Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[samir]

Again you take versus out of context and collapse the context in doing so. Please listen, Jesus said this because what they taught was from the written word (old testament) but how they acted was anything but. So you are missing the point here, Jesus after calling them so many times hypocrites would literally say that these guys don't do what they preach and that was the intended message and nothing more.

The context clearly shows they are to obey because they sat in Moses' seat, not because they taught from the Old Testament which Jesus didn't mention anywhere.

It is your burden of proof to provide evidence from apostle meetings with the bishops you claim to have received oral instruction. You see as anyone can interpret scripture according to their own interpretation, hence anyone can make a claim that their bishop recieved an instruction from an apostle.

Therefore prove it.

The proof is the unanimous understanding of the bishops that was passed along from the apostles. If each bishop made his own false claims of instruction the bishops would have had a wide variety of contradictory beliefs like we see among Protestants today. If you

Again you need to prove why you believe what you believe when making conjecturs and unprovable claims. Sorry I cannot and will not take you at you word or your institution's word.

The facts are cllear and the argument I posted that you are unable to refute proves it.

Why I reject any religious institution for that matter because they are not the way the truth and the life. My testimoney is that I have found Jesus myself through my personal relationship with him. Your trying to sell me something else or something I already have.

If I am spiritually married to Christ why do I need to marry a religious institution?

You've been deceived as it's not possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus. Your spiritual marriage is to a modern emotional tradition.

Prove to me that it is the same. How could an unverified secondary source be the same as the primary source, if much of what is secondary is not found in the primary and at times it is found to be in conflict with the primary.

It's common sense and I've already explained it. What a person says and writes are both primary sources.

I agree with you, they had beauty before the fall, just like Lucifer was beautiful before his fall. When they started to legislate the faith through the many councils and make an office called a Chief Priest pope/patriarch then we saw decrees that stole people's salvation by establishing an outward idolised institution to go through in order to be saved. This placed them as the many christs who made an institution equal to the sinless Christ by declaring it infallible.

I read the ECFs for myself from primary sources and what they taught isn't any different than what the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach today.

It also highlights a religious institution that prevents people from coming to Christ directly in the same way the bishops of religious institutions have perpetrated to make their cult like following of legislative decree built institution the very word that they abide in rather than regarding the personhood of Christ as the life and not the institution itself.

You must be relying upon myths because neither the Catholic nor Orthodox church prevents people from coming to Christ directly through the church he founded. If by directly you mean outside the church that's not what Jesus or the apostles' taught.

Maybe a revolutionary as Jesus and his disciples were considered even until now. You see if my authority is Jesus Christ, then your bishop or my bishop cannot be my authority. As Jesus said........

It's not possible to go directly to Jesus for answers. Your only authority is yourself and your own interpretation and human reasoning which doesn't count.

A Warning Against Hypocrisy

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Do these versus closely describe the authority you speak of?

Not at all. I've talked to Catholic and Orthodox priests and have seen nothing but humility, godliness, and a desire to serve God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts the Bible. Nothing.

Absurd, but which is said by RCs under the premise that history, Scripture and Tradition only mean what Rome does in any conflict, as no less than Manning basically asserted.

In contrast, among other things, the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Where does "Rome" come into this equation? As far as I know, a SS preacher can be ignored, because his spoken words aren't Scripture. So if he's not reading the Bible to his audience, he can just be ignored, right?

Where did you obtain that absurdity from? "Catholic Answers?" For hundreds of years SS churches have had preachers with avid audiences who heard their preaching, versus rejecting it because it was not actually Scripture, but Scriptural preaching. Which preaching of the Word all the scattered early church went about doing. (Acts 8:4)

But it was heard because it was overall Scriptural, and such preachers called on their flock to be as the noble Bereans who made even the preaching of the apostles subject to testing by Scripture.

But it is Catholicism which presumes to make its oral tradition teaching equal to Scripture, with church doctrine being the Supreme Law, but which is not wholly inspired or providing new revelation as was sometimes true of apostolic preaching/teaching.

What pope has even done so?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

We do turn to the Old Testament as canon of Scripture because Jesus used it. Almost certainly at that time Jesus was using the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation that includes what today we call the deuterocanonicals (2nd canon). When the Jews fixed the Masoritic canon Hebrew Scripture they excluded the deuterocanonicals.

To the contrary,

The Septuagint was favored by the principal force behind early acceptance of the apocrypha, that being Augustine, who believed the miraculous legend of its translation. According to one account from the Talmud, (BT Megillah 9a, Of 3.) and which contains many strange ideas, Philadelphus [Ptolemy II] sent for seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each tribe of Israel, to undertake the work. He secluded these men on the island of Phares, where each worked separately on his own translation, without consultation with one another. According to the legend, when they came together to compare their work, the seventy-two copies proved to be identical.

This story, while highly unlikely, convinced many that the Septuagint had a supernatural quality which helped gain its acceptance for several hundred years, until the time of Jerome some four hundred years after Christ. (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html)

The story of the origin of the LXX was embellished as time went on and is considered a fable by scholars, and Jerome chided Augustine for criticizing his differences from it and misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html).

Greek was the common language in the Roman empires, and the N.T. does reference the LXX heavily, which certifies that at least these parts of the Torah (see below) were faithful translations, while this was followed by the Hebrew Masoretic translations (due to Jewish doubt on the LXX) and which Jerome affirmed, and which all major Bible translations translate the O.T. from.

However, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

For many reasons (though Jamnia can be excepted) it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.

Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.


Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Moreover, simply because Scripture quotes from a source does not make the whole of it canonical, as Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)

Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,
these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

 

[samir]

As if that absolves Rome, who actually required RC rulers to exterminate the "heretics" that heretical Rome referred to:

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess i t without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land . (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp, emp. mine)

I pointed it out because I love the truth and value honesty, not because I think it absolves the RCC of sin. Although I don't think there is anything wrong with killing heretics, if it is a sin, I agree the RCC is guilty of it. Even so, it still wouldn't prove the RCC wasn't the church Jesus founded because killing heretics was a practice, not a tradition. The most it would prove is that there were sinners in the RCC.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I've looked into this before but since I'm not an expert on ancient languages I don't think I'm qualified to know whether the word "priest" or some other word should be used

You do not need be an expert, just research what learned resources provide.

"nor do I think it really matters since it's just a word. I'm happy using the word priest or pastor. It makes no difference to me. "

It certainly does make a differences since the Greek word for priest and high priest is only used for Jewish and pagan priests (and for all believers in general), a total of approx. 280 times combined, but never distinctively for NT pastors.

So we see they were called priests very early in the church so this wasn't some RC invention.

Excuse me. Did i say RC? Catholic invention.

Since there are so few writings from the first and second centuries, I think they were probably called priests earlier.

Think what you may, it was not in the NT church the Holy Spirit wrote about so much.

There weren't any saints in Heaven until after the New Testament books were written.

Regardless, there we plenty of angels, as said, and plenty of occassions to pray to them, and plenty of prayers to God in contrast.

"All that is required for the saints to hear prayer requests on earth is God giving them the ability to hear us. "

Meaning all that is required is an example of them being given this ability, but which still is not enough to justify doing so, as it does not mean God wills souls to be looking to such for supernatural intercession or aid, and instead His Spirit only inspired prayers to God by believers in Scripture. Why must you insist on doing what He did not?

There are numerous examples in scripture of intercessory prayer to created beings on earth and I believe all Protestants pray/ask other Protestants on earth to pray for them so it shouldn't be any different with saints in heaven.

Once again you must resort to "what you think" based upon a fallacious premise.

Scripture says it is good and acceptable for Christians to intercede between God and man:

Once again this simply is not telling you to do what the Lord nowhere shows believers doing, or instructs them to. Never. Its "our Father" who art in Heaven, O Lord, not "o saint."

Only one way communication is required (that saints hear the requests of those on earth).

Regardless, this also required both to be consciously in the same realm.

It is not a uniquely Divine attribute as scripture says those in heaven can hear prayers:
Revelation 5:8 (NKJV) - "Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

Wrong again, and which is more reading into Scripture what you want, and which still does not provide justification for praying to created beings in Heaven.

The elders(and angels in 8:4) are offering up the prayers of saints as a memorial (cf. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) before the final judgments, not as a regular postal service, and it nowhere says they were constantly hearing prayer, or even knew what these prayers were about before hand.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

..I don't think there is anything wrong with killing heretics,

All i can say is wow. Thanks for the warning. Let me know where you see the NT church employing the sword of men.

" if it is a sin, I agree the RCC is guilty of it.

Which is something early Prots also had to unlearn from Rome and the world, but Rome began using the sword of men from the 4th c.

" Even so, it still wouldn't prove the RCC wasn't the church Jesus founded because killing heretics was a practice, not a tradition. The most it would prove is that there were sinners in the RCC.""

Wrong, as practices flow out of doctrine, and the use of the sword of men by Rome flowed out of her belief of unholy union with the state, which is wrongly justified by her "two swords" given to Peter belief.

Time now to rest.

 

[Berean777]

All i can say is wow. Thanks for the warning. Let me know where you see the NT church employing the sword of men.

Which is something early Prots also had to unlearn from Rome and the world, but Rome began using the sword of men from the 4th c.

Wrong, as practices flow out of doctrine, and the use of the sword of men by Rome flowed out of her belief of unholy union with the state, which is wrongly justified by her "two swords" given to Peter belief.

Time now to rest.

What he means is killing Christians. Once the fog of war blurs the lines between truth and falsehood, anyone who stands against the religious establishment of that time are then demonised and labelled as heretics.

After labelling true Chriatians who stand against the religious establishment as heretics, then the 2 horned lamb/Christ like second beast/man made religious institution of John' Revelation that encompassed the globe, can give life to the Pharisical 1st beast, who went down in flames in 70AD and therefore can speak and act like the dragon of the 1st century who persecuted the 1st century church.

What is new friend?

The same corrupted man beast system being raised up all over again.

 

[Berean777]

I pointed it out because I love the truth and value honesty, not because I think it absolves the RCC of sin. Although I don't think there is anything wrong with killing heretics, if it is a sin, I agree the RCC is guilty of it. Even so, it still wouldn't prove the RCC wasn't the church Jesus founded because killing heretics was a practice, not a tradition. The most it would prove is that there were sinners in the RCC.

It is written though shalt not kill. Any religious establishment that has historically part taken in murder are therefore cut off from the body of Christ.

You shall know them by their fruits. The 2 horned second beast of John's revelation is no different to the Pharisical establishment of Jesus time who were charged by Jesus to have killed all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah.

If killing of heretics is ok by the legislative policies of the religious establishment then this beast as prophesied by John speaks and acts like the Pharisical dragon.

We know who is with Christ and who is against him, by their works. It saddens me to see such self deception. This truly is the captivity spoken of in scripture where those who are with the religious establishment commit horrendous crimes in the name of their religious institution.

We are wanting to free the minds of the many captives by this religious beast entity that has stolen salvation from many and has blinded those who continue to idolise ut as if it is Christ himself.

 

[Berean777]

Where did you obtain that absurdity from? "Catholic Answers?" For hundreds of years SS churches have had preachers with avid audiences who heard their preaching, versus rejecting it because it was not actually Scripture, but Scriptural preaching. Which preaching of the Word all the scattered early church went about doing. (Acts 8:4)

But it was heard because it was overall Scriptural, and such preachers called on their flock to be as the noble Bereans who made even the preaching of the apostles subject to testing by Scripture.

But it is Catholicism which presumes to make its oral tradition teaching equal to Scripture, with church doctrine being the Supreme Law, but which is not wholly inspired or providing new revelation as was sometimes true of apostolic preaching/teaching.

What pope has even done so?

Essentially what they are claiming is that the 1st century Ekklesia had not preached the complete good news, the gospel and thatit required another Ekklesia some several hundred years later to complete the faith.

To me personally this claim sounds awfully like the religion of Islam to me who make similar claims that their prophet mohammad completed the faith as the final messenger. Notice with the religious enterprise that came after the 1st century Ekklisía use the equivalent of a papal or patriarchal chief priest office to warrant their claim that these are the last messengers who completed the faith.

So the bishops of Rome like Mohammad claim that they are the final messengers who completed the Christian faith.

 

[Berean777]

The context clearly shows they are to obey because they sat in Moses' seat, not because they taught from the Old Testament which Jesus didn't mention anywhere.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, blind guides!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

No I'm not repeating myself buy rather presenting the numberof times that Jesus let them have it.

Now what were you saying in context to Jesus telling these Pharisees......

3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Oh......so you are saying that Jesus was honouring tgem because they sat in Moses's seat.

Hilarious!

The proof is the unanimous understanding of the bishops that was passed along from the apostles. If each bishop made his own false claims of instruction the bishops would have had a wide variety of contradictory beliefs like we see among Protestants today. If you

Proof you say..... hilarious

The facts are cllear and the argument I posted that you are unable to refute proves it

You've been deceived as it's not possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus. Your spiritual marriage is to a modern emotional tradition.

Yes my spiritual marriage commenced from my birth after being baptised in the name of Jesus. My marriage to Jesus doesn't predate me.....

Are you saying I need to be married to a religious institution for my relationship with Jesus to be legitimate?????

Now that would be hilarious.......

It's common sense and I've already explained it. What a person says and writes are both primary sources.

In the same way Islam made Mohammad the last messenger who they claim to have completed the faith. Therefore their claim is as vlid as your religious institution's claim that their secondary source is equal to the primary source. In this matter I think this line of thinking is.......what for it.......

hilarious!

I read the ECFs for myself from primary sources and what they taught isn't any different than what the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach today.

Brothers in crime perhaps, especially after they legalised the religion to the point of silencing any opposition, through oppression.

Now that is no so hilarious but the sad truth.

You must be relying upon myths because neither the Catholic nor Orthodox church prevents people from coming to Christ directly through the church he founded. If by directly you mean outside the church that's not what Jesus or the apostles' taught.

If a religious institution sets itself up as an indirect corridor to establishing a relationship with Jesus, how is it different to the Pharisical religious institution, that Jesus made fully known how he felt and considered them.

You know that this is by means a direct path to Jesus. Your religious institution sets itself up as the way the life and the truth. I have to say that you are not being honest in this regard that warrants the use of the word direct.

It's not possible to go directly to Jesus for answers. Your only authority is yourself and your own interpretation and human reasoning which doesn't count.

No a relationship has nothing to do with authority outside of that relationship. In fact the relationship is an open invitation from the Lord himself, that is if you regard him as the ultimate authority. So my response is that I have been abd everyone else has been invited to come alone with their own hearts.

Not at all. I've talked to Catholic and Orthodox priests and have seen nothing but humility, godliness, and a desire to serve God.

They can serve God without having people to follow them. Their humility is judged by how they too establish a relationship with Jesus. If they become obstacles to others by preventing them to go to Jesus directly, then their humility cannot save them, for they will be at the receiving end of the Lord Lord Lord saying.

 

[Rick Otto]

The context clearly shows they are to obey because they sat in Moses' seat, not because they taught from the Old Testament which Jesus didn't mention anywhere.





The proof is the unanimous understanding of the bishops that was passed along from the apostles. If each bishop made his own false claims of instruction the bishops would have had a wide variety of contradictory beliefs like we see among Protestants today. If you





The facts are cllear and the argument I posted that you are unable to refute proves it.




You've been deceived as it's not possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus. Your spiritual marriage is to a modern emotional tradition.




It's common sense and I've already explained it. What a person says and writes are both primary sources.




I read the ECFs for myself from primary sources and what they taught isn't any different than what the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach today.





You must be relying upon myths because neither the Catholic nor Orthodox church prevents people from coming to Christ directly through the church he founded. If by directly you mean outside the church that's not what Jesus or the apostles' taught.




It's not possible to go directly to Jesus for answers. Your only authority is yourself and your own interpretation and human reasoning which doesn't count.



Not at all. I've talked to Catholic and Orthodox priests and have seen nothing but humility, godliness, and a desire to serve God.

I don't think I could more completely disagree with everything in that post.

 

[Rick Otto]

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, blind guides!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

No I'm not repeating myself buy rather presenting the numberof times that Jesus let them have it.

Now what were you saying in context to Jesus telling these Pharisees......

3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Oh......so you are saying that Jesus was honouring tgem because they sat in Moses's seat.

Hilarious!



Proof you say..... hilarious







Yes my spiritual marriage commenced from my birth after being baptised in the name of Jesus. My marriage to Jesus doesn't predate me.....

Are you saying I need to be married to a religious institution for my relationship with Jesus to be legitimate?????

Now that would be hilarious.......



In the same way Islam made Mohammad the last messenger who they claim to have completed the faith. Therefore their claim is as vlid as your religious institution's claim that their secondary source is equal to the primary source. In this matter I think this line of thinking is.......what for it.......

hilarious!



Brothers in crime perhaps, especially after they legalised the religion to the point of silencing any opposition, through oppression.

Now that is no so hilarious but the sad truth.



If a religious institution sets itself up as an indirect corridor to establishing a relationship with Jesus, how is it different to the Pharisical religious institution, that Jesus made fully known how he felt and considered them.

You know that this is by means a direct path to Jesus. Your religious institution sets itself up as the way the life and the truth. I have to say that you are not being honest in this regard that warrants the use of the word direct.



No a relationship has nothing to do with authority outside of that relationship. In fact the relationship is an open invitation from the Lord himself, that is if you regard him as the ultimate authority. So my response is that I have been abd everyone else has been invited to come alone with their own hearts.



They can serve God without having people to follow them. Their humility is judged by how they too establish a relationship with Jesus. If they become obstacles to others by preventing them to go to Jesus directly, then their humility cannot save them, for they will be at the receiving end of the Lord Lord Lord saying.

Well said.

 

[samir]

You do not need be an expert, just research what learned resources provide.

It certainly does make a differences since the Greek word for priest and high priest is only used for Jewish and pagan priests (and for all believers in general), a total of approx. 280 times combined, but never distinctively for NT pastors.

Excuse me. Did i say RC? Catholic invention.

Think what you may, it was not in the NT church the Holy Spirit wrote about so much.

Regardless, there we plenty of angels, as said, and plenty of occassions to pray to them, and plenty of prayers to God in contrast.

Meaning all that is required is an example of them being given this ability, but which still is not enough to justify doing so, as it does not mean God wills souls to be looking to such for supernatural intercession or aid, and instead His Spirit only inspired prayers to God by believers in Scripture. Why must you insist on doing what He did not?

Once again you must resort to "what you think" based upon a fallacious premise.

Once again this simply is not telling you to do what the Lord nowhere shows believers doing, or instructs them to. Never. Its "our Father" who art in Heaven, O Lord, not "o saint."

Regardless, this also required both to be consciously in the same realm.

Wrong again, and which is more reading into Scripture what you want, and which still does not provide justification for praying to created beings in Heaven.

The elders(and angels in 8:4) are offering up the prayers of saints as a memorial (cf. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) before the final judgments, not as a regular postal service, and it nowhere says they were constantly hearing prayer, or even knew what these prayers were about before hand.

I'm going to follow scripture and keep the tradition of the church. There is no other alternative since without church tradition there is no bible.

1 Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

 

[samir]

All i can say is wow. Thanks for the warning. Let me know where you see the NT church employing the sword of men.

The RCC has never employed the sword of men.

Wrong, as practices flow out of doctrine, and the use of the sword of men by Rome flowed out of her belief of unholy union with the state, which is wrongly justified by her "two swords" given to Peter belief.

Time now to rest.

As long as the church is teaching the truth I'm going to follow it regardless of what other people do. Would you leave your denomination is you found out there was a sinner in your congregation?

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm going to follow scripture and keep the tradition of the church. There is no other alternative since without church tradition there is no bible.

1 Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Without the bible no tradition can be vetted, as you have just demonstrated, using sola scriptura.

 

[samir]

What he means is killing Christians.

Absolutely not! That is abhorrent. Please retract your slander and false witness against me. I meant exactly what I said, killing heretics. Heretics are not Christians. They are enemies of Christ who made a choice to pervert and corrupt the true gospel and spread their errors, killing other souls with their lying tongue. If serial killers are put to death to save innocent lives, how much more should heretical preachers be put to death to save innocent souls. What's worse - killing bodies or killing souls?

 

[samir]

Without the bible no tradition can be vetted, as you have just demonstrated, using sola scriptura.

Without tradition there is no bible. I had to rely on tradition to quote from scripture.

 

[samir]

It is written though shalt not kill.

False. The commandment prohibits murder, not killing.

Any religious establishment that has historically part taken in murder are therefore cut off from the body of Christ.

Interesting opinion but other than Protestant denominations I don't know any religious establishments that has done that.

 

[samir]

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, blind guides!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

No I'm not repeating myself buy rather presenting the numberof times that Jesus let them have it.

Now what were you saying in context to Jesus telling these Pharisees......

Despite the Pharisees being hypocrites, Jesus still said to obey them because they sat in Moses' seat. Nothing Jesus said about them being hypocrites changes what Jesus commanded.

3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

That's exactly how it works in the RCC church today. Catholics are to follow whatever the pope teaches when speaking from his office as supreme pastor. That they are to avoid imitating the pope if the does something sinful does not change that they are to obey whatever he says!

Oh......so you are saying that Jesus was honouring tgem because they sat in Moses's seat.

No. I said Jesus commanded obedience. No matter how sinful or hypocritical they were, Jesus commanded everyone to obey and do whatever they said. I realize a proud heart doesn't want to obey and looks for excuses but Jesus didn't provide any.

Are you saying I need to be married to a religious institution for my relationship with Jesus to be legitimate?????

Now that would be hilarious.......

Rejecting the bride of Christ is not following Jesus. I wouldn't mock Jesus if I were you.

In the same way Islam made Mohammad the last messenger who they claim to have completed the faith. Therefore their claim is as vlid as your religious institution's claim that their secondary source is equal to the primary source. In this matter I think this line of thinking is.......what for it.......

hilarious!

Same can be said about your 66 books. The oral tradition is conclusively proven as I've already shown. I won't go into it again since your laughing shows you aren't interested and scripture says not to throw pearls before swine.