The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Cathoholic]

@rightness to thomat65 . . .

Now we have 40,000 protestant denominations all claiming to have the sole authority of interpretation through the Bible.

Thomat65’s response?

This isn’t true. I’ve heard variations of this repeated several times in this and other threads, but it’s not correct and rings dead.

If there is something that doesnt “ring true” in that thomas65, it is an UNDERESTIMATION of the many Bible-only ecclessial communions.

Think about it (and if you are in a city, look at your phone book. Forget about house churches. We’ll conservatively ignore them).

Take a mere 8 belief “doctrines”.

• Infant baptism vrs no infant baptism.
• Age “of reason” to accept Jesus into your heart as personal lord and savior age 7.
  The other denomination at age 10.
• Rapture vrs. No rapture.
• Pre mil vrs. Post mil. (Ignore amil for a moment)

Etc. until you get 8 of them (there are plenty MORE).

Now do the permutations and combinations.
Do 8!
Do 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 40,320

That’s fourty THOUSAND “denominations” right there.

The only thing about this is, it is a very conservative UNDERestimation.

Sola Scriptura (any definition) is a form of institutionalized doctrinal chaos never urged by our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor any of His early followers.

Sola Scriptura sad to say, is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

 

[thomat65]

This is misrepresenting my position. I do not consider the writings to be His words before I know the writings are Scripture. They are only a historical witness of His words until I trust the Church.

Ahh. I just might see what you’re saying. You’re saying you first approached the documents as you would a history textbook.

Here’s what I’m hearing you say:

1. You found some historical documents
2. You had only medium confidence that they are reliable
3. To boost your confidence, you did some archeology, studied history textbooks from trusted sources, and spent lots of time researching on the internet (I’m making these up… insert your own)
4. Now, you have accumulated a wealth of information we’ll call X, in which you have very high confidence
5. You personally interpret from X that the RCC has authority
6. Because of your high confidence in X, you trust the outputs of the RCC
7. Now you are able to derive confidence in the table of contents produced by the RCC
8. From there, you discover all kinds of additional resources (scriptures even) and personally interpret them to reassure yourself that your belief is internally consistent

Is that correct?

 

[thomat65]

@catholicray [cont]

Assuming the above is correct… notice that doesn’t remove (a) the trust in those documents from which your trust in the RCC is derived or (b) how you personally interpreted those documents in order to derive trust in the RCC.

In order to judge something to be trustworthy, a personal interpretation of some evidence must occur. To say it harshly, we are treating the thing judged as inferior (in a sense) to the evidence.

You say “there is good unbiased historical reason to connect the Catholic Church to Jesus”. Have you not been saying this whole time that is the logical cause of your trust in the RCC? That is an example of judging the RCC based on a personal interpretation of something.

Now, you might say “Yeah, but what about how one trusts Christ. Are you saying they are treating Christ as inferior to the evidence?!”

Well… yes, if evidence is the foundation of their trust. So they ought not do that, and if they are then I suspect they are not trusting Christ in the way that the scriptures say will necessarily produce fruit proving their faith.

And when one trusts Christ (in the way meant in the scriptures) evidence is not the cause. Instead, God changes their heart and mind so that they hear and believe Christ’s words, and happily the evidence encourages them in a secondary fashion. It’s not because of evidence that anyone has been converted. If you think otherwise, John 6:44 says it’s impossible for anyone to “come to” him (meaning believe in him… look at the context) unless the Father causes it by drawing them. Elsewhere Christ says they must be born again. Those are changes wrought in the heart and mind by the Holy Spirit, not by evidence.

Now, you might say “But what about when I come to a clear conviction about something based on evidence and then willingly put myself under that something? Are you going to say I’m acting superior to that something?!”

Of course not. That’d be confusing the superiority of the evidence with the superiority of yourself your actions (or something like that).

I’m left with two options.

If Sola Scriptura is better defined as something other than what you’ve successfully torn down, then perhaps you have a third option: accept Jesus as Lord, derive a reasonable confidence in what the canon of Scripture is using methods outside the RCC, reject the RCC by recognizing that some of the RCC’s “infallible” statements clearly contradict very reasonable interpretations of scripture, and be merrily on your way.

Edit: sorry for editing while you’re replying, but the absence or presence of Sola Scriptura probably doesn’t matter for this third option.

 

[thomat65]

Maybe it missed on every single one?

“Maybe” is much different than “certainly”. Possibility vs probability. Just because something is fallible doesn’t mean it’s very improbable at all.

All of us have only fallible knowledge. Will the sun come up tomorrow? None of us knows certainly, because Christ could return and God could destroy and recreate everything before then. Do you infallibly know what you had for lunch today? What about yesterday? Last week? Last year? (Don’t worry, I don’t remember, either)

So I find it totally unnecessary to have infallible knowledge about anything. It’s impossible!

Maybe the Protestant canon missed on every single one. So what?

Because if you accept the writings as infallable you need to have an infallible authority telling you those writings are infallible.

This is not true. If it is then you have to have a second infallible authority telling you that the first is infallible. And a third to validate the second. And a fourth. And so on. That’s infinite regress.

Now do the permutations and combinations.
Do 8!
Do 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 40,320

Actually, one is supposed to do 2^4 = 16. If there were three possibilities for each of the four categories instead of only two (like add in “no baptism”, “age 95”, “partial rapture”, and “mystic mil”… totally making these things up) then it’d be 3^4 = 81. It’s not a permutation but a power. As a quick proof these are two different permutations that would show up in your 40k, but clearly they are the same thing: (a) infant, age 7, rapture, pre mil and (b) pre mil, rapture, age 7, infant. You can trust me on this, I’m a programmer and often deal with math problems like this

The fully proper way to do this is for each category of things, multiply the count of distinct items in each category. For example: 2 ways to do baptism x 5 ways to do communion x 1 way to greet people at the door x 3 ways to do altar calls (including no altar call) x 500 styles of music = 15,000

There’s even a way you can do this when you’ve got a category of things that aren’t completely distinct if you really want to know

 

[catholicray]

If Sola Scriptura is better defined as something other than what you’ve successfully torn down, then perhaps you have a third option: accept Jesus as Lord, derive a reasonable confidence in what the canon of Scripture is using methods outside the RCC, reject the RCC by recognizing that some of the RCC’s “infallible” statements clearly contradict very reasonable interpretations of scripture, and be merrily on your way.

This is where I will begin.

If Sola Scriptura is better defined as something other than what you’ve successfully torn down, then perhaps you have a third option:

reject the RCC by recognizing that some of the RCC’s “infallible” statements clearly contradict very reasonable interpretations of scripture, and be merrily on your way.

I’d like to make you aware of the logical circle we continue to go around. You noted that I tore down a definition of Sola Scriptura. Then you suggested I understand that some of the RCC’s statements contradict reasonable interpretations of Scripture. Herein lies the fact that you adhere to my definition of Sola Scriptura. For by what reason should I believe that all doctrine must be supported or found in Scripture in the first place?

Furthermore, even if I did believe as you do that doctrine should be supported and found in Scripture, then I offer you the challenge of John Chapter 6 concerning eating the flesh of Jesus our Lord. I guarantee that I can share an incredibly reasonable position concerning why that chapter should be interpreted literally.

You also seem to suggest that reasonable faith is based on reasonable interpretations of Scripture alone. I suggest you study the Arian heresy in the 4th century. That particular heresy was very reasonable concerning Scripture. If we had been practicing Sola Scriptura then, we would all be denying the Son is co-eternal with the Father today. Thankfully the tradition of the Church protected us during that time.

I’ll mention another concern I have with reasonable interpretations of Scripture. Lucifer shared such interpretations with Christ in order to tempt Him. Remember, Lucifer appears to us as an angel of light. He deceives us through offering a lie wrapped in an abundance of reason. How do you know in your heart that you are not deceived if Satan is so bold as to tempt our Savior?

The difference in our approach to Scripture is this. You leave the final decision concerning reasonable interpretations of Scripture, up to yourself. You do this whether you admit it or not. I am left to submit my obedience to reason that is not my own. You are left with confidence in yourself. I am left with confidence in another. Which system is based on faith?

 

[catholicray]

Moving on then…

You say “there is good unbiased historical reason to connect the Catholic Church to Jesus”. Have you not been saying this whole time that is the logical cause of your trust in the RCC? That is an example of judging the RCC based on a personal interpretation of something.

Now, you might say “Yeah, but what about how one trusts Christ. Are you saying they are treating Christ as inferior to the evidence?!”

Well… yes, if evidence is the foundation of their trust. So they ought not do that, and if they are then I suspect they are not trusting Christ in the way that the scriptures say will necessarily produce fruit proving their faith.

Particularly…

Well… yes, if evidence is the foundation of their trust.

This is utter nonsense. If my evidence is a subjective experience of the Lord Himself then I suppose He is inferior to Himself according to your logic here. How would you explain believing in the Lord without evidence, without positing blind faith? In short I could not disagree with you more. Evidence is evidence it is neither superior or inferior. Faith without reason is blind. If you follow reason and evidence with Honesty your theology will be bulletproof.

(a) the trust in those documents from which your trust in the RCC is derived or (b) how you personally interpreted those documents in order to derive trust in the RCC.

Furthermore you must add:
c.) constantly testing my own position with a willingness to be wrong
d.) constantly testing the positions of others seeking the truth

Therefore by [a,b,c,d] I currently maintain my Catholicism. I am Catholic by faith and by reason. Not to mention I am Catholic by the direction of the Holy Spirit. I spent 10 years with Scripture alone outside of the Catholic Church.

Romans 13 got me! Submit to the governing authorities for they are put there by God! I found King James to be a convincing authority to submit myself under for some time. Read a facsimile 1611 KJV. Check that out here: GENESIS CHAPTER 1 KJV-

You should study the KJV only movement. While their position doesn’t apply to me as a Catholic it’s actually very reasonable for someone who practices Sola Scriptura. Do you even have the accurate words of God? You do know that Scripture is a product of copies of copies of copies with scribal errors and such? In fact I find the KJV only movement to be the most reasonable in Protestantism (especially if you are anti-Catholic) and yet from the outside it can be one of the most aggressive positions you can have. I digress.

To be continued…

 

[catholicray]

…continued

Ahh. I just might see what you’re saying. You’re saying you first approached the documents as you would a history textbook.

Here’s what I’m hearing you say:

1. You found some historical documents
2. You had only medium confidence that they are reliable
3. To boost your confidence, you did some archeology, studied history textbooks from trusted sources, and spent lots of time researching on the internet (I’m making these up… insert your own)
4. Now, you have accumulated a wealth of information we’ll call X, in which you have very high confidence
5. You personally interpret from X that the RCC has authority
6. Because of your high confidence in X, you trust the outputs of the RCC
7. Now you are able to derive confidence in the table of contents produced by the RCC
8. From there, you discover all kinds of additional resources (scriptures even) and personally interpret them to reassure yourself that your belief is internally consistent

Is that correct?

To be clear I am saying there is only one method I know of which avoids circular reasoning.

you first approached the documents as you would a history textbook.

You first approach Scripture as historical data and test it for reliability

To boost your confidence, you did some archeology, studied history textbooks from trusted sources, and spent lots of time researching on the internet (I’m making these up… insert your own)

A part of testing the Scriptures for reliability is to compare them against as much historical data as possible.

Now, you have accumulated a wealth of information we’ll call X, in which you have very high confidence

With a wealth of information we will call X (which is ever growing) I have a high confidence in the historicity of Jesus and attachment of the RCC to Jesus

You personally interpret from X that the RCC has authority

Yup

 

[catholicray]

Because of your high confidence in X, you trust the outputs of the RCC

Because of my trust in the RCC I trust the outputs of the RCC. The RCC is apart of X in other words.

Now you are able to derive confidence in the table of contents produced by the RCC

Because of the RCC’s claim on infallibility it logically follows
If RCC is true then the table of contents is true
If RCC is false then the table of contents is unknown

From there, you discover all kinds of additional resources (scriptures even) and personally interpret them to reassure yourself that your belief is internally consistent

I only interpret Scripture in line with what is dogmatically defined. This leaves a lot of room for a personal relationship with God while closing some doors on some things contained in Scripture.

Meanwhile…
I always listen for a better explanation and I have tested and tested and tested explanations. They just don’t add up. Therefore I am highly confident in my position but I am always willing to listen.

---

Therefore I fallibly trust in the infallible whereby I know the canon of Scripture.
The only other option is to fallibly trust in the fallible and leave the canon of Scripture unknown.

 

[Cathoholic]

thomat65 . . .

I find it totally unnecessary to have infallible knowledge about anything. It’s impossible!

These are remanufactured sophistries thomat65.

You are falling into two of the three errors of Gorgias the Sophist.

And it’s a subtle DENIAL of Jesus too.

I am not saying you are doing this on purpose. I don’t think you are. You have bought into some very terrible philosophy.

A philosophy that implicitly denies Christ CAN work in and through people and give them absolute certainty.

thomat65 and Gorgias philosophy.

Your philosophy has a whole realm named after it. Sophistry.

 

[thomat65]

Your philosophy has a whole realm named after it. Sophistry .

Are you sure you mean sophistry and not skepticism?

You are falling into two of the three errors of Gorgias the Sophist.

Please back up your assertions. Merely claiming things neither make them true nor convince your target (me) of anything.

---

[This is #1. #2 is waiting in the moderator queue. #3 follows]

The RCC is apart of X in other words.

I think this is the strongest part of your answer because it forces me to adjust my challenge. But all this does is alter the sequence a little bit:

1. You found some information not produced by the RCC
2. You have a certain level of trust in #1 information
3. You found some information produced by the RCC
4. Using #1 you boosted your confidence in #3 to an equal level as your confidence in #1
5. You found internal consistencies when you aggregated #1 and #3
6. #5 reassured you, but in truth #5 is no more trustworthy than #3 or #1 individually

We can continue shuffling the pieces around all day, but this remains true:

by demonstrating that you trust the RCC because you trust the scriptures some information first , you are showing that you believe the actions and products of the RCC may be judged by a personal interpretation of scripture that information.

And you affirm this when you say this:

Furthermore you must add:
c.) constantly testing my own position with a willingness to be wrong
d.) constantly testing the positions of others seeking the truth

Therefore by [a,b,c,d] I currently maintain my Catholicism.

See? You affirmed a and b. How does that not spring the trap?

You might not think this trap is very “trappy”, but I get the feeling that many Catholics try to avoid saying “I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”. Even more I get the feeling that many Catholics try to avoid saying “I believe the correctness of Roman Catholicism ought to be judged by personal interpretations of some things”.

 

[thomat65]

[This is #3… #2 is waiting in the moderator queue]

Arian heresy

I’m sure it wouldn’t be impossible to dismiss with scriptures and by proving internal inconsistencies on their own ground.

How do you know in your heart that you are not deceived if Satan is so bold as to tempt our Savior?

Christ said he would hold his own firmly in his hand and none would be able to remove them. He also said that all who come to him (meaning “believe” him) he will never cast out. I am believing in Christ in the manner he spoke of, and he was telling the truth. Therefore Satan cannot deceive me to the point of disjoining me from Christ. 1 John 5:4

The difference in our approach to Scripture is this. You leave the final decision concerning reasonable interpretations of Scripture, up to yourself. You do this whether you admit it or not. I am left to submit my obedience to reason that is not my own. You are left with confidence in yourself. I am left with confidence in another. Which system is based on faith?

This is a double standard. You have left the final decision concerning reasonable interpretations of Scripture up to yourself when you judged the RCC and when you decided it was worth voluntarily submitting to. Are you not confident in another because you are first confident in your own reasoning?

This is utter nonsense. If my evidence is a subjective experience of the Lord Himself then I suppose He is inferior to Himself according to your logic here. How would you explain believing in the Lord without evidence, without positing blind faith? In short I could not disagree with you more. Evidence is evidence it is neither superior or inferior. Faith without reason is blind. If you follow reason and evidence with Honesty your theology will be bulletproof.

I’m embarrassed that the boundaries of my ability to think and communicate are so harsh. At least one of those two has failed. Please allow me to justify my thinking with better communication.

The statement “If the cause of one’s ‘believing’ Christ (note the quotes of pending ambiguity-resolution) is confidence in evidence derived from experiencing the Lord Himself, then false” is true. That’s because the logical cause of “belief” in Christ is never evidence. I’ll also toss in that from the scripture’s perspective good theology is also never the logical cause of “belief” in Christ.

This is not an ambiguous subject in the writings we both consider scripture. Besides my previous references there’s also John 1:11-13.

You’ll note then that I am using “belief in Christ” here to mean “coming to Christ” and “receiving Christ” (and if you want to crack open John 6, even “feeding on Christ”) because that’s how my citations use these ideas.

 

[SeraficLeo]

no king in Israel

I find the “in” here potentially quite significant: we usually speak of there being a “king of ____” (say England); but here the word “in,” is used. Now unless Israel is understood as a geographical reference and the issue is that the king was physically outside of Israel (which is doubtful), we might consider that for the biblical author it was important that the king be also in Israel, as in incorporated into the body God’s people. Understood that way, it could have Christological significance.

 

[catholicray]

See? You affirmed a and b. How does that not spring the trap?

How is your trap significant in defending your own position?

Please note:

Therefore I fallibly trust in the infallible whereby I know the canon of Scripture.
The only other option is to fallibly trust in the fallible and leave the canon of Scripture unknown.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic to thomat65 earlier (Here it is) . . . .

thomat65 . . .

I find it totally unnecessary to have infallible knowledge about anything. It’s impossible!

These are remanufactured sophistries thomat65.

You are falling into two of the three errors of Gorgias the Sophist.

And it’s a subtle DENIAL of Jesus too.

I am not saying you are doing this on purpose. I don’t think you are. You have bought into some very terrible philosophy. . . . .

.

thomat65’s response?

Please back up your assertions.

You can see that thomat65 response here.

.

Below is a screenshot of a scanned sample of part of a page from a Dr. Kreeft philosophy book.

Sample is from page 91 Socrates Children St. Augustine’s Press concerning Gorgias The Sophist.

.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
.

https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Chi...ates+children&qid=1557514129&s=gateway&sr=8-1

.

You have imbibed error 2 and 3 of Gorgias along the way somewhere thomat65.

(1) There is no being. (There is no stable order, intelligibility, form, structure, or
meaning.)

(2) Even if there was being, there could be no knowledge of it. (There are no stable
concepts, intelligence, understanding, truth, certainty, or wisdom.)

(3) Even if there was knowledge of it, there could be no communication of it.
(There are no meaningful words, language, speech, discourse, communication, or revelation.)

Gorgias prophetically summarized the whole history of Western philosophy in those three sentences.

.

thomat65 . . .

I find it totally unnecessary to have infallible knowledge about anything. It’s impossible!

Emphasis mine.

 

[thomat65]

You have imbibed error 2 and 3 of Gorgias along the way somewhere thomat65.

(1) There is no being. (There is no stable order, intelligibility, form, structure, or
meaning.)

(2) Even if there was being, there could be no knowledge of it. (There are no stable
concepts, intelligence, understanding, truth, certainty, or wisdom.)

(3) Even if there was knowledge of it, there could be no communication of it.
(There are no meaningful words, language, speech, discourse, communication, or revelation.)

Gorgias prophetically summarized the whole history of Western philosophy in those three sentences.

Thank you. I appreciate the clear reference.

1. Note “we have no knowledge” (Gorgias) is not the same as “we have no infallible knowledge” (me).
2. I don’t understand how you see a similarity between “there is no communication” (Gorgias) and anything I’ve said?

If only for #1 your charge is incorrect. I maintain that we know nothing infallibly. Perhaps you can name the most significant thing you infallibly know. Can you do that?

If you cannot do that, may I suggest that you’re confusing “infallibility” with “certainty”? We can certainly know all kinds of things, but none of them infallibly.

---

[This is #4. #2 is still in the queue…]

How is your trap significant in defending your own position?

It’s just something one might stub his toe on as he asserts:

That statement alone is not contrary to Scripture

What do you mean by “my position”?

You made that statement in an argument against the following:

the Magisterium does not lift one from the possibility of error

Or are you talking about my next prior assertion?

I don’t believe the table of contents must be tested by scripture.

Other than that I feel like I’ve been just poking holes in others’ assertions and defending my hole-poking.

Even this was just a summary statement to try and shoo the conversation back to the hole I was poking at the time:

My personal belief about the canon is typical of Protestants.

Please note: [quotation from before]

It’s difficult for me to tell if you’re saying “I’ve already comfortably admitted in this quotation what you’re trying to stub my steel toe with”, “what you’re saying is false based on this quotation”, or something else. So… you’re okay believing the following about yourself?

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

“I believe the correctness of Roman Catholicism ought to be judged by personal interpretations of some things”

 

[catholicray]

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

This is false because X <— (All data and information) contains data which is accurate. Not everything is an interpretation, some things are logically necessary.

 

[thomat65]

I’d like to make you aware of the logical circle we continue to go around. You noted that I tore down a definition of Sola Scriptura. Then you suggested I understand that some of the RCC’s statements contradict reasonable interpretations of Scripture. Herein lies the fact that you adhere to my definition of Sola Scriptura. For by what reason should I believe that all doctrine must be supported or found in Scripture in the first place?

Ok, let’s kill any potential circularity. What happens if I use a different definition of Sola Scriptura, namely this one: “the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

I don’t recall anyone tearing down this one.

Importantly, this no longer means “all doctrine must be supported or found in scripture” (your definition which was torn down) but “all doctrine contained in scripture is the final authority”.

Now the problem of finding the correct table of contents is only a problem for Sola Scriptura inasmuch as the table of contents can be derived from scripture. That Genesis 1:1 doesn’t yield the Protestant canon is no longer a problem. But that Peter called Paul’s writings “scripture” means they are inasmuch as Peter’s writings are, and if a higher authority can correctly say “Paul’s writings aren’t scripture” then Sola Scriptura is in trouble.

even if I did believe as you do that doctrine should be supported and found in Scripture

(Emphasis added) I don’t recall saying this. If I did then it was either an unintentional mistake or ignorance. Either way, I don’t presently believe this is necessarily the case (the “new” definition of Sola Scriptura means that things not addressed by scripture need not be supported by it).

I guarantee that I can share an incredibly reasonable position concerning why that chapter should be interpreted literally.

I’d be interested in hearing it. We’ll both have to keep in mind that it’s a side issue unless you want to promote its importance, which I’m fine if you do. If you do go there please keep in mind that “literal” can mean “wooden” (some gate in a sheep pen somewhere is “literally” the eternal Son of God) or it can mean “author’s original intent” (Christ is “literally” the entrance to heaven) which is often “figurative”.

 

[catholicray]

“the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

I don’t recall anyone tearing down this one.

Importantly, this no longer means “all doctrine must be supported or found in scripture” (your definition which was torn down) but “all doctrine contained in scripture is the final authority”.

Then you have no grounds for judging any doctrine as false. So why do you avoid the RCC?

 

[rightness]

Christ said he would hold his own firmly in his hand and none would be able to remove them. He also said that all who come to him (meaning “believe” him) he will never cast out. I am believing in Christ in the manner he spoke of, and he was telling the truth. Therefore Satan cannot deceive me to the point of disjoining me from Christ. 1 John 5:4

Actually, where in the Bible does Christ say exactly that? That Satan cannot deceive you to the point of disjoining you from Christ?

John speaks about faith in your quote, and then James would further elaborate on Faith being dead without Works in James 2:14-26 (which, if you live by protestant tradition, you don’t believe in Works). A key text in there is exactly what shuts down your notion that as long as you believe in Christ, you can’t be separated from Him because “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.”(James 2:19).

So even Satan and his followers believe in Christ. Are you saying that even the demons cannot be disjoined from Christ?

I also want to engage through another take through 3 points:

1. Jesus honors His mother. We are called to imitate Jesus.
2. Jesus gave us His mother in John 19:26-27, and I might emphasize that this verse is no trivial matter and very significant when you take into account how difficult it is to speak while crucified with lungs collapsing and being filled with fluids.
3. Jesus is the Bridegroom (John 3:29) who marries the Church, the new Jerusalem (Revelations 21:2). Through this marriage to Jesus as a part of the Church, we have a new Father and Mary becomes our new mother.

In three manners of scripture, Jesus wants us to honor His mother as our own. Do you honor Mary as your Mother?

 

[catholicray]

You also run into the same problem because your definition of Sola Scriptura is still making a claim about Scripture therefore Scripture must actually support your claim about it. You’re trying to avoid that but I’m afraid you haven’t. Since you have made a claim about Scripture you need to provide evidence that your claim is valid. As a part of your claim it follows in a circle that Scripture contains the evidence you need to support your claim.

Ultimately your definition is merely a human construct rather than a binding authority. There is not good enough evidence to suggest that I should submit to the claim you have made about Scripture.