ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[StanJ]

Pot, meet Kettle.

RCC speak for "I don't know."

Again, Catholics are the original Christians, and were such for the first millennium-and-a-half of Church history. Your man-made non-Catholic sect didn't even exist until a mere man founded it only during the past few centuries.

Not what Acts 11:26 says.

Now go ahead and cite the chapter-and-verse which states that "only words that appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs and doctrines."

Which is a good example of why the RCC is so far out in left field. They think they can do anything they or I should say the so-called Holy See, says.

Post your proof for this bare assertion.

in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html#ixzz3azemDZkP

...which you inevitably interpret according to the entire non-authoritative opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s).

The Holy Spirit, who is the ONLY authority, tells us what God's Word means if we need Him to, otherwise it is common sense. There is NO hierarchy in who understand the Bible, only that they KNOW God and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. This of course foreign to the RCC but FACT none the less.

Once again, you merely place your vast ignorance of the Catholic faith on public display. Try again.

Have you?

You own posted statements on this thread directly contradict you, which reveal that you in fact know next to nothing about what Catholics actually believe and teach. Your self-delusion is unmistakable.

all the ad hominem and not ONE shred of fact. You do like to bloviate for sure.

Thank you for nicely proving my point made just above.

and yet you can't actually point it out? LOL...you are quite farcical.

Once again, you are directly contradicted by the actual biblical teaching on Christ's one historic Church. Try again.

As I have already addressed this specific link with it's errors, continually linking to it is just vane repetition, which you are infamous for. The link carries NO weight here or anywhere outside of the RCC.

Now Google "False Dilemma Fallacy," since that is the logical error you're engaged in here. Also, see this and this.

As you have no idea what they actually mean, there is no sense addressing them, as there is no application here.
Regardless of what RCC links you post, the RCC uses priests to mediate between God and man in their so-called confessionals. The Bible clearly teaches we only have ONE mediator and only one spiritual father. That the RCC teaches both, against actual scriptures and Jesus' own words, is very clear.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Again, RCC speak for "I don't know". :loser:

 

[Cruciform]

RCC speak for "I don't know."

Are you really this ignorant, or is this some type of twisted self-deprecation? Sadly, it appears to be the former.

Not what Acts 11:26 says.

Yes, Jesus' disciples were called Christians at Antioch, and by the close of the 1st century, the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself was already commonly known as "the Catholic Church."

Which is a good example of why the RCC is so far out in left field. They think they can do anything they or I should say the so-called Holy See, says.

So, then, you in fact have no biblical verse which states that "only words that appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs and doctrines." That's what I thought.

in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

More ignorance from Stan. By the time Constantine came along, Christ's one historic Church had already been commonly known as "the Catholic church" for more than two centuries. Try again.

The Holy Spirit, who is the ONLY authority, tells us what God's Word means if we need Him to, otherwise it is common sense.

That must be why there are some 50,000+ competing and contradictory man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week. :doh: Try again.

There is NO hierarchy...

Try again.

all the ad hominem and not ONE shred of fact.

No ad hominem whatsoever, and the fact of your ignorance is right there in your own posted statements.

You do like to bloviate for sure.

Pot, meet Kettle.

As I have already addressed this specific link with it's errors...

Cite the post number in which you supposedly address the alleged "errors" of this source.

The link carries NO weight here or anywhere outside of the CC.

...just as your posts carry NO weight anywhere outside of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s).

Regardless of what RCC links you post, the RCC uses priests to mediate between God and man in their so-called confessionals. The Bible clearly teaches we only have ONE mediator and only one spiritual father.

Already decisively answered. Your continued willful ignorance is noted.

Again, CC speak for "I don't know".

Again, merely pointing out the fact that your statement applies just as well to yourself, and so is weakened considerably. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

• I can cite the apostolic testimony of the Early Church Fathers, who knew and were taught by the apostles and their immediate successors.

• 
  
  Please do. Please give me one quote from someone who was taught by the Apostles.

 

[Cruciform]

Please do. Please give me one quote from someone who was taught by the Apostles.

I've already provided some Patristic quotations in Post #320 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

Are you really this ignorant, or is this some type of twisted self-deprecation? Sadly, it appears to be the former.

Clearly, you're the ignorant one when it comes to ECT and Christianity. I do agree however that you are sad.

Yes, Jesus' disciples were called Christians at Antioch, and by the close of the 1st century, the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself was already commonly known as "the Catholic Church."

Wrong again. It was for three plus centuries after Jesus died that the RCC got it official status, by a Roman dictator.

So, then, you in fact have no biblical verse which states that "only words that appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs and doctrines." That's what I thought.

You been given them time and time again but refuse to accept then in lieu of RCC doctrine. The Bible says a few things.

Phil 4:8 (NIV)
2 Tim 2:15 (NIV)
2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV)
Heb 9:15 (NIV)

The sad thing is that ANYONE indoctrinated into the RCC, will not read the scriptures with any understanding as they don't accept understanding but only dictatorial edicts from men.

More ignorance from Stan. By the time Constantine came along, Christ's one historic Church had already been commonly known as "the Catholic church" for more than two centuries. Try again.

and yet you fail to PROVE that assertion which you could easily IF it were fact.

That must be why there are some 50,000+ competing and contradictory man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week. Try again.

Yes there are many denominations in Christianity, as well as Catholicism. Some 1000+ by last count. By pro ratio, it is much more divided than Christian churches, given it CLAIMS to be the ONE true church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#Catholicism

No ad hominem whatsoever, and the fact of your ignorance is right there in your own posted statements.

:jawdrop: another example of just how poor your English comprehension is.

Pot, meet Kettle.

That's OK, I prefer to be a kettle that only contains the water of life, than a pot that is full of bad food.

Cite the post number in which you supposedly address the alleged "errors" of this source.

That's you style, not mine...pay attention.

...just as your posts carry NO weight anywhere outside of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect(s).

Already decisively answered. Your continued willful ignorance is noted.

Now who's the pot calling the kettle?

Again, merely pointing out the fact that your statement applies just as well to yourself, and so is weakened considerably. Try again.

and continually using this child like type of response just shows you have no original thought processes WHAT-SO-EVER!
Guess you also learned that in your RCC schooling.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I've already provided some Patristic quotations in Post #320 above.

Your answer is based on the assumption that the bishops of the church at Rome are actually the bishops of the true church:

I would also point out that apostolic Tradition applies not only to the teachings of the apostles themselves, but also to those of their ordained successors, the bishops of the Church (Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).

You assert that they are but you give no proof.

Nonetheless, who was the first bishop of the church at Rome who taught the assumption of Mary and what year did that happen?

 

[Angel4Truth]

DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

yes, He did. It is shown clearly here:

Luke 11:50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' 52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."

He called the scriptures all of them (from the blood of abel in genesis to the death of Zechariah between the stones in the temple - 2 chronicles) the key of knowledge. This was the entire breadth of the scriptures at the time, and showing He referenced the hebrew scriptures -being that the hebrew division ran from Genesis to 2 Chronicles - same books as the protestant division (no septuigent) just arranged differently.

The Hebrew Scriptures

The Hebrew Scriptures were divided into 3 sections:
-The Law (Torah), or Pentateuch, 5 books:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

-The Prophets (Nebhim), 8 books:

Former Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
Latter Prophets - Isaiah , Jeremiah , Ezekiel , The Book of the 12


-The Writings (Kethubim), 11 books:
Poetical Books - Psalms, Proverbs, Job

Megilloth, 5 Rolls- Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes
Historical Books - Daniel , Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

Note: In the Hebrew Bible Genesis (Bershiyt) is the first book and Chronicles (Dibre Hayamim) is the last book.

Anyway in that one passage from luke, its clear Christ called the scriptures the keys of knowledge and made it clear which division He is speaking of (the hebrew) and its entire breadth.

The scriptures given from God.

 

[Kdall]

So what exactly is your point about the OP, or are you just here to yank my chain?
You do sound an awful lot like Cruciform.

Sorry, I'm actually Protestant myself, and therefore not Cruciform. It just pains me to see "Christians" like yourself have such a narrow viewpoint that you insist is the only correct way, and then proceed to attack others with equally, if not more, valid views and beliefs. That's not what Jesus taught.

In regards to the OP, I believe Jesus taught for each person to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, and to never be afraid to question their beliefs and seek out truth, however inconvenient it may be to prior ideas. That's not Sola Scriptura

 

[Cruciform]

I'll humor you for a few more posts...

Wrong again. It was for three plus centuries after Jesus died that the CC got it official status, by a Roman dictator.

Try again.

You been given them time and time again but refuse to accept then in lieu of RCC doctrine...

Phil 4:8
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 3:16-17
Heb 9:15

Now WHICH of these proof-texts supposedly states that "only words that appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs and doctrines"...? :think:

Go ahead and indicate which one, and quote the relevant section.

...ANYONE indoctrinated into the CC, will not read the scriptures with any understanding as they don't accept understanding but only dictatorial edicts from men.

Just another comment by Stan that can just as well be applied to Stan himself:

"ANYONE indoctrinated into Stan's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect will not read the scriptures with any understanding as they don't accept understanding but only dictatorial edicts from men."​

...and yet you fail to PROVE that assertion which you could easily IF it were fact.

No problem:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. — Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 (107 A.D.)​

Yes there are many denominations in Christianity, as well as Catholicism. Some 1000+ by last count.

Post your proof.

another example of just how poor your English comprehension is.

Already answered.

That's you style, not mine...pay attention.

So once again you are in fact unable to cite the post number in which you supposedly address the alleged "errors" of my posted source. That's what I thought. You have exactly nothing.

...and continually using this child like type of response just shows you have no original thought processes WHAT-SO-EVER!

What it shows is that you can't manage to come up with an "argument" than doesn't also apply to yourself. Brilliant.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

What does tradition use to make itself strong enough to trump scripture?

 

[Cruciform]

Anyway in that one passage from luke, its clear Christ called the scriptures the keys of knowledge and made it clear which division He is speaking of (the hebrew) and its entire breadth.

Nothing in the passage you cited in any way teaches the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, nor could it, as has already been demonstrated here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What does tradition use to make itself strong enough to trump scripture?

This is merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic faith does not claim that Tradition can "trump Scripture."

 

[Bright Raven]

This is merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic faith does not claim that Tradition can "trump Scripture."

If this is true, why is scripture not enough?

 

[aikido7]

the old testament was the letter of the law
and
the new

the spirit of the law

I am familiar with that theological division. I don't see Jesus ever advocating Jews to change their religion--only their "ways." He was pushing the envelope of what the Jewish faith meant to first-century believers. It was never his intention to start a new religion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since the Catholic faith does not claim that Tradition can "trump Scripture."

Rome certainly believes that their tradition concerning Mary does trump these words from the lips of Peter:

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:10-12).​

According to Peter there is salvation in no one else other than Jesus Christ of Nazareth. But Rome says that salvation comes through Mary:

"And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary" (UBI PRIMUM, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, February 2, 1849).​

"Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation - of Mary who brought the "author of faith" into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called "blessed." "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee" (ADIUTRICEM (On the Rosary), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated on September 5, 1895).​

 

[User Name]

According to Peter there is salvation in no one else other than Jesus Christ of Nazareth. But Rome says that salvation comes through Mary:

Paul wrote to Philemon that "you owe me your very self" (Philemon 1:19).

 

[Cruciform]

If this is true, why is scripture not enough?

The word of God (Divine Revelation)---as authentically taught by Christ's one historic Church---is enough, but Scripture is only one part of God's word. Apostolic Tradition is also the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Rome certainly believes that their tradition concerning Mary does trump these words from the lips of Peter...

Not at all. Jesus is certainly the only Mediator and Savior in a Redemptive sense---only Christ died and rose again for our sins. That does not mean, however, that Mary (as well as the prophets, apostles, bishops, and other Saints) cannot play a certain derivative and dependent role in God's plan of salvation. See, for example, this, this, and this.

Thus, Catholic doctrine concerning Mary in no way contradicts or denies Peter's canonical writings.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

Sorry, I'm actually Protestant myself, and therefore not Cruciform. It just pains me to see "Christians" like yourself have such a narrow viewpoint that you insist is the only correct way, and then proceed to attack others with equally, if not more, valid views and beliefs. That's not what Jesus taught.

In regards to the OP, I believe Jesus taught for each person to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, and to never be afraid to question their beliefs and seek out truth, however inconvenient it may be to prior ideas. That's not Sola Scriptura

Jesus was equally hard of the religious of His day Kdall. He also called Peter Satan to convey a point. I'm not Jesus obviously, but I do my best to guard the truth of scripture from fallacious teachings, WHATEVER it may be.
Sola Scriptura means "by scripture alone". It is the way Christians look at the authority of God, IN His Written Word. The RCC has always taught from their traditions, then the scriptures. They are not much different than the Mormon Church in that regard. Throughout history there is more than ample evidence that the RCC did great evil in the sight of God and that MANY Popes were evil and corrupt.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html
​

Christianity is NOT about being PC, it is about submitting to God and giving our allegiance to Him, NOT men or a man made institution like the RCC, especially when that institution puts out people like Cruciform who deny the truth of the Bible and vilify the Body of Christ in order to establish their fallacious doctrines. In Cruciform's case, He gets exactly what he deserves.

 

[StanJ]

Now WHICH of these proof-texts supposedly states that "only words that appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their beliefs and doctrines"...?

That you have been severely inculcated into the RCC is very evident but of your own choice. Your inability to see TRUTH is a result of this inculcation so it's of no use whatsoever to shows scripture to you that you won't accept. I've given you many scriptures that you have refused to acknowledge or address directly. That you don't support Sola Scriptura is very evident, but completely wrong.

John 20:31 shows why we have scripture, as does 2 Tim 3:16 and 2:15, and all the equivocation, prevarication and obfuscation will never change this fact. Rom 10:17 tells us why we need the Word of God.
Paul does say in 1 Cor 4:6 to NOT go beyond what is written.
Luke 1:1-4 tells us how we need the written word to be certain of God.
Jesus himself in Matt 4:1-11 teaches power is in the written word ONLY.
Luke 10:26 is just one example of the importance of the written word.
Acts 17:11-12 shows how people believe when they read scripture.

ALL the above is a small example of what the Written Word teaches and ANYONE who has an open heart to listen and an ear to hear will KNOW what to do. Those who have been inculcated as you, sadly IMO will never change, but there is always hope, which is why I address fallacious posts like yours.

Rom 3:4; Let GOD be true and EVERY man be a liar.