Jesus Held to Sola Scriptura

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

What I have done by my arguments using scripture is the following....

Scripture is the written law
Priests are under the law of scripture
Peter was guilty of hypocrisy and double standards.
The priests and bishops of Rome were also found guilty of desecrating God's house of prayer in the same way Jesus charged the Pharisees, by allowing idols of Budha and Hindu into the houses of prayer.

Scripture is used by me and Paul to highlight these acts of hypocrisy and double standard by the guilty party.

In the same way Peter was appeasing the Jews, the bishops of Rome appeased the idols of Buddha and Hindu in the houses of prayer. Jesus would use the law of scripture to point to the guilty party.

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

Noxot said:
right. but they are debating the roles they play and how we are to understand them and where in the dominance hierarchy are they placed relative to other factors in our religion.

I don't think scriptures can be a final authority due to human subjectivity. I think the final authority is what a person accepts, understands, or decides on and of course God.

I could debate the necessity of scripture with scripture. it's not a necessity but it is a really great gift from God and his people.

Our human subjectivity is always going to play a role in things agreed. Reason, always plays a large role in how we approach both the Scriptures and the expressions or viewpoints of others on the Faith received.

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

Targaryen said:
I'm not "deflecting" the issue. I'm telling you, that your point has ZERO relevance to this thread and is therefore also a weak point to make cause of that. And frankly, IMO is no better then most of the tin-hat nonsense spewed out by heterodoxers.

Tin hat nonsense of what Jesus said about the Pharisees right? Which is the same tin hat attitude you have to the law of scripture right?

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

Paul caught Peter doing what the Pharisees did in Matthew 12

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

The Times said:
What I have done by my arguments using scripture is the following....

Scripture is the written law
Priests are under the law of scripture
Peter was guilty of hypocrisy and double standards.
The priests and bishops of Rome were also found guilty of desecrating God's house of prayer in the same way Jesus charged the Pharisees, by allowing idols of Budha and Hindu into the houses of prayer.

Scripture is used by me and Paul to highlight these acts of hypocrisy and double standard by the guilty party.

In the same way Peter was appeasing the Jews, the bishops of Rome appeased the idols of Buddha and Hindu in the houses of prayer. Jesus would use the law of scripture to point to the guilty party.

No, Paul rebukes Peter for being hypocritical and splitting the then church when he himself had taken on Gentile habits himself. It's about attempting to keep the church whole. Nothing at all to do with your tin-hat nonsense.

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

It seems in this world we have two parties. The faithful and the political. Politics and faith don't mix friends.

In fact any religious institutions mingling with politics is inadvertently crucifying out Lord. Who might that be, who stand in front of the nations of the world and declare their own name and their political community.

In the 21st century we have so much fake attitudes that we can easily discern those fakes by the politics they mingle with.

Peter was being political like a Pharisee and Paul caught him in the act and confronted him, using scripture in how Jesus dressed down the Pharisees in Matthew 12.

Scripture has become an offense to the political religious institutions and I believe deep down in their hearts they hate scripture and for that matter it would not surprise me if they hated Jesus also, after all they are in it for the politics.

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

Can you get back on the actual topic now?

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

Targaryen said:
No, Paul rebukes Peter for being hypocritical and splitting the then church when he himself had taken on Gentile habits himself. It's about attempting to keep the church whole. Nothing at all to do with your tin-hat nonsense.

You read my arguments as if you can't see spiritual matters, why friend?

Avoid a political mindset is my recommendation for you, because your reasoning is political and has nothing to do with the matters of the Spirit.

If you believe that Peter was the head of the Church, then your reasoning is nonsense, because you don't mean it do you, but you still use it, why friend?

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

Targaryen said:
Can you get back on the actual topic now?

Sure. Scripture is the law that the priests and elders are judged by, that without scripture Christianity cannot stand the test of time, because reprobates will seek to change the times and laws of God, to appease the trending ways of the world.

concretecamper · Sep 5, 2017

I'm surprised someone has chimed in and reported Rome commissioned the burning of heretics

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

There is NO political argument going on here. You want to deal with politics, go find the political threads.

As for the head of the Church, that's Jesus Christ. Peter,Paul,Barnabas so on and so forth till this very day are merely men trying to maintain the church on this earth. That has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura, which is again, the POINT of this thread.

Now, care to actually get on topic?

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

concretecamper said:
I'm surprised someone has chimed in and reported Rome commissioned the burning of heretics

Why do I get a feeling cause you said it, it will and this thread will veer even more off topic?

AarontheStudent · Sep 5, 2017

The Times said:
Peter was being political like a Pharisee and Paul caught him in the act and confronted him, using scripture in how Jesus dressed down the Pharisees in Matthew 12.

I doubt Paul confronted Peter using scripture that wasn't written yet.

Jesus quoting from Samuel 21 was an unrelated matter, so I doubt Paul rebuked Peter using Samuel.

It only stands to reason Paul used the oral teaching of the gospel, which he might have heard from Peter himself.

The Times · Sep 5, 2017

AarontheStudent said:
I doubt Paul confronted Peter using scripture that wasn't written yet.

Jesus quoting from Samuel 21 was an unrelated matter, so I doubt Paul rebuked Peter using Samuel.

It only stands to reason Paul used the oral teaching of the gospel, which he might have heard from Peter himself.

Paul dressed down Peter because Paul knew what Jesus had taught. To us it would be written testimoney, yet to Paul a primary oral testimoney. Why the pun friend?

Why are you making it confusing. Whether the teaching is heard or written, is there any ambiguity?

Absolutely not! So why do you make it so?

AarontheStudent · Sep 5, 2017

Because the discussion isn't "Is sola scriptura right?"; rather, the discussion is an unsubstantiated claim that Jesus adhered to it.

Targaryen · Sep 5, 2017

AarontheStudent said:
Because the discussion isn't "Is sola scriptura right?"; rather, the discussion is an unsubstantiated claim that Jesus adhered to it.

I don't think he cares brother.

Noxot · Sep 5, 2017

The Times said:
Sure. Scripture is the law that the priests and elders are judged by, that without scripture Christianity cannot stand the test of time, because reprobates will seek to change the times and laws of God, to appease the trending ways of the world.

the better fail safe would be theosis or to have Gods law written in our inward parts or to be full of the Holy Spirit. people like the Buddhist seem to claim that their religion is practical and does not depend so much on events that occurred a long time ago.

scriptures can't be an ultimate authority. but one of the greatest things they do reveal is a glimpse of Jesus Christ and his sayings and the God inspired wisdom of people such as the prophets and apostles.

John 5:39-47 (YLT)
`Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me; and ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life; glory from man I do not receive, but I have known you, that the love of God ye have not in yourselves. `I have come in the name of my Father, and ye do not receive me; if another may come in his own name, him ye will receive; how are ye able--ye--to believe, glory from one another receiving, and the glory that is from God alone ye seek not? `Do not think that I will accuse you unto the Father; there is who is accusing you, Moses--in whom ye have hoped; for if ye were believing Moses, ye would have been believing me, for he wrote concerning me; but if his writings ye believe not, how shall ye believe my sayings?'

Deadworm · Sep 5, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
Jesus held to the idea that scripture, not church office-holder, is the ultimate authority for the believer, so why don't you?

You can't even demonstrate that the canon assumed by Jesus is the same as our Protestant canon of 39 books! I mean, His brother Jude cites 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses as if they were Scripture; and Paul quotes The Apocalypse of Elijah as if it was Scripture, too (1 Corinthians 2:9). Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which has a canon like the Catholic one. Jesus even overrides parts of the OT in Sermon on the Mount with His phrase, "You have heard that it was said, but I say unto you." He even abolishes OT laws on purity, divorce, and Sabbath observance!

AarontheStudent · Sep 5, 2017

Good point about Enoch. Jesus may have quoted from it himself. In this example he may even have called it scripture:
"Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30, NRSV)

"But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven." Enoch 19 :6-7

The passage from Enoch is talking about the angels.

Deadworm said:
You can't even demonstrate that the canon assumed by Jesus is the same as our Protestant canon of 39 books! I mean, His brother Jude cites 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses as if they were Scripture; and Paul quotes The Apocalypse of Elijah as if it was Scripture, too (1 Corinthians 2:9). Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which has a canon like the Catholic one. Jesus even overrides parts of the OT in Sermon on the Mount with His phrase, "You have heard that it was said, but I say unto you." He even abolishes OT laws on purity, divorce, and Sabbath observance!

rturner76 · Sep 5, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
Priests and elders used scripture as their guide. Their authority is meaningless outside of scripture, is it not?

I think this is the feeling of people in many of the sects, denominations, and offshoots of Christianity. However if you ask a Catholic or Orthodox Christian who's Priest has been educated with the full authority of The Apostolic Succession, they will tell you that Sacred Tradition is also important in proper Christian formation.

Jesus Held to Sola Scriptura

Well-Known Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Well-Known Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I stand with Candice.

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם

Well-Known Member

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

anarchist personalist

Well-Known Member

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם

Domine non-sum dignus

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency