SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by po18guy

"Bible" is not in the bible. Now what?

[CaptCrunch73]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

No, it's not parameters that 'I' set. It's parameters that GOD set in His Holy Inspired Word (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 3:16). All I'm asking, is that since Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of the Lord, based on the Word of the Lord, does the Bible, based on the originally Biblically-Inspired languages support the belief that Mary & Joseph have children after Mary gave birth to Jesus? Sola Scriptura primary means that if a belief contradicts Scripture, or adds or takes away from it to the point that it changes the beliefs of Church based on Scripture, then it should be rejected. Would you agree with that at least? I just want to know what you believe based on what God reveals to YOU, through His Inspired Word, rather than what you 'personally' believe or what you believe based on what someone else tells you it means. Will you at least consider reading the Bible passages I provided, & compare my conclusions 'TO' them, based on the original Biblcally-Inspired Greek language?

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man, the Bible speaks very clearly about traditions of men. Catholic believe in Scripture and Tradition which IS supported by the bible (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture and Tradition is what the Bible says when you read ALL of the Bible and not just the verses that support your particular denomination.

BornAgainRN which is correct 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Scripture and Tradition) or 2 Timothy 3:16 (Scripture Alone)? Or does the Bible contradict itself?

Catholics rely on the "Both And" method of Bible Reading rather than the "Either Or" method which you are using foe your basis of personal Bible interpretation.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by CaptCrunch73

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man, the Bible speaks very clearly about traditions of men. Catholic believe in Scripture and Tradition which IS supported by the bible (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture and Tradition is what the Bible says when you read ALL of the Bible and not just the verses that support your particular denomination.

BornAgainRN which is correct 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Scripture and Tradition) or 2 Timothy 3:16 (Scripture Alone)? Or does the Bible contradict itself?

Catholics rely on the "Both And" method of Bible Reading rather than the "Either Or" method which you are using foe your basis of personal Bible interpretation.

The first one or two generations of Christians had no NT scripture.

We see from reading the Prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) that "Theophilus", who can be thought of as a type for all Christians, learned nothing, zero, zip, nada from Luke's Gospel. Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received.

Actually, since the bible is written tradition (paradosis - that which is handed on), Catholicism practices what might be called 'sola Tradition' (written + oral), of course backed up with the actual authority to teach.

Bible Christians strongly believe in tradition, but only the written tradition, and interpreted by the ego rather than actual authority. That shows in some posts in these forums - where a bible Christian will come in here with both guns blazing against the Catholic Church, aiming to set us straight. That usually results only in a hole in the shooter's foot.

[Patavium]

The problem is they have half truth. They only use the written tradition or the bible. They ignore the rest of the Sacred tradition, and the History of the Church. No wonder, they are confused.

[BornAgainRN]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

How do you know that scripture is inspired? It obviously can't be from scripture since that would be circular reasoning.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16

It isn't circular reasoning, because although men 'wrote' the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who 'God-breathed' (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said 'All Scripture is Inspired by God' was the same person.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16

It isn't circular reasoning, because although men 'wrote' the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who 'God-breathed' (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said 'All Scripture is Inspired by God' was the same person.

I don't think you understood. How did you know that the Table of Contents in your bible are inspired? and which are not inspired? Do you know how were those books selected?, and do you know why protestants bibles have less books?

In the words of Haydock,

Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

It isn't circular reasoning, because although men 'wrote' the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who 'God-breathed' (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said 'All Scripture is Inspired by God' was the same person.

First of all, it IS circular reasoning. You're basically saying "Scripture is inspired because Scripture itself says it's inspired," which is circular reasoning at its finest. For example, you yourself said "the belief is true because the Catholic Church says its true" was an example of circular reasoning. So how is "Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true" not circular reasoning?

Second of all, this verse does nothing to prove Sola Scriptura, not with respect to the New Testament at least. This "God-breathed" Scripture Paul is referring to is the Old Testament; it cannot include the New Testament. Why? Simply because the New Testament didn't even exist yet, and even then, the current New Testament books we have were in their earliest stages of development.

In other words, you need a different criteria to prove the New Testament is inspired. You only know which books of the New Testament are inspired because of a pronouncement made by the Catholic Church in 384 C. E.

[Church Militant]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

First of all, it IS circular reasoning. You're basically saying "Scripture is inspired because Scripture itself says its inspired." You yourself said "the belief is true because the Catholic Church says its true" was an example of circular reasoning. So how is "Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true" not circular reasoning?

Second of all, this first does nothing to prove Sola Scriptura, not with respect to the New Testament at least. This "God-breathed" Scripture Paul is referring to is the Old Testament; it cannot include the New Testament. Why? Simply because the New Testament didn't even exist yet, and even then, the current New Testament books we have were in their earliest stages of development.

In other words, you need a different criteria to prove the New Testament is inspired. You only know which books of the New Testament are inspired because of a pronouncement made by the Catholic Church in 384 C. E.

A very good point. Based on his reasoning we would have to accept the Book of Mormon and the Quran as equally inspired for the same reason.

[Church Militant]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

I'm glad that someone finally brought up the 'Protoevangelium of James,' or the Infancy 'gospel' of James. THAT is where the belief of the 'perpetual virginity of Mary' gained steam, not the Bible. It was actually written sometime between 140-170 A.D., & in addition to teaching the 'perpetual virginity of Mary,' it also states that its author was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage (which it couldn't have been, because by this time, ALL the James' in Scripture would have been dead), that Mary was 16 at the Annunciation, that Joseph was elderly when Jesus was born, & that Gabriel was an archangel (even though the only archangel mentioned in Scripture is Michael), among other things.

So Gabriel is not an archangel...don't tell him that. Look what he did to Zachariah when he questioned his message and note what he told him in Luke 1.
[19] And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. [20] And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."

What all these things have in common, including the 'perpetual virginity of Mary,' is that 'none' of these beliefs are in the Bible.

Yet you cannot supply a single verse or passage from the Word of God that says that everything has to be found in the Bible. Why is that? Because it's an unscriptural notion not taught by the Bible.
I love those who come along and make statements like this. As if tradition has no place in Christianity. Which is simply not true.

Here's a really good example. Jude 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Also, Jude 14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Remember that this is an apostle writing this and we know that this is inspired by the Holy Spirit. If what he is quoting is from God then where is it in the Old Testament?

If it's from a source other than the Old Testament, then what does the fact that the apostle quoted it into scripture tell you about that source?

Verse 9 is from The Assumption of Moses.
Verses 14 & 15 are from The Book of Enoch.

Both are traditional Jewish writings.

Tradition is bad? Better tell St. Jude.

Ask your average n-C where they can get the names of the two guys who resisted Moses in the Old Testament. St. Paul names them in 2nd Timothy 3:8. "Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."

Just where exactly did the Jewish scholar St. Paul get those names from to include in his Holy Spirit inspired epistle? They're not named in the canonical books of the OT.

Looks to me like another apostle used Jewish traditional non-canonical sources to teach.
From another Protestant commentator, Matthew Henry:

In one sense we must all be ever learning, that is, growing in knowledge, following on to know the Lord, pressing forward; but these were skeptics, giddy and unstable, who were forward to imbibe every new notion, under pretense of advancement in knowledge, but never came to a right understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus. 3. He foretells the certain stop that should be put to their progress (2Ti_3:8, 2Ti_3:9), comparing them to the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses, and who are here named, Jannes and Jambres; though the names are not to be met with in the story of the Old Testament, yet they are found in some old Jewish writers.

In fact,
Just having a set list of what books are canonical for scripture is a tradition in itself.

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

Sending me to a Catholic link in order to 'prove' a Catholic belief is circular reasoning.

And saying "Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true" is also circular reasoning.

Of course it's going to attempt to persuade a person that the 'perpetual virginity of Mary' is Biblical. That's not objective.

I fail to see how it is not objective. People who believe Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin are going to provide arguments as to why this belief is biblical.

You are trying to provide arguments as to why the belief is unbiblical. Both sides are doing the same thing, but with different goals. So, according to your logic, what you're doing is just as un-objective as what we're doing.

Please, if you're so sure that Mary's perpetual virginity is a false teaching, then refute our arguments with logical, credible evidence. You have yet to do this; you just keep repeating something basically along the lines of: "this does not support your claim; if you write out the family tree I provided from the OP, you'll see that Jesus did have siblings."

What I have been attempting to do is NOT try to convince people of 'my interpretation' of Scripture.

Actually, yes you are. In order for the information to be true, your interpretations of it from your OP must also be true.

Yet, no one seems to be doing this, & by not doing this, is why people are still holding to this false belief in the 'perpetual virginity of Mary.'

Even if we write out this supposed family tree of Jesus, there's still a prominent problem: how can we be so sure that your interpretations of the verses used in the OP are correct? Are you infallible?

[Church Militant]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

And saying "Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true" is also circular reasoning.



I fail to see how it is not objective. People who believe Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin are going to provide arguments as to why this belief is biblical.

You are trying to provide arguments as to why the belief is unbiblical. Both sides are doing the same thing, but with different goals. So, according to your logic, what you're doing is just as un-objective as what we're doing.



Actually, yes you are. In order for the information to be true, your interpretations of it from your OP must also be true.



Even if we write out this supposed family tree of Jesus, there's still a prominent problem: how can we be so sure that your interpretations of the verses used in the OP are correct? Are you infallible?

[BornAgainRN]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

And saying "Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true" is also circular reasoning.

Again, no it's not 'circular reasoning' because in order for it to be circular reasoning, the writers & author of Scripture would have to be the SAME PERSON, which they AREN'T. The writers are sinful human beings. The Author is the sinless Jesus Christ.

I fail to see how it is not objective. People who believe Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin are going to provide arguments as to why this belief is biblical.

A Catholic who uses a Catholic source is NOT being objective, because the source is not neutral. It would be like me linking you to a non-Catholic source to try convince you that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters. What I have done in order to not use 'circular reasoning' is use a NEUTRAL source, we can ALL agree on - the Holy Bible. Then, it's up to you whether choose to read those passages & draw out the family tree or not, which demonstrates YOUR objectivity.

Actually, yes you are. In order for the information to be true, your interpretations of it from your OP must also be true.

Even if we write out this supposed family tree of Jesus, there's still a prominent problem: how can we be so sure that your interpretations of the verses used in the OP are correct? Are you infallible?

Well...here's an idea: write out the Bible passages & see for YOURSELF. And, again, it's NOT 'my' interpretation. I am providing Bible passages & drawing conclusions based on the BIBLE - not on what HUMAN church leaders tell me, who are capable of being wrong...yes...even about the Bible.

I guess what I can't understand is why people refuse to write out the 'family tree' using Scripture verses? If a person is so confident that their church's position is true, then why the resistance? Write it out & see what you'll find...unless you're concerned that what you'll find contradicts the 'perpetual virginity of Mary,' which would mean that this Catholic belief about Mary is wrong.

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16

A most Catholic statement indeed! As one might expect given that scripture is one of the three pillars upon which the Church rests.

[Church Militant]

Originally Posted by BornAgainRN

Again, no it's not 'circular reasoning' because in order for it to be circular reasoning, the writers & author of Scripture would have to be the SAME PERSON, which they AREN'T. The writers are sinful human beings. The Author is the sinless Jesus Christ.

Oh, but we are not questioning scripture's inspiration. Just your flawed reasoning in the way you argue. You need to objectively look at your own arguments and in fact, any arguments set forth by anyone, if you intend to be honest.

A Catholic who uses a Catholic source is NOT being objective, because the source is not neutral. It would be like me linking you to a non-Catholic source to try convince you that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters. What I have done in order to not use 'circular reasoning' is use a NEUTRAL source, we can ALL agree on - the Holy Bible. Then, it's up to you whether choose to read those passages & draw out the family tree or not, which demonstrates YOUR objectivity.

Untrue...you are supplying nothing more than source info from your own n-C/a-C teachers and preachers so don't try to hand us this line. Your whole arguments around here have never been
"neutral". They are based upon the errant foundation of the unscriptural doctrine that says that the Bible is the only and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice. Yet this doctrine has no scriptural basis within the Bible. You have yet to supply a singe verse or passage that specifically lays claim to said authority. Why? Because no such scripture exists.

Well...here's an idea: write out the Bible passages & see for YOURSELF. And, again, it's NOT 'my' interpretation. I am providing Bible passages & drawing conclusions based on the BIBLE - not on what HUMAN church leaders tell me, who are capable of being wrong...yes...even about the Bible.

This is also untrue. You "got saved" and so you have been listening to the same errant teachers and preachers since then. They have deceived you even though they are probably well meaning people with Bibles. How do I know? Simple...it happened to me too and I wasted about 35 years believing them until the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and brought me home to the Catholic faith. Here...read My Testimony.

I guess what I can't understand is why people refuse to write out the 'family tree' using Scripture verses? If a person is so confident that their church's position is true, then why the resistance? Write it out & see what you'll find...unless you're concerned that what you'll find contradicts the 'perpetual virginity of Mary,' which would mean that this Catholic belief about Mary is wrong.

If it's so obvious then you provide it. If it's such hot stuff why haven't you provided it yet? Or do you lack confidence in your case?

[BornAgainRN]

Originally Posted by Patavium

I don't think you understood. How did you know that the Table of Contents in your bible are inspired? and which are not inspired? Do you know how were those books selected?, and do you know why protestants bibles have less books?

In the words of Haydock,

Because the books of the Bible were INDIVIDUALLY written by the Bible writers. The Table of Contents wasn't written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that's how we know the Table isn't Inspired. With all due respect, why on earth would you use that example?

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books. First, the 'Hebrew Canon' had the EXACT same books as the Protestant Bible, but they were arranged differently, & some books were combined. However, it lacked the Apocrypha. In fact, even when the early Catholic church put the Apocrypha in with the Bible, it was not unanimous by the Catholic church that the Apocrypha was at the same level as Scripture, because of it's historical errors & theological contradictions with the Biblical books, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria, rather than Babylon; like using the liver of a dead fish to drive away demons; like the angel Raphael lying; the praying to & almsgiving to the dead, etc.

Also, the Catholic church didn't 'canonize' the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to 'canonize' the Apocrypha. Coincidence??? By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about 'Sola Scriptura,' otherwise, why would they 'canonize' the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt 'church tradition' could 'supplement' what couldn't be found in Scripture?