears to hear”.

“Wife-hater Bible” 1810: “Wife” replaces “life” in this edition, making Luke 14:26 redundantly read “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife also, he cannot be my disciple.”

“The Large Family Bible” 1820: Isaiah 66:9 reads: “Shall I bring to birth and not cease to bring forth?” rather than “Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth?”.

“Rebecca’s Camels Bible” 1823: “Camels” replaces “damsels” in one instance, making Genesis 24:61 read “And Rebecca arose, and her camels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebecca and went his way.”

“Owl Bible” 1944: “Owl” replaces “own”, making 1 Peter 3:5 read, “For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.” The error was caused by a printing plate with a damaged letter n.

All you Protestants must believe the errors as printed SORRY! Unless you don’t really believe in Solo Scriptura!
**

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

what a foolish proposition!

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

 

[RobGentner]

I don’t necessarily believe in Sola Scriptura.
**Great !! because if you did some people here would insult you and challenge your intelligence! We wouldn’t want that! **
But Sola Scriptura is different from believing that the Bible is the final authority. Sola Scriptura is more along the lines of the Bible as the only authority.**OH NO! Sorry dear it is the same thing. The Bible says it so it is so. If the bible doesn’t say it it isn’t so! Ask any Solo Scriptura. Hint: talk very slow when asking them questions. **

If anything a church is doing directly contradicts the Bible, properly interpreted, then it is wrong. Sweetheart who property interpets the Bible. Tick, tock tick, tock The church cannot brush aside the Bible. So in that sense, the Bible is the final authority. In no sense is the Bible the final authority. If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine (Example: premarital sex is not okay.)

And to the person who, I think, I posted between: printers’ errors do not make the Bible itself error-ridden.**Well as far as the non catholic authorized versions I must disagree. Isn’t meant to be mean. It is only the catholic church that has the authority to interpet OUR BOOKS! Any changes made to the real bible by lets say King James would be errors. he had no write to alter our Bibles! Did he?

Suggestions to Protestants:
Write your own bibles? You made your own religions, OK, you did copy alot off of ours. I guess you can keep them. But, please allow us to tell you what they mean OK? They are our Bibles and we have more experience!!

By the way Hannah, You seem like a nice person. :tiphat: God Bless You! I hope I changed your mind a little and you now understand better that Solo Scriptura is a false teaching. All non catholic versions of our Bible are also false. Think about it. If you printed copies of our money what would it be called? Yup:thumbsup: your bibles are counterfeit! No other word fits. And I mean that in the nicest possible way as Fr John Corapi would say. :dancing:

God Bless.
**

 

[RobGentner]

Here, in full, is what I believe about the Bible. Tell me which part you don’t agree and we’ll go from there.

The Bible (OT and NT) are God’s revelation and the complete expressed will of God to man, inspired in thought and word, and infallible in the original writings; that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and the source of Truth. I believe all teachings contrary to the Holy Bible are false. I do not accept the Bible AND some other sacred writings; I accept the Bible alone.

**Hi Mailman:wave:

How have you been? Is everything OK? We haven’t seen you lately. I sincerely hope there aren’t no health problems. What with your soul in the state it is in right now, It would not be a good time to be having health problems. You are in my prayers!

Can I play? :whackadoo:

The underlined portions above were taken right from the “Fundamentals of Belief” of the Church of God. No original thoughts there my old friend. We already know they are wrong, because that goes against the teachings of the original Church established by Jesus Christ himself. You also said:**

“I believe all teachings contrary to the Holy Bible are false”
Well guess what my friend, you were wrong! :yukonjoe: And then you said: **
.
I do not accept the Bible AND some other sacred writings; I accept the Bible alone.

Boy, that is wrong also! batting 1000 in the wrong column old buddy! I know you are joking! No harm done. But some of these other people will take you serious. Be careful!

By the way, I was listening to Catholic radio the other day. Father John Corapi said that all Protestants are “Heretics” and they prove it just by being Protestants. Can you believe that? I am guessing God himself gave Fr Corapi that insight!

Let us pray:

Memorare, O piissima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum. Ego tali animatus confidentia, ad te, Virgo Virginum, Mater, curro, ad te venio, coram te gemens peccator assisto. Noli, Mater Verbi, verba mea despicere; sed audi propitia et exaudi. **

 

[I_Believe]

Mailman, have you given any thought to my reply in post # 62 ?

 

[I_Believe]

Rob, what is your definition of heresy ?

 

[RobGentner]

what a foolish proposition!

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

**Kind of lazy there aren’t we Chalden? If you want to play you have to work at it! That is the rule. :tsktsk: The Protestants copy and paste copy and paste. The least we could do a little of that also. Not too many original thoughts allowed. If you do have an original thought please remember to type it slowly so they can understand it!:compcoff: That would be the Christian thing to do! :extrahappy:

I sent a ton of stuff (literally) to the Chaldean Christains in Badhdad last year. They really need all our prayers.

Have a Blessed Day ,Chalden.

YBIC Rob **

 

[RobGentner]

Rob, what is your definition of heresy ?

**
Catholics coming from the Jewish tradition as I am sure you are aware. So let me answer you in the jewish manner:
I look like a dictionary?
Anyway there is only one definition that I know of so I agree with that one!
Now if you would like to expend some time AND “follow the rules”:tsktsk: ** = Go copy the definition, change it to mean what you wish it to mean, then come back here, paste it here and see if any of us comment on it. :bounce: Then I would be glad to play “answer any stupid question asked” We get a lot of practice here!:sad_yes: Trust me on that! :dancing:

Now did you have a serious question?

 

[I_Believe]

**
Catholics coming from the Jewish tradition as I am sure you are aware. So let me answer you in the jewish manner:
I look like a dictionary?
Anyway there is only one definition that I know of so I agree with that one!
Now if you would like to expend some time AND “follow the rules”:tsktsk: ** = Go copy the definition, change it to mean what you wish it to mean, then come back here, paste it here and see if any of us comment on it. :bounce: Then I would be glad to play “answer any stupid question asked” We get a lot of practice here!:sad_yes: Trust me on that! :dancing:

Now did you have a serious question?

So you don’t know what the word means. That’s what I thought.
Continue being full of yourself.

 

[RobGentner]

Mailman, have you given any thought to my reply in post # 62 ?

**

I Believe, STOP IT! :extrahappy: My sides hurt from laughing! mailman giving any throught to replys? :whacky:

You don’t know my buddy mailman very well do you?

He hits and runs never continues any battles. He only has limited ammunition.

As I am finishing writing this I have been notified that you replied to my previous posting!

I can’t wait to see it! I can only imagine: :manvspc:

God Bless

Rob **

 

[RobGentner]

So you don’t know what the word means. That’s what I thought.
Continue being full of yourself.

**My brother, The question must be asked what do you believe? I_Believe??

I have a couple of points to make.

1. I am not God, I am full of the Holy Spirit, not myself!
2. I usually am not wrong in anything I say. (No human is perfect except Jesus and His Mother. Most things I say are well researched and even if I “play” ,in order to lessen the pain of correcting protestant falsehoods, I am as serious as a heart attack. I am a warrior for the faith. I practice my religion as a Catholic.

I wanted to welcome you back! :tiphat: Study! become an informed Catholic ready to defend your faith and also yourself from attacks from anyone.
Which leads to my next question: Do you remember the 4th Commandment ? Catholic version please… “Honor thy Father and Mother.”
Now in the ancient Hebrew tradition that was meant to mean all your elders. You knew that right? Well if you are not older then 64 “Continue being full of yourself.” not only violates the TOS of this site, but that commandment.

Don’t worry, You were forgiven even before I even read your response. where there was no intent there was no sin/ You knew that also, right? :yup:

To show there indeed are no hard feelings and for your edification

Heresy:** is an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief. The study of heresy is heresiology. The founder of a heresy is called a heresiarch. One who espouses heresy is called a heretic. :clapping:

Well I_Believe, that about cover it. Only thing I could add is that the word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis ( haireomai, “choose”), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- “straight” + doxa “belief”) and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church now referred to as the Original, REAL or RCC .:sad_yes:

Now please, get down off your High Horse, I wouldn’t want you to fall and get hurt, my brother!.:extrahappy:

God Bless