- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,410
- 11,947
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68661901, member: 235244"]It wasn't unchanged to some. When they received the word, they received the word of Paul.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptural.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that speculative claim -- since in real life we 'see' Christ using Sola Scriptura to prove to the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - that their supposedly holy, sacred, infallible tradition was flawed.
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.[/QUOTE]
that were so actual exegesis of any kind in that post of yours - I think we both would agree to that.
Indeed - you seem to prefer to avoid exegesis at all costs as you avoid the details in the text under discussion.
Indeed by conflating all the various options into one large mass of 'tradition' you need to avoid the text itself at all costs - because in the actual text Jesus contrasts scripture with tradition... a feature of his argument that one cannot even admit 'exists' when taking the path of such extreme conflation.
If your argument here is that I am quoting Ellen White and not Mark 7 details - just as you are avoiding Mark 7 details and appealing to centuries late - tradition... then once again i think you have come up with yet another speculative assertion that "does not survive the details" as we see them in the text of these posts.
In "real life" we see that you are appealing to tradition and I am appealing over-and-over-again to the "details in the text".
Your false accusation above does not change real life.
I think those who oppose "Sola Scriptura" and those who argue in favor of it with Bible texts to prove - is not the great mystery that your comment would have it. Far more transparently obvious apparently than some had imagined to themselves.
Your repeated implication that I have been quoting Ellen White instead of the Bible to make the point fails to get off the ground.
I am using the sola scriptura method that is also affirmed by my denomination - not just the Bible.
Mark 7, in it's entirety, not removing or adding to it, does not speak to Sola Scriptural.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that speculative claim -- since in real life we 'see' Christ using Sola Scriptura to prove to the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - that their supposedly holy, sacred, infallible tradition was flawed.
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.[/QUOTE]
that were so actual exegesis of any kind in that post of yours - I think we both would agree to that.
Indeed - you seem to prefer to avoid exegesis at all costs as you avoid the details in the text under discussion.
Indeed by conflating all the various options into one large mass of 'tradition' you need to avoid the text itself at all costs - because in the actual text Jesus contrasts scripture with tradition... a feature of his argument that one cannot even admit 'exists' when taking the path of such extreme conflation.
If your argument here is that I am quoting Ellen White and not Mark 7 details - just as you are avoiding Mark 7 details and appealing to centuries late - tradition... then once again i think you have come up with yet another speculative assertion that "does not survive the details" as we see them in the text of these posts.
In "real life" we see that you are appealing to tradition and I am appealing over-and-over-again to the "details in the text".
Your false accusation above does not change real life.
I think those who oppose "Sola Scriptura" and those who argue in favor of it with Bible texts to prove - is not the great mystery that your comment would have it. Far more transparently obvious apparently than some had imagined to themselves.
Your repeated implication that I have been quoting Ellen White instead of the Bible to make the point fails to get off the ground.
I am using the sola scriptura method that is also affirmed by my denomination - not just the Bible.
Upvote
0
