ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Jerry Shugart · May 27, 2015

Cruciform said:
For example, for a more explicit reference, one could turn to St. Gregory of Tours (b. 540), who wrote the following:

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." (Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4).

This would be five hundred years after the Cross. You mean to tell me that during the five hundred years after the Cross there was nothing written about the so-called Assumption of Mary and then one day someone just makes up a story about this. Then the church says that this came from the Apostles.

Only a fool would believe that. Those who have common sense would know that if the story was true then certainly someone with great authority in the church during the first century would write about it.

The absence of any writing about this for five hundred years gives proof to the idea that no one knew about it in the first century. As Epiphanius said, "for her end no-one knows."

You should be ashamed for spreading these fairy tales!

Cruciform · May 27, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
This would be five hundred years after the Cross. You mean to tell me that during the five hundred years after the Cross there was nothing written about the so-called Assumption of Mary and then one day someone just makes up a story about this.

No, that would be a Straw Man of the Church's position. No one "made up" anything, any more than the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was "made up" because the Church did not happen to formally define it until the 4th and 5th centuries. Generally speaking, a doctrine did not receive official attention from the Church until a heresy began to threaten the orthodox teachings contained in the Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith), that body of teachings delivered by the apostles to their successors, the bishops. This is why, for example, the Trinity was not formally defined by the Church until the 4th-5th centuries, and why certain Christological doctrines (e.g., the Incarnation/Divinity of Christ, virgin conception, etc.) were not bindingly defined until the 4th century A.D. Likewise with various other teachings as well, including the Marian Dogmas. Until orthodoxy was threatened by some widespread controversy or heresy, there was simply no need to focus on any particular aspect of Christian belief and teaching.

Then the Church says that this came from the Apostles.

Ultimately yes, in the Deposit of Faith passed down by the apostles and bishops of Christ's one historic Church.

Only a fool would believe that.

In the light of demonstrable Christian history and testimony, only a fool would knowingly deny it.

The absence of any writing about this for five hundred years gives proof to the idea that no one knew about it in the first century.

Your claim, then, is that the central and defining Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation were supposedly "unknown" in the 1st century...? Is that your suggestion?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

StanJ · May 27, 2015

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/assumption_of_mary_refuted.htm

Jerry Shugart · May 28, 2015

Cruciform said:
No, that would be a Straw Man of the Church's position. No one "made up" anything, any more than the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was "made up" because the Church did not happen to formally define it until the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Trinity can be proven by the Scriptures.

On the other hand, it is impossible to prove that false teaching of the "Assumption of Mary" from the Scriptures.

And it is obvious that this particular false teaching did not originate with the Apostles. Or else we must believe that the church, for five hundred years, did not think that such a remarkable event should be put into writing.

You people who follow Rome will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. When Paul went to spread the gospel he "reasoned" out of the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). You throw your reason to the wind!

Cruciform · May 28, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
The Trinity can be proven by the Scriptures.

But not by "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura).

On the other hand, it is impossible to prove that false teaching of the "Assumption of Mary" from the Scriptures.

Not from "Scripture alone," anyway. But then, Catholics do not buy into the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura. Indeed, no Christian did until the so-called "Reformation Period." (Talk about "making things up" centuries later!)

In any case, Mary's Assumption certainly has precedent in the Bible as well as in Tradition.

And it is obvious that this particular false teaching did not originate with the Apostles.

Then neither did the Trinity, Incarnation, virgin conception, canon of Scripture, etc. It took centuries for these to develop in any detail. Likewise with the Marian dogmas.

Or else we must believe that the church, for five hundred years, did not think that such a remarkable event should be put into writing.

Already answered.

You people who follow Rome will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

You people who follow the myriad recently-invented, man-made sects of Protestantism will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. (See how that works?)

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jerry Shugart · May 28, 2015

Cruciform said:
But not by "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura).

Of course the Trinity can be proven by the Scriptures alone.

But then, Catholics do not buy into the 16th-century Protestant notion ofsola scriptura. Indeed, no Christian did until the so-called "Reformation Period." (Talk about "making things up" centuries later!)

I say that the Bible teaches that traditions can be used IF it can be proven that those traditions can be traced back to the Apostles.

And you have not come close to proving that when it comes to the Assumption of Mary. The best you can do is to point to someone who taught that five hundred years after the Cross. And then you seem to think that provides evidence that it was a teaching of the Apostles.

If it is true then it is one of the most fantastic events in Christian history. There would be much written about it in the first century. But it bothers you none that nothing was written about it for five hundred years. You think that that is the most normal thing in the world that no one in the first century would take pen to hand and write about such a wondrous event!

It amazes me that you can actually trick your mind into believing such a ridiculous thing!

Cruciform · May 28, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
Of course the Trinity can be proven by the Scriptures alone.

The Trinity can be logically inferred from Scripture, but there is no specific text that explicitly states that "God is three Persons in one Being." The simple fact is that the Christian doctrine of God relies to a substantial degree on the Church's ancient teaching Tradition for its theological content. Likewise with Christology, biblical canon, baptism, Marian dogmas, and other Christian teachings.

I say that...

Frankly, so what? Neither you nor your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has any binding doctrinal authority whatsoever. Why, then, should anyone feel compelled to follow your interpretations or opinions?

Regarding the rest of your post, you've already been substantively answered.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

StanJ · May 28, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
The Trinity can be proven by the Scriptures.

On the other hand, it is impossible to prove that false teaching of the "Assumption of Mary" from the Scriptures.

And it is obvious that this particular false teaching did not originate with the Apostles. Or else we must believe that the church, for five hundred years, did not think that such a remarkable event should be put into writing.

You people who follow Rome will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. When Paul went to spread the gospel he "reasoned" out of the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). You throw your reason to the wind!

Sadly the fact is that regardless of how well we as true believers exegete God's Word, people who are not real Christians can't know what it says so they prevaricate and equivocate on it, or just plain ignore the truth, in order to push their own fallacious dogmas. Thankfully, Jesus will have the LAST Word.

Jerry Shugart · May 28, 2015

Cruciform said:
The Trinity can be logically inferred from Scripture...

That is plain dumb. The faith of a true believer is described as being "the evidence of things not seen." You base your beliefs on the knowledge of men in the church at Rome, but those of us who truly believe our faith comes in the power of God:

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor.2:5).

The LORD has given us an understanding of these things:

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life" (1 Jn.5:20).

We with true faith have been given an understanding that we know the Lord Jesus. We have also been given an understanding that the Trinity is true.

Unlike you, our beliefs are not dependent on any so-called wisdom of men in the church at Rome but instead the LORD has revealed these truths to us.

Jerry Shugart · May 28, 2015

StanJ said:
Sadly the fact is that regardless of how well we as true believers exegete God's Word, people who are not real Christians can't know what it says so they prevaricate and equivocate on it, or just plain ignore the truth, in order to push their own fallacious dogmas. Thankfully, Jesus will have the LAST Word.

That is true. The final authority of those who follow Rome is not the Scriptures but instead what some people say about the Scriptures. They say that regular people are not equipped to understand the Scriptures.

Angel4Truth · May 28, 2015

Cruciform said:
It isn't long at all. You need to do your own homework on these issues. And if you're genuinely interested in accurately understanding the Catholic faith, and if you possess the necessary intellectual integrity, you will do exactly that.

Im not interested in understanding nonsense. I quoted scripture- specifically the words of Christ, you can answer it or you cannot.

Cruciform · May 29, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
You base your beliefs on the knowledge of men in the church at Rome, but those of us who truly believe our faith comes in the power of God:

Merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on your part, as though one must choose between God and the men through whom he has chosen to work (i.e., the apostles and bishops of Christ's one historic Church [Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4]).

According to Jesus Christ himself, however, to accept the authoritative teachings of the Church is the same as accepting the teachings of Christ himself; and to reject the Church's teachings is the same as rejecting the teachings of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). So much for your entirely unbiblical false dichotomy.

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor.2:5).

As is demonstrated above, you're simply misappying this text according to the spurious opinions you've been taught by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Unlike you, our beliefs are not dependent on any so-called wisdom of men...

Of course they are, since you have simply derived your interpretations and beliefs from men (leaders and teachers) associated with your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s). Try again.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform · May 29, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
The final authority of those who follow Rome is not the Scriptures but instead what some people say about the Scriptures.

"The final authority of those who follow Jerry's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is not the Scriptures but instead what some people---or Jerry himself---say about the Scriptures." (See how that works?)

They say that regular people are not equipped to understand the Scriptures.

Not quite. Even a busted clock is right twice a day. But your tacit claim that everyone can quite easily and properly understand the Scriptures for themselves is utterly refuted by the very presence of your own Protestant movement, which today consists of some 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects, with more being concocted every single week. Nice try, though.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

StanJ · May 29, 2015

Symptoms of Asperger's Disorder

Symptoms of Asperger's Disorder

Restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as shown by at least one of the following symptoms:

A significant and encompassing preoccupation or obsession with one or two restricted topics, that is abnormal either in intensity, subject or focus (such as baseball statistics or the weather)
Seemingly inflexible adherence to specific routines or rituals that serve little purpose
Repetitive motor mannerisms. For example, hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements.
A persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

Does this sound like anybody on this thread?

Kdall · May 29, 2015

StanJ said:
Restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as shown by at least one of the following symptoms:

A significant and encompassing preoccupation or obsession with one or two restricted topics, that is abnormal either in intensity, subject or focus (such as baseball statistics or the weather)

Seemingly inflexible adherence to specific routines or rituals that serve little purpose

Repetitive motor mannerisms. For example, hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements.

A persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

Does this sound like anybody on this thread?

It sounds a lot like you, yes. Do you even know what Asperger's is?

Cruciform · May 29, 2015

Angel4Truth said:
Im not interested in understanding nonsense.

The glaring fact is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not Catholic teaching is "nonsense," since you have yet to engage in the necessary study of the primary Catholic material to understand it sufficiently or accurately. You're trying to apply the label "nonsense" to something of which you have virtually no real comprehension. In this way, you're hardly displaying the hunger for truth and intellectual honestly required of a faithful believer. As you like, however.

I quoted scripture- specifically the words of Christ, you can answer it or you cannot.

I already have. You, however, didn't "like" the answer, instead preferring the interpretations and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. (See above.)

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jerry Shugart · May 29, 2015

Cruciform said:
According to Jesus Christ himself, however, to accept the authoritative teachings of the Church is the same as accepting the teachings of Christ himself; and to reject the Church's teachings is the same as rejecting the teachings of Christ himself (1 Jn. 4:6). So much for your entirely unbiblical false dichotomy.

Let us look at this verse which you cite:

"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 Jn.4:6).

Here John is saying that the believers who read his epistles hear him (or can understand him). That proves that regular people can understand what is written in the Scriptures.

We do not need anyone to interpret the Scriptures for us because the Lord has given us an understanding of these things:

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life" (1 Jn.5:20).

Regular people can know what is written here in the same chapter is true:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

We also know that the Lord Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).

Since the faith of true believers comes in the power of God we can know that we have eternal security. You follow Rome who says that there is no such thing as eternal security.

You have not yet received the Spirit which is of God or else you would believe the Scriptures instead of Rome.

Cruciform · May 29, 2015

Jerry Shugart said:
Let us look at this verse which you cite:

"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 Jn.4:6).
Here John is saying that the believers who read his epistles hear him (or can understand him). That proves that regular people can understand what is written in the Scriptures.

You're simply wrong. The "we" in this passage refers specifically to the apostles and, by extension, the bishops of Christ's one historic Church:

"We [apostles] are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us [apostles], and he who is not of God does not listen to us [apostles]..."

It is the Church (Magisterium/bishops) which teaches the laity, not lay believers who teach the Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Sorry for your confusion.

We do not need anyone to interpret the Scriptures for us because the Lord has given us an understanding of these things:

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life"(1 Jn.5:20).

Yes, we have been given an understanding of the truth by means of the teachings of the apostles/bishops of Christ's one historic Church (see biblical citations above).

We also know that the Lord Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish:

Yes---through the apostolic teachings of Christ's one historic Church, not through a private, individualistic, and subjective reading of the Bible apart from the historic Church's doctrines (biblical references above).

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28). Since the faith of true believers comes in the power of God we can know that we have eternal security. You follow Rome who says that there is no such thing as eternal security.

Now you're changing the subject. In any case, you're approach is directly addressed here, here, and here for interested readers.

You have not yet received the Spirit which is of God or else you would believe the Scriptures instead of Rome.

Your error is in equating your preferred interpretations of the Bible with "the Scriptures." The two are in no way identical. Rather, I believe the Scriptures instead of Jerry's preferred interpretations of the Scriptures. Big difference there.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jerry Shugart · May 29, 2015

Cruciform said:
Your error is in equating your preferred interpretations of the Bible with "the Scriptures." The two are in no way identical. Rather, I believe the Scriptures instead of Jerry's preferred interpretations of the Scriptures. Big difference there.

The Lord's Jesus' words here mean just what they say. Those to whom He gives eternal life SHALL NEVER PERISH:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).

That is my preferred interpretation. John tells Christians that they have been given eternal life:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

So if words mean what they say, the Christian has been given eternal life and the Lord Jesus says that they will never perish.

That is my preferred interpretation of the verses and they teach eternal security.

Since Rome denies eternal security then they must have a different interpretation. Unfortunately, the links you gave me just ignore these two verses. Please tell me Rome's preferred interpretation of these verses, especially John 10:28.

I contend that average individuals can understand the word of God and in most cases even better that the church at Rome. Now the burden is on you to prove that Rome has an answer to my preferred interpretation.

OCTOBER23 · May 29, 2015

WHEN IS CRUCIFORM GOING TO LEARN THAT HE IS TRYING TO GLORIFY

A TOTALLY PAGAN, SATANIC ORGANIZATION

THAT PAYS OFF VICTIMS OF HOMO PRIESTS WHO TEACH CATHOLIC IDOLOTROUS DOGTRINES.

When is he going to use that intelligence and OPEN HIS MIND to the PLAIN TRUTH.

ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member