Sola Scriptura defined....

tulipbee said:

rather turn to jesus than ecf

Click to expand...

How would you react to someone who said they would rather turn to Jesus' words rather than Paul's?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How would you react to someone who said they would rather turn to Jesus' words rather than Paul's?

Click to expand...

God breathed his words through Paul. Jesus is God. Paul's words are Jesus's. Theomatics scientifically proves Paul's writings are the Lords. Jesus, Gods and Pauls Words are the same. Why do you not believe God authored the bible ? the extra books are not uninspired by God. I would rather turn to "run, spot, run" book than the extra books. Ivan Panin shows you why

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How would you react to someone who said they would rather turn to Jesus' words rather than Paul's?

Click to expand...

It does not matter my friend as what Paul said, IS WHAT Jesus told him to say.

Read the Bible and you will be amazed at what can be learned.

Colossians 1:16.......
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

That statement means that the Bible was given out to about 44 men over 1500 years without mistakes or errors as Jesus is the Creator of ALL things!!!!

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How could one make the argument that the bible doesn't mention such angels when the book itself in certain biblical canons (Coptic) refers to the angels? Is the presumption that there cannot be original elements in certain biblical books that any of the others refer to? The naked Man in Mark is not mentioned in any of the Synoptics, does this cast doubt over Mark's Authenticity or Canonicity?

I won't defend 1st Enoch since it's not in my bible but perhaps a more in depth study might be more worthwhile than a single quotation as if that represents the entirety of the book. Much in the same way we would expect others to treat what we recognise as biblical carefully, shouldn't we do the same for books we disagree with and don't include in our respective canons?

Also, what is particularly occultic about the Maccabees or Wisdom of Solomon/Ben Sirach?

Click to expand...

I respect your thoughts on this but really, there is not way to support...............
"How could one make the argument that the bible doesn't mention such angels when the book itself in certain biblical canons (Coptic) refers to the angels?"

Allow me to say clearly, I thought the 1st time was but I see that is not the case..........
In the 66 books of the KJV, ASV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Living Bible, NIV and any other of the 66 canonized translations and there is NO MENTION OF THE ANGELS NAMED RAPHAEL or Phanuel.’

THAT alone is HEARESY and OCCULTISM.

The Book of Maccabess is the ONLY place where the "praying fore the dead" can be found and That is where the RCC pulled the doctrine of Purgatory from.

In the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. Can you post a Scriture which validates that a Christian can lie as a course of life.

Can God Lie?????

IF.....IF God can lie, or we just look the other way and believe some literature which condones lies, does that in itself not make God a liar????

If that is the case........then can any of us be saved by a God who lies or condones lieing?

Macabees inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. Is there a Bible verse that you can posted which verifies that we as sinners can achieve sinless perfection this side of death?

tulipbee said:

Why do you not believe God authored the bible ? the extra books are not uninspired by God.

Click to expand...

Because contrary to Protestant belief the Bible was not written by God whispering into the ears of the human authors to write what he wanted written, but rather the Scriptures are inspired by God. The Holy Spirit guided the authors to be moved in such a way that their writings were of God.

the extra books are not uninspired by God.

Click to expand...

Again, contrary to Protestant belief, the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not "extra books." There was not a published Bible before the Reformation that did not contain the Deuteros.
Martin Luther 'removed them' from his version. He also wanted to pull the Books of James and Revelation. The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books. It was the Vulgate written in Latin, and predates the Reformation. Like I keep on telling you and Maj1, early church history is not Protestant/non-Denomination sects friend!

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use, right? There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?

I would rather turn to "run, spot, run" book than the extra books. Ivan Panin shows you why

Click to expand...

Not me.... I would rather listen to those that were closer to the action of Jesus and His Apostles like the Early Church Fathers, than some fella and his magic numbers thats only been dead for 75 years. Unlike Dr. Panin, they had a better perspective than those who are far removed, like Dr. Panin. We Catholics feel the Early Church fathers were good witnesses to the Christian faith. They understood Scripture the way Jesus and the disciples taught it.

Ever hear about the "Apostolic Fathers?" They were the earliest of the Early Church Fathers.They were the immediate successors of the Apostles. Three of them were disciples of one or more of the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John. Naturally...... one would expect that those who were personally taught by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly. Why is that so hard for non-Catholics to understand?


Some of the criticisms of the Early Church Fathers is that they were only human and the Bible is divine so it is a better source. The Catholic Church agrees with this. Catholics believe that God used the hands of some of the early Church Fathers to write the Bible. The Early Church Fathers were only human but so were the early reformers in the 1500-1600s. They were over 1000 years before the reformers. Catholics feel that the Early Church Fathers had an excellent perspective about the meaning of Scripture because of their proximity to the events.

Not only that......The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today.

Major1 said:

I respect your thoughts on this but really, there is not way to support...............
"How could one make the argument that the bible doesn't mention such angels when the book itself in certain biblical canons (Coptic) refers to the angels?"

Allow me to say clearly, I thought the 1st time was but I see that is not the case..........
In the 66 books of the KJV, ASV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Living Bible, NIV and any other of the 66 canonized translations and there is NO MENTION OF THE ANGELS NAMED RAPHAEL or Phanuel.’

THAT alone is HEARESY and OCCULTISM.

The Book of Maccabess is the ONLY place where the "praying fore the dead" can be found and That is where the RCC pulled the doctrine of Purgatory from.

In the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. Can you post a Scriture which validates that a Christian can lie as a course of life.

Can God Lie?????

IF.....IF God can lie, or we just look the other way and believe some literature which condones lies, does that in itself not make God a liar????

If that is the case........then can any of us be saved by a God who lies or condones lieing?

Macabees inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. Is there a Bible verse that you can posted which verifies that we as sinners can achieve sinless perfection this side of death?

Click to expand...

If certain inconsistencies keep the Maccabees from being biblical, because that means God lied (never mind that the incident of the Jewish rebellion to the Greeks is not really disputed) then we ought dismiss the account of Saul's death since there are two different accounts. Chronicles tells us of Saul committing suicide and Samuel of Saul being killed by a Philistine. Is God a liar?

I can also point to certain inconsistencies in the Gospels. In the account of Jesus and the paralysed man there are two subtle differences in the narrative. Mark mentions they dug through the roof while Luke tells us they took the tiles from the roof. This means the authors of both testaments had different ideas as to what the roof was made out of, Luke a city dweller thinking it to be a house he was familiar with instead of a roof of mud and straw that Mark has in mind. To quote a more realiable resource than me:

Verse 19* says exactly the same thing as Mark 2:4*, though Luke has, almost without exception, used different words than Mark.8 The result is not necessarily more beautiful than the original version: in comparison with Mark, the description of the opening of the roof and the letting down of the stretcher has forfeited some vividness, since the concrete χαλάω (“to loosen,” “to let down”), which is used in Luke 5:4–5* for the nets, is replaced by the colorless καθίημι (“to let down”). Mark thinks that the carriers dig a hole through a roof made of branches and mud-and-straw bricks. Luke makes explicit the climb up to the roof that is only assumed in Mark, and, as a city dweller, he imagines that the roof was covered with κέραμοι, which describe tiles or stone slabs, easier to lift up and remove. Εἰς τὸ μέσον (“into the middle”), perhaps taken proleptically from Mark 3:3*, dramatizes the situation. By ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (“in front of Jesus”), the decisive request is spoken nonverbally (cf. Luke 4:40*).

François Bovon and Helmut Koester, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 179.

Now I'm not saying don't believe in the bible because of these inconsistencies, rather I am saying that your reasons for rejecting the Dueterocanons implicates the bible itself and if consistent you would have to give up the text.

Finally a single mention of something in a biblical book is no more evidence of occultism than anything else. Paul mentions baptism for the dead exactly once so we have no definite idea what he was talking about, that leaves it a mystery, does that also make it occult in nature? So if the Maccabees contains the only reference to prayers for the dead it is not evidence against it. Same with the example of the naked man in Mark. Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about him? So much speculation as to who it was, Mark himself perhaps? Who knows.

The main flaw in your argument is to assume a canon of 66 books that self authenticate each other. They don't.

tulipbee said:

God breathed his words through Paul. Jesus is God. Paul's words are Jesus's. Theomatics scientifically proves Paul's writings are the Lords. Jesus, Gods and Pauls Words are the same. Why do you not believe God authored the bible ? the extra books are not uninspired by God. I would rather turn to "run, spot, run" book than the extra books. Ivan Panin shows you why

Click to expand...

Is 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul's or Jesus' words?

Also, Theomatics is not a thing, whatever it is.

Major1 said:

Colossians 1:16.......
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

That statement means that the Bible was given out to about 44 men over 1500 years without mistakes or errors as Jesus is the Creator of ALL things!!!!

Click to expand...

Interesting comment Maj1. If I may ask..... how do you know this, and who were these forty four men? Can you show through Protestant documentation or your doctrine of sola scriptura the dates and who these men were that the bible was given to them?

Also....If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Is 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul's or Jesus' words?

Also, Theomatics is not a thing, whatever it is.

Click to expand...

you're a common everyday person so you wouldn't care how God uses numbers, gematria.

Fidelibus said:

Because contrary to Protestant belief the Bible was not written by God whispering into the ears of the human authors to write what he wanted written, but rather the Scriptures are inspired by God. The Holy Spirit guided the authors to be moved in such a way that their writings were of God.



Again, contrary to Protestant belief, the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not "extra books." There was not a published Bible before the Reformation that did not contain the Deuteros.
Martin Luther 'removed them' from his version. He also wanted to pull the Books of James and Revelation. The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books. It was the Vulgate written in Latin, and predates the Reformation. Like I keep on telling you and Maj1, early church history is not Protestant/non-Denomination sects friend!

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use, right? There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?



Not me.... I would rather listen to those that were closer to the action of Jesus and His Apostles like the Early Church Fathers, than some fella and his magic numbers thats only been dead for 75 years. Unlike Dr. Panin, they had a better perspective than those who are far removed, like Dr. Panin. We Catholics feel the Early Church fathers were good witnesses to the Christian faith. They understood Scripture the way Jesus and the disciples taught it.

Ever hear about the "Apostolic Fathers?" They were the earliest of the Early Church Fathers.They were the immediate successors of the Apostles. Three of them were disciples of one or more of the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John. Naturally...... one would expect that those who were personally taught by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly. Why is that so hard for non-Catholics to understand?


Some of the criticisms of the Early Church Fathers is that they were only human and the Bible is divine so it is a better source. The Catholic Church agrees with this. Catholics believe that God used the hands of some of the early Church Fathers to write the Bible. The Early Church Fathers were only human but so were the early reformers in the 1500-1600s. They were over 1000 years before the reformers. Catholics feel that the Early Church Fathers had an excellent perspective about the meaning of Scripture because of their proximity to the events.

Not only that......The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today.

Click to expand...

inerrancy is correct

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

If certain inconsistencies keep the Maccabees from being biblical, because that means God lied (never mind that the incident of the Jewish rebellion to the Greeks is not really disputed) then we ought dismiss the account of Saul's death since there are two different accounts. Chronicles tells us of Saul committing suicide and Samuel of Saul being killed by a Philistine. Is God a liar?

I can also point to certain inconsistencies in the Gospels. In the account of Jesus and the paralysed man there are two subtle differences in the narrative. Mark mentions they dug through the roof while Luke tells us they took the tiles from the roof. This means the authors of both testaments had different ideas as to what the roof was made out of, Luke a city dweller thinking it to be a house he was familiar with instead of a roof of mud and straw that Mark has in mind. To quote a more realiable resource than me:

Verse 19* says exactly the same thing as Mark 2:4*, though Luke has, almost without exception, used different words than Mark.8 The result is not necessarily more beautiful than the original version: in comparison with Mark, the description of the opening of the roof and the letting down of the stretcher has forfeited some vividness, since the concrete χαλάω (“to loosen,” “to let down”), which is used in Luke 5:4–5* for the nets, is replaced by the colorless καθίημι (“to let down”). Mark thinks that the carriers dig a hole through a roof made of branches and mud-and-straw bricks. Luke makes explicit the climb up to the roof that is only assumed in Mark, and, as a city dweller, he imagines that the roof was covered with κέραμοι, which describe tiles or stone slabs, easier to lift up and remove. Εἰς τὸ μέσον (“into the middle”), perhaps taken proleptically from Mark 3:3*, dramatizes the situation. By ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (“in front of Jesus”), the decisive request is spoken nonverbally (cf. Luke 4:40*).

François Bovon and Helmut Koester, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 179.

Now I'm not saying don't believe in the bible because of these inconsistencies, rather I am saying that your reasons for rejecting the Dueterocanons implicates the bible itself and if consistent you would have to give up the text.

Finally a single mention of something in a biblical book is no more evidence of occultism than anything else. Paul mentions baptism for the dead exactly once so we have no definite idea what he was talking about, that leaves it a mystery, does that also make it occult in nature? So if the Maccabees contains the only reference to prayers for the dead it is not evidence against it. Same with the example of the naked man in Mark. Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about him? So much speculation as to who it was, Mark himself perhaps? Who knows.

The main flaw in your argument is to assume a canon of 66 books that self authenticate each other. They don't.

Click to expand...

Your opinion of Saul's death in incorrect. As most critics, which you seem to be, work to show a discrepancy in the death of Saul when in fact there in none.

When you read 2 Sam. 1 you will see that it is the Amalekite, and not the Bible record wich said he had killed Saul.

Having seen this question many years ago and it in fact being around for about 2000 years, it is not a new argument. Every evangelical scholar I know of are completely convinced that the Amalekite was a bold face liar to David. The bottom line truth is that he’d come on Saul already dead, grabbed his jewelry, and brought them to David with a made-up story, hoping for a big reward. What he got was his own execution-for having (supposedly) done in the Lord’s Anointed-which would have been a capital crime. Saul’s death was a suicide, pure and simple. Further corroboration of this can be found in I Chronicles 10. There was no euthanasia involved here at all. Thus, another alleged Bible contradiction melts away. But one more thing-since the Bible has been around for nearly 2000 years, surprises never surface in the area of Bible conflicts anymore. Every alleged discrepancy has already long since been carefully examined and intelligently answered.

Mark 2:4 (NIV) says......
" Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on."

KJV says..........
"And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay."

ESV says...........
"And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) says........
"And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was; and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay."

Your whole premise is based on.........."roof made of branches and mud-and-straw bricks. Luke makes explicit the climb up to the roof that is only assumed in Mark, and, as a city dweller, he imagines that the roof was covered with κέραμοι, which describe tiles or stone slabs"

One again we see that there is NO contradiction since the premise you used does not exist. NO mud-straw, no bricks, no stone slabs.

2 Tim. 1:16 has no concrete evidence at all that Onesiphorus was dead. The arguments for his demise are all based upon inferences, none of which are “necessary.”

Now then.........I along with almost everyone else rejects the Apocrypha because I have read them all and IMO they are ALL fakes and have no inspiration and are in disagreement with the Bible.

Fidelibus said:

Interesting comment Maj1. If I may ask..... how do you know this, and who were these forty four men? Can you show through Protestant documentation or your doctrine of sola scriptura the dates and who these men were that the bible was given to them?

Also....If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?

Click to expand...

My fault.........66 books written by 40 men over 1500 years.

I know that because I have read the Bible.

Again.........GAMES! If YOu feel it necessary to know what I know then YOU can open YOUR Bible to the book of Genesis, read it.

I do not need the Pope, Billy Graham, or YOU to tell me how many books are in the Bible and I do not need to document what everyone else seems to know except you.

Now if you do not believe that Colossians 1:16 means that Jesus Christ was the author of the whole Bible, that is fine with me. When you see Him, argue this nonsense with Him.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Is 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul's or Jesus' words?

Also, Theomatics is not a thing, whatever it is.

Click to expand...

It is not hard to find and neither is it difficult to know.

In "theomatics," people can learn how God has written His entire Word mathematically, because existing inside the Bible there is a mathematical design. This design is the watermark that reveals God's divine authorship. No other work of literature ever written, apparently, contains anything that closely resembles theomatics. It is totally unique to the 66 books of the Bible.

No existing word could be found to accurately describe this phenomenon in the Bible, so a new word was coined ~ theomatics. It is actually the composite of two words. The Greek word for God is Theo, and when combined with the suffix for the word mathematics, the result is "theomatics." It means "the numbers or mathematics of God."

Fidelibus said:

Interesting comment Maj1. If I may ask..... how do you know this, and who were these forty four men? Can you show through Protestant documentation or your doctrine of sola scriptura the dates and who these men were that the bible was given to them?

Also....If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?

Click to expand...

Can you through Catholic documentation show that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?

My dear friend........If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture:
"the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: ......
1). Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?

2). How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

Major1 said:

My fault.........66 books written by 40 men over 1500 years.

Click to expand...

Okay..... let's make it forty men. That number sounds very specific and assured on your part.
So, you shouldn't have any problem revealing who these "forty" men were. Obviously you have a source you went to make this correction. So I ask, using this source, be it Protestant documentation or your doctrine of sola scriptura, please show the dates and who these men were that the bible was written.

I know that because I have read the Bible.

Click to expand...

Are you saying because it's in the Bible? By all means, do share!

Again.........GAMES! If YOu feel it necessary to know what I know then YOU can open YOUR Bible to the book of Genesis, read it.

Click to expand...

No games Maj1! I'm not trying to trick you with some sort of 'gotcha' question if thats what you're thinking. You being a self admitted adhereant to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, (the bible alone) are you not? Remember, I too used to be an adhereant to sola scriptura not that long ago, believing that all one needs to know as a sole rule of faith can be found within the pages of the bible. So just because I ask questions that may be difficult for you as a sola scripturist to answer, does not construed "playing games" on my part. If you cannot support you argument using the bible alone, just admit it is not in Scripture, or that you just don't know.

I do not need the Pope, Billy Graham, or YOU to tell me how many books are in the Bible and I do not need to document what everyone else seems to know except you.

Click to expand...

You mean like the people that accepted the 73 books of the bible for the first fifteen hundred years before Martin Luther removed them?

Now if you do not believe that Colossians 1:16 means that Jesus Christ was the author of the whole Bible, that is fine with me.

Click to expand...

Really? I don't recall any writings from Jesus. If I am incorrect, by all means show me my error. Now to repeat what I said on post # 385:

"Contrary to Protestant belief the Bible was not written by God whispering into the ears of the human authors to write what he wanted written, but rather the Scriptures are inspired by God. The Holy Spirit guided the authors to be moved in such a way that their writings were of God."

If you don't mind Maj1, can I ask you the same question I asked tulipbee?

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?

When you see Him, argue this nonsense with Him.

Click to expand...

Happy to see you have the confidence I will see Jesus.... for its a daily struggle. I know of many non-Catholics that don't believe Catholics have a zero chance getting to Heaven, I happy to see you are not one of them! God Bless you!
I try to remember what St. Paul tells us in Phil. 2:12; "So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

And if I am fortunate enough to make it to Heaven with God's Grace Maj1, I am 100% sure there will not be any arguing or nonsense there! I hope to see you there!!!


Once again Maj1, If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?

Again, not a 'trick' question, I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.

Major1 said:

Can you through Catholic documentation show that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?

My dear friend........If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture:
"the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: ......
1). Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?

2). How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

Click to expand...

Maj1, contrary to your belief, this is not a one-way discussion board. I will be more than happy to address each and every one of these after you address post #395.... I promise.


p.s. They are actually very easy to answer.

Fidelibus said:

Maj1, contrary to your belief, this is not a one-way discussion board. I will be more than happy to address each and every one of these after you address post #395.... I promise.


p.s. They are actually very easy to answer.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

YOU are the one who has refused to answer any questions to you and now you say you will respond when I do.

Games! Always GAMES!

You can not answer the questions asked because they can not be answered. I know it and YOU know and everyone else knows it. GAMES!

You asked where "Faith alone" was found in the Bible 4 times AFTER I gave you an in depth response.

Now you have come up with this question.............
"If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?"

Then you say.........
Again, not a 'trick' question, I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.

I am sorry to say this my friend, but your past GAMESMANSHIP has made believing you impossible.

However, by your asking such a question, you have actually shown your own inability to know the answer. YOU ask a question as if it is some great mystery that YOU personally just sat and thought up.

The truth is that there is nothing new under the sun my friend.

You use the words "None-denominationalist" as if they are terrorist instead of Christians.

The truth is that in a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. As can be clearly seen, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit and that includes every single person of all denominations.

Here are some reasons for that........
Unbelief. The fact is that many who claim to be Christians have never been born again.

Lack of training. The apostle Peter warns against those who misinterpret the Scriptures. He attributes their spurious teachings in part to the fact that they are “ignorant” in 2 Peter 3:16.

Poor hermeneutics. Much error has been promoted because of a simple failure to apply good hermeneutics.

Ignorance of the whole Word of God. Apollos was a powerful and eloquent preacher, but he only knew the baptism of John. He was ignorant of Jesus and His provision of salvation, so his message was incomplete.

Selfishness and pride. Sad to say, many interpretations of the Bible are based on an individual’s own personal biases and pet doctrines.

Failure to mature. When Christians are not maturing as they should, their handling of the Word of God is affected. “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” as Paul says in 1 Cort. 3:2-3.

Undue emphasis on tradition. Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established traditions of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants supremacy to the church leadership.

Those are some of the reasons why 2 can read the same verse and have different opinions. There are probably more but IMO these will fit your question.

Now how do 2 "Protestant Christians" work through the difference of 1 Scripture" The same way that 2 Catholics would do. There will be unity between men again when they get back to the apostles’ doctrine and forego the other doctrines, fads, and gimmicks and traditions that have crept into some churchs.

I recommend to you, The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns as it will answer these obscure questions much better than I can.

Fidelibus said:

Okay..... let's make it forty men. That number sounds very specific and assured on your part.
So, you shouldn't have any problem revealing who these "forty" men were. Obviously you have a source you went to make this correction. So I ask, using this source, be it Protestant documentation or your doctrine of sola scriptura, please show the dates and who these men were that the bible was written.



Are you saying because it's in the Bible? By all means, do share!



No games Maj1! I'm not trying to trick you with some sort of 'gotcha' question if thats what you're thinking. You being a self admitted adhereant to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, (the bible alone) are you not? Remember, I too used to be an adhereant to sola scriptura not that long ago, believing that all one needs to know as a sole rule of faith can be found within the pages of the bible. So just because I ask questions that may be difficult for you as a sola scripturist to answer, does not construed "playing games" on my part. If you cannot support you argument using the bible alone, just admit it is not in Scripture, or that you just don't know.



You mean like the people that accepted the 73 books of the bible for the first fifteen hundred years before Martin Luther removed them?




Really? I don't recall any writings from Jesus. If I am incorrect, by all means show me my error. Now to repeat what I said on post # 385:

"Contrary to Protestant belief the Bible was not written by God whispering into the ears of the human authors to write what he wanted written, but rather the Scriptures are inspired by God. The Holy Spirit guided the authors to be moved in such a way that their writings were of God."

If you don't mind Maj1, can I ask you the same question I asked tulipbee?

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?



Happy to see you have the confidence I will see Jesus.... for its a daily struggle. I know of many non-Catholics that don't believe Catholics have a zero chance getting to Heaven, I happy to see you are not one of them! God Bless you!
I try to remember what St. Paul tells us in Phil. 2:12; "So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

And if I am fortunate enough to make it to Heaven with God's Grace Maj1, I am 100% sure there will not be any arguing or nonsense there! I hope to see you there!!!


Once again Maj1, If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?

Again, not a 'trick' question, I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.

Click to expand...

We need to get something very clear my friend. I AM NOT at your beck and call to answer questions which YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW.

By your asking me who these men were you are saying that YOU do not know how many men penned the words of the Bible and the books they wrote but then you place yourself in the position of trying to tell all of us what the Scriptures mean and do not mean.

Just for you my friend................

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90

Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible

Major1 said:

Nonsense.

Click to expand...

YOU are the one who has refused to answer any questions to you and now you say you will respond when I do.
Really? Did i not answer your questions on unwritten Apostolic Traditions? Sheesh!

Games! Always GAMES!

Click to expand...

Easy there big fella!

You can not answer the questions asked because they can not be answered.

Click to expand...

That's the same thing you said about unwritten Apostolic Traditions.... remember. Like I just mentioned above, I answerd them.

I know it and YOU know and everyone else knows it. GAMES!

Click to expand...

Really Maj1, that Crystal Ball thing again? How do you know what mine or anyone elses mind process is? Do you not see how silly that sounds when you say it?

You asked where "Faith alone" was found in the Bible 4 times AFTER I gave you an in depth response.

Click to expand...

Well, lets see how it really went down, okay? The first time I asked,,, "where the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it occurs in the Bible?" was on post # 329 to tulipbee. Then you interjected on post #334:

Can YOU show where the word......"Rosary" is or anything like it in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Which is "NOT" answering the question! (the first time)Then again on post #337 I again asked 'tulipbee'....."where in scripture is the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it occurs in the bible?"

Then on # 345, you went on some peregrination about "implied truth."

doctrine of "Implied Truth" teaches us that even though a specific word is not used, when everything else is taught then that thing that is taught must then in fact be true.

Click to expand...

Where I responded on #355: "Now I have to ask,,, you as an admitted sola scripturists, where in scripture is this 'implied truth' spoken? if it's not in the bible, are you saying that you are using a doctrine or source outside if Scripture?" Your responce..... Silence!

Which equals...failure to answer # 2.

But back to post # 345, (after your 'implied truth' statement) you say:

Now then, your question HAS been answered. That is one of the reason I am disappointed in you. YOU have asked and it has been answered so what is the point in continueing to ask it.

Click to expand...

Really..... Where? But you went on to say:

The words "FATH ALONE" appears only if James 2:24. However when one reads and studies the WHOLE Bible anyone one can see and understand what God says in many Scriptures, IF ONE WANTS TO LEARN:

Click to expand...

Which I refuted on post #355:

Lets take a look at one of the passage you posted, Rom.3:28-30. Were you aware that since the notion that works do not contribute to salvation in any way does in fact flatly contradict Scripture, Martin Luther had to actually change Scripture to support it, adding the word “alone” after “faith” in Rom. 3:28? Did you also know historicly, that the reference to "faith" in Rom. 3:28 had never before been translated as "faith alone" before Luther - no one had ever contended that that was an accurate translation of the Greek. And that's why your very own mainstream Protestant translations such as the King James and NIV do not include "alone" in the verse. Were you aware of this part of Christian history?

You and others may ask why is this relevant? Well, it's relevant because 'faith alone' is a new and novel belief of the majority of non-Catholics today. However, history shows not until Luther, was it ever taught or believed. As for James 2:24, you are indeed correct, the only place the phrase "faith alone" actually appears in Scripture is James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Although I don't fully agree with your understanding of being in 'full context.'

The Catholic belief for one to actually get the full context of James 2:24, verses 14-23 must be included.

Click to expand...

Failure to answer..... # 3.

Now....continuing back to your post # 345, you go on to posts Scripture passages "you believe" supports your argument for 'faith alone.' Rom.4:5, 5:1, 9:30,10:4, 11:6; Gal.2:16, 2:21, 3:5-6, 3:24, Eph.2:8-9, and Phil.3:9. Now Maj1, I am happy to see we are in agreement that the phrase "faith alone occurs only once in the bible. James 2:24. “Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone.”
Unfortunately for you..... nowhere in the scriptue passages you provided does it does it say that man is justified or saved by “faith alone.” No matter how much 'implied truth' you try to read into it.


To the contrary Maj1, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God’s divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also, the word “justified” (dikaiow) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham. So you see Maj1, non- Denominational sects like yours cannot argue James is not referring to “justification” in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn’t in Rom. 4:3 either.

Result..... failure to answer #4

If you don't mind Maj1, I will be starting a new post to address the rest of post 397... okay?

Peace be with you

Major1 said:

Now you have come up with this question.............
"If two non-denominational believers disagree on the interpretation or understanding of any given bible passage, by who's or what authority determines which of the two is correct and which of the two is in error?"

Click to expand...

I know... I asked it.

Then you say.........Again, not a 'trick' question, I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I know, I asked it.

I am sorry to say this my friend, but your past GAMESMANSHIP has made believing you impossible.

Click to expand...

Hey, your free to your opinion... dosen't make it true.

However, by your asking such a question, you have actually shown your own inability to know the answer.

Click to expand...

Not at all my friend, I know the true answer, just seeing if you do, and if you do, are you willing to admit it?

YOU ask a question as if it is some great mystery that YOU personally just sat and thought up.

Click to expand...

Now that's nonsense!

The truth is that there is nothing new under the sun my friend.

Click to expand...

okay????

You use the words "None-denominationalist" as if they are terrorist instead of Christians.

Click to expand...

I do no such thing Maj1! Never once have i refurred to you as a "None-denominationalist" I have always gone by your profile where you refure to yourself as a "Non-denominational", and I am absolutly, 100% sure you don't consider yourself as a Terrorist, and neither do I. To think otherwise is as you say.... Nonsense!!

The truth is that in a perfect world, every believer would non--denominationalist, two Evangelicals, or two Fundamentalist's . As can be clearly seen, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit and that includes every single person of all denominations.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about Maj1..... How do you know this truth you speak of? Guess I should have worded it more specificly,,,,, like. What if two non--denominationalist, two Evangelicals, or two Fundamentalist's all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit not only disagree on interpretaion of certain Scripture passages, but issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, Euthanasia, Contraception, Baptismal Regeneration, Infant Baptism?

I am not talking about disobedient people who do not listen to their pastors or elders Maj1, , but I am talking about a defined doctrine. For example, if two people are debating on the two wills of Jesus Christ, who has the final authority to solve the problem? Where does the bible say one is to find this truth? Remember, you are the sola scripturists. The burden falls upon you to prove with the bible alone what you say is the truth.

As far as this list of reasons you posted goes:

Unbelief

Lack of training

Poor hermeneutics.

Ignorance of the whole Word of God.

Selfishness and pride.

Failure to mature.

Undue emphasis on tradition.

From what web-site did you copy and paste this from? Who come up with this list, and by who's or what authority are we to believe them to be true, absolute and without error?

Those are some of the reasons why 2 can read the same verse and have different opinions. There are probably more but IMO these will fit your question.

Click to expand...

Think so huh? I would be willing to wager Maj1 there are many Protestants, non--denominationalist (like yourself) Evangelicals, or Fundamentalist's that would not agree with those reasons. What would you say to them if they did? "if you don't believe in these reasons you do not possess the Holy Spirit and are not listening to the Holy Spirit.... and that includes your denomination!"

Now how do 2 "Protestant Christians" work through the difference of 1 Scripture" The same way that 2 Catholics would do.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Again for example, why is it that Lutherans, Reformed Protestants, and other Evangelicals disagree on salvation? This issue is a doctrinal issue. They disagree on the nature of 'faith' and 'justification.' How do we know which is right? In Catholicism, the Church tells us which is the true interpretation. In Protestantism, it is subjectivism. In other words, with Catholicism, you can know the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

There will be unity between men again when they get back to the apostles’ doctrine and forego the other doctrines, fads, and gimmicks and traditions that have crept into some churchs.

Click to expand...

I agree, to a point. In Catholicism there is unity. Whereas in the tens of thousands different Protestant/ non-denominational sects, there is no authority which leads to dis-unity.

I recommend to you, The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns as it will answer these obscure questions much better than I can.

Click to expand...

Hey... I'll check it out. I would also recommend to you Saint Pope John Paul II’s
Theology of the Body.


Also Maj1, I noticed you didn't address my question;

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?

Click to expand...

I'd appreciate a responce if you don't mind?