Sola Scriptura...

[SteveVH]

That she is the Mother of God?

No, it was a very poor attempt at humor. I was referring to your statement that “that is all I need to know” concerning Mary, and where the Bible said that that is all you need to know concerning Mary. In my best Rosanna Rosannadana voice… “Never mind”.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Good point, but we have to admit the Incarnation defined at the 4th ecumenical council isn’t in there. Does seem to be a slight stumbling block today. Course that’s not of question here, but still the two of Sacred Scripture and Tradition work hand in hand, we wouldn’t have had all the wonderful theological insight on the Assumption otherwise.

I do not place one above or below the other. Certain Tradition I may question but not the need for such and its place.

 

[aidanbradypop]

No, it was a very poor attempt at humor. I was referring to your statement that “that is all I need to know” concerning Mary, and where the Bible said that that is all you need to know concerning Mary. In my best Rosanna Rosannadana voice… “Never mind”.

Lol

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;11490553]For the life of me I have no idea why so many hold to belief** everything is accountable **to Scripture? Just read early church history and it is no where taught. Scripture was and is important,but I read no where early Christians expressing the same view as today.

I AGREE!

Scripture is IMPORTANT, BUT

God gave the Key’s to heaven ONLY gate to Peter:thumbsup:

 

[Nicea325]

I AGREE!

Scripture is IMPORTANT, BUT

God gave the Key’s to heaven ONLY gate to Peter:thumbsup:

Amen!

 

[PJM]

=SteveVH;11490771]Where does it say that in the Bible?

LUKE ONE verses 26-36

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’ s name was Mary. [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her:** The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God**

If Mary’s Son is God; then MARY is the MOTHER OF THAT same God

 

[meme1961]

Yet the RCC claims the very same as does Orthodoxy as well. Either every faith is wrong or they are all right to some degree.

Question for ya. I am not defending SS, but just interested. What foundation does Tradition have without Scripture? What I mean is in the US government we have the 3 branches of government that are there to balance one another. Well that is in a perfect world. lol I believe that Scripture cannot stand alone, yet Tradition needs Scripture to back it up. Tradition alone cannot stand.

The 3 legged stool.

The terminology is a bit ambiguous, but if I understand you correctly, the reductionist point of view is self-falsifying.

The Bible has no meaning when separated from the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium. But the Bible is the “mnemonic device” and “logical correcter of interpretation” of the Church, and thus critically important.

In short, the Bible must have an authoritative teacher and interpreter, but the teacher and interpreter must have a text to teach and interpret. Since people, cultures, languages and societies die, we need Apostolic Tradition in order to bridge the gap, and to maintain the correct and extant context of the origination of the text. Apostolic Tradition also aids in correct interpretation and as the source for teaching that which is not explicitly in the text.

I hope that wasn’t too technical. Basically, long to short: the Bible is a mass of symbols, and symbols have no meaning. This basic truth is one addressed by the Catholic Church, but one that our Protestant Brothers still struggle with, and one that is a cause for much divisiveness among them.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The terminology is a bit ambiguous, but if I understand you correctly, the reductionist point of view is self-falsifying.

The Bible has no meaning when separated from the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium. But the Bible is the “mnemonic device” and “logical correcter of interpretation” of the Church, and thus critically important.

In short, the Bible must have an authoritative teacher and interpreter, but the teacher and interpreter must have a text to teach and interpret. Since people, cultures, languages and societies die, we need Apostolic Tradition in order to bridge the gap, and to maintain the correct and extant context of the origination of the text. Apostolic Tradition also aids in correct interpretation and as the source for teaching that which is not explicitly in the text.

I hope that wasn’t too technical. Basically, long to short: the Bible is a mass of symbols, and symbols have no meaning. This basic truth is one addressed by the Catholic Church, but one that our Protestant Brothers still struggle with, and one that is a cause for much divisiveness among them.

Meme is what my sons call my mother.

Scripture, tradition, and reason inform each other. The compliment one another. We know from history that Apostolic Tradition brought about the Bible that we read today. I believe that if anyone states otherwise, they need to read more history.

I may have messed up some wording or did not clearly state what I was trying to say so please forgive me.

Like I posted early…the Holy Trinity is not stated in Scripture, yet when we combine Tradition and Scripture, they work together to give us the Trinity. Scripture does not state that the Blessed Mother was the Mother of God, yet with Trinity (from Sacred Tradition) we can come to the conclusion the Mary was the Mother of God.

So Tradition is the bridge between reason and Scripture. If we cut that bridge out things will start to get a bit fuzzy.

 

[SteveVH]

Meme is what my sons call my mother.

Scripture, tradition, and reason inform each other. The compliment one another. We know from history that Apostolic Tradition brought about the Bible that we read today. I believe that if anyone states otherwise, they need to read more history.

I may have messed up some wording or did not clearly state what I was trying to say so please forgive me.

Like I posted early…the Holy Trinity is not stated in Scripture, yet when we combine Tradition and Scripture, they work together to give us the Trinity. Scripture does not state that the Blessed Mother was the Mother of God, yet with Trinity (from Sacred Tradition) we can come to the conclusion the Mary was the Mother of God.

So Tradition is the bridge between reason and Scripture. If we cut that bridge out things will start to get a bit fuzzy.

:clapping:

 

[SteveVH]

Meme is what my sons call my mother.

Scripture, tradition, and reason inform each other. The compliment one another. We know from history that Apostolic Tradition brought about the Bible that we read today. I believe that if anyone states otherwise, they need to read more history.

I may have messed up some wording or did not clearly state what I was trying to say so please forgive me.

Like I posted early…the Holy Trinity is not stated in Scripture, yet when we combine Tradition and Scripture, they work together to give us the Trinity. Scripture does not state that the Blessed Mother was the Mother of God, yet with Trinity (from Sacred Tradition) we can come to the conclusion the Mary was the Mother of God.

So Tradition is the bridge between reason and Scripture. If we cut that bridge out things will start to get a bit fuzzy.

:clapping:

 

[aidanbradypop]

:clapping:

wooohoooooo lol

 

[Kliska]

The Bible has no meaning when separated from the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Bible is written in human language, it follows rules of grammar, rules of lit, etc… Many of its contents were written expressly for everyone to read and to be able to gain knowledge from it. I find it odd and disturbing that this is now a popular position within the RCC; The Bible has no meaning when separated from those things? Maybe someone should tell God that His inspired word is impotent.

 

[Nicea325]

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Bible is written in human language, it follows rules of grammar, rules of lit, etc… Many of its contents were written expressly **for everyone to read **and to be able to gain knowledge from it. I find it odd and disturbing that this is now a popular position within the RCC; The Bible has no meaning when separated from those things? Maybe someone should tell God that His inspired word is impotent.

First of all, the Bible was NOT written for everyone to read as you may perceive. The Bible was written for people to HEAR. Common folks did not own Bibles as the popular position of today. What good would it do,if so many could not read? The only reason we are all able to understand certain key doctrines derived from Scripture is because we have had 2,000 years of study,reflection,theology,etc to help us understand. This is was not the case in the year 250 AD.

 

[Kliska]

First of all, the Bible was NOT written for everyone to read as you may perceive. The Bible was written for people to HEAR. Common folks did not own Bibles as the popular position of today. What good would it do,if so many could not read? The only reason we are all able to understand certain key doctrines derived from Scripture is because we have had 2,000 years of study,reflection,theology,etc to help us understand. This is was not the case in the year 250 AD.

If I read directly from what is written, that is allowing illiterate people to hear the scriptures. The OT was in circulation, and the manuscripts that make up the NT were as well; to say that those manuscripts were not meant for people read makes no logical sense. BTW, it is clear that those studying OT scripture were expected to understand it prior to the RCC.

 

[Nicea325]

If I read directly from what is written, that is allowing illiterate people to hear the scriptures. The OT was in circulation, and the manuscripts that make up the NT were as well; to say that those manuscripts were not meant for people read makes no logical sense. BTW, it is clear that those studying OT scripture were expected to understand it prior to the RCC.

Yes only if you knew how to read. What percentage do believe read? Sorry,but you proposing a reality which never existed. The fact manuscripts existed does not prove they were written so everyone (educated or uneducated) could read them at their own covenience. Bibles stores did not exist. Who do you believe had control of these manuscripts? The lay folks?

BTW: And it is clear those who read them were often correct by Jesus for their poor Biblical exegesis. The existence of RCC after the OT has no correlation in this matter.

 

[SteveVH]

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But, Kliska, how do you even know that Hebrews is the inspired word of God? Who told you? How did you come to this conclusion?

And also keep in mind that the word of God is not restricted to the written word.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If I read directly from what is written, that is allowing illiterate people to hear the scriptures. The OT was in circulation, and the manuscripts that make up the NT were as well; to say that those manuscripts were not meant for people read makes no logical sense. BTW, it is clear that those studying OT scripture were expected to understand it prior to the RCC.

Where are the original manuscripts?

 

[Nicea325]

But, Kliska, how do you even know that Hebrews is the inspired word of God? Who told you? How did you come to this conclusion?

And also keep in mind that the word of God is not restricted to the written word.

It is amazing how so many advocates of SS leave out so many important pieces to the Bible.

 

[Kliska]

Yes only if you knew how to read. What percentage do believe read? Sorry,but you proposing a reality which never existed. The fact manuscripts existed does not prove they were written so everyone (educated or uneducated) could read them at their own covenience. Bibles stores did not exist. Who do you believe had control of these manuscripts? The lay folks?

BTW: And it is clear those who read them were often correct by Jesus for their poor Biblical exegesis. The existence of RCC after the OT has no correlation in this matter.

It does matter; there is a very clear precedent set in studying the OT amongst the Jewish people. Again if you couldn’t read, when church happened, part of that is sharing scripture verbally. If we were lucky to live in the time of the Apostles that would also include the letters sent to the churches. I have no problem with that. I don’t need the Bible in front of me to share the gospel.

But, Kliska, how do you even know that Hebrews is the inspired word of God? Who told you? How did you come to this conclusion?

How did the RCC? There you have the answer.

 

[SteveVH]

It is amazing how so many advocates of SS leave out so many important pieces to the Bible.

How does this answer my question? Please tell me how you know that Hebrews, or any other book in the Bible, is the word of God? That seems to be a simple question.