500 years of protesting what?

[Root of Jesse]

That's the usual Catholic excuse, but it's not true.

You mean, there was an easy way to print Bibles before 1440?

Printing press - Wikipedia

 

[Root of Jesse]

I never said that. It's that they aren't the equal of Scripture, which is what opposition to Sola Scriptura is all about.

So that answers your other question, too...Sola Scriptura means simply that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine.

Ok, Mr. Sea Lawyer. Whatever. If that's true, then Luther was wrong, and the whole Protestant Reformation was wrong. We believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine. That means that whatever does not contradict Scripture is within bounds. Only what is contrary to Scripture would be wrong.

 

[Albion]

You mean, there was an easy way to print Bibles before 1440?

Printing press - Wikipedia

That isn't the issue. There were Bibles before and after the printing press, and the Church prohibited people from having them, lest they get some ideas from the reading which the Church did not approve of.

 

[Albion]

Ok, Mr. Sea Lawyer. Whatever. If that's true, then Luther was wrong, and the whole Protestant Reformation was wrong. We believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine. That means that whatever does not contradict Scripture is within bounds.

So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.

That is a very peculiar notion, if you ask me, but it would okay the Book of Mormon and an endless stream of weird religious theories. Most of them are not specifically ruled out by the Bible but are add-ons to it, just like the Assumption of Mary is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That isn't the issue. There were Bibles before and after the printing press, and the Church prohibited people from having them, lest they get some ideas from the reading which the Church did not approve of.

No, they didn't. "People" had Bibles, mostly RICH people. People that could afford Bibles. According to this reference, a book cost 20 times the price of rent for a home. Most Bibles were chained in churches, specifically because they didn't want them taken.
Hodges. List of Prices of Items in Medieval England

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.

There's no such thing. If it's a mortal sin, it's Biblical. So please provide examples of such.

That is a very peculiar notion, if you ask me, but it would okay the Book of Mormon and an endless stream of weird religious theories. Most of them are not specifically ruled out by the Bible but are add-ons to it, just like the Assumption of Mary is.

No, it wouldn't. The Assumption of Mary has Biblical reference. First, Elijah was assumed to heaven. Second, Moses was (as shown at the Transfiguration). So the concept is Biblical. Tradition and witnesses do not show a burial place, so we piece things together. There's more, but I won't waste your eyes, as you won't read them.

 

[Albion]

No, they didn't. "People" had Bibles, mostly RICH people. People that could afford Bibles. According to this reference, a book cost 20 times the price of rent for a home. Most Bibles were chained in churches, specifically because they didn't want them taken.
Hodges. List of Prices of Items in Medieval England

Yes, that's part of the "line" I was referring to before. Heard it many times. Only it's not historically accurate.

Here's a snippet from an online search that explains further:

"Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church: Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture. As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests. By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of "quality control" on that reading. This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers"

 

[Phil 1:21]

So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.

Since the entire concept of moral sin -- a sin that if one commits and dies prior to receiving absolution from a priest one goes straight to hell -- is unbiblical anyway, it makes no difference what they choose to put in that category: missing mass on Sunday, masturbation...calling Florida Georgia Line country music...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, that's part of the "line" I was referring to before. Heard it many times. Only it's not historically accurate.

Here's a snippet from an online search that explains further:

"Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church: Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture. As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests. By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of "quality control" on that reading. This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers"

Funny that you never reveal the source so you don't show the bias. The other part you forget is that most people couldn't read, so didn't need books. They needed educated people to read to them, which is what the Church provided. The dogmatic interpretation wasn't left to priests, really, but to the Magisterium, the bishops who were, as Christ told the apostles, protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They'll try to agree on what sounds nice and still be wrong. Maybe agree that they sound and look right. But it'd still be a lie.

Perhaps.
Jesus was still focused mainly on the Jews and especially the Rulers and only when Paul was sent to the Gentiles, were they given the instructions of Jesus:

Mat 15:
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Tit 1:14
not devoting themselves to Jewish myths/fables and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
Matt 23:33 "Serpents! produce of vipers! how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067>"

Revelation 14:11 And the ...Smoke of the tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages....... [Luke 16:24,26]

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

.......While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage.
Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

 

[DeaconDean]

Between Mountianmike and RootofJessie, this only proves that the "gap" between Protestants and Catholics is as wide if not even wider than before.

I see no reconciliation whatsoever between Baptists like myself, or Presbyterians, or anybody of the "Reformed" faith with Catholicism.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GingerBeer]

Between Mountianmike and RootofJessie, this only proves that the "gap" between Protestants and Catholics is as wide if not even wider than before.

I see no reconciliation whatsoever between Baptists like myself, or Presbyterians, or anybody of the "Reformed" faith with Catholicism.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Celebrating 500 years of intolerance ...

 

[DeaconDean]

Celebrating 500 years of intolerance ...

Yep

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GingerBeer]

Yep

God Bless

Till all are one.

I see. 500 years of intolerance is very much in line with Ellen White's book
The Great Controversy

 

[DeaconDean]

I see. 500 years of intolerance is very much in line with Ellen White's book
The Great Controversy

Maybe, I just cannot accept what Catholicism teaches in light of scripture, that's all.

I had a feeling I'd regret replying.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GingerBeer]

Maybe, I just cannot accept what Catholicism teaches in light of scripture, that's all.

I had a feeling I'd regret replying.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You do not need to accept what Catholics teach. Very few protestants do. Even fewer evangelicals.