Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

Has anyone ever found where 1 of the 3 legs actually contradicts the other? What happens then?

They are not allowed to contradict each other.

 

[dollarsbill]

How can I be evasive if I answered your question?

Because you imply that parts of the Bible are not God's words. Am I wrong?

 

[Montalban]

Because you imply that parts of the Bible are not God's words. Am I wrong?

You've already asked me if I think the Bible is God's word. I said yes, and you called that evasive.

 

[dollarsbill]

You've already asked me if I think the Bible is God's word. I said yes, and you called that evasive.

It's just that it is quite common to say that PART of the Bible is the words of God. Just trying to get clarification.

 

[Montalban]

I don't know how many times I can answer

 

[SolomonVII]

Looks like the irresistable force has finally came into contact with the unmovable object.

 

[Standing Up]

They are not allowed to contradict each other.

I know you're serious. It's why words were redefined over the centuries, like presbyter/elder became priest. Eucharist from thanksgiving to sacrifice. Apostolic from "teach the same" to sacerdotal (which is why EO and RC believe they are apostolic and each other apostolic, yet teach contradiction to each other).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Has anyone ever found where 1 of the 3 legs actually contradicts the other? What happens then?


.

They are not allowed to contradict each other.

1. Not that it matters. AT ALL. The RC Denomination doesn't permit itself to be regarded as accountable or responsible; it powerfully insists that ALL others are completely, absolutely, totally, immediately accountable - but it makes ONE remarkable, specific, absolute, specific, particular exception - itself. It's just irrelevant if anything contradicts anything in the singular case of the RCC insists the RCC - it itself alone is exempt from the issue of truth since it itself alone has the POWER ('authority') to speak without accountability/responsibility - it claims that it is the equal of God in this regard for when it itself alone speaks, God is speaking insists it itself alone. As one of my Catholic teachers told me, "Josiah - would you hold God accountable for what He says? Then you have no reason to hold the Church as accountable."


2. OTHERS are accountable. And for OTHERS, there is a rule/canon/norma normans: itself. If others agree with itself - they are right. If they don't - they are wrong. Yes - for all OTHERS, there is the "three legged stool" namely: The Tradition of the RCC as chosen and defined and currently interpreted by the RCC so as to agree with the RCC, plus equally the Scripture in the heart of the RCC as currently interpreted by the RCC so as to agree with the RCC plus equally the Magisterium of the RCC as chosen by the RCC among members of the RCC pleadged upon death to uphold the current teachings of the RCC as long as they are agreeing with the RCC. These 3 things are ONE source, ONE rule/canon/norma normans. Of coursed, all (including Catholics) know this is just the RCC pointing to itself. "I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right - you are right too if you agree with ME."


Thus, the disagreement of the RC Denomination with Sola Scriptura. It's not that it rejects Scripture, it's just that it rejects accountability. To anything. In the exclusive, singular, particular, unique, sole case of it itself alone.



.

 

[Albion]

They are not allowed to contradict each other.

It sounds like what I was saying earlier about Tradition. It seems plausible in theory, but in reality, the Church just makes it work by deeming the conditions to have been met when, actually, they have not been.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Because it says so.

So does the Koran.

 

[Tzaousios]

Because it says so.

dollarsbill, you are not doing your cause any favors.

 

[Standing Up]

It sounds like what I was saying earlier about Tradition. It seems plausible in theory, but in reality, the Church just makes it work by deeming the conditions to have been met when, actually, they have not been.

Right. There are all sorts of contradicting Tradition from numerous early fathers. For example, some teach Mary was born sinless, others teach she was made sinless right before conception. Somewhere is the Truth (all have sinned; but, let's not let scripture get in the way of a good TTradition).

 

[dollarsbill]

So does the Koran.

Then the Koran is wrong.

 

[steve_bakr]

Right. There are all sorts of contradicting Tradition from numerous early fathers. For example, some teach Mary was born sinless, others teach she was made sinless right before conception. Somewhere is the Truth (all have sinned; but, let's not let scripture get in the way of a good TTradition).

The Catholic teaching is that, in order to carry God in her womb, Mary had to be a pure vessel. Someone stained by original sin could not have borne God in her womb, so that she was conceived without sin.

 

[SolomonVII]

Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OOdles of different traditions concerning this, all relatively late in the game, when compared to the apostolic period.

 

[Montalban]

So does the Koran.

But it's wrong, because it is!

 

[dollarsbill]

But it's wrong, because it is!

Does not the Koran disagree with the Bible?

 

[Montalban]

Does not the Koran disagree with the Bible?

If your posts could get beyond circular reasoning that would then make for an interesting discussion

 

[dollarsbill]

If your posts could get beyond circular reasoning that would then make for an interesting discussion

It was a very simple question.

 

[Montalban]

It was a very simple question.

As I say, if you can show how the bible came into being, other than relying on circular logic, then it would make for interesting discussion.