Sola scriptura has no strong and reliable foundation!

[MarysSon]

Hey man, just wanted to say that you should probably change your tactics in trying to argue with Righttruth.

All the changes in text color, font, and the bold/underlining i suggest that you tone done a few notches.

@Paul Yohannan was not attacking you, and neither was @redleghunter

Be a bit more tactful, and limit the "!!!"s that make it look as if you were yelling.

Your arguments are sound, except please stop quoting 2 Timothy, as Paul is referencing the OT, not the NT.

Also every good apologetic knows when to finally bow out when the other side continues to use the same arguments over and over. It seems as though you will not convince Righttruth in why he is wrong.

I honestly suggest that this entire thread either get back on track or be locked, as it seems to have gone way off the original OP.

I appreciate the advice - but can you point me to one single post where I used exclamation points (!!!)?? Not once have I done this.

As for arguing - I'm not arguing with anybody - just exposing falsehoods. Too many of these discussion boards serve as nothing more than a way to perpetuate anti-Catholic lies. People who are seeking the truth come to many of these places and are duped into believing in those lies.

I'm not here to convince RT about anything - as he is only interested in perpetuating lies. My sole purpose here is to expose them - not to argue with anybody.

 

[MarysSon]

If you ever want to have a respectful discussion on this I will offer more resources showing there was not unanimity regarding the OT canon from the 4th century to Trent.

I'll even share some insights from Cardinal Cajetan.

My point in mentioning the canon vote at Trent was to show the OT canon remained a point of debate going into the Council.

And MY point is that it doesn't matter if some bishops disagreed. The decision was that of the Holy Spirit.

The Church simply had the Authority to declare the Canon (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hey folks, just a heads-up. I'm not here to argue with you. But there are rules of conduct on CF, and a lot of what has been posted here could be reported as flaming or goading, which can result in members losing posting privileges.

I understand that these are important topics, and can become heated. But take a step back, take a deep breath, say a prayer, and remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

I don't want to see folks end up getting banned, so please take a minute to review the Sitewide Rules and Code of Conduct if necessary.

Site-wide Rules

Code of Conduct

Peace to you all.


CF SENIOR AMBASSADOR

 

[Philip_B]

First of all - call me old-fashion, but when i yell - I use exclamation points (!!!).

Secondly, there is not a historian alive who will agree with you that the Church of England existed before Henry VIII.

Finally, your dislike for the term "Protestant Bible' is not my problem. It is a fact of history. Don't believe me??

Open a Catholic Bible - then open a Protestant Bible. You will see that yours is lacking 7 entire books, along with portions of Daniel and Esther. Had it not been for the protests of the contemporaries of Luther, Calvin and Zwingili - your Bible would be a LOT thinner. Those men wanted to further edit the Hole Scriptures by removing NT Books as well - like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, to name a few.

There is nothing "rude" here - just the historical facts . . .

Interesting response!?

• On the contrary there are historians who understand the sense of the position I enumerated. I am however unaware of any historian who would describe the Church of England as an Invention.
• To clarify my objection was not to the term 'Protestant Bible' but to the term 'Your Protestant Bible' simply because it seems it is being used to be divisive.
• I am quite aware of the Deutero Canonical Texts, which my Church does accept, and indeed at times reads within the Lectionary, however the position of the Church is that they cannot be used alone to establish 'that which must be required to be believed'
• Whilst it is certainly true that some of the leaders in the Continental Reformation were predisposed to holding the Pauline Corpus paramount, any effort that they may have made to exclude books from the Canon of the New Testament was clearly short lived, given that the canon of the New Testament has a long history in the Church from the Post Apostolic period, and their loyalty and integrity and scholarship would have ultimately stopped them.
• As it so happens, I think that there is a strong argument for the Deutero Canonical Texts based upon the evidence of textual scholarship that these were part of the texts that the writers of the New Testament relied upon, and almost certainly the texts that Jesus relied upon.
• I have no intention of calling you old fashioned, though I might not agree absolutely with your view of history and of the Church Catholic.

 

[redleghunter]

And MY point is that it doesn't matter if some bishops disagreed. The decision was that of the Holy Spirit.

The Church simply had the Authority to declare the Canon (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Your original point was the OT canon was decided in the 4th century. The evidence from Trent shows there was still debate. Why is that?

Note: Luther was not at Trent. However, Cardinal Cajetan was.

 

[Righttruth]

Not to the extent that one says Paul is a false apostle. That is not the reality of most Christians.

You are in a very small group with that one.

There are more number of nominal Christians and hypocrites in Christendom than true believers in the words of Jesus

Matthew 7
13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Righttruth]

There is already a guy named Francis who claims an infallible magisterium.

You will have to wait in line before speaking ex cathedra for every one here.

Meaning...why should we take anything you post on the authority of Scriptures seriously.

In essence you are questioning the authority of the words of Jesus.

 

[Righttruth]

Which Gnostic texts do you believe are authoritative?

None

 

[Righttruth]

The apostles substantiated the Words of Christ by witness, preaching His words and commands and demonstrating / confirming the message was true with miracles.

There is no disconnect as you imply.

Which part of message of Jesus Paul has quoted? Miracles can be performed with satanic influences also.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There are more number of nominal Christians and hypocrites in Christendom than true believers in the words of Jesus

Matthew 7
13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I think these are for non-believers and belevers.

I'm pretty sure it is. You are not being respectful to others, IMHO

 

[Righttruth]

Translation: "You got me on that one. I have no valid response."

Fine

Soooo, it is simply that you CAN'T answer the question??
I'll ask you again:
WHOSE name will replace Judas' on the foundations in Heaven??

If you can't answer that question - just admit it and we'll move on.

I have answered: Matthias . You want that to be spelled in Latin?

 

[Righttruth]

I think these are for non-believers and belevers.

I'm pretty sure it is. You are not being respectful to others, IMHO

You see, the majority opinion doesn't mean truth.

 

[redleghunter]

In essence you are questioning the authority of the words of Jesus.

No I'm not. I'm questioning your understanding.

 

[redleghunter]

Which part of message of Jesus Paul has quoted? Miracles can be performed with satanic influences also.

Luke 24.

 

[Righttruth]

No I'm not. I'm questioning your understanding.

Jesus' words are easy to understand but difficult to practice. It is just the opposite with regard to Paul's

 

[Righttruth]

Luke 24.

Paul quotings of Jesus are not found in the Gospel books.

 

[faroukfarouk]

"Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth" (John 17.17)

 

[JoeP222w]

No, I did

Your response seemed to indicate that you did not read it.

 

[TurtleAnne]

This has been a very interesting thread to read, but to be honest I still do not understand the heated debate?

It makes sense for Jesus' teachings to be above all else, and Paul's letters do not seem to override Jesus' teachings when the context is understood, right? Wasn't he sending letters to various places/people back then to help get them started on the right track or to help them resolve confusions they were having? And each letter was tailored to the community/person receiving it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far my understanding is that after Jesus went back to heaven, there were still a bunch of people with all sorts of issues going on, who wanted more clarification on Jesus' teachings, and Paul was trying to help them. Isn't that a lot like what (good) ministers/pastors/priests do to this day? Like trying to help people apply the teachings of Jesus to their personal modern day lives?

So what is wrong with looking at the letters to see how Paul was advising those people? A lot of it is probably still helpful to this day. I would agree that it would be a red flag if Paul ever contradicted any of Jesus' teachings, but I can't find any examples of this, even when trying to search specifically for such examples online.

I'm serious, I've been doing searches like "paul contradicts jesus examples" in my google search page, because if there is truth to this conspiracy theory then I would be open to learning it, but none of these results pages actually have any contradictions. At most they basically cherry pick scriptures out of context and point to a word difference in similar sentences, but when I plug the verses into their context there is no conspiracy to trick people going on by Paul.

That is what most Bible critics do, though, they cherry pick verses and take things out of context to try to fool people who have not read it all for themselves.

I actually enjoy discussing worldly conspiracy theories with people, I pop in to some online communities on occasion to discuss them with others. I see the similar sort thing playing out all the time. There is some stuff that has a lot of merit, but then there is also plenty of stuff where it is just things distorted or taken out of context on purpose to rile people up, and those with racing minds and schizo-tendencies really latch onto it. And I am not mocking here, I understand, after all I do enjoy reading about such theories, myself, but one has to be very methodical and skeptical when examining the arguments/evidence so as to take care not to have one's mind play tricks on them. I mean that in the most loving way, I have had my own several moments of getting riled up when reading something and then having a chuckle at myself once I investigated it further, it happens.

 

[MarysSon]

Interesting response!?

• On the contrary there are historians who understand the sense of the position I enumerated. I am however unaware of any historian who would describe the Church of England as an Invention.
• To clarify my objection was not to the term 'Protestant Bible' but to the term 'Your Protestant Bible' simply because it seems it is being used to be divisive.
• I am quite aware of the Deutero Canonical Texts, which my Church does accept, and indeed at times reads within the Lectionary, however the position of the Church is that they cannot be used alone to establish 'that which must be required to be believed'
• Whilst it is certainly true that some of the leaders in the Continental Reformation were predisposed to holding the Pauline Corpus paramount, any effort that they may have made to exclude books from the Canon of the New Testament was clearly short lived, given that the canon of the New Testament has a long history in the Church from the Post Apostolic period, and their loyalty and integrity and scholarship would have ultimately stopped them.
• As it so happens, I think that there is a strong argument for the Deutero Canonical Texts based upon the evidence of textual scholarship that these were part of the texts that the writers of the New Testament relied upon, and almost certainly the texts that Jesus relied upon.
• I have no intention of calling you old fashioned, though I might not agree absolutely with your view of history and of the Church Catholic.

Fair enough.

But, if I am reading the above bolded statement correctly - who said that the Deuterocanonicals contain "ALL" we need for salvation?? Certainly not the Catholic Church.