Sola Scriptura defined....

[Major1]

I know... I asked it.



I know, I asked it.



Hey, your free to your opinion... dosen't make it true.



Not at all my friend, I know the true answer, just seeing if you do, and if you do, are you willing to admit it?



Now that's nonsense!



okay????



I do no such thing Maj1! Never once have i refurred to you as a "None-denominationalist" I have always gone by your profile where you refure to yourself as a "Non-denominational", and I am absolutly, 100% sure you don't consider yourself as a Terrorist, and neither do I. To think otherwise is as you say.... Nonsense!!



This is exactly what I'm talking about Maj1..... How do you know this truth you speak of? Guess I should have worded it more specificly,,,,, like. What if two non--denominationalist, two Evangelicals, or two Fundamentalist's all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit not only disagree on interpretaion of certain Scripture passages, but issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, Euthanasia, Contraception, Baptismal Regeneration, Infant Baptism?

I am not talking about disobedient people who do not listen to their pastors or elders Maj1, , but I am talking about a defined doctrine. For example, if two people are debating on the two wills of Jesus Christ, who has the final authority to solve the problem? Where does the bible say one is to find this truth? Remember, you are the sola scripturists. The burden falls upon you to prove with the bible alone what you say is the truth.

As far as this list of reasons you posted goes:

Unbelief

Lack of training

Poor hermeneutics.

Ignorance of the whole Word of God.

Selfishness and pride.

Failure to mature.

Undue emphasis on tradition.

From what web-site did you copy and paste this from? Who come up with this list, and by who's or what authority are we to believe them to be true, absolute and without error?



Think so huh? I would be willing to wager Maj1 there are many Protestants, non--denominationalist (like yourself) Evangelicals, or Fundamentalist's that would not agree with those reasons. What would you say to them if they did? "if you don't believe in these reasons you do not possess the Holy Spirit and are not listening to the Holy Spirit.... and that includes your denomination!"




Are you sure about that? Again for example, why is it that Lutherans, Reformed Protestants, and other Evangelicals disagree on salvation? This issue is a doctrinal issue. They disagree on the nature of 'faith' and 'justification.' How do we know which is right? In Catholicism, the Church tells us which is the true interpretation. In Protestantism, it is subjectivism. In other words, with Catholicism, you can know the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.



I agree, to a point. In Catholicism there is unity. Whereas in the tens of thousands different Protestant/ non-denominational sects, there is no authority which leads to dis-unity.




Hey... I'll check it out. I would also recommend to you Saint Pope John Paul II’s
Theology of the Body.


Also Maj1, I noticed you didn't address my question;



I'd appreciate a responce if you don't mind?

You ask more questions than a dog has fleas on his butt.

I think you should use the internet and do a search to find out these questions because you do not accept any of my answers.

So then because you like to play GAMES and ask questions Here is one for you that you have not as of yet answered.......

Where in the Scriptures do we find the directions for the Rosary?

Here is another one you have not addressed..........
Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"?

Then what about..............
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary?

Now the answers are actually rooted in the process of Sola Scriptura which the thread is all about.

 

[Fidelibus]

We need to get something very clear my friend. I AM NOT at your beck and call to answer questions which YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW.

I don't expect you too Maj1. However, what I do know, is that your list is an incomplete list. You left out seven books that every Christian on earth had accepted for 1,500 years.

Again,,,, why the caps? (yelling)

By your asking me who these men were you are saying that YOU do not know how many men penned the words of the Bible and the books they wrote but then you place yourself in the position of trying to tell all of us what the Scriptures mean and do not mean.

Not so on both accounts Maj. By me asking you who these men were, was in no shape or form, myself implying uncertainty who did or who did not. That's your Crystal Ball way of thinking again. Now, I can appreciate the Chronology of Scripture you posted, even with it's incompleteness. However, I would question how your source (Guessing Protestant) of this list... “The Quest Study Bible” came upon this list. Surely you are not suggesting that their list was obtained from the short five hundred year history of Protestantism are you? Does this site have the original writings that came from the hand of Moses, Paul, or John? I think not! Even the Catholic Church with her two thousand plus years of history doesn't claim that, not one scrap or letter! How we do know is from history and tradition that these were the books they wrote, and only through the Catholic Church is how you too know.

What we have now is the printed Bible; but before the invention of printing in 1450, the Bible existed only in handwriting—what we call manuscript—and we have in our possession now copies of the Bible in manuscript that were made as early as the fourth century. These copies, which you can see with your own eyes today, contain the books that the Catholic Bible contains today. That is how we know we are right in receiving these books as Scripture, as genuinely the work of the apostles and evangelists. Can this source you provided make such a claim? No need to answer...... I think we both know the answer to that. Have you ever wondered why is it that we have not the originals written by John and Paul and the rest? There are several reasons to account for the disappearance of the originals. Care to know?

As for your second point, I would never put myself in a position of telling anyone what any certain passages means or does not mean..... for that would make me a Protestant. As Catholics we do rely on the Church to interpret the Bible when it comes to essential doctrine. For example, in the early Church around the year 325 A.D., there arose a dispute about the nature of Christ and the Trinity. A certain heretic named Arius claimed that Jesus was a created being and was not fully God and fully Man. The Church drawing on the understanding of Scripture which had been handed down from the Apostles orally by Tradition, gave us the word Trinity and defined it as Three Persons of one substance, in one God. Each being a Person of the Trinity, fully God by themselves, yet only one God; this being a mystery.

This is a definition that most Bible believers still hold to today, (yourself included?) yet their belief is only implicit. The word Trinity is not explicitly mentioned it the Bible. Further, history tells us that the Canon of Scripture was not arrived at until 382 A.D. Until then, there was some dispute over both the Old and the New Testament. In 382 A.D. the Catholic Church, in a general council of bishops at Rome, under the supervision and sanction of the Pope, discerned the list of books which belong in the Bible. Therefore, if the Church discerned which books are the Bible, as Catholics, we believe that the Church can rightly interpret the written Word of God.

This does not excuse any Catholic or non-Catholic Christian from studying and meditating on God's Holy Word. As David wrote in Psalm 119: "Thy Word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Catholics, as all other Christians, ought to seek God's will for their individual lives by reading the Bible. Christ does speak to us through the Bible; He: leads us, teaches us, and
strengthens our faith through His Word. As St. Paul wrote in Romans, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.(Rom. 10:17) Our Lord said that he would build a Church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:13-20) He told Peter feed my sheep. (Jn. 21:15-17) St. Paul wrote to Timothy and told him to appoint bishops and elders. Presbyters is where we get the word for our New Testament Priest. These priests would be responsible for feeding His sheep. He did not say go write a book and let every man figure it out for himself. There are tens of thousand different Protestant/ non-Denominational sects, each of whom is claiming that the Holy Spirit has lead them to teach this or that. Jesus says Himself, "He is The Way, The Truth, and The Light"
not "the way(s), the truth(s), and the light(s)."

(with the help of askacatholic.com)


Again Maj1....During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?

 

[Major1]

I don't expect you too Maj1. However, what I do know, is that your list is an incomplete list. You left out seven books that every Christian on earth had accepted for 1,500 years.

Again,,,, why the caps? (yelling)



Not so on both accounts Maj. By me asking you who these men were, was in no shape or form, myself implying uncertainty who did or who did not. That's your Crystal Ball way of thinking again. Now, I can appreciate the Chronology of Scripture you posted, even with it's incompleteness. However, I would question how your source (Guessing Protestant) of this list... “The Quest Study Bible” came upon this list. Surely you are not suggesting that their list was obtained from the short five hundred year history of Protestantism are you? Does this site have the original writings that came from the hand of Moses, Paul, or John? I think not! Even the Catholic Church with her two thousand plus years of history doesn't claim that, not one scrap or letter! How we do know is from history and tradition that these were the books they wrote, and only through the Catholic Church is how you too know.

What we have now is the printed Bible; but before the invention of printing in 1450, the Bible existed only in handwriting—what we call manuscript—and we have in our possession now copies of the Bible in manuscript that were made as early as the fourth century. These copies, which you can see with your own eyes today, contain the books that the Catholic Bible contains today. That is how we know we are right in receiving these books as Scripture, as genuinely the work of the apostles and evangelists. Can this source you provided make such a claim? No need to answer...... I think we both know the answer to that. Have you ever wondered why is it that we have not the originals written by John and Paul and the rest? There are several reasons to account for the disappearance of the originals. Care to know?

As for your second point, I would never put myself in a position of telling anyone what any certain passages means or does not mean..... for that would make me a Protestant. As Catholics we do rely on the Church to interpret the Bible when it comes to essential doctrine. For example, in the early Church around the year 325 A.D., there arose a dispute about the nature of Christ and the Trinity. A certain heretic named Arius claimed that Jesus was a created being and was not fully God and fully Man. The Church drawing on the understanding of Scripture which had been handed down from the Apostles orally by Tradition, gave us the word Trinity and defined it as Three Persons of one substance, in one God. Each being a Person of the Trinity, fully God by themselves, yet only one God; this being a mystery.

This is a definition that most Bible believers still hold to today, (yourself included?) yet their belief is only implicit. The word Trinity is not explicitly mentioned it the Bible. Further, history tells us that the Canon of Scripture was not arrived at until 382 A.D. Until then, there was some dispute over both the Old and the New Testament. In 382 A.D. the Catholic Church, in a general council of bishops at Rome, under the supervision and sanction of the Pope, discerned the list of books which belong in the Bible. Therefore, if the Church discerned which books are the Bible, as Catholics, we believe that the Church can rightly interpret the written Word of God.

This does not excuse any Catholic or non-Catholic Christian from studying and meditating on God's Holy Word. As David wrote in Psalm 119: "Thy Word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Catholics, as all other Christians, ought to seek God's will for their individual lives by reading the Bible. Christ does speak to us through the Bible; He: leads us, teaches us, and
strengthens our faith through His Word. As St. Paul wrote in Romans, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.(Rom. 10:17) Our Lord said that he would build a Church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:13-20) He told Peter feed my sheep. (Jn. 21:15-17) St. Paul wrote to Timothy and told him to appoint bishops and elders. Presbyters is where we get the word for our New Testament Priest. These priests would be responsible for feeding His sheep. He did not say go write a book and let every man figure it out for himself. There are tens of thousand different Protestant/ non-Denominational sects, each of whom is claiming that the Holy Spirit has lead them to teach this or that. Jesus says Himself, "He is The Way, The Truth, and The Light"
not "the way(s), the truth(s), and the light(s)."

(with the help of askacatholic.com)


Again Maj1....During Jesus' time there were two Old Testaments in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) Which one do you think Jesus used? And which one do you thinks he (Jesus) quotes 80% of the time?

You continue to play word games and ask questions that do not matter and are no essential. Everyone who has read your comments know exactly what YOU are trying to do my friend. Allow me to say again to you this simple fact............
None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists you are using are wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.

Since you like questions, here are some for you to answer.

Where are the Scriptures that support and direct YOU do use the Rosary?

Where are the Scriptures that support and direct YOU do call another man your "father"?

Where are the Scriptures that say the "POPE'?

Where are the Scriptures that support the Catholic teachings of a "NUN".

Where are the Scriptures that support the "perpetual virginity of Mary"?

Where are the Scriptures that support the "assumption of Mary".

 

[Fidelibus]

You ask more questions than a dog has fleas on his butt.

Lol!! I love it! Ha...ha!

I think you should use the internet and do a search to find out these questions because you do not accept any of my answers.

So then because you like to play GAMES and ask questions Here is one for you that you have not as of yet answered.......

No Way Maj1!!! You of all people did not just say that??

Where in the Scriptures do we find the directions for the Rosary?

Before this can happen, I'd need to know what you believe the basics of the Rosary are.

Here is another one you have not addressed..........
Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"?

Well, let's see:
Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” And in Luke 16:24; 30. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

Also, in his speech to the Sanhedrin, Stephen addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.

Acts 7:1-2 Then the high priest asked him, “Are these charges true?”2To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me!

Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul also addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.

Acts 22:1“Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

Do you think Jesus approved of this?

Again, St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians reminds them that they only have one father in Christ, himself. And he claims them as his spiritual children. (1 Corin. 4:14-15)

I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul continues this father/child relationship in the following epistles. He identifies himself as their spiritual father either directly as in I Thess. or indirectly by calling Timothy and Titus his “true son in faith”.

1 Thessalonians 2:11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children

Do you think Jesus approved of this?

Then what about..............
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary?

No!...... Here's why:

Luke 2:41-51 – in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 – we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 – it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 – the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 – Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 – Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 – James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 – James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Luke 1:36 – Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 – Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 – Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 – brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Now the answers are actually rooted in the process of Sola Scriptura which the thread is all about.

That is a false statement merely on the fact that nowhere in scripture is this "process of sola scripture" you speak of is found. However, you can be assured Maj1, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. However, the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

Now that I've answerd your questions Maj1, (even though you may not agree), I would hope you will return the courtesy. Right now I am off to play golf, but will provide you with some in the near future.

 

[Major1]

Lol!! I love it! Ha...ha!





No Way Maj1!!! You of all people did not just say that??



Before this can happen, I'd need to know what you believe the basics of the Rosary are.



Well, let's see:
Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” And in Luke 16:24; 30. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

Also, in his speech to the Sanhedrin, Stephen addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul also addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

Again, St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians reminds them that they only have one father in Christ, himself. And he claims them as his spiritual children. (1 Corin. 4:14-15)



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul continues this father/child relationship in the following epistles. He identifies himself as their spiritual father either directly as in I Thess. or indirectly by calling Timothy and Titus his “true son in faith”.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?



No!...... Here's why:

Luke 2:41-51 – in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 – we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 – it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 – the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 – Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 – Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 – James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 – James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Luke 1:36 – Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 – Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 – Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 – brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).




That is a false statement merely on the fact that nowhere in scripture is this "process of sola scripture" you speak of is found. However, you can be assured Maj1, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. However, the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

Now that I've answerd your questions Maj1, (even though you may not agree), I would hope you will return the courtesy. Right now I am off to play golf, but will provide you with some in the near future.

So by your twisted logic when Jesus said in Matthew 23:9............
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.".......

You are telling all of us that Jesus then broke His own commandment. It is sad to see someone of your ability stoop so low as to force such a meaning into what is not there.

This denunciation is equally relevant for today. In no way should any person look up to, follow, or elevate a human leader in any religious or church organization above Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Head of the Church, His body, and our one and only Master and Teacher. He alone is the author of our salvation, source of comfort in difficulties and strength to live the Christian life, and the only One to whom our prayers should be directed.

Roman Catholics call their priests “father” and the pope is called “the holy father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic. Catholic priests are doing precisely what Jesus said in the Scriptures condemns by allowing the term “father” in a spiritual sense be applied to them. In no sense is a priest or pastor a “spiritual father” to a Christian. Only God can cause a person to receive “spiritual birth”; therefore, only God is worthy of the title of “Father” in a spiritual sense.

So once again YOU have not answered the question at all.

 

[Sola1517]

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.

As long as sola gratia, sola fide, and sola christus are abided by as well. I mean, creeds that are based on Scripture are good to know too.

 

[Major1]

Lol!! I love it! Ha...ha!





No Way Maj1!!! You of all people did not just say that??



Before this can happen, I'd need to know what you believe the basics of the Rosary are.



Well, let's see:
Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” And in Luke 16:24; 30. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

Also, in his speech to the Sanhedrin, Stephen addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul also addresses the Jewish religious leaders as fathers.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

Again, St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians reminds them that they only have one father in Christ, himself. And he claims them as his spiritual children. (1 Corin. 4:14-15)



Do you think Jesus approved of this?

St. Paul continues this father/child relationship in the following epistles. He identifies himself as their spiritual father either directly as in I Thess. or indirectly by calling Timothy and Titus his “true son in faith”.



Do you think Jesus approved of this?



No!...... Here's why:

Luke 2:41-51 – in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 – we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 – it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 – the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 – Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 – Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 – James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 – James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Luke 1:36 – Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 – Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 – Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 – brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).




That is a false statement merely on the fact that nowhere in scripture is this "process of sola scripture" you speak of is found. However, you can be assured Maj1, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. However, the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

Now that I've answerd your questions Maj1, (even though you may not agree), I would hope you will return the courtesy. Right now I am off to play golf, but will provide you with some in the near future.

YOU still did not answer the question.......Where in the Scriptures can we find the WORD, ROSARY and the directions that you as a Catholic follow.

Stating that your answer depends on what I know about of the Rosary is absurd and is nothing but your refusal to answer the question. What I do or do not know about it makes no difference whatsoever.

Do YOU know where the Scriptures are at or not???????

Now then you asked me is Jesus had siblings...........YES He did.

However, with the ability you possess in that you can read the Scriptures and then change them to say what you want them to say, YOU will reject the Word of God in favor of some Catholic blogger sites.

I also am aware that for you to continue to accept the "Catholic" teaching of perpetual virginity of Mary, YOU have to reject the Word of God.

Matthew 12:46..........
"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. "

Mark 3:31 ..........
"And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. "

Luke 8:19..........
"And his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd."

Matt. 13:55..........
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Acts 1:14...............
"All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

Gal. 1:19..........
"But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."

Now most everyone here knows what you are going to post.
The standard Roman Catholic web site claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used.

Now if that does not work......and it will not, then the Catholic apologetics web sites will instruct YOU to say..........that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

You see, we ALL know about this story by the RCC.
The RCC made up an entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis.

The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem in Lk. 2:4-7, or their trip to Egypt ( in Matt. 2:13-15, or their trip back to Nazareth Matt. 2:20-23.

IF you choose to continue to believe the RCC in place of the Word of God, go right ahead as it is of NO surprise to me at all.

The facts are that there is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical:

Matt. 1:25..........
“But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus”.

Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Recommended Resource: Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll

 

[Fidelibus]

YOU still did not answer the question.......Where in the Scriptures can we find the WORD, ROSARY and the directions that you as a Catholic follow.

Is this another attempt of a "gotcha" moment Maj1? Sorry to disappoint you, but you know darn good and well that the word 'Rosary' is not in the bible, just as the words...Bible, Trinity, Incarnation, are not, but you believe in them don't you? So you see Maj1, The word Rosary may not be in the Bible just as the words Bible, Trinity, and Incarnation, but just as we can be sure these words are rooted in Scripture, so too is the Rosary.

Ah... Hum... unlike the words 'implied truth', altar call, sinners prayer, ect.

Stating that your answer depends on what I know about of the Rosary is absurd and is nothing but your refusal to answer the question.

It sure does, and your assessment of me refusing to answer anything is just plain false.

What I do or do not know about it makes no difference whatsoever.

Again, it sure does! Before I can give you a well-informed responce, I'd need to know if you think the Rosary is "all about Mary" and that the primary focus of the Rosary is on Mary, or if the focus is on Jesus?

Do YOU know where the Scriptures are at or not???????

Really Maj1? This does not even warrant a responce. Sheesh!

Besides.....Where does the Bible say everything we believe as Christians must be found in the Bible? Where does it say in the Bible that all we believe about God is contained in the Bible? Again, we both know the answer now don't we? (nowhere.) In fact, the Bible explicitly says 2 things in regard to this:

Iit states that it does NOT contain all that Jesus said and did: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book." --John 20:30. And that it is NOT the norm nor foundation by which Christians know the teachings of Christ; the Scriptures say the sure norm is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Tim: 3:15.

Go ahead and give me what you believe the basics are of the Rosary, so I could respond. Then the ball should be in my court as to ask questions of you. I could only hope you will show the same courtesy that I feel has been shown to you.

Now then you asked me is Jesus had siblings...........YES He did.

Ah..... I have already proved to you that He did not, and your very own founders of the Protestant Reformation agreed. Care to explain who and when this chainged in Protestant beliefs,,, by who's or what authority it was done by?

 

[Fidelibus]

You continue to play word games and ask questions that do not matter and are no essential. Everyone who has read your comments know exactly what YOU are trying to do my friend. Allow me to say again to you this simple fact............

Again, no word games..... just difficult questions you have no answer for.

(p.s. how do you know what "everyone" is thinking?)

None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists you are using are wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.

Believe so Huh? And also, by who's or what authority do you know these Catholic/Orthodox apologists are wrong?

Just for you:

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 – branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Rom. 4:17 – Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 – description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 – usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 – Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

To quote a few Maj1, Many more examples are available if you'd like.

You see Maj1, your refusal to accept the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them, fails miserably. Remember, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. So you see Maj1, by rejecting the whole 73 books of the Bible, you are following the Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[Major1]

Is this another attempt of a "gotcha" moment Maj1? Sorry to disappoint you, but you know darn good and well that the word 'Rosary' is not in the bible, just as the words...Bible, Trinity, Incarnation, are not, but you believe in them don't you? So you see Maj1, The word Rosary may not be in the Bible just as the words Bible, Trinity, and Incarnation, but just as we can be sure these words are rooted in Scripture, so too is the Rosary.

Ah... Hum... unlike the words 'implied truth', altar call, sinners prayer, ect.



It sure does, and your assessment of me refusing to answer anything is just plain false.




Again, it sure does! Before I can give you a well-informed responce, I'd need to know if you think the Rosary is "all about Mary" and that the primary focus of the Rosary is on Mary, or if the focus is on Jesus?



Really Maj1? This does not even warrant a responce. Sheesh!

Besides.....Where does the Bible say everything we believe as Christians must be found in the Bible? Where does it say in the Bible that all we believe about God is contained in the Bible? Again, we both know the answer now don't we? (nowhere.) In fact, the Bible explicitly says 2 things in regard to this:

Iit states that it does NOT contain all that Jesus said and did: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book." --John 20:30. And that it is NOT the norm nor foundation by which Christians know the teachings of Christ; the Scriptures say the sure norm is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Tim: 3:15.

Go ahead and give me what you believe the basics are of the Rosary, so I could respond. Then the ball should be in my court as to ask questions of you. I could only hope you will show the same courtesy that I feel has been shown to you.



Ah..... I have already proved to you that He did not, and your very own founders of the Protestant Reformation agreed. Care to explain who and when this chainged in Protestant beliefs,,, by who's or what authority it was done by?

Are you trying to say that the word "Rosary" is not in the Bible just like YOU questioned the words
"FAITH ALONE" are not in the Bible?????

Again.......3rd time, what I think and know about the Rosary is NOT the point or the focus my friend.

I am not going to give you anything at all as it is YOU as a believer must support YOUR theology. All I am saying to you personally is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

YOU personally made big deal of the "words, faith alone" and as of this day you refuse to accept the Bible verses given to you in their support but now you want me to give the reason why the Rosary is above the same reason you posted. NOPE!

as you can see the same thing applies to the ROSARY.

You have not and will not be able to produce any Bible Scriptures and YOU know that as well as I do.

The ONLY reason YOU accept the RCC directions on the Rosary is from the very same reason you rejected "Faith Alone".......Implied truth. You choose to call it "Tradition" but it is not at all.

Implied Truth is something rooted in the Scriptures and RCC Tradition is rooted in the hearts of sinners.....men.

Would you now like to move on to another question?

How about the RCC teaching that Mary did not have sex and children after the birth of Jesus.........
or as the RCC likes to call it, "Perpetual Virginity of Mary".

 

[Major1]

Again, no word games..... just difficult questions you have no answer for.

(p.s. how do you know what "everyone" is thinking?)



Believe so Huh? And also, by who's or what authority do you know these Catholic/Orthodox apologists are wrong?

Just for you:

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 – branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Rom. 4:17 – Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 – description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 – usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 – Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

To quote a few Maj1, Many more examples are available if you'd like.

You see Maj1, your refusal to accept the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them, fails miserably. Remember, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. So you see Maj1, by rejecting the whole 73 books of the Bible, you are following the Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

I do not know where you got your information but I would like to read the website you used for that information. Would you please post the link???

From what I have learned over the years is that Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.

The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.

It is not significant that these books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books.

Since other books within the same collection were quoted, this shows them too to be inspired.

The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC.

What I posted for you is just not something that I pulled out of my imagination. PLEASE do yourself the favor of considering something other than Catholic blog sites.

"What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted."
Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

"Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings."
The Apocrypha

 

[Fidelibus]

Are you trying to say that the word "Rosary" is not in the Bible just like YOU questioned the words
"FAITH ALONE" are not in the Bible?????

Again.......3rd time, what I think and know about the Rosary is NOT the point or the focus my friend.

I am not going to give you anything at all as it is YOU as a believer must support YOUR theology. All I am saying to you personally is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander..

I will and can support it, as soon as you tell me if you think the main focus of the Rosary is on Jesus or on Mary. Why do you find that so difficult?

Now as for me questioning where the words "Faith Alone" are in the Bible, never once did I say they were not. if you remember back on post #355 I stated just the opposite.

Lets take a look at one of the passage you posted, Rom.3:28-30. Were you aware that since the notion that works do not contribute to salvation in any way does in fact flatly contradict Scripture, Martin Luther had to actually change Scripture to support it, adding the word “alone” after “faith” in Rom. 3:28? Did you also know historicly, that the reference to "faith" in Rom. 3:28 had never before been translated as "faith alone" before Luther - no one had ever contended that that was an accurate translation of the Greek. And that's why your very own mainstream Protestant translations such as the King James and NIV do not include "alone" in the verse. Were you aware of this part of Christian history?

You and others may ask why is this relevant? Well, it's relevant because 'faith alone' is a new and novel belief of the majority of non-Catholics today. However, history shows not until Luther, was it ever taught or believed. As for James 2:24, you are indeed correct, the only place the phrase "faith alone" actually appears in Scripture is James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Although I don't fully agree with your understanding of being in 'full context.'

The Catholic belief for one to actually get the full context of James 2:24, verses 14-23 must be included.

As you can see Maj1, I never once questioned the words 'Faith Alone' never being in the bible, as I quoted James 2:24.... "Man is justified by works and not faith alone." Unlike what your non-denominational sect teaches that man is justified or saved by “faith alone.” That's what I was asking..... Where in Scripture does the expression say that man is justified or saved by “faith alone?”

YOU personally made big deal of the "words, faith alone" and as of this day you refuse to accept the Bible verses given to you in their support but now you want me to give the reason why the Rosary is above the same reason you posted. NOPE!

As I already told you...." the word 'Rosary' is not in the bible, just as the words...Bible, Trinity, Incarnation, are not, but you believe in them don't you? So you see Maj1, The word Rosary may not be in the Bible just as the words Bible, Trinity, and Incarnation, but just as we can be sure these words are rooted in Scripture, so too is the Rosary."

as you can see the same thing applies to the ROSARY.

Read above quote.

You have not and will not be able to produce any Bible Scriptures and YOU know that as well as I do.

Are you absoluty sure about that? Just let me know if you beleive the focus of the Rosary is on Jesus or Mary and I will show you how the Rosary is rooted in Scripture.

The ONLY reason YOU accept the RCC directions on the Rosary is from the very same reason you rejected "Faith Alone".......Implied truth. You choose to call it "Tradition" but it is not at all.

Lol!! How many times must I remind you Maj1, as a convert to The Catholic Church, I no longer adhere to the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. So again, in case you missed it above... "Where in Scripture does the expression say that man is justified or saved by “faith alone?”

Implied Truth is something rooted in the Scriptures and RCC Tradition is rooted in the hearts of sinners.....men.

Ohhhhh..... now I see, you are now saying that something like 'implied truth' that is not within the pages of the bible, but as long as it's rooted in Scripture it can be accepted. Hmmmmm.... what ever happened to....... "If it aint in the Bible, it is to be rejected" How many other Protestant Churches or non-denominational sects do you think agree with this........... tradition?

Would you now like to move on to another question?

Sure...... mine! in a new post.

 

[Fidelibus]

Would you now like to move on to another question?

Okay Maj1, as promised I'm back, and yes I do want to move on to another question/questions...... Mine! I beleive your multiple questions have been answered (still waiting for your responce on the Rosary) and think my turn to ask questions is long overdue. When answering these questions, I would hope you will answer them following your doctrine of the bible alone. As you said to me

as it is YOU as a believer must support YOUR theology.

I would hope you will give me the same courtesy, and as as a believer of the doctrine the bible alone, you will support YOUR theology and answer my questions using the "Bible Alone." I have asked you these questions throughout this thread, but they have gone unanswered. They are not 'gotcha' questions, but questions I would hope an adherent of Sola Scriptura like yourself could prove to us that are not, you could/should answer them using your bible alone, since this thread is in the Bible Alone.


Where in the Bible does it say that "Scripture Alone" (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith is taught?

Did Jesus and the Apostles ever teach Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) is all one needs a a sole rule of faith? If so, Chapter, verse please.

Where in the Bible is the phrase.." we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior"?

Where is the Bible is the phrase the "Altar Call"?

Where in the bible is the phrase the 'Sinners Prayer'?

Where is the phrase "implied truth" or anything like it occur in the Bible?


After you answer these, and any rebuttles, we can move on to what you said here:

How about the RCC teaching that Mary did not have sex and children after the birth of Jesus.........
or as the RCC likes to call it, "Perpetual Virginity of Mary"[/qiote]

When we do, could you put it in the form of a question please?

Thank you

 

[Fidelibus]

So by your twisted logic when Jesus said in Matthew 23:9............
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.".......

You are telling all of us that Jesus then broke His own commandment.

Sorry, I must have missed that part Maj, and I think you did as well. Nowhere did I say Jesus broke His own commandment, that is coming from your "twisted logic"..... not mine. As far as Matt.23:9 goes, it is not just the Catholic Church that gives the title 'Father' to it's Priests.. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Church (Protestant) do as well. What I do find ironic Maj1 is that you seem to ignore this verse: "Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ (Matt. 23:10). And this verse.... "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15)

Now what I did prove to you through Scripture itself Maj1, (which you seemed to ignore) is that Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” And in Luke 16:24; 30. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ That my friend, is not telling you or anyone else that Jesus broke His own commandment!

Or what about this advice to the Philippians Maj1 ? "But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel." (Phil 2:22). What about this from Romans 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." Paul is referring to Abraham as the "father of all who believe."

As you can see my friend, quoting these bible passages is not telling you or anyone else that Jesus broke His own commandment! Frankly Maj1, I don't know where you came up with that crazy idea.

So as Scripture clearli points out..Matthew 23:9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper use of the word "father," it has to do with the proper attitude of Christians toward their brothers, and toward God. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for Catholics, and others, to give the title "father" to their ministers. In doing so they are not being disobedient to Jesus, rather they are following the apostolic example established by Paul and John.

It is sad to see someone of your ability stoop so low as to force such a meaning into what is not there.

Major... Major... Major. You got it all wrongmy friend. What's really sad for you is..... that a Catholic... using Scripture alone, just refuted you..... a sola scripturists..... as I just did above! Oops.......

 

[Major1]

Sorry, I must have missed that part Maj, and I think you did as well. Nowhere did I say Jesus broke His own commandment, that is coming from your "twisted logic"..... not mine. As far as Matt.23:9 goes, it is not just the Catholic Church that gives the title 'Father' to it's Priests.. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Church (Protestant) do as well. What I do find ironic Maj1 is that you seem to ignore this verse: "Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ (Matt. 23:10). And this verse.... "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15)

Now what I did prove to you through Scripture itself Maj1, (which you seemed to ignore) is that Jesus Himself referred to FATHER Abraham in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” And in Luke 16:24; 30. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire….’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ That my friend, is not telling you or anyone else that Jesus broke His own commandment!

Or what about this advice to the Philippians Maj1 ? "But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel." (Phil 2:22). What about this from Romans 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." Paul is referring to Abraham as the "father of all who believe."

As you can see my friend, quoting these bible passages is not telling you or anyone else that Jesus broke His own commandment! Frankly Maj1, I don't know where you came up with that crazy idea.

So as Scripture clearli points out..Matthew 23:9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper use of the word "father," it has to do with the proper attitude of Christians toward their brothers, and toward God. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for Catholics, and others, to give the title "father" to their ministers. In doing so they are not being disobedient to Jesus, rather they are following the apostolic example established by Paul and John.




Major... Major... Major. You got it all wrongmy friend. What's really sad for you is..... that a Catholic... using Scripture alone, just refuted you..... a sola scripturists..... as I just did above! Oops.......

When I use the word "TWISTED" allow me to show you exactly what I mean. I did not want to do this as it shows clearly your intention of distorting the Scriptures for YOUR personal gain and I did not want to embarss you any more than has already been done, but...........

You used John 8:56.........
"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Somehow you are trying to say that Jesus approved of the use of calling men "Father" based on that verse.

But anyone reading that verse sees that Jesus IS NOT approving or condoning the use of FATHER.
He is saying what the children of Israel called THEIR patriarch who was in fact a "father" to them.
That is a statement of fact and IS NOT a command or approval of what He will say several thousand years later in the New Test.

What Christ here asserts concerning Abraham alone, applies to all the saints. But this doctrine has greater weight in the person of Abraham, because he is the father of the whole Church. Whoever then desires to be reckoned in the number of the godly, let him rejoice, as he ought to do, in the presence of Christ, for which Abraham ardently longed.

Then you use another Catholic persons blog to say --- Or what about this advice to the Philippians Maj1 ?
"But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel."

Do YOU really believe that the verse here means Jesus or even Paul broke the command of Jesus to call not man your "FATHER" except God your heavenly Father????

I do not know of anyone who is still able to go to the bathroom by themselves see Paul telling Timothy to anything other that a reference to his own earthly father. This is what I mean by TWISTING..........

"But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father."

All acceptable Commentaries say.....
"The Philippians had full proof of the affectionate attachment of Timothy to Paul, for he had labored with him there, as we learn from Acts 16:1-3; Acts 17:14; and we find from what is said here that Timothy was not a servant to the apostle, but that he had served with him. They both labored together in the word and doctrine; for apostles and Christian bishops, in those times, labored as hard as their deacons. There were no sinecures; every one was a laborer, every laborer had his work, and every workman had his wages."

PLEASE, do your self a favor and stop using the information you are getting from Catholic blogger sites because they are embarrassing you and that is why I did not want to pursue this with you.

The bottom line here is that you did not prove one single thing by the Scriptures my dear friend......NOT ONE. The question remains!

All you have done is embarrass yourself by posting the works of Catholic Blogger sites when you could have used the same time to consider the actual words of the Bible itself.

Now the answer to the question is really simple and it is sad that I as a Protestant know it and you as a Catholic DO NOT or you are just ashamed to admit it.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:9.......
“Call no one on earth your father, you have but one Father in heaven”.

Jesus seems to be suggesting that titles are a way of claiming rank over and above others and therefore were not proper for a disciple who sought to be a servant to all.

With the passage of time, however, and AGAINST THE CLEAR DIRECTIONS OF JESUS CHRST, the title “Father” crept into Christian etiquette as a way of describing the relationship of a priest or monk with those to whom he ministered. The custom arose among the followers of the monastic orders of St. Benedict to address the leader of a monastery as “abbot” and the leader of a convent as “abbess.” This word was a variation of the Aramaic word for father, “abba.”

Bishops also began claiming the title “Father” to describe the nature of their teaching authority over a local church. In the Middle Ages, as the practice of making a private confession to a priest grew, priests who served as confessors were called “Father.” So were mendicant friars like the Franciscans and Dominicans.
When did the use of "Father" become a practice in the Catholic Church for ordained priests? | Busted Halo

Want to move on to another question that YOU can not answer or do you want to stay with this one ?????

Lets do......"Where in the Scriptures can we find the WORDS,
"The Perpetual Virginity of MARY"???????

 

[Major1]

Okay Maj1, as promised I'm back, and yes I do want to move on to another question/questions...... Mine! I beleive your multiple questions have been answered (still waiting for your responce on the Rosary) and think my turn to ask questions is long overdue. When answering these questions, I would hope you will answer them following your doctrine of the bible alone. As you said to me




I would hope you will give me the same courtesy, and as as a believer of the doctrine the bible alone, you will support YOUR theology and answer my questions using the "Bible Alone." I have asked you these questions throughout this thread, but they have gone unanswered. They are not 'gotcha' questions, but questions I would hope an adherent of Sola Scriptura like yourself could prove to us that are not, you could/should answer them using your bible alone, since this thread is in the Bible Alone.


Where in the Bible does it say that "Scripture Alone" (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith is taught?

Did Jesus and the Apostles ever teach Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) is all one needs a a sole rule of faith? If so, Chapter, verse please.

Where in the Bible is the phrase.." we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior"?

Where is the Bible is the phrase the "Altar Call"?

Where in the bible is the phrase the 'Sinners Prayer'?

Where is the phrase "implied truth" or anything like it occur in the Bible?


After you answer these, and any rebuttles, we can move on to what you said here:

NOPE!

We have already addressed every single one of those issues at one time or another. Everyone see right through what you are doing and The ONLY reason you bring them up again is that you are being shown how wrong your understanding of the Bible is and you want to shift the discussion from what you believe to what I believe.

I think that it is more enlightening for everyone reading this stuff to see you address the questions you know more about as you are a Catholic and I am asking you Catholic questions and it would be easier for YOU to answer from what you know instead of trying to find out what I do or do not know.

Again, you have NOT addressed the FATHER question correctly. YOU have twisted some Scriptures from some Catholic blog sites but not a one addressed the original question.

But I came to your rescue and actually did answer the question for you in comment #415.

Now I think a lot of people would like to see how you answer the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary in light of the Scriptures, and would like to see those actual words which I am sure you will produce from the Bible.

So I await eagerly your response.

 

[Fidelibus]

PLEASE, do your self a favor and stop using the information you are getting from Catholic blogger sites because they are embarrassing you and that is why I did not want to pursue this with you.

Lol!! Nothing embarrassing about getting help from another Catholic Maj...... It's called unity. Something your non-denominational sects know nothing about. And that my friend..... you should be embarrassed about.

You used John 8:56.........
"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Somehow you are trying to say that Jesus approved of the use of calling men "Father" based on that verse.

But anyone reading that verse sees that Jesus IS NOT approving or condoning the use of FATHER.
He is saying what the children of Israel called THEIR patriarch who was in fact a "father" to them.
That is a statement of fact and IS NOT a command or approval of what He will say several thousand years later in the New Test.

Say's who....... You? I think not! I'd rather go by the teachings of the (as do 1.2 Billion other Catholics) Church that compiled the bible you and I have, than as to believe the self admitted fallible man such as yourself thats less than 100 years old. (don't know your exact age)


Think I know what's going on here Maj1, is that you are upset about getting out-bibled by a bunch of Catholics! But you shouldn't be, since Christian history is not on your side.


Like I told you once before my friend....you can be assured, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. However, the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Fidelibus]

NOPE!

We have already addressed every single one of those issues at one time or another. Everyone see right through what you are doing and The ONLY reason you bring them up again is that you are being shown how wrong your understanding of the Bible is and you want to shift the discussion from what you believe to what I believe.

Sorry Maj1, that's not the way it works, Now is my time to ask some Sola Scriptura questions of you, since this thread is about Sola Scriptura. Now I have gone back through this thread and could not find where you answerd these questions:

Where in the Bible does it say that "Scripture Alone" (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith is taught?

Did Jesus and the Apostles ever teach Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) is all one needs a a sole rule of faith? If so, Chapter, verse please.

Where in the Bible is the phrase.." we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior"?

Where is the Bible is the phrase the "Altar Call"?

Where in the bible is the phrase the 'Sinners Prayer'?

Where is the phrase "implied truth" or anything like it occur in the Bible?

useing the bible alone as your source... the book, chapter and verse where these Protestant/non-denominational practices are found.

I know in the past, I too have been guilty of straying off topic, but if you want to discuss The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or anything else Catholic, I suggest starting a new thread on those subjects, and I would be more than happy to do so. So, out of courtesy to the original O.P. lets try and stay on the topic of Sola Scriptura as is the questions I've asked of you here.

I await eagerly your response.

 

[Major1]

Lol!! Nothing embarrassing about getting help from another Catholic Maj...... It's called unity. Something your non-denominational sects know nothing about. And that my friend..... you should be embarrassed about.




Say's who....... You? I think not! I'd rather go by the teachings of the (as do 1.2 Billion other Catholics) Church that compiled the bible you and I have, than as to believe the self admitted fallible man such as yourself thats less than 100 years old. (don't know your exact age)


Think I know what's going on here Maj1, is that you are upset about getting out-bibled by a bunch of Catholics! But you shouldn't be, since Christian history is not on your side.


Like I told you once before my friend....you can be assured, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. However, the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

Not so my friend. YOU have in fact "out Babbled" me, that is for sure, but in no way that anyone else can see have you out "BIBLED" any one.

I am embarrassed for you that YOU take the words of Catholic bloggers over the Word of God and when show that, have no remorse at all.

To say that
"....you can be assured, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture." shows exactly how much Bible you actually do not know.

Yes, it is clear what is going on my friend. I am posing questions to you that YOU need to answer from the Bible since YOU are the one who follows these directions and doctrines from the RCC.
However, YOU are unable to answer any of them BUT instead you admittedly post the thoughts and opinions that come from CATHOLIC BLOG SITES.

THAT is exactly what is going on and worse yet, everyone reading our back and forth debate knows that as well.

That is why you did not and can not answer why YOU call your priest "FATHER" and I as a Protestant had to answer the question that YOU should have known.

Personally, I think that you knew the answer but were ashamed to post it as it was not found in the Bible which completely destroys your words of...............
"....you can be assured, nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture."

Now, again for the 4th time, since you said.......................
"nothing that the Catholic Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture"..........
please go ahead NOW and show us in the Bible the words that validate the RCC doctrine of the
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY.

 

[Major1]

Sorry Maj1, that's not the way it works, Now is my time to ask some Sola Scriptura questions of you, since this thread is about Sola Scriptura. Now I have gone back through this thread and could not find where you answerd these questions:



useing the bible alone as your source... the book, chapter and verse where these Protestant/non-denominational practices are found.

I know in the past, I too have been guilty of straying off topic, but if you want to discuss The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or anything else Catholic, I suggest starting a new thread on those subjects, and I would be more than happy to do so. So, out of courtesy to the original O.P. lets try and stay on the topic of Sola Scriptura as is the questions I've asked of you here.

I await eagerly your response.

lol!!!

Hows this for an eager response!

YOU wanted me to post, in fact YOU demanded that I post the words........
"FAITH ALONE" and "Implied Truth" and Rapture and Trinity, now all of a sudden when the heat is turned up on you..........YOU say that I need to start another thread to discuss the things which YOU can not answer from the same Bible.

YOU did not have in problems in the past asking me those questions on this very same thread, but NOW YOU do.

No friend, I will not do that. IF this thread was good enough for YOU to come after me with your questions which I did answer whether you could find them or not, It is still good enough for YOU to respond to my questions.

It is still about "Sola Scriptura" my friend........
YOU said "Nothing that the Catholic church believes contradictes one single Bible verse".

YOU then carry the burden of truth to prove that statement. So then DO IT!!!!

Post the Bible verse that validate "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary".

I do have some more real life questions so the sooner you answer this one we can continue. Now remember, YOU made the statement that the Catholic church believes nothing that is not in the Scriptures. NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE!

All I am asking you to do is prove it.