- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Tell me what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and where it shows up in Scripture...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tell me what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and where it shows up in Scripture...Maybe yours is not scriptural -- I suppose we may have to take your word for that.
But ours is scriptural.
Except that he shows them Scripture, and explains (verbally) how it applies to him. That's not Sola Scriptura, it's taking Scripture and interpreting it.I am saying that they had every reason (as we would) to simply take whatever the risen Lord said - so He deliberately comes to them as a "stranger" and the case he makes is "sola scriptura".
That's never been the Catholic model.But this would the perfect RCC context for "just because I say so - not because we need a Bible to show us or prove something" -- had that been the preferred model.
No, Christ goes out of his way to prove that you must provide context in order to make sense of Scripture. Which is Tradition.This is irrefutable. Christ goes out of his way to establish a "sola scriptura" context.
As if Catholics don't test their doctrine against Scripture...what a riot, you are, Alice!At the very least we can affirm that there is no Bible reason to reject the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition - that we see Christ Himself using in Mark 7:6-13
No need. Scripture is written. But most of Scripture was spoken first, written later. There is still God's Word which has not been written, and we don't throw that away with the leftovers.Look up "Scripture" and "Scriptures" in an exhaustive concordance.
There's a world of difference between testing doctrine against Scripture and reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate doctrine (or dogma). If the RCC actually tested doctrine against Scripture then purgatory would be scratched from the CCC (and that's only the tip of the iceberg).As if Catholics don't test their doctrine against Scripture...what a riot, you are, Alice!
Well, who reinterpreted what? Rather who cut out 7 whole books, and several parts of books in order to scrap the claim of Catholicism that Purgatory exists? Yeah the tip of the iceberg that sinks denominationalism...There's a world of difference between testing doctrine against Scripture and reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate doctrine (or dogma). If the RCC actually tested doctrine against Scripture then purgatory would be scratched from the CCC (and that's only the tip of the iceberg).
To the bolded, who claims that being written diminishes anything? Catholics do not put anything above Scripture, but Magisterium and Tradition on the same level as Scripture-quite a different thing, whether you want to hear it or not...Jesus referred to what Moses said as "the word of God " because God spake by Moses even as he did by the former prophets, and likewise through Moses he also said
Duet 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Even as Jesus said,
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses (which were also Gods words written) ye would have believed me: for he (( wrote of )) me.
But God says by Moses... and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Jesus, confirming the same words God spake by Moses (which were written) and saying in accord
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus confirms what God has spoken even as is also written by Moses ( as Jesus apostles also confirm the same is Jesus in Acts 3:22 & Acts 7:37)
God (speaking by Moses) as is written isn't finished, God continues, saying
Duet 18:18 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Its twofold in the rejection but that which is spoken (which is also written) is the one judging him
John 12:48 He that rejecteth **me**, and receiveth not **my words**, (( hath one )) that judgeth him: the word that **I have spoken**, (( the same )) shall judge him in the last day.
Or "the words of" the Word made flesh (whose words are not His but He that sent him) thus the words/ word of God (as spoken) even written
Same with building upon a rock (which is Christ, or the sure foundation) consists of both hearing His words (which are not His but He that sent Him) and doing them (which were the words spoken by Christ and also written)
We have God speaking by Moses bearing record (or witness of) another whom God would raise up (like unto him) who would speak the words of God, even as this speaks of Jesus Christ speaking the words which were given him of God, even the Father (even by commandment). Jesus referring to the words by Moses as the word of God, given God spake by Moses and Moses writes of Jesus who would be given the same (the words of God) both agree in the same.
I don't see how "being written" somehow diminishes the words spoken, or that somehow it had more weight in His mouth (back then) then it would now (because its written on paper).
The words to be given (even as recorded in scripture) by Moses (as Moses wrote) find their fulfillment in God putting His words in Jesus mouth (which He is commanded to speak). Jesus says, this is one that will judge him even the very word (that the Word made flesh) has spoken. Even as these are written.
Which (as I regard them) as being scripture being God breathed, even the word/ words of God (as spoken by Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh) are written for us .
Me and my words. Who is the Word (made flesh) speaking the word/words of He that sent him (as it is also written as prophesied beforehand). How do you even separate them? Since the Word (made flesh, Jesus Christ) speaks the words of God (whose words/ doctrine was not His).
And likewise Jesus said,
John 17:18 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Same with them as it was with him
John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
To the bolded, who claims that being written diminishes anything? Catholics do not put anything above Scripture, but Magisterium and Tradition on the same level as Scripture-quite a different thing, whether you want to hear it or not...
Lol. Too funny.The point is that we have Traditions which are Biblical, yet there is no mention of them in the Bible. An example of why SS is just a late innovation.
Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?Except that he shows them Scripture, and explains (verbally) how it applies to him. That's not Sola Scriptura, it's taking Scripture and interpreting it.
That's never been the Catholic model.
No, Christ goes out of his way to prove that you must provide context in order to make sense of Scripture. Which is Tradition.
Then call me stupid, I don't know any Christian that puts anything above Scripture.That must have hit home somehow, where did I mention a who?
When we see folks put that difference then we know who the who is.
Where did Jesus say, exactly ""the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice"."?Luke 24:27? Not sure your question.
When did Wiki become a doctrinal authority?Do you folks keep confusing SS and interpretation on purpose so as to avoid coming to the conclusion?
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
And explained it to them. Which is what Tradition is.Nothing in there about who interprets or which manuscript to use. It is simply what Christ did, even as you say! "he shows them Scripture"
Then call me stupid, I don't know any Christian that puts anything above Scripture.
Again, I don't know anyone like that. I think that's your judgement or label of how some people preach or something. If someone is too full of themselves, like Joel Osteen, I turn em off. That's why I quit watching football, for the most part-them guys are just too full of themselves.I didn't say that. I was speaking to those who will always stress the spoken word over the written word as if they are seeking to diminish it because he is not here speaking those words, but rather we only have them written.
I am speaking to "that" and some folks do that here
Again, I don't know anyone like that.
You're being kind, whereas I was not.At the very least we can affirm that there is no Bible reason to reject the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition - that we see Christ Himself using in Mark 7:6-13
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?