The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[Major1]

Do you want to know, or do you think you cannot know ?

......Or maybe they just do not want to know.

 

[Major1]

That's a very good observation. I think folks should be wary of any "Christian" denomination that says the word of God can only be viewed through their man made lens, be it the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower Society, or the Magisterium. To do so seeks to place God in a subservient role to the denomination and the denomination as the ultimate authority over man.

You are very, very correct!

The result will always be Jim Jones or David Koresh or worse.

 

[Goatee]

There was never 'Sola Scripture' until people invented it! Oral preaching / Tradition was the norm.

These days, there are 1,000s upon 1,000s of people who claim only 'their' interpretation / understanding of scripture is the correct one! Major1 is a prime example! Among many others on these forums.

Jesus gave us His church. Apostolic succession. The Holy Spirit. All entwined in His church, built upon His teachings, and Continues today straight from St Peter who He said was THE rock on which His church would stand.

Now, people who hate Catholicism have always argued against that point. Just like Moses was God's instrument on earth, so was Peter.

Sola Scripture is false and very dangerous as it let's the devil creep into people's minds and twist scripture. The church, has authority to teach scripture via Holy Tradition. The Holy Spirit guides it today, as it did from that very day in the upper room.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There's nothing against Sola Scriptura to accept oral testimony that is in agreement with Scripture. It God's Word alone is the highest authority, not that God's Word is the only authority

A lovely sentiment. But that is not sola scriptura. The phrase literally means "Scripture alone".

The doctrine you're extolling is prima scriptura. That's an interesting idea, as doctrines go. But prima scriptura isn't the same as sola scriptura. That's why they're spelled differently.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is absolutely no biblical basis for the Assumption of Mary. The Bible does not record Mary's death or again mention Mary after Acts chapter 1.

Do you always reject an idea without considering it? Or is today a special day?

 

[BBAS 64]

There was never 'Sola Scripture' until people invented it! Oral preaching / Tradition was the norm.

These days, there are 1,000s upon 1,000s of people who claim only 'their' interpretation / understanding of scripture is the correct one! Major1 is a prime example! Among many others on these forums.

Jesus gave us His church. Apostolic succession. The Holy Spirit. All entwined in His church, built upon His teachings, and Continues today straight from St Peter who He said was THE rock on which His church would stand.

Now, people who hate Catholicism have always argued against that point. Just like Moses was God's instrument on earth, so was Peter.

Sola Scripture is false and very dangerous as it let's the devil creep into people's minds and twist scripture. The church, has authority to teach scripture via Holy Tradition. The Holy Spirit guides it today, as it did from that very day in the upper room.

Good Day,

Just leaving your canned assertions of the roman chuch aside.. Historically speaking:

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." (St. Gregory of Nyssa: On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection (NPNF II, V:439)

"We must not rely on our own reasoning to the point of rejecting the words of the Lord; but we must be convinced that the Lord’s words are more worthy of credence than our own fullest knowledge." Basil the Great, Rule 8 of The Morals "What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great, The Morals, p. 204 "We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." [St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16]

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Jerome (347-420): All the questions raised by the heretics and the heathen are the same, because they do not follow the authority of the Scriptures, but the sense of human reason. For translation, see Goode, Vol. 3, p. 151.
Latin text: Omnes enim haereticorum et gentilium quaestiones eaedem sunt, quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem, sed humanae rationis sensum sequuntur. Commentariorum In Osee Prophetam, Liber Secundus, Caput VII, PL 25:882.

-


There you have it Sola Scriptura historically... were are your issues or questions?

I ujnderstand you may not agree with these people, and that is ok.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Major1]

Do you always reject an idea without considering it? Or is today a special day?

Today IS a special day! Yesterday, We just had the funeral of my brother in law who was able to go home to be with the Lord.

As for rejecting an idea.......YES, I reject it when it is not found in God's Word my dear friend.

If it is not in God's Word it is then mans ideas and that never works out very well.

 

[Goatee]

Good Day,

Just leaving your canned assertions of the roman chuch aside.. Historically speaking:

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." (St. Gregory of Nyssa: On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection (NPNF II, V:439)

"We must not rely on our own reasoning to the point of rejecting the words of the Lord; but we must be convinced that the Lord’s words are more worthy of credence than our own fullest knowledge." Basil the Great, Rule 8 of The Morals "What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great, The Morals, p. 204 "We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." [St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16]

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Jerome (347-420): All the questions raised by the heretics and the heathen are the same, because they do not follow the authority of the Scriptures, but the sense of human reason. For translation, see Goode, Vol. 3, p. 151.
Latin text: Omnes enim haereticorum et gentilium quaestiones eaedem sunt, quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem, sed humanae rationis sensum sequuntur. Commentariorum In Osee Prophetam, Liber Secundus, Caput VII, PL 25:882.

-


There you have it Sola Scriptura historically... were are your issues or questions?

I ujnderstand you may not agree with these people, and that is ok.

In Him,

Bill

Sacred Scripture goes hand in hand with Sacred Tradition.

Everyone and their cat can have an option on scripture, as many do these days, which, is very dangerous indeed. 'The' Holy church is guided by the Holy Spirit and has Sacred Tradition deep within its veins. Jesus gave us the church to help with interpreting scripture.

'Going it alone' as thousands do, can be very dangerous indeed. Proof of that is the 1,000s of different denominations in the word, each claiming to have the truth. Only the Catholic church can trace its roots right back to Peter. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles. This, has been handed down via Sacred Tradition to today.

I agree with the Catechism of the CC. When I read the Bible, their teachings make 100% sense.

 

[Major1]

A lovely sentiment. But that is not sola scriptura. The phrase literally means "Scripture alone".

The doctrine you're extolling is prima scriptura. That's an interesting idea, as doctrines go. But prima scriptura isn't the same as sola scriptura. That's why they're spelled differently.

It is probably just me, but your brand of sarcasm gets real old real fast.

 

[Soyeong]

A lovely sentiment. But that is not sola scriptura. The phrase literally means "Scripture alone".

The doctrine you're extolling is prima scriptura. That's an interesting idea, as doctrines go. But prima scriptura isn't the same as sola scriptura. That's why they're spelled differently.

From: Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

From: Prima scriptura - Wikipedia

Prima scriptura is the Christian doctrine that canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The former doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.

However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

 

[Major1]

Good Day,

Just leaving your canned assertions of the roman chuch aside.. Historically speaking:

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." (St. Gregory of Nyssa: On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection (NPNF II, V:439)

"We must not rely on our own reasoning to the point of rejecting the words of the Lord; but we must be convinced that the Lord’s words are more worthy of credence than our own fullest knowledge." Basil the Great, Rule 8 of The Morals "What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great, The Morals, p. 204 "We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." [St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16]

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Jerome (347-420): All the questions raised by the heretics and the heathen are the same, because they do not follow the authority of the Scriptures, but the sense of human reason. For translation, see Goode, Vol. 3, p. 151.
Latin text: Omnes enim haereticorum et gentilium quaestiones eaedem sunt, quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem, sed humanae rationis sensum sequuntur. Commentariorum In Osee Prophetam, Liber Secundus, Caput VII, PL 25:882.

-


There you have it Sola Scriptura historically... were are your issues or questions?

I ujnderstand you may not agree with these people, and that is ok.

In Him,

Bill

Bill, I am absolutely sure that what you posted has some meaning to some people but for the life of me I do not know why you think that they apply.

You are aware my friend that the Catholic has many, many dogmas and ideas and theology which is not either found in the Scriptures or consistent with the Scriptures.

Now all of the Catholic believers on this site can post and quote and copy and paste propaganda and teachings from Catholic web sites on how YOU are to respond to certain questions and all of you do really well with that.

However, the bottom line is that those things which the RCC have taught you and you have chosen to believe and accept are simply not found in the Word of God and for the historical figures of the RCC to be used or the RCC itself is just plain wrong and disenguineouse.

We can all go back and forth and say and copy and paste but NOWHERE in the Bible is the teaching of Purgatory.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching or a suggestion that Mary was sinless.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching or a suggestion that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a direction of priests not being married, in fact it is the opposite.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find that we are to call a man our FATHER, and in fact we are forbidden.

Nowhere in the Bible are we told that babies have to be water baptized to be saved.

No where in the Bible are we told that we must do good works to be saved.

Now you are all welcome to believe anything you choose to believe, BUT you can not claim Scriptural directions for things in which you can not find in the Bible.

 

[Major1]

From: Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

From: Prima scriptura - Wikipedia

Prima scriptura is the Christian doctrine that canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The former doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.

However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

Excellent!

 

[jax5434]

Do you always reject an idea without considering it? Or is today a special day?

Major can certainly speak for himself. But why would you assume that he, or any of us, had never examined those claims before you mentioned it? Disagreeing with your position does not mean we are ignorant of it.
God Bless
Jax

 

[BBAS 64]

Sacred Scripture goes hand in hand with Sacred Tradition.

Everyone and their cat can have an option on scripture, as many do these days, which, is very dangerous indeed. 'The' Holy church is guided by the Holy Spirit and has Sacred Tradition deep within its veins. Jesus gave us the church to help with interpreting scripture.

'Going it alone' as thousands do, can be very dangerous indeed. Proof of that is the 1,000s of different denominations in the word, each claiming to have the truth. Only the Catholic church can trace its roots right back to Peter. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles. This, has been handed down via Sacred Tradition to today.

I agree with the Catechism of the CC. When I read the Bible, their teachings make 100% sense.

Good day,

I noticed you did not interact with any of the historical points I posted, thought you may have questions...

Nice assertions with out historical basis... FYI The chuch of rome is considered amount the denominations.

The church of rome lacks any interest in understanding scripture:

I agree with Brown, as we have no evidence to the contrary. if you know of some then by all means.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Goatee]

Good day,

I noticed you did not intact with any of the historical points I posted, thought you may have questions...

Nice assertions with out historical basis... FYI The chuch of rome is considered amount the denominations.

The church of rome lacks any interest in understanding scripture:

I agree with Brown, as we have no evidence to the contrary. if you know of some then by all means.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.


In Him,

Bill

Lol, You are funny.

 

[BBAS 64]

Lol, You are funny.

Thanks!

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill, I am absolutely sure that what you posted has some meaning to some people but for the life of me I do not know why you think that they apply.

You are aware my friend that the Catholic has many, many dogmas and ideas and theology which is not either found in the Scriptures or consistent with the Scriptures.

Now all of the Catholic believers on this site can post and quote and copy and paste propaganda and teachings from Catholic web sites on how YOU are to respond to certain questions and all of you do really well with that.

However, the bottom line is that those things which the RCC have taught you and you have chosen to believe and accept are simply not found in the Word of God and for the historical figures of the RCC to be used or the RCC itself is just plain wrong and disenguineouse.

We can all go back and forth and say and copy and paste but NOWHERE in the Bible is the teaching of Purgatory.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching or a suggestion that Mary was sinless.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching or a suggestion that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a direction of priests not being married, in fact it is the opposite.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find that we are to call a man our FATHER, and in fact we are forbidden.

Nowhere in the Bible are we told that babies have to be water baptized to be saved.

No where in the Bible are we told that we must do good works to be saved.

Now you are all welcome to believe anything you choose to believe, BUT you can not claim Scriptural directions for things in which you can not find in the Bible.

Good Day,

My post was an attempt to inter act with the silly assertion that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was made up during the Reformation which is patently untrue historically.

Posted "There was never 'Sola Scripture' until people invented it! Oral preaching / Tradition was the norm."

I do not see where you got the understanding that I am a member of the roman church, I must of posted really poorly.

What you must understand is that you are holding the roman church members to a standard of truth they are foolish to maintain:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.


They (their church) feel that they can teach out side the clear teaching of scripture, due to the authority their own church claim for themselves.

Did you read any of the quotes I posted??

In Him,

Bill

 

[thecolorsblend]

As for rejecting an idea.......YES, I reject it when it is not found in God's Word my dear friend.

So you reject Einstein's theory of relativity? That's not found in the scriptures either.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Excellent, I'm glad that you agree with me now.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Major can certainly speak for himself. But why would you assume that he, or any of us, had never examined those claims before you mentioned it? Disagreeing with your position does not mean we are ignorant of it.
God Bless
Jax

In post #95, I linked to an article discussing how microchimerism offers a scientific rationale underlying Our Lady's assumption.

In post #99, Major admitted he skipped the article and went straight to dismissing the idea.

In post #107, he didn't deny having dismissed the idea without consideration.

Hopefully that clarifies it.