- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,587
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
So do I and others here. And yer point?The point is, Justin Martyr does not jibe with the scriptures concerning Sunday. Like 23:56 is unequivocally clear that the Sabbath was kept according to the commandment after Christ had already died on Friday the day before, and it is the death of the testator that seals a covenant, and nothing can be added or subtracted from that covenant. Sunday would have been added "3 days too late". But according to Luke, resting on the Sabbath was "according to the commandment" after the New Covenant was in place.
Justin Martyr seems to have forgotten this, despite his sincerity.
We stand on the Word of God alone.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884/
Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura
In the thread "Was the Reformation a Mistake," started by Pfaffenhofen, I emphasized that to truly understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics, there has to be a foundational focus on how the Protestants uphold Scripture as the only ultimate authority, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church maintaining that Holy Tradition has divine authority at a level above Scripture. By agreement between myself and Pfaffenhofen, we will use this thread to set out how Protestants and the RCC represent these positions officially -- 1. or that is, from my side, I will do a series of posts quoting what the bible says about the bible, at times with minimal comment on what the verses mean; 2. from Pfaffenhofen's side, he will set out official statements from the RCC which assert the authority on Holy Tradition, but reliance on Catholic catechisms endorsed by the RCC is also acceptable.
The purpose of the thread is not debate in any way, but merely to set out how the authority of the positions are established and represented, and in contrast to each other. However, minimal debate on peripheral issues may be necessary -- probably on what a bible verse can mean. I think it is proper that the meaning of a bible verse can be questioned, but then, I believe there should just be the two sides presented on what the verse means, without continuing disagreement and debate. It is enough just to know, that the two sides have two ways at looking at a verse. I do not know that such perirpheral issues will arise on the meaning of verses, but it is possible.
We want to be nice, respectful, dignified in posting (no joking or degrading comments). The idea is to just have a statement of the two sides set out authoritatively, and in contrast, and then, to let the readers decide for themselves what each side should mean, without commenting in this thread. I also noted in making the proposal for this thread, that Pfaffenhofen may want to include photos of cathedrals, articles used in worship services, noble clothing (or perhaps, the clergy clothing is called "holy" clothing,) and art work, but he may not wish to take the position that such things are an indication of authority of Holy Tradition. I will also emphasize the "power" that Scripture indicates the Word of God has, as another indication of its authority, and Pfaffenhoffen may wish to do the same on how RCC statements indicates that Holy Tradition has power, (such as, for instance, the bread and wine of communion actually turning into the body and blood of Christ at a mass, or the Pope actually becoming infallible).
If anyone attempts to change the thread into a debate, I think such posts should be considered an acknowledgment that such poster believes the side he supports has been diminished by the thread and rendered to appear false. If these posts come into the thread, they should be ignored, or request should be made to have them removed.
Upvote
0