Sola scripture from satan

[AgnosTheist]

So, its “inconsistant” for us to not know the color of Jesus’ robe? How so?
I dont think you understand the word inconsistant.

just look up your bible and find out the color, will ya? but if you really think its not important then forget it and continue pretending the bible is 100% consistent.

 

[DJgang]

excaliber,
I notice you are claiming to be JW, yet are professing against the claims of sola scriptura, are you looking into the Catholic faith? Sorry for getting off the subject, but just thought I’d ask.

I’ll not answer for excaliber, however, I would guess, he’s involvment with the JW’s, he has experienced Satan working all in the name of sola scriptura.

I am praying for excaliber, and I really hope that all involved in this thread will keep his previous religious experience in mind while posting.

God bless you excaliber! Hang in there!

 

[b_justb]

AgnosTheist:

you are catholic, maybe you can tell me what color is Jesus’ robe when he got murdered.

He wasn’t wearing one when he died. The purple cloak was given to him in mockery, but that too was taken from him before he died.

Matthew 27: 35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots;

Mark 15: 19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him. 24 And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.

Luke 23: 33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

John 19: 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; 24 so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the scripture, “They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

 

[Hellisreal]

I’ll not answer for excaliber, however, I would guess, he’s involvment with the JW’s, he has experienced Satan working all in the name of sola scriptura.
I am praying for excaliber, and I really hope that all involved in this thread will keep his previous religious experience in mind while posting.

God bless you excaliber! Hang in there!

While I agree with praying for excalibur, and keeping his experience in mind-

You have to know that the JW’s are NOT sola scriptura.

 

[Metaron]

Well, Jesus did answer Satan back with Scripture. He didn’t say, “tradition says,” but “it is written.”

Also, after His resurrection Jesus explained all the things concerning Himself in the Scriptures beginning with Moses and all the prophets (Lk. 24:27). And then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (verse 45).

Why do Catholics think relying on God’s written Word is Satanic?

The last comment is absurd; Catholics don’t believe relying on God’s written word is Satanic. Relying on private interpretation, which is condemned in the Bible itself, is. Besides, Every time a Protestant quotes the Bible, he is relying on the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, because that is the Church which formed the canon of the Bible!

 

[Deconi]

please be specific: what is it being used for that is satanic?

Be serious.

You aren’t ignorant of the hordes raking in millions using Scriptures as drawing card! Nevermind the multitude who ‘reinterpret’ themselves into Scriptures and then laud is as being the same Word of God as was originally given, just different to everyone else’s interpretations.

 

[Deconi]

completely unrealistic.

you are catholic, maybe you can tell me what color is Jesus’ robe when he got murdered.

I’ve seen that argument.

Either is correct because it is the colour viewed or learned by the writer. Red / Purple…what colour is red when soaked in blood?

 

[Jlcastagna]

you are catholic, maybe you can tell me what color is Jesus’ robe when he got murdered.

What color do you think it was? sarlet or purple or maybe he was strpped of those and crucified in his own clothes (no color given)

 

[Metaron]

Yeah. Besides, even if the Bible was inconsistent (I’m not conceding that it is) The Roman Catholic Church has the interpretation of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers, whereas the protesters have their own “private interpretation” which is contrary to the Bible anyway. Just like whenever one of the Protestants quotes Scripture, he is putting his reliance in the very Tradition which he condemned, the sacred Tradition revealed at the Council of Nicea when the Catholic Church formed the canon of Scripture that Prots use to this day!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Also is it not because of sola scripture that Christians have broken into so many groups,
each group claiming sola scripture

That certainly seems to be the biggest cause to the effect. It would seem to be at least of devilish influence. The faith is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition, and to knock out Tradition altogether from so many other Christian faiths certainly is a damaging maneuver.

 

[Metaron]

That certainly seems to be the biggest cause to the effect. It would seem to be at least of devilish influence. The faith is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition, and to knock out Tradition altogether from so many other Christian faiths certainly is a damaging maneuver.

To be more clear, actually, Scripture is a part of that larger sacred Tradition.
By the way, I have never seen a convincing Protestant arguement yet, that explains why they accept the canon as stated by the Council of Nicea, which is a part of that sacred Tradition. In other words, every time the Protestants use Scripture, they are implicitly affirming the sacred Tradition which defined the canon! The same goes for the Trinity doctrine…

 

[Rightlydivide]

To be more clear, actually, Scripture is a part of that larger sacred Tradition.
By the way, I have never seen a convincing Protestant arguement yet, that explains why they accept the canon as stated by the Council of Nicea, which is a part of that sacred Tradition. In other words, every time the **Protestants **use Scripture, they are implicitly affirming the sacred Tradition which defined the canon! The same goes for the Trinity doctrine…

Nicea did not state the canon, so you might have a hard time finding someone to give a convincing argument for something that did not happen.

 

[Metaron]

Nicea did not state the canon, so you might have a hard time finding someone to give a convincing argument for something that did not happen.

Oops! I got my Councils mixed up. The arguement remains the same, though.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I’ve seen that argument.

Either is correct because it is the colour viewed or learned by the writer. Red / Purple…what colour is red when soaked in blood?

red

 

[Rightlydivide]

Oops! I got my Councils mixed up. The arguement remains the same, though.

There is not an infallible council from your perspective until Trent. Hippo and Carthage are local African synods and not infallible. In fact, Carthage passed resolutions stressing that Rome should not interfere in their affairs. You can go to the Catholic encyclopedia and look under African Synods.
As far as the term Trinity, we do not use it and only rely on what scripture says.
Why we believe in scripture has been posted before. Run some searches.

 

[Metaron]

There is not an infallible council from your perspective until Trent. Hippo and Carthage are local African synods and not infallible. In fact, Carthage passed resolutions stressing that Rome should not interfere in their affairs. You can go to the Catholic encyclopedia and look under African Synods.
As far as the term Trinity, we do not use it and only rely on what scripture says.
Why we believe in scripture has been posted before. Run some searches.

I alreadly consulted the encyclopedia about the Council of Trent. The Arguement remains the same: What is your source for deciding the canon itself? The Bible doesn’t define the canon, so there must be another source for determining that. If your community doesn’t use the word Trinity, then you’re not a Protestant? A JW? A Christadelphian? What?

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is not an infallible council from your perspective until Trent. Hippo and Carthage are local African synods and not infallible.

The point of citing Hippo and Carthage and Rome is to show how far back the Catholic books were considered the canon and how long it has gone unchanged from the beginning. Trent reaffirms those earlier Councils as having voiced Tradition throughout the centuries. Like the definitions of “Trinity” or “Incarnation” in the earlier centuries, the canon did not up until Trent have to be “defined” in infallible language because it hadn’t been challenged. : D Also don’t forget Florence, which was also prior to the Reformation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I alreadly consulted the encyclopedia about the Council of Trent. The Arguement remains the same: What is your source for deciding the canon itself? The Bible doesn’t define the canon, so there must be another source for determining that. If your community doesn’t use the word Trinity, then you’re not a Prot? A JW? A Christadelphian? What?

It is against forum rules to use “Prot”. [Moderator Note: This is very true!]

) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

I am not a Jehovah Witness. I believe everything the Bible teaches about God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The point of citing Hippo and Carthage and Rome is to show how far back the Catholic books were considered the canon and how long it has gone unchanged from the beginning.

I have no argument with your statement as written. I of course know the Catholic church slowly broke away from the teachings of the original church and in those councils approved books not considered scripture by Christ.

 

[Metaron]

I alreadly consulted the encyclopedia about the Council of Trent. Just because it was a different date means nothing. The Arguement remains the same: What is your source for deciding the canon itself? The Bible doesn’t define the canon, so there must be another source for determining that. If your community doesn’t use the word Trinity, then you’re not a Prot? A JW? A Christadelphian? What?