SPLIT: Catholic Doctrines vs Sola Scriptura

[CentralFLJames]

These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.
Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…

Well, since we know that Jesus was the complete fulfillment of scripture please have a look at the complete books in the Catholic Bible that are nowhere to be found in the scriptures of “bible-only christians”. This will answer your question of things that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus also taught or fulfilled but is not contained in Protestant scripture.

Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Machabees - and parts of Esther (10:14 to 16:14) and Daniel (3:24- 90; 13; 14) all have references to Christ or his teachings in them.

In Tobias:
The Sadducees’ challenge to Jesus of the example of the woman that had seven husbands serially (e.g., Mark 12:20-22) is an allusion to this book’s story, with Tobit’s righteous son Tobias as Sarah’s ultimate husband.

In Wisdom:
The Gospel of Matthew contains allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon. Parallels between Wisdom and Matthew include the theme of testing, and the mocking of a servant of God’s claim to be protected by God. Matthew’s gospel teaches that Jesus is the suffering servant of God. Wis 2:17-18 (Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.) lent itself to Mt 27:43 (He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”).

In Ecclesiasticus or “Sirrach”:
The usual title of the book in Greek manuscripts and Fathers is Sophia Iesou uiou Seirach, “the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach”. Here we have the very namesake “Jesus” of a book title that does not show up in Protestant scripture anywhere!
There are several allusions to the book of Sirach in the New testament. These include The magnificat in Luke 1:52 following Sirach 10:14, the description of the seed in Mark 4:5,16-17 following Sirach 40:15, and Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:16,20 following Sirach 27:6. Even the distinguished patristic scholar Henry Chadwick has claimed that in Matthew 11:28 Jesus was directly quoting Sirach 51:27.

In Baruch:
In Summa Theologiae. III 4 4, Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas quotes Baruch 3:38 to affirm that “the Son of God assumed human nature in order to show Himself in men’s sight, according to Baruch 3:38: ‘Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.’” This is part of his discussion of “the mode of union on the part of the human nature” III 4. He quotes the same passage of Baruch in III 40 1 to help answer “whether Christ should have associated with men, or led a solitary life”.

Church Father St. Clement of Alexandria [3], d. A.D. 217, quoted Baruch 3:16-19, referring to the passage thus: “Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to the boastful, somewhere says most excellently: ‘Where are the princes of the nations…’” (see “Paean for Wisdom” example infra) (Jurgens §410a).

St. Hilary of Poitiers [4], d. A.D. 368, also a Church Father, quoted the same passage as St. Thomas, supra, (3:36-38), citing “Jeremias”, about which Jurgens states: “Baruch was secretary to Jeremias, and is cited by the Fathers mostly under the name of Jeremias” (§864n). St. Hilary states: “Besides Moses and Isaias, listen now a third time, and to Jeremias, who teaches the same thing, when He says:…” (Jurgens §864).

Use in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church
Baruch 6 is quoted in CCC §2112 as part of an exposition against idolatry. During the Diaspora the Jews lamented their lapse into idolatry, and their repentance is captured in the Book of Baruch.

In 2 Maccabees:
2 Maccabees is notable for several points of advanced doctrine deriving from Pharisaic Judaism.

Doctrinal issues that are raised in 2 Maccabees include:
Prayer for the dead and sacrificial offerings, both to free the dead from sin
Merits of the martyrs
Intercession of the saints (15:11-17) (at least as seen from a Christian viewpoint) [1]
Resurrection from the dead
In particular, the long descriptions of the martyrdoms of Eleazer and of a mother with her seven sons (2 Macc 6:18–7:42) caught the imagination of medieval Christians. Several churches are dedicated to the “Maccabeean martyrs”, and they are among the very few pre-Christian figures to appear on the Catholic calendar of saints’ days. The book is considered the first model of the medieval stories of the martyrs.

QED
Your question has been answered and now you need to convert to the one True Faith - Catholicism.

James

 

[justasking4]

VociMike;3535838]
Originally Posted by justasking4
All i’m doing is pointing out what historical sources tell us.

VociMike
So you claim that Mary disappeared and nobody knew what happened to her? Yes or no?

No one knows what happened. This is true of a lot of people in history. We don’t know what happened if we never them again. We believed they are dead and pershaps buried somewhere. If someone were to say they “disappeared” we would want to know what that means.

Quote:justasking4
It not a mistake but helps us to keep us from beleiving error. This is where we can see a lot of false exposed. They can’t back up their claims with facts but want you to believe their words alone. Again, look at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It is rock solid because there is so much eyewitness evidence for it. This alone goes far in proving Christianity is true.

VociMike
If you want to treat your faith as a provable proposition then you have your own problems, because nothing is provable.

What do you mean “nothing is provable”?

Do you actually think that accounts written by believers count as proof?

Of course. Its the same thing as when you read historical accounts about any historical event. We beleive the accounts written are true unless we have good reasons to discount them.

Your approach screams Double Standard! and you can’t even see it.

Maybe you can help me…

 

[JoeyWarren]

This is true. I beleive that it is only in Christ alone who can save a person. There is nothing a man can do to save himself. It is all of Christ and can only be “accepted” by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says it best when Paul writes these words:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I agree one hundred percen with the verse, but it has to be taken in context with the remainder of the Bible and James corrects any misunderstanding about Faith alone by stating a couple of times that “Faith without works is dead” meaning that if your faith does not produce works then the faith is a false faith and blasphemous against God, for on the the great white throne, Jesus will not judge us by our faith but by our works that came from out of our faith. Read the final statement in the Bible about being judged::

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged

out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they** were judged** every man according to their works.

---

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Matter of fact Jesus stress alot about works in the book of Revelation (21 times, a trinity of sevens) and faith only 2 times and one of those refers to Jesus own faith.

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY WE WILL BE JUDGED BY OUR FAITH.

Too many Protestants believe they can be saved by faith and do nothing the rest of their lives. Yet reflect on 1 Corinthians 3:10-17. What happens when your works are burned up and nothing is left but the foundation? Care to speculate?

 

[DJR]

You are greatly mistaken about what the scope of what Jesus and His apostles taught. All that we know what they taught can only be found in the written inspired-inerrant text of what we call the New Testament. The church did not preserve nor did God anything that they taught outside the canon of Scripture.

If the above is true, how does one come to the knowledge of what constitutes the canon of the Bible, using the Bible only?

Secondly, how does a Christian go about getting married? Can two 14 year olds merely go to a park, hold each other’s hand, pronounce themselves married, and then go off and consummate their marriage? If they do that, are they married? Prove from the Bible only that they are. Prove from the Bible only that they are not.

Where do Protestant ministers get the authority to pronounce anyone man and wife? Where do Protestants get their marriage ceremony from? Why do Protestants go before a minister, with two witnesses, and take marriage vows? What part of the Bible does that come from?

What is the definition of Sola Scriptura, and where is that definition found in the Bible? And if it is not found there, then even attempting to define Sola Scriptura is unbiblical per se, as it would merely be someone’s unbiblical opinion. So, no one can even define what Sola Scriptura entails. We are interested only in God’s opinion of what Sola Scriptura entails, not anyone else’s opinion.

Historically, most people who believe/d in Sola Scriptura (Lutherans, Anglicans, and others) baptize/d infants. Yet, many people who don’t believe in Sola Scriptura don’t. Who is correct, and how does one determine that, using the Bible alone?

Those who don’t baptize infants (because they don’t see it in Sacred Scripture) also perform wedding ceremonies (with vows, ministers, and witnesses), yet there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that tells us how we go about getting married.

If a person believes in an oral tradition that the Bible contains 66 books (and that’s what it is, oral tradition) but at the same time believes oral tradition is unbiblical per se, then that person is involved in a contradiction.

In addition, the Bible is incomplete, as there are books missing.

The statements above are only a few reasons why Catholics do not, and cannot, accept Sola Scriptura. It is a self-refuting doctrine and, in the end, constitutes an absurdity.

 

[JoeyWarren]

VociMike
So you claim that Mary disappeared and nobody knew what happened to her? Yes or no?

JA4
No one knows what happened. This is true of a lot of people in history. We don’t know what happened if we never them again. We believed they are dead and pershaps buried somewhere. If someone were to say they “disappeared” we would want to know what that means.

No one knows either what happened to the Ark of the Old Covenant either. Maybe why no one wrote about the Ark of the Old Covenant after it’s disappearance (sometime after Jeremiah penned is book) is the same reason no one wrote about the disappearance of Mary ( The Ark of the New Covenant )? Maybe God put those two arks off limits? Two arks that carried God just disappeared and no one in recorded history raised a stink about it? Sounds like Divine Intervention to me!

 

[bnapgh]

Three questions:

1. How do you believe the New Testament defines: ‘‘every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God’’
2. Logically, how does ‘‘by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God’’ mean ‘‘and by no other way’’?
3. First please read the following scripture quotes:

Luke 22:19 …saying: This is my body…

Matthew 26:26 26 …said: Take ye and eat. This is my body…

Mark 14:22 …said: Take ye and eat. This is my body

Now, please explain what the verb ‘‘is’’ means in each.

Or do you, like Bill Clinton, say it depends on your definition of ‘‘is’’.

How is a solo scriptura Christian to feel confident in his or her own definition of ‘‘is’’?

What if they are wrong?

JustAsking4,

I am still waiting for an answer to these questions,

Thanks!

 

[Gamera]

Here is the passage that is found in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES …These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.
Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…

What you requested in Post 6 was an example of Jesus basing His own teaching on non-Biblical tradition.

Can you show a couple of examples where Jesus based His teachings on tradition?

I provided that in Post 56.

Luke 11:51. Jesus taught as fact the Jewish tradition, found nowhere in the Old Testament, that Zechariah died between the altar and the sanctuary.

 

[CentralFLJames]

All i’m doing is pointing out what historical sources tell us. Think what this does the proclaimation (sp) of the pope in 1950 that proclaimed as dogma Mary was assumed into heaven without any historical evidence to back up the claim. Without it, this doctrine crumbles. Compare this with resurrection of Christ and the evidence give for it. See I Cornthinians (sp) 15:1-8. Its an incrediblity (sp) powerful witness that would stand up in a court of law.

It not a mistaken but helps us to keep us from beleiving (sp) error. This is where we can see a lot of false exposed. They can’t back up their claims with facts but want you to believe their words alone. Again, look at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It is rock solid because there is so much eyewitness evidence for it. This alone goes far in proving Christianity is true.

Are you trying to sound absurd? Everything any Christian has is based on FAITH. There is not one single original document of gospel available to us today. All we have are: 1) copies of original writings - some of which become cannon 2) The historical and traditional accounts of the saints and the early church persecutions and martyrs, 3) The ever present existence of The Catholic Church from the beginning of Christ’s resurrection. The Catholic Church IS the eye witness.

This all went completely unchallenged within the Catholic community for 1500 years until Luther and the Reformers came around and tried to carve up scripture and redefine the traditions, the teachings and the faith. BUT EVEN LUTHER NEVER CHALLENGED THE LEGITIMACY NOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It was his followers and the monarchs who used the schism as an opportunity to usurp The Church and invent a new religion with a new leader - The Monarchy or The State. After Luther every 2 bit prince and King and his court jester suddenly started stamping out free versions of KJVs to give to “their subjects” to win over a subservient class who would rather serve the monarch than the pope. It was a classic hijack attempt.

The Catholic Church does not need one sentence of written scripture to continue in its faith. It is the lawyers and the unbelievers who need a piece of copied paper in their hands as a proxy for their faith. That is not faith - that is a book club.

The Catholic Church has all it needs by pointing to the fact of its own existence and to its long legacy of popes, religious and martyred to know where it came from and what it teaches are true. The Catholic family album and family tree goes back to the days of Jesus and the Apostles. But Protestants and bible-only christians can only look at a family album that goes back 500 years. Protestants just have a misdirected faith since they place it in the teachings of Luther and The Reformers over Christ and His Church. But that misdirected faith has not one wit of proof that anything Luther ever said was true; nor do they have any proof that what is written in scripture is true. To be intellectually honest any Christian MUST admit that it takes a lot of faith to be a Christian - and even more faith to be a Protestant.

Ultimately one believes what one wants to believe and accepts as evidence what one wants to accept. But please spare us the assertion that scripture is any sort of objective evidence since it requires trust in those who teach it and deliver it and defend it.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

Lets see if this is hogwash. We know the assumption of Mary is not in Scripture. Even catholic writers admit to this. In fact its totally unknown for centuries.

Answered you this on the other thread.

Next, where in Scripture do we find that she is the medatrix of all grace? If you know the scriptures you would know that its not even hinted at.

Properly understood as discussed by the church it is implicit in the New Testament. I won’t bother to discuss this with you since it is not even a teaching of the church at this point, and there is no guarantee that it ever will be.

We can add to this confessing to a priest for forgiveness. You will not find such a thing in the NT.

That’s completely untrue JA4 and I’d think someone who asserts that they are a Bible Christian would no better to make such a claim. No matter. I refute this errors in two different posts on my blog.
Catholic Confession

“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.

In fact the word of priest --hiereus- is not used as a term to describe an office of a priest in the NT. The apostolic fathers Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement don’t use the term “priest” to describe Christian ministers.The first use of the term is not until the 3rd century by Origen.

Irrelevant, the title is less important than the function which is clearly there. Though you wish it was not.

If something is not in Scripture its unbiliblical. It would then be a teaching of men. There is no getting around this…

Okay… so starting with Sola Scriptura your entire religious belief system comes crashing down because the fundamental cornerstone is unbiblical. Hate it for ya.

i gave you a couple above. How about papal infalliblity? Since there is no pope or supreme leader in the NT (Peter does not function in this capacity even though used mightly by God). It took time before it can be said there was one universal and recognised head of the church.

So? Again the function and office was there whether the term was used at at that time.

I could not agree you more on this. When they do they will be suprised and maybe shocked.

Yeah… they come home to the Catholic faith…just like I did and just as so many others around here have.

Not so. Being exposed to the truth can be a difficult thing for people.

Yeah… you’re a prize winning example of that.

I can understand why so many hate me but i expect that.

Oh please stop with the :crying:baby martyr bit! No one here hates you. We oppose your errors and defend the truths of the Catholic faith. If you take it all to be hate then you should not be involved in apologetics.

Look at the claims of your church. Compare them with Scripture and history. Its not what many catholics believe.

Too late! I already have and the result is that I have rejected the errors of Protestantism in favor of the factually accurate teachings of the Catholic Church because they are Biblical and verifiably in line with the teachings of the ECF.

When you can justify why you and most all other Protestants deny the New Testament and the ECF writings of Ignatius of Antioch with regard to the fact that they teach the Eucharistic Real Presence then perhaps you can speak about the things that the ECF taught and the church has always believed. Meanwhile, you remain in your errors.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Maybe God put those two arks off limits? Two arks that carried God just disappeared and no one in recorded history raised a stink about it? Sounds like Divine Intervention to me!

Revelations 12:6
Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.



James

 

[Church_Militant]

I get the impression that you really don’t know either. Since it appears you have read the ECF why don’t you give me a couple of examples of things that were “handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles”?

Just read it… it’s all essentially Tradition. Have you read it? Doesn’t appear so…especially regarding the Eucharistic Real Presence.

Are you mocking Sunday schools?

Not at all, we have them in my parish, but I suspect you’ll at least be late if you are busy reading and studying the ECF.

I suspect that if you miss it because of that study that it will be time better spent.

 

[VociMike]

No one knows what happened. This is true of a lot of people in history.

So John the Apostle didn’t know what happened to Mary, who lived in his house “from that hour”?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Revelations 12:6
Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.



James

Yes I know that, but JA4 rejects the idea that the woman is Mary completely and totally.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

You have GOT to make this line your permanent signature. Please???

 

[guanophore]

So you agree that the apostles knew nothing of this?

No, but I am not limited as you are by only part of the Divine Revelation.

I’m not quite sure what this “Deposit of Faith” is. What is it, who determines what is it composed of?

It is “all that Jesus taught” to His Apostles. Only some of this was recorded in the NT.

We don’t know exactly how this was done in some parts of the OT. Its possible some things were taught orallly at first. Its also possible that a prophet or someone close to an prophet wrote down first in private and then spoke the word to the people. In the time of Jesus its quite possible that some of the people who heard Him teach wrote it down especially if they thought He was a prophet or speaking for God. By the time Luke is about to write his gospel he certainly implies this in Luke 1:1-4.

Would you agree, then, that Lukes’ material came out of the Sacred Tradition?

Are you saying that the apostles knew of the assmption of Mary and purgatory even though its not recorded in their sacred writings i.e. the Scriptures? Where is this to be found in the deposit of faith?

The Jews that accepted the Teaching of Jesus, an the Scriptures used by Him already had the doctrine of Purgatory. This predated the Christian Church.

Lets see if this is hogwash. We know the assumption of Mary is not in Scripture. Even catholic writers admit to this. In fact its totally unknown for centuries. Next, where in Scripture do we find that she is the medatrix of all grace? If you know the scriptures you would know that its not even hinted at.

This is an erroneous conclusion based on an erroneous premise. You are proceeding from the false foundation that “all we have is in the Scriptures”. Therefore, when you cannot find something in the Scripture, you assume it does not exist. In fact, the doctrines of Mary were derived from the doctrines about Jesus. These doctrines were not defined until they were challenged by heretics. Although this occurred over the course of centuries, it is not accurate to say that the Apostles did not Teach these things. The Aposltes taught that Jesus was God made man. Two natures, one person. This was not defined dogmatically for centuries.

We can add to this confessing to a priest for forgiveness. You will not find such a thing in the NT. In fact the word of priest --hiereus- is not used as a term to describe an office of a priest in the NT.

This is correct. The priests of the New Covenant are not the same as those of the old, though their role is prefigured. We see the duties of the priest in the office of “presbyter”, from which we derive the English word “priest”. We can see the elements of confession in the NT, but because you reject the remainder of teh Divine Deposit of Faith, I think it will be difficult for you to “see” this. Be it done to you according to your faith (or in this case, lack therof!)

The apostolic fathers Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement don't use the term "priest" to describe Christian ministers.The first use of the term is not until the 3rd century by Origen.

This is true, since the early church spoke Greek, and Latin did not become prevalent until that time.

If something is not in Scripture its unbiliblical. It would then be a teaching of men. There is no getting around this…

Even your own testimony refutes that. You have recently posted that “even nature teaches you”, citing that we can learn from nature, and that this is biblical. You got around it all by yourself!

You also affirmed that you believe in pastors and teachers, and that these are a source outside of scripture by which we an learn. This is also “biblical”. It looks like you broke down your own assertion!

How about  papal infalliblity? Since there is no pope or supreme leader in the NT (Peter does not function in this capacity even though used mightly by God). It took time before it can be said there was one universal and recognised head of the church.

The fact that things take time is not a problem for Catholics, who understand that revelation takes time for people to understand.

You are imposing your secular mindset onto the Kingdom, ja4, and this is not proper. Jesus teaching on leadership did not contain your erroneous characterization of “supreme”. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind!

 

[guanophore]

I get the impression that you really don’t know either. Since it appears you have read the ECF why don’t you give me a couple of examples of things that were “handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles”?

1. The contents of the Sacred Scripture
2. The order of the Mass
3. The Apostles Creed
4. The nature of the hypostatic union
5. The definition of the Trinity
6. The observation of the Sabbath on the first day of the week

etc, etc.

Not so. Being exposed to the truth can be a difficult thing for people. I can understand why so many hate me but i expect that. Look at the claims of your church. Compare them with Scripture and history. Its not what many catholics believe.

I personally don’t hate “you” ja4. I don’t even know you. In fact, looking at the broad spectrum of your posting content, I am actually wondering if there is a full cadre of anti-Catholics from your fundamentalist community posting under your username.

I dislike the things that you do, because of the rotten fruit they produce. I object to your use of CAF to try to interfere with people wanting to know more about Catholicism, or to join the Chruch, and the constant bearing of false witness that you (all)manifest here.

What we don't have evidence for is any oral teachings of Jesus outside the NT. If there is, then what exactly is it that Jesus spoke that is not recorded in the written Scriptures?

This evidence is not available to you, ja4. This material can only be accessed by persons of faith. Since you believe that it does not exist, you will not be able to apprehend it. :dts:

For example he claims that baptism washes away sins. However if we take that statement without taking other scriptures into consideration we would get the idea that baptism alone is capable of washing away sins. The scriptures never teach this. What is required before baptism is confession of sin and belief that Christ died for those sins and rose again. After a person makes this profession of faith then he-she should be baptised. In Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4 which both speaks of being saved say nothing of being baptised.

A profession of faith is necessary for valid baptism. And you are right, one must take into account ALL the relevant passages together in order to obtain the correct meaning. When we read “one must be born again of water and the spirit” it is clear that faith unto salvation and baptism go together.

Why would i be on this?

Because so many of them are “unbiblical” like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide" and "everything we have from the Apostles is in the NT. As a ‘bible christian’ it seems this would be somewhat disconcerting.

: Send us the rationale behind this peculiar statement of yours. Perhaps the verse stating “All Jesus said and did is communicated by way of the pen.”

"justasking4:

There is none.

:extrahappy:

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

MarcoPolo is extrahappy, as are we all, to see you admit that there is no verse in the Bible that says what you have asserted. What this proves is that you are purporting a man made tradition that is unbiblical. This is your “written age” that has been invented, probably by someone from whom you have been taught.

Here is the passage that is found in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES:
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Jude 1:14-15-t was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.

No, ja4. These are references to the Sacred Oral Tradition of the OT period that was embraced by Jesus and the Apostles. It is recorded ONLY in the NT, because it was considered “the Word of God”.

Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…

You are not able to “see” these things, ja4, because you deny they exist.

 

[Gamera]

… Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church …

Yeah, but Scripture doesn’t teach that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

 

[guanophore]

These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.
Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…

This is a great example of that tail chasing technique. ja4 asks for something from Sacred Oral Tradtion, it is provided, then he says “no, that doesn’t qualify”. Well, this time you really made yourself look foolish, because the NT had not yet been written when Jesus used this example and taught it to His Apostles. It came completely out of Sacred Oral Tradition that existed before the time of Christ, and long before the letter of Jude was ever written.

You misunderstand. I never said anything about “Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone” in my comments. Would you not agree that if something in not found in Scripture then it cannot be said to be scriptural? It could still be true but its not bibilcal.

This is a great way to change horses in the middle of the stream. If it is Catholics saying something that is not found in Scripture, it is the “speculation of men”. HOwever, if it is a fundamentalis, then “it could be true”. I find that double standard fascinating!

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;3535914]
This is true. I beleive that it is only in Christ alone who can save a person. There is nothing a man can do to save himself. It is all of Christ and can only be “accepted” by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says it best when Paul writes these words:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I agree one hundred percen with the verse, but it has to be taken in context with the remainder of the Bible and James corrects any misunderstanding about Faith alone by stating a couple of times that “Faith without works is dead” meaning that if your faith does not produce works then the faith is a false faith and blasphemous against God, for on the the great white throne, Jesus will not judge us by our faith but by our works that came from out of our faith. Read the final statement in the Bible about being judged::

Quote:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

It seems this passage is a reference to the judgement of the wicked dead who will be judged for their deeds. These were not found in the book of life. See verse 15.
The question is: how does one get his-her name in book of life?

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

This is a common theme in scripture that there will be a judgement.

Matter of fact Jesus stress alot about works in the book of Revelation (21 times, a trinity of sevens) and faith only 2 times and one of those refers to Jesus own faith.

Works in and of themselves do not save a person. Not matter how many good works a person does can save him if he has not repented and believed that Christ died for His sins and rose again. The issue is not a person’ works but their sin. It is sin that kills a man separates him from God.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
No one knows what happened. This is true of a lot of people in history.

VociMike
So John the Apostle didn’t know what happened to Mary, who lived in his house “from that hour”?

He may have but we have no record of it.