Sola Scriptura defined....

PeaceB · Nov 19, 2017

Major1 said:
The Scriptures are always right my dear friend, the Scriptures!!!!!!

Amen.

Major1 · Nov 19, 2017

Fidelibus said:
Said the "expert" of not answering questions! Ha...Ha!

Yep.... sure did!

Ha..Ha! You really need to put down the pipe, man! Trying to determine your definition of "Oral Apostolic Tradition" first........ is not dodging nutin! Just give your definition and we'll move on from there. What so difficult or dodgy about that? Sheesh!!

Lol! You don't need my permission, you can do as you want. You crack me up dude!

Didn't I just warn you about the pipe?

p.s. Hey Maj1, if you need help using the 'quote feature' let me know, I'd be more than happy to help you out.

You made several cute responces I guess to take off the edge but....................
YOU still DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIION!!!!

Are you going to answer it or continue to try and define what my definition of oral tradition is? Why do YOU need for me to define what you accept as truth?

I think you just can not answer the question and are afraid to say..."I do not know".

I tell you what, why don't you use Strong's definition of oral tradition is and go from there. Personally I always thought that "Oral tradition" was when someone told someone else something and that thing then went on to become a doctrine of behavior......but YOU feel free to define it with Strongs and that will be fine with me.

If this one is too hard, why not try this one instead or along side of the 1st one..........
"If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?"

Now several Catholic believers have used that argument right here on this site recently. I think that maybe even you did as well but I may be wrong on that.

Fidelibus · Nov 20, 2017

Major1 said:
You made several cute responces I guess to take off the edge but................

Ha... Ha! Sorry my friend, but you have guessed wrong........ again!

p.s. you didn't think they were funny??

YOU still DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIION!!!!

Wow, Maj1, no need to yell! I hate to say it my friend....but you really need to mellow out and take a "chill pill".

Are you going to answer it or continue to try and define what my definition of oral tradition is?

For the life of me Maj1, it's baffling why you are so hesitant to give your definition of Apostolic Oral Tradition. Sheesh!!

Why do YOU need for me to define what you accept as truth?

Okay Maj1, let me put it to you this way. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred/ apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Do you agree with this? Yes or No? If you say 'no' then whats the use? Not sure about you, but for me, I have limited time when it comes to computer use.

I think you just can not answer the question and are afraid to say..."I do not know".

You are partially correct, (maybe 1-1/2 %) but not entirely.

Being I am a convert to Catholicism, I would never claim that I am 100% learned in the Catholic faith. I am learning every day, and thanks to you, your question helped me to learn more of it, and I thank you for that. Just so you know, to help me in my journey in the Catholic faith, I have a Spiritual Director. He is a 92 y.o. Priest that resides with many other Monks and priests at a Benedictine Abby close to where I live, and he helps guide me in our Catholic faith. He directed me on how to address your question with his own words of wisdom, as well as pointing me to other Catholic sources. They are as follow, but first....you say...

I tell you what, why don't you use Strong's definition of oral tradition is and go from there.

With all due respect Maj1...Why don't "you" give me Strongs definition of "Apostolic Oral Tradition" so you/I can can be sure we got it right, and not just the definition "oral tradition!"

If this one is too hard, why not try this one instead or along side of the 1st one..........
"If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?"

No.... not all that hard, but I will admit, it was a learning experiance. In the meen time, Let's stick with your post on page nine for now when you said:

Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

Actually, my Spiritual Director, and other Catholic sources he provided gave more than a "single" example. For instance:

First....... which is the form of worship, i.e. the Liturgy......... You being a sola scripturists, will probably dismiss the teachings and writings of the Early Church Fathers, and will not accept this answer, but again, with all due respect.... that is your limitation, not ours. Any way, As we read from the Apology of Justin Martyr:1, 65-67:

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered, admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent."

Would you not agree Maj1 that The New Testament never shows how the form of worship will or should be? However Maj1, if you disagree, please show chapter and verse that shows otherwise. Well...... you may or may not,but again, let's remember... this is not about sola scriptura as you nobley stated. However... because of the Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, we can. This induces the doctrine of the Mass, which is obvious. If you cannot see that Maj1, I'm just not sure what to tell you.

Second example is Infant Baptism, okay. Like I have just stated... and before I go any futher, I'd like to remind you what "you" said back on pg. 9, Post #171:

However, against by better judgment lets just see what happens. Here we go...........Now this question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura

"Nothing to do with sola scriptura"? You do remember saying this... correct? I would hope so, cause it's all there in simple print for all to see. Now.... with that being said Maj1, and by your own admission...your unbibilical doctrine of sola scriptura is of no matter concerning this matter, right? Okay, so now that we are on the same page with that.... Let's move on with "Infant Baptisim" okay?

What did Jesus actually mean in Matt. 19:14 by..... "let the children come to me?" Does Scripture tell us that infants can or cannot be baptized? Even if we were to take your unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura in concideration, the answer would still be no!. However, from the early Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church, proclaimed and still proclaims that Infant Baptism is valid and this of course comes from the practice and teachings of the Apostles, for example.... As Basil the Great says:

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, (did you catch that part about the Apostles?) handed on to us in mystery (i.e., Sacrament; the Liturgy of the Mass). . In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject "UNWRITTEN" customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term." -----(The Holy Spirit 27:66 [AD 375]).

Are you still with me Maj1? Hope so. Now another example would be how Apostolic Tradition is Apostolic Succession. Again Maj1, and by your own words,, your unbiblical adherence to sola scriptura is "NOT" a factor here!. Right? Now Pope Clement says:

"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly, peaceably and with dignity, and who have for many years received the commendations of all, we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry."----- (Letter to Corinthians 44,1)

Which should be as clear as the nose on your face Maj1, this statement shows what apostolic succession is. It also shows how apostolic succession went. Then we also have the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. (180 ad) Again, remember what you said....

this question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura

If so....let's read his words:

"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?' (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

'Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ...But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth ...And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES.' (Against the Heresies 3:3:1-3)

WoW!!!!!!!! Pretty definitive words from St. Irenaeus I might say!!!! Not to mention how history shows these words were only a generation or two away (180 yrs.) from the Apostles and Jesus Himself. Oops... sorry.....there's that history thing again Maj1...., something that forign to your non-Catholic/ non- denominational sects!

Now I know Maj1 by your obvious arrogance which is evident in posts 216,,,,,,,,,,

LOL...........as usual, YOU did not answer he question!!!!!

And post # 219:

Again............you said BRING IT.For the 3rd time................
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin

Again.... in this post:

You made several cute responces I guess to take off the edge but....................
YOU still DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIION!!!!

(Again... don't understand why you are yelling at me???)

It is obvious maj1 by the presence of this arrogance, I can only surmise you felt as if you had a.... "Gotcha" question against Catholicism. I am sorry (just a wee bit) for having to 'pop' your balloon, but I... once again would like to thank you for bringing this special question to my attention. For without you asking me of this question, It may have never even entered my mind.... Again.... Thank you, and I'd like to thank God for using you in doing so! I would also like to thank my Spiritual Director,,, Fr. Augustine for his wisdom and knowledge of the Catholic faith..... for me to share with you. Thanks be to God!!!! If you wouldn't mind maj1, I'd like to share a prayer that Fr.Augustine and I prayed this evening before my departure:

"My Lord and my God, profoundly would I adore you, Ardently would I love you, Faithfully would I serve you, Forever and ever, Amen." Actually.... in his profound wisdom, asked me to share this prayer with you in my responce, and hope's that you may use it in your daily prayers. I think you would like this man maj1, He is a man totally commited to God.

I apologize maj1 for such a long responce, but my access to a computer can be limited at times. I hope you understand. Anyhoo, I feel as though I have answerd your question specificly and truthfully. Chances are, you'll disagree with most if not all of these teachings of the Catholic Church, but that is your righr.

However, now that I've answered your (gotcha) question

I'd like to get back on topic, and ask you a couple of questions regurading sola scriptura.

1. when two Protestants or non-denominational people disagree on a certain passage of scripture, what authority determines who is correct and who is not?

2. How can a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth err?

Open Heart · Nov 21, 2017

Major1 said:
1 Corinthians 15:39.......
"All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, another of birds".

Hi Major. It's a beautiful day to love and serve the Lord!

I have no problems saying that men are different from animals. Like I said, we are animals PLUS. We are animals becoming something more. We are animals that have broken out of the confines of nature, animals with an immortal soul. I'm simply pointing out that we retain our animal bodies and instincts. We get hungry, we bleed when you cut us, we give birth and nurse our young, when threatened we respond with fight, flight, or freeze, etc., etc.

Man is different from all other animals in a number of ways:

1. Analytical Thought
Man can think analytically. He can analyze problems and come up with creative solutions. He is able to reason and philosophize about life. The reasoning powers in animals are limited.

Other animals have the beginning capacity for reason and problem solving, such as chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, and ravens. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html

2. True Language
Only man possesses true language and conceptual thought. He can communicate by using abstract symbols.

While only mankind has the physiology necessary for speech, other animals do have communication, both audible and non. Indeed, chimps and gorillas have been taught American sign language.

3. Record History
Another difference is that man can record and determine history. Do you know of a book written by a lion????

It is certainly true that only man has written language and it has enabled us to build on past learning, a process that has given us unimaginable achievements!! Other species are just beginning to use symbolic language. Kanzi - Wikipedia Remember that mankind has been around for some 200,000 years, but has only had written language for 5000. Keep in mind also that there are tribes of people that have no written language today.

4. Economics
Man is an economic being, able to transact complicated business and to administer goods and services under his control.

Well it depends on the culture you go to. Many hunter gathering tribes simply barter and keep no records. No different than apes.

5. Art
Man is an aesthetic being, capable of perceiving and appreciating beauty and intangible values

Yes, absolutely. The other animals lack aesthetics. We don't know what happened. Certainly when modern man began some 200,000 years ago he was not aesthetic either. But something happened around 40,000 years ago and suddenly there were cave painting and jewelry and the like. The rest, as they say, is history.

6. Morality
Man is an ethical being. He can distinguish between right and wrong. He can and does make moral judgments. He has a conscience.

Let me explain the commonalities and differences. Our consciences are built upon two things: a sense of justice and empathy. Other primates have a primitive sense of both. It is only a matter of time until they develop moral sentience as well. However, our own moral sentience is so much more developed than theirs. We don't just empathize with our own tribe, we empathize with all humans, and we don't just empathize with humans but with animals, and we don't just empathize with animals, but with PICTURES of animals. That's pretty developed.

7. Worship
Only man can experience faith. Man alone of all earthly creation can worship his Creator.

Not according to the Psalms. In fact even the mountains sing and the rivers clap their hands. Scientifically speaking, there is evidence that chimpanzees have developed the most primitive of religions, such as worship when experiencing transcendence during natural wonders, and having religious rituals such as rock cairns in trees and throwing rocks at them for no other reason other than ritual. IOW, things that if a human did them we would immediately describe it as religious. A Twist In Discussions Of Chimpanzee Spirituality Is this on the same level as human worship? Of course not. But it is a beginning.

8. Bury Its Dead
Man is the only living creature that buries its dead.

Although humans are the only species to bury, cremate, or set our dead at sea, there are three other species that have funeral rituals: chimps, elephants, and magpies. 3 Animals that Have Funerals to Grieve for the Dead

Please, THINK and investigate before you post opinions. Honestly, it will go a long way in making your opinion more acceptable.

Good advice for EVERYONE to take, wouldn't you say?

Major1 · Nov 21, 2017

Open Heart said:
Hi Major. It's a beautiful day to love and serve the Lord!

I have no problems saying that men are different from animals. Like I said, we are animals PLUS. We are animals becoming something more. We are animals that have broken out of the confines of nature, animals with an immortal soul. I'm simply pointing out that we retain our animal bodies and instincts. We get hungry, we bleed when you cut us, we give birth and nurse our young, when threatened we respond with fight, flight, or freeze, etc., etc.

Other animals have the beginning capacity for reason and problem solving, such as chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, and ravens. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html

While only mankind has the physiology necessary for speech, other animals do have communication, both audible and non. Indeed, chimps and gorillas have been taught American sign language.

It is certainly true that only man has written language and it has enabled us to build on past learning, a process that has given us unimaginable achievements!! Other species are just beginning to use symbolic language. Kanzi - Wikipedia Remember that mankind has been around for some 200,000 years, but has only had written language for 5000. Keep in mind also that there are tribes of people that have no written language today.

Well it depends on the culture you go to. Many hunter gathering tribes simply barter and keep no records. No different than apes.

Yes, absolutely. The other animals lack aesthetics. We don't know what happened. Certainly when modern man began some 200,000 years ago he was not aesthetic either. But something happened around 40,000 years ago and suddenly there were cave painting and jewelry and the like. The rest, as they say, is history.

Let me explain the commonalities and differences. Our consciences are built upon two things: a sense of justice and empathy. Other primates have a primitive sense of both. It is only a matter of time until they develop moral sentience as well. However, our own moral sentience is so much more developed than theirs. We don't just empathize with our own tribe, we empathize with all humans, and we don't just empathize with humans but with animals, and we don't just empathize with animals, but with PICTURES of animals. That's pretty developed.

Not according to the Psalms. In fact even the mountains sing and the rivers clap their hands. Scientifically speaking, there is evidence that chimpanzees have developed the most primitive of religions, such as worship when experiencing transcendence during natural wonders, and having religious rituals such as rock cairns in trees and throwing rocks at them for no other reason other than ritual. IOW, things that if a human did them we would immediately describe it as religious. A Twist In Discussions Of Chimpanzee Spirituality Is this on the same level as human worship? Of course not. But it is a beginning.

Although humans are the only species to bury, cremate, or set our dead at sea, there are three other species that have funeral rituals: chimps, elephants, and magpies. 3 Animals that Have Funerals to Grieve for the Dead

Good advice for EVERYONE to take, wouldn't you say?

Agreed. Here in Central Fl. it is right now 72 degrees but it is said that we are going to get rain this after noon. I really appreciate your tone and your words.

I do hope that you understand that I am not against YOU in any way when we communicate. I am just trying to establish that there are differences between the RCC and the Bible but everyone is free to choose as they are moved to do so.

I know that you spent time on the things I posted and I do not want to argue them however I would only respond to your thoughts.

Now as for #1..........
I agree with your comment but in reality isn't that more repetition than "analytical thought". Parrots can speak words but that is from hearing those words and not thinking those words up in their minds. Isn't that the same thing in chimps as well?

#2............I agree, however communication is not speaking with an audible voice in a language, and chimps and gorillas have been taught American sign language but that does not come through analytical thought processing, does it.

#3................But lions can not write. Neither can any other animal. Without being able to have a language, there can be no way to record history.
Just think ....if animals had the ability to write and record history, how many of our questions would be able to have been answered.
The camels and donkeys at the birth of Jesus would have given us a really good explanation wouldn't they.

#4............I guess I failed to say it properly. Yes there are societies that are obscure and isolated that live on the barter system. But in realty that is Economics at its base.
A man needs a loaf of bread and he trades his orange to his neighbor to get it. That is economic 101. However and animal does not work that way. He sees what he wants and then he takes what he wants.
Originally my thought of Economics was based on man coming up with a monetary exchange system whereby men works for an amount of money and then used that money to but what he needed. Animals can and do not do such a thing.

#5...........Agree!

#6..........I think that if you will go to a couple of web sites that are rooted in Physcology you will see that what animals do is "Instinct" and not morality.

A chimp grooms his friend sitting next to him because that is what he has been shown to him his whole life. One chimp does not look at his friend and say, my back itches, can you get that flea for me?

On the other hand, humans do just the opposite. Human beings, unlike animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices. Animals do not and can not do that.

Then if you will do some work of Darwin's theology you will see that what you are proposing comes from his theory of evolution instead of the Bibles' creation.

#7............Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, it seems to me that you are getting your thinking on these things from web sites that are geared to evolution.
Maybe this is another place where I should have been more specific. Animals can not Worship God who is their Creator by corporate worship services.

Does a bird singing give glory to God YES. Not because the bird made a conscious choice to believe IN God but the fact is God created him. That however is NOIT Worship of his Creator.

Animals can not and do not worship their Creator. They can not because they do not posses the ability to have "analytical thinking"/reasoning and they do not know the difference between right and wrong so as to make a choice.

#8..............Agree. BUT, a ritual where a monkey sits and rubs or pick at his dead associate is not "Burying".

I just recently had a beautiful red bird make a nest in a bush about 10 feet from my back door patio. She and her mate worked all day for 2 days making it. Then she laid 3 little eggs. I sat every morning watching her sit on those eggs while having coffee. She was only 10 feet away and at eye level but she stayed right there. Her mate would fly around from limb to limb making sure I was not going to hurt his mate.

You see I made a choice not to harm that bird. It was a choice rooted in what is right and what is wrong.

One morning when I went out to check on the nest, the only thing left was a few red feathers on the ground and a cat sitting over in the corner of the yard. The male bird came up, looked at the nest, and flew off never to be seen again. No funeral, NO BURIAL, NO NOTHING. You see the cat did not make a choice. His "instinct" said, I am hungry and there is supper so he ate the bird.

That is the difference between humans and animals.

Major1 · Nov 21, 2017

Fidelibus said:
Ha... Ha! Sorry my friend, but you have guessed wrong........ again!

p.s. you didn't think they were funny??

Wow, Maj1, no need to yell! I hate to say it my friend....but you really need to mellow out and take a "chill pill".

For the life of me Maj1, it's baffling why you are so hesitant to give your definition of Apostolic Oral Tradition. Sheesh!!

Okay Maj1, let me put it to you this way. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred/ apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Do you agree with this? Yes or No? If you say 'no' then whats the use? Not sure about you, but for me, I have limited time when it comes to computer use.

You are partially correct, (maybe 1-1/2 %) but not entirely. Being I am a convert to Catholicism, I would never claim that I am 100% learned in the Catholic faith. I am learning every day, and thanks to you, your question helped me to learn more of it, and I thank you for that. Just so you know, to help me in my journey in the Catholic faith, I have a Spiritual Director. He is a 92 y.o. Priest that resides with many other Monks and priests at a Benedictine Abby close to where I live, and he helps guide me in our Catholic faith. He directed me on how to address your question with his own words of wisdom, as well as pointing me to other Catholic sources. They are as follow, but first....you say...

With all due respect Maj1...Why don't "you" give me Strongs definition of "Apostolic Oral Tradition" so you/I can can be sure we got it right, and not just the definition "oral tradition!"

No.... not all that hard, but I will admit, it was a learning experiance. In the meen time, Let's stick with your post on page nine for now when you said:

Actually, my Spiritual Director, and other Catholic sources he provided gave more than a "single" example. For instance:

First....... which is the form of worship, i.e. the Liturgy......... You being a sola scripturists, will probably dismiss the teachings and writings of the Early Church Fathers, and will not accept this answer, but again, with all due respect.... that is your limitation, not ours. Any way, As we read from the Apology of Justin Martyr:1, 65-67:

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered, admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent."

Would you not agree Maj1 that The New Testament never shows how the form of worship will or should be? However Maj1, if you disagree, please show chapter and verse that shows otherwise. Well...... you may or may not,but again, let's remember... this is not about sola scriptura as you nobley stated. However... because of the Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, we can. This induces the doctrine of the Mass, which is obvious. If you cannot see that Maj1, I'm just not sure what to tell you.

Second example is Infant Baptism, okay. Like I have just stated... and before I go any futher, I'd like to remind you what "you" said back on pg. 9, Post #171:

"Nothing to do with sola scriptura"? You do remember saying this... correct? I would hope so, cause it's all there in simple print for all to see. Now.... with that being said Maj1, and by your own admission...your unbibilical doctrine of sola scriptura is of no matter concerning this matter, right? Okay, so now that we are on the same page with that.... Let's move on with "Infant Baptisim" okay?

What did Jesus actually mean in Matt. 19:14 by..... "let the children come to me?" Does Scripture tell us that infants can or cannot be baptized? Even if we were to take your unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura in concideration, the answer would still be no!. However, from the early Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church, proclaimed and still proclaims that Infant Baptism is valid and this of course comes from the practice and teachings of the Apostles, for example.... As Basil the Great says:

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, (did you catch that part about the Apostles?) handed on to us in mystery (i.e., Sacrament; the Liturgy of the Mass). . In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject "UNWRITTEN" customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term." -----(The Holy Spirit 27:66 [AD 375]).

Are you still with me Maj1? Hope so. Now another example would be how Apostolic Tradition is Apostolic Succession. Again Maj1, and by your own words,, your unbiblical adherence to sola scriptura is "NOT" a factor here!. Right? Now Pope Clement says:

"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly, peaceably and with dignity, and who have for many years received the commendations of all, we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry."----- (Letter to Corinthians 44,1)

Which should be as clear as the nose on your face Maj1, this statement shows what apostolic succession is. It also shows how apostolic succession went. Then we also have the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. (180 ad) Again, remember what you said....

If so....let's read his words:

"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?' (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

'Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ...But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth ...And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES.' (Against the Heresies 3:3:1-3)

WoW!!!!!!!! Pretty definitive words from St. Irenaeus I might say!!!! Not to mention how history shows these words were only a generation or two away (180 yrs.) from the Apostles and Jesus Himself. Oops... sorry.....there's that history thing again Maj1...., something that forign to your non-Catholic/ non- denominational sects!

Now I know Maj1 by your obvious arrogance which is evident in posts 216,,,,,,,,,,

And post # 219:

Again.... in this post:

(Again... don't understand why you are yelling at me???)

It is obvious maj1 by the presence of this arrogance, I can only surmise you felt as if you had a.... "Gotcha" question against Catholicism. I am sorry (just a wee bit) for having to 'pop' your balloon, but I... once again would like to thank you for bringing this special question to my attention. For without you asking me of this question, It may have never even entered my mind.... Again.... Thank you, and I'd like to thank God for using you in doing so! I would also like to thank my Spiritual Director,,, Fr. Augustine for his wisdom and knowledge of the Catholic faith..... for me to share with you. Thanks be to God!!!! If you wouldn't mind maj1, I'd like to share a prayer that Fr.Augustine and I prayed this evening before my departure:

"My Lord and my God, profoundly would I adore you, Ardently would I love you, Faithfully would I serve you, Forever and ever, Amen." Actually.... in his profound wisdom, asked me to share this prayer with you in my responce, and hope's that you may use it in your daily prayers. I think you would like this man maj1, He is a man totally commited to God.

I apologize maj1 for such a long responce, but my access to a computer can be limited at times. I hope you understand. Anyhoo, I feel as though I have answerd your question specificly and truthfully. Chances are, you'll disagree with most if not all of these teachings of the Catholic Church, but that is your righr.

However, now that I've answered your (gotcha) question I'd like to get back on topic, and ask you a couple of questions regurading sola scriptura.

1. when two Protestants or non-denominational people disagree on a certain passage of scripture, what authority determines who is correct and who is not?

2. How can a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth err?

I can not and will not respond to such a mass of words.

If you would like take one thing at a time I would be glad to talk with you but not this way.

I will say however that NO, to you asking me a question on Sola Scripture.

"You" are the one who said.........."Bring it", not me.(Now that is the definition of Arrogance" my friend.)

Basically you only gave the explanation the RCC gives you and you in essence did not answer the question. You gave their responce but that does not answer the question but you did not bive an answer which is found in the Bible.

The correct answer is that there are NO examples.

Why not just admit it since you know it is true instead of the copious response you made on what early Catholic men said.

What about the 2nd question??
Surely you have had enough time to search the Catholic blog site for an answer.

It was.........
""If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?"

I am "Bringing it" brother, so I hope you do a better job with question #2 than the first one.

Now it is actually permissible to use and quote from the Bible.

BBAS 64 · Nov 21, 2017

PeaceB said:
No, the question of the canon is relevant to the definition you set forth, and I showed you exactly why it is relevant. Stop with the games. You want to avoid the question because it disproves your assertions, as was demonstrated numerous times in this thread.

Good day, Peace

Why don't you stop presupposing you understand the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by tell me what I believe I pointed you to a thread on the NT that I have posted. If you do not have the ability to interact on what I said I believed (in the OP) then it may be best to follow along and take notes on the subject.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Nov 21, 2017

Fidelibus said:
And do you believe this Church to be visible or invisible?

I believe the 'what' St. Paul is talking about 2Tim. 3:14 could be many differnt things. Like differnt forms of obedience he (Paul} talks about in 2Thess.2:15. Or, remembering those leaders in Heb.13:7-9, that spoke ('oral') to them the Word of God about not to be lead away by 'diverse and strange teachings' . If he were to be asked who these 'leaders' or 'diverse and strange teachings' are, how do you think he'd informed them who they were if it is not written in scripture? Orally?

The one thing we can be assured BBAS64, "what" St.Paul was not teaching Timothy in 2 Tim.3:14-17 is that the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith.

USCCB Bible notes:

[Matt.2:23] Nazareth…he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus’ residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the foreannounced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there. The vague expression “through the prophets” may be due to Matthew’s seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Is 11:1 where the Davidic king of the future is called “a bud” (nēser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Jgs 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nāzîr) to God.

USCCB bible notes:

[10:1–5] Paul embarks unexpectedly upon a panoramic survey of the events of the Exodus period. The privileges of Israel in the wilderness are described in terms that apply strictly only to the realities of the new covenant (“baptism,” “spiritual food and drink”); interpreted in this way they point forward to the Christian experience (1 Cor 10:1–4). But those privileges did not guarantee God’s permanent pleasure (1 Cor 10:5).

[10:4] A spiritual rock that followed them: the Torah speaks only about a rock from which water issued, but rabbinic legend amplified this into a spring that followed the Israelites throughout their migration. Paul uses this legend as a literary type: he makes the rock itself accompany the Israelites, and he gives it a spiritual sense. The rock was the Christ: in the Old Testament, Yahweh is the Rock of his people (cf. Dt 32, Moses’ song to Yahweh the Rock). Paul now applies this image to the Christ, the source of the living water, the true Rock that accompanied Israel, guiding their experiences in the desert.

St. Gregory of Nyssa also wrote on tradition and Church authority:

“Let [Eunomius] first show, then, that the Church has believed in vain that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not made such through adoption by a Father falsely so-called, but existing as such according to nature, by generation from Him Who Is, not estranged from the nature of Him who begot Him…It suffices for the PROOF of our statement that we have a TRADITION coming down from the FATHERS, an inheritance as it were, by SUCCESSION from the Apostles through the SAINTS who came after them.” ( C. Eunomius 3(4) )

“…I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how OUGHT one who OPPOSES HER DECISIONS to overthrow the preconceived opinion?” ( C. Eunomius 4,6 )

St. Gregory of Nyssa also wrote on the Holy Eucharist:

"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh."-"The Great
Catechism [37: 9-13]"

St Gregory of Nyssa in Baptisim:

"Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship."

Hmmm... none of these quotes I posted don't sound very Protestant, but very Catholic, wouldn't you agree?

Sooooo.... BBas64, If you accept the small quote you posted (out of context I might add) from St. Gregory at face value, do you also accept the the quotes I posted the same?

Good Day,

Invisible or visible makes no difference to me... which ever you would like...

So he was talking about different things but you have no objective historical facts as to that assertion.

Then you say you know what is was not... ummm merely wishful thinking on your part to be sure , unless of course you have some thing that proves what it was, that best you can say is you do not know.

The thread is on Sola Scriptura, care to stick to the topic... which is the authority of Scripture:

"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)

In Him,

Bill

PeaceB · Nov 21, 2017

BBAS 64 said:
Good day, Peace

Why don't you stop presupposing you understand the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by tell me what I believe I pointed you to a thread on the NT that I have posted. If you do not have the ability to interact on what I said I believed (in the OP) then it may be best to follow along and take notes on the subject.

In Him,

Bill

No, I quoted from your definition and demonstrated exactly how the question of the canon renders it false. Please go back and take some notes on that, since we are taking notes now.

Open Heart · Nov 21, 2017

Hi Major! Two more days until Thanksgiving. My son will be announcing his engagement -- she's a dream. Hope all is well with you.

Major1 said:
I do hope that you understand that I am not against YOU in any way when we communicate. I am just trying to establish that there are differences between the RCC and the Bible but everyone is free to choose as they are moved to do so.

Interesting. I don't really see myself as presenting the Catholic position. Just what I consider to be the enlightened position based on all that we now know about animals, and what is common sense to those of us that are very close to animals, such as Jane Goodall. However, it's certainly not contrary to Catholic teaching, which is is sympathetic to animals. Like me, Catholic teaching is that human beings have immortal souls.

I know that you spent time on the things I posted and I do not want to argue them however I would only respond to your thoughts.

I think we are both able to have a kind and loving discussion without it degrading into animosity.

Now as for #1..........
I agree with your comment but in reality isn't that more repetition than "analytical thought". Parrots can speak words but that is from hearing those words and not thinking those words up in their minds. Isn't that the same thing in chimps as well?

One thing I noticed is that you didn't seem to read the links I offered to clarify what I was saying. In this case you would have seen that analytical ability can be measured in ways that are not verbal, such as advanced problem solving.

#2............I agree, however communication is not speaking with an audible voice in a language, and chimps and gorillas have been taught American sign language but that does not come through analytical thought processing, does it.

Actually it DOES come across as analytical thought. The gorillas, etc., string the words together in completely new ways, making novel sentences they've never heard before. Most parrots understand a bit of what they say, and a very few DO show signs of conscious understanding of a great deal of what they say. ht tp://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do-parrots-understand-what-they-say-yes-according-to-a-new-study/#.WhS16EqnHIU This time, actually click the link -- it's extraordinary.

#3................But lions can not write.

I absolutely agree with you. Writing is one area where humans shine! However:

We've only had written language for the last 4000 years out of our 200,000 year history.
There are tribes that do not have written language.

#4............ However and animal does not work that way. He sees what he wants and then he takes what he wants.

A chimp will barter for food, will even pay for sex. Parrots barter nuts.

#6..........I think that if you will go to a couple of web sites that are rooted in Physcology you will see that what animals do is "Instinct" and not morality.

And what I'm saying is that justice and empathy among animals is simply a primitive form if what you find among humans. It is biologically based, even among humans. For example, you and I recoil at children being tortured not because we are rationally thinking about it, but because our instinctual brain is responding. We are horrified BEFORE we rationally process it. MRI's show this.

A chimp grooms his friend sitting next to him because that is what he has been shown to him his whole life. One chimp does not look at his friend and say, my back itches, can you get that flea for me?

On the other hand, humans do just the opposite. Human beings, unlike animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices. Animals do not and can not do that.

Then if you will do some work of Darwin's theology you will see that what you are proposing comes from his theory of evolution instead of the Bibles' creation.

#7............Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, it seems to me that you are getting your thinking on these things from web sites that are geared to evolution.
Maybe this is another place where I should have been more specific. Animals can not Worship God who is their Creator by corporate worship services.

Does a bird singing give glory to God YES. Not because the bird made a conscious choice to believe IN God but the fact is God created him. That however is NOIT Worship of his Creator.

Animals can not and do not worship their Creator. They can not because they do not posses the ability to have "analytical thinking"/reasoning and they do not know the difference between right and wrong so as to make a choice.

#8..............Agree. BUT, a ritual where a monkey sits and rubs or pick at his dead associate is not "Burying".

I just recently had a beautiful red bird make a nest in a bush about 10 feet from my back door patio. She and her mate worked all day for 2 days making it. Then she laid 3 little eggs. I sat every morning watching her sit on those eggs while having coffee. She was only 10 feet away and at eye level but she stayed right there. Her mate would fly around from limb to limb making sure I was not going to hurt his mate.

You see I made a choice not to harm that bird. It was a choice rooted in what is right and what is wrong.

One morning when I went out to check on the nest, the only thing left was a few red feathers on the ground and a cat sitting over in the corner of the yard. The male bird came up, looked at the nest, and flew off never to be seen again. No funeral, NO BURIAL, NO NOTHING. You see the cat did not make a choice. His "instinct" said, I am hungry and there is supper so he ate the bird.

That is the difference between humans and animals.[/QUOTE]

Fidelibus · Nov 21, 2017

Major1 said:
I can not and will not respond to such a mass of words.

You mean like post #225 of this thread?

If you would like take one thing at a time I would be glad to talk with you but not this way.

I'm good with that.

I will say however that NO, to you asking me a question on Sola Scripture.

Is sola scriptura not the topic of this thread!

[/quote]"You" are the one who said.........."Bring it", not me.(Now that is the definition of Arrogance" my friend.)[/quote]

The term 'bring it' does not mean when you say jump... I say how high Maj1. That would like saying..... "I am going to ask all the questions in this discussion, and by golly you'd better answer them, and don't you dare ask me nutin!" Nobody would ever agree to that Maj1 and you know it. I tell you what's arrogant,,,,,,,, that's you thinking or even suggesting such a thing! Having a discussion is a two way street, and you thinking the term "bring it" voids a two way discussion is just being amateurish.... plain and simple!

Basically you only gave the explanation the RCC gives you and you in essence did not answer the question.

Lol!! like I didn't see this coming Maj !! I guess if one thinks about it.....what else could you say.

You gave their responce but that does not answer the question but you did not bive an answer which is found in the Bible.

You're kidding.... Right? You have to be, because it was you that said in post #171:

Here we go...........Now this question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, so SPECIFICALLY:

So know you're accusing me of "NOT" using the Bible? Wow! talk about moving the Goal Posts in the middle of the game! Once again, I cannot and will not play by Major1"s lop-sided rules.

The correct answer is that there are NO examples.

Say's who.... the anti-Catholic web-site you got these questions from? The same web-site that proably guaranteed them to be non-answerable 'gotcha' questions for Catholics? Is that who's telling you the answers I gave were incorrect? I know, I know Maj1 your feeling a bit deceived right now, and you shouldn't beat yourself up, but learn from this. That is...... you shouldn't trust these anti-Catholic web-sites, for they are full of anti- Catholic myths and lies. As you just found out.

Why not just admit it since you know it is true instead of the copious response you made on what early Catholic men said.

I love it Major1!!!! I never thought I'd see the day!!! You are admitting that the first Christians..... The Early Church Fathers...... were Catholic!!!! Praise be to God, your anti-Catholic blinders are starting to give way to the truth!

What about the 2nd question??

Thats not the way it's played. Even though you didn't like my 'historicaly proven' answer, that dosen't mean you get a pass. So How about my first question?

It was.........
""If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?"

Being a convert, and I'm still learning the faith, so please show the documention that supports this, and in two weeks, I'll run it by my Spiritual Director Fr. Augustine and some of the other Catholic Theologians up at the Abby and Seminary. Like your last question, I can see this too as being a very good learning experiance for me, so thanks again! You know Maj....This is what I love about being Catholic, just being able to do this! (having an authority to go too)

Something I lacked on Protestantism.

I am "Bringing it" brother, so I hope you do a better job with question #2 than the first one.

Ha...Ha! you crack me up Maj!! I'm glad your 'bringing it" So you better bring your...."A-Game" to answer 'my' question. For what.... the up-tenth time?

"when two Protestants or non-denominational people disagree on a certain passage of scripture, what authority determines who is correct and who is not? Again Maj... I know your feeling a little let down by the anti-Catholic web-site, but it will be okay!

Now it is actually permissible to use and quote from the Bible.

Does this mean you won't change the rules or move the Goal Posts in mid-game again?

Major1 · Nov 22, 2017

Fidelibus said:
You mean like post #225 of this thread?

I'm good with that.

Is sola scriptura not the topic of this thread!

"You" are the one who said.........."Bring it", not me.(Now that is the definition of Arrogance" my friend.)[/quote]

The term 'bring it' does not mean when you say jump... I say how high Maj1. That would like saying..... "I am going to ask all the questions in this discussion, and by golly you'd better answer them, and don't you dare ask me nutin!" Nobody would ever agree to that Maj1 and you know it. I tell you what's arrogant,,,,,,,, that's you thinking or even suggesting such a thing! Having a discussion is a two way street, and you thinking the term "bring it" voids a two way discussion is just being amateurish.... plain and simple!

Lol!! like I didn't see this coming Maj !! I guess if one thinks about it.....what else could you say.

You're kidding.... Right? You have to be, because it was you that said in post #171:

So know you're accusing me of "NOT" using the Bible? Wow! talk about moving the Goal Posts in the middle of the game! Once again, I cannot and will not play by Major1"s lop-sided rules.

Say's who.... the anti-Catholic web-site you got these questions from? The same web-site that proably guaranteed them to be non-answerable 'gotcha' questions for Catholics? Is that who's telling you the answers I gave were incorrect? I know, I know Maj1 your feeling a bit deceived right now, and you shouldn't beat yourself up, but learn from this. That is...... you shouldn't trust these anti-Catholic web-sites, for they are full of anti- Catholic myths and lies. As you just found out.

I love it Major1!!!! I never thought I'd see the day!!! You are admitting that the first Christians..... The Early Church Fathers...... were Catholic!!!! Praise be to God, your anti-Catholic blinders are starting to give way to the truth!

Thats not the way it's played. Even though you didn't like my 'historicaly proven' answer, that dosen't mean you get a pass. So How about my first question?

Being a convert, and I'm still learning the faith, so please show the documention that supports this, and in two weeks, I'll run it by my Spiritual Director Fr. Augustine and some of the other Catholic Theologians up at the Abby and Seminary. Like your last question, I can see this too as being a very good learning experiance for me, so thanks again! You know Maj....This is what I love about being Catholic, just being able to do this! (having an authority to go too)

Something I lacked on Protestantism.

Ha...Ha! you crack me up Maj!! I'm glad your 'bringing it" So you better bring your...."A-Game" to answer 'my' question. For what.... the up-tenth time?

"when two Protestants or non-denominational people disagree on a certain passage of scripture, what authority determines who is correct and who is not? Again Maj... I know your feeling a little let down by the anti-Catholic web-site, but it will be okay!

Does this mean you won't change the rules or move the Goal Posts in mid-game again?[/QUOTE]
****************************************************************
Deflection does not answer the question.

You know what my friend, probably at any other time your comments would be funny and cute but honestly I am to old and tired to keep baby sitting you.

I have 12 grandchildren that visit us all the time so I am used to how you act and speak to others,
but what you are doing and how you act is just not that cute to me.

I can discipline them for their obnoxious and rude behavior but that can not be done for you.
I realize that you are trying to cover your inability at Bible theology with comedy and if I were in your position I might do the same thing. But I am not in your position.

So, I am signing off from my conversations with you as it is just the same old silly stuff with no end in sight.

Blessings to you, happy thanksgiving and stay well.

Major1 · Nov 22, 2017

Open Heart said:
Hi Major! Two more days until Thanksgiving. My son will be announcing his engagement -- she's a dream. Hope all is well with you.

Interesting. I don't really see myself as presenting the Catholic position. Just what I consider to be the enlightened position based on all that we now know about animals, and what is common sense to those of us that are very close to animals, such as Jane Goodall. However, it's certainly not contrary to Catholic teaching, which is is sympathetic to animals. Like me, Catholic teaching is that human beings have immortal souls.

I think we are both able to have a kind and loving discussion without it degrading into animosity.

One thing I noticed is that you didn't seem to read the links I offered to clarify what I was saying. In this case you would have seen that analytical ability can be measured in ways that are not verbal, such as advanced problem solving.

Actually it DOES come across as analytical thought. The gorillas, etc., string the words together in completely new ways, making novel sentences they've never heard before. Most parrots understand a bit of what they say, and a very few DO show signs of conscious understanding of a great deal of what they say. ht tp://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do-parrots-understand-what-they-say-yes-according-to-a-new-study/#.WhS16EqnHIU This time, actually click the link -- it's extraordinary.
I absolutely agree with you. Writing is one area where humans shine! However:

We've only had written language for the last 4000 years out of our 200,000 year history.

There are tribes that do not have written language.

A chimp will barter for food, will even pay for sex. Parrots barter nuts.

And what I'm saying is that justice and empathy among animals is simply a primitive form if what you find among humans. It is biologically based, even among humans. For example, you and I recoil at children being tortured not because we are rationally thinking about it, but because our instinctual brain is responding. We are horrified BEFORE we rationally process it. MRI's show this.

A chimp grooms his friend sitting next to him because that is what he has been shown to him his whole life. One chimp does not look at his friend and say, my back itches, can you get that flea for me?

On the other hand, humans do just the opposite. Human beings, unlike animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others' actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices. Animals do not and can not do that.

Then if you will do some work of Darwin's theology you will see that what you are proposing comes from his theory of evolution instead of the Bibles' creation.

#7............Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, it seems to me that you are getting your thinking on these things from web sites that are geared to evolution.
Maybe this is another place where I should have been more specific. Animals can not Worship God who is their Creator by corporate worship services.

Does a bird singing give glory to God YES. Not because the bird made a conscious choice to believe IN God but the fact is God created him. That however is NOIT Worship of his Creator.

Animals can not and do not worship their Creator. They can not because they do not posses the ability to have "analytical thinking"/reasoning and they do not know the difference between right and wrong so as to make a choice.

#8..............Agree. BUT, a ritual where a monkey sits and rubs or pick at his dead associate is not "Burying".

I just recently had a beautiful red bird make a nest in a bush about 10 feet from my back door patio. She and her mate worked all day for 2 days making it. Then she laid 3 little eggs. I sat every morning watching her sit on those eggs while having coffee. She was only 10 feet away and at eye level but she stayed right there. Her mate would fly around from limb to limb making sure I was not going to hurt his mate.

You see I made a choice not to harm that bird. It was a choice rooted in what is right and what is wrong.

One morning when I went out to check on the nest, the only thing left was a few red feathers on the ground and a cat sitting over in the corner of the yard. The male bird came up, looked at the nest, and flew off never to be seen again. No funeral, NO BURIAL, NO NOTHING. You see the cat did not make a choice. His "instinct" said, I am hungry and there is supper so he ate the bird.

That is the difference between humans and animals.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed completely. May I say to you that if I insulted you in our conversations or hurt you in any way, I apologize to you.

I can see that you are an animal lover as my wife and I are as well. We have had either cats or dogs in our home for the past 50 years.

Right now my wife has a 1 year old Yorkie.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

Fidelibus · Nov 22, 2017

Major1 said:
Deflection does not answer the question

Sorry my friend, but you not accepting or agreeing with my historical and factual answer cannot be deemed as deflection.

You know what my friend, probably at any other time your comments would be funny and cute but honestly I am to old and tired to keep baby sitting you.

Hmmm.... somebody recently told me..."Deflection does not answer the question."

"when two Protestants or non-denominational people disagree on a certain passage of scripture, what authority determines who is correct and who is not?

Soooooooo?

I have 12 grandchildren that visit us all the time so I am used to how you act and speak to others,but what you are doing and how you act is just not that cute to me.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I can discipline them for their obnoxious and rude behavior but that can not be done for you.

Again.... pot calling the kettle black?

I realize that you are trying to cover your inability at Bible theology with comedy and if I were in your position I might do the same thing. But I am not in your position.

Like I always said, (unlike an un-named poster) I've never claimed to be 100% learned in the Catholic faith. But praise be to God, I have the authority of the Catholic Church to get the answers I am unable to answer like I did in our recent posts. Again, something I couldn't do (something you still can't do as a non-denominalist) as a non-Catholic.

So, I am signing off from my conversations with you as it is just the same old silly stuff with no end in sight.

Sorry to hear that Maj... I so enjoyed and learnd from our discussions. But we'll see.

Blessings to you, happy thanksgiving and stay well.

And also to you. I will end this with a Catholic Thanksgiving prayer"

Father in Heaven, Creator of all and source of all goodness and love, please look kindly upon us and receive our heartfelt gratitude in this time of giving thanks. Thank you for all the graces and blessings. You have bestowed upon us, spiritual and temporal: our faith and religious heritage. Our food and shelter, our health, the loves we have for one another, our family and friends. Dear Father, in Your infinite generosity, please grant us continued graces and blessing throughout the coming year. This we ask in the Name of Jesus, Your Son and our Brother. Amen.

Peace be with you.

Fidelibus · Nov 22, 2017

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day

And a good day to you too BBAS64. And thank you for starting this thread. I know that I am coming into the discussion a bit late, but I have tried to read many posts to get caught up. Before I go any futher, and if you are not aware from my past posts, i am a former Protestant/ non-denominationlist that has converted to the Catholic Church. Since my conversion, I longer adhere to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' (the bible alone as a sole rule of faith) but have came to see the truth that in all actually, scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura at all, but it (the bible) teaches otherwise. So if I have missed something of importance, by all means, bring me up to date. Now in your last post to me reguarding a visible or invisible church you say:

Invisible or visible makes no difference to me... which ever you would like...

Ever since my conversion to the Catholic faith, I have learned Jesus did not promise new Scripture. He promised a Church. A Church that is very visible. In Dan.2:44 we read:

"In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever."

The Catholic understanding of this passage is as follows:

The kingdom in Daniel 2:44 has been classically identified with the stone of Daniel 2:34-35. More precisely, the "rock" of Matt 16:18 has been identified with that stone from Daniel. The stone -- the Messiah -- crushes this image of iron. Jesus sets up a new kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). The divided kingdom implies the division between the western and eastern empires when Imperial Rome was divided. We see that God will create a "kingdom". This means that there will be a head, which is the King, who is Jesus. This is striking since in Matthew 16, Jesus talks about building a Church, and then He gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter. This means that the Church IS the kingdom -- a kingdom that is visible (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50). A kingdom is known by its head. Jesus, being the invisible Head, then makes Peter the visible head of the kingdom so that men will know the kingdom.

As Catholics, we know and beleive that Jesus established a visible Church, we also know what kind of Church this will be. It is an authoritative Church. This Church has the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:21-23).

So he was talking about different things but you have no objective historical facts as to that assertion.

So as a sola scripturists, by what historical/authoritve facts can you show or prove on the contrary?

Then you say you know what is was not... ummm merely wishful thinking on your part to be sure , unless of course you have some thing that proves what it was, that best you can say is you do not know.

I disagree, the burdon of proof reguarding sola scriptura does not fall upon me, that falls on you. I do not see any where in 2 Tim.3:14-17 that St.Paul say's the bible alone is "sufficient" as a sole rule of faith.

The thread is on Sola Scriptura, care to stick to the topic... which is the authority of Scripture:

I'm good with that, but disagree with your assertion that scripture is the sole authority as a rule of faith, and confident I can prove otherwise through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Look forward to your responce Bill.

peace

thecolorsblend · Nov 26, 2017

War_Eagle said:
Those things aren't sola scriptura. Those would actually be what we call the "normative principle" and "regulative principle", respectively.

The Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura refers to the authority of scripture, while those things refer to orthopraxy.

Wow, yet another definition for sola scriptura. The list keeps on growing.

Sola scriptura might be a sellable idea if anybody who believes in it could agree on what it means.

Major1 · Nov 26, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
Wow, yet another definition for sola scriptura. The list keeps on growing.

Sola scriptura might be a sellable idea if anybody who believes in it could agree on what it means.

Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura as...........
"Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Christian Resourse Institute defines Sola Scriptura as.....
"By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says."

Then from the Web Site

Question: What is Sola Scriptura?

Answer: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.

The Bible is:

The rule (standard, guide) of faith - teaching us what we ought to believe and how to live for the glory of God.
The infallible rule - incapable of error, certain, not liable to mislead - because it is the Word of God.
The only infallible rule - it contains the whole counsel of God for His people. Christians value religious teachers, but they are fallible (liable to make mistakes). We also value tradition as long as it is consistent with the
Scriptures.

Psalms 119:160 says............
'The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever'.

It just does not seem to me that it is all that hard to understand, that is of course IF you want to understand it.

tulipbee · Nov 26, 2017

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

....ask away

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

the perfect amount of God's inspired word are found in the 66 book bible, the protestants bible. theomatics and ivan panin explains why. one letter more or one letter less makes all the mathematical formulas fail and not work. it also explains why the extra books in the 73 or 76 book bible are not breathed by God. this puts some denominations in very serous trouble. proofs that exposes lies means real trouble for some.

Fidelibus · Nov 26, 2017

Major1 said:
Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura as...........
"Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Really maj1..... Wikipedia? I still don't see any scripture proof that sola scriptura (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith.

Christian Resourse Institute defines Sola Scriptura as.....
"By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says."

Again.... here I don't see any scripture proof that sola scriptura (the bible alone) being sufficient as a sole rule of faith.

Then from the Web Site

Question: What is Sola Scriptura?

Answer: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.

The Bible is:

The rule (standard, guide) of faith - teaching us what we ought to believe and how to live for the glory of God.

The infallible rule - incapable of error, certain, not liable to mislead - because it is the Word of God.

The only infallible rule - it contains the whole counsel of God for His people. Christians value religious teachers, but they are fallible (liable to make mistakes). We also value tradition as long as it is consistent with the
Scriptures.
Psalms 119:160 says............
'The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever'.

It just does not seem to me that it is all that hard to understand, that is of course IF you want to understand it.[/quote]

Nice try Maj1, but for those that are not familiar with this web-site you quoted from, (justforcatholcs) do not be deceived by it's very 'pro-Catholic' sounding name, it is one if the most anti-Catholic web-sites on the web. Again, it does not cite one bible passage that say's the 'bible alone' is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. Maybe you can.

tulipbee · Nov 26, 2017

alone means without works and yet everyone wants works to earn salvation so we can't turn to the bible, alone to discover the romans in error

Sola Scriptura defined....

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

Worker of the Hive

Well-Known Member

Worker of the Hive

Similar threads