Sola scriptura

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, but the saint whom they represent in heaven does, and if God is performing a miracle through that saint, it's perfectly reasonable for it to manifest through their icon.

Totally opposed to Scripture. Sorry - multitudes have been duped.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Totally opposed to Scripture. Sorry - multitudes have been duped.

Could you explain how that is opposed to Scripture?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Then why do you keep saying Holy Tradition (Christ's teachings) opposes Scripture?

Because you keep saying in error that so-called holy traditions are Christ's teachings.
That is totally contrary to Scripture. The source and the perpetrators of those errors you appear from your posts to trust are condemned in Scripture by Christ, not at all acceptable to Him.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Because you keep saying in error that so-called holy traditions are Christ's teachings.
That is totally contrary to Scripture. The source and the perpetrators of those errors you appear from your posts to trust are condemned in Scripture by Christ, not at all acceptable to Him.

You must believe they are too, since you know Christ didn't write down his teachings, he passed them by tradition, the tradition he passed down is called Holy Tradition. The only point of contention here is whether or not Holy Scripture is an exhaustive record of Holy Tradition.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Could you explain how that is opposed to Scripture?

Was Jesus able to explain it to the religious leaders ?
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Jesus-Rebukes-Pharisees-Scribes

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Was Jesus able to explain it to the religious leaders ?
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Jesus-Rebukes-Pharisees-Scribes

The Pharisees were pro-iconography?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You must believe they are too, since you know Christ didn't write down his teachings, he passed them by tradition, the tradition he passed down is called Holy Tradition. The only point of contention here is whether or not Holy Scripture is an exhaustive record of Holy Tradition.

Not at all. You were told that, or for some reason believe it.

Jesus never said the Scripture was passed by tradition.
He rebuked those who opposed Scripture and who taught traditions in error.
So-called 'holy tradition' is contrary to Scripture, so Jesus rebukes it also.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Pharisees were pro-iconography?

Jesus pronounced WOES on the pharisees - Yhwh's Judgment,
because they rejected Him and
promoted "holy traditions" over Yhwh's Word.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Not at all. You were told that, or for some reason believe it.

Jesus never said the Scripture was passed by tradition.
He rebuked those who opposed Scripture and taught traditions in error.
So-called 'holy tradition' is contrary to Scripture, so Jesus rebukes it also.

Jesus certainly passed his teachings through tradition, he didn't write them down. The only question is whether or not the New Testament is intended to be an exhaustive catalogue of all the oral teachings he passed on.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus certainly passed his teachings through tradition, he didn't write them down.

If you believe this, then no one I know of in this world or the next can help.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Jesus pronounced WOES on the pharisees - Yhwh's Judgment,
because they rejected Him and
promoted "holy traditions" over Yhwh's Word.

According to Mark 7:19 (especially in the text used for modern translations), this was about Christ completely changing the rules and saying dietary issues were done altogether.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If you believe this, then no one I know of in this world or the next can help.

Which books of the New Testament did Christ write?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Imagery of angels was used in the First Temple and even on top of the Ark of the Covenant.

Under God's specific instructions. Doing so without His instruction would be creating idol images.

Also, while the brass serpent was specifically created under the instruction of God, it later wrongfully was used as an idol. This is the danger of keeping idols around when they no longer serve a purpose. All the imagery under the instruction of God was to be temporary.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Which books of the New Testament did Christ write?

The ultimate author of Scripture is God.

Jesus is God.

So if want to be technical here, He was the author of all Scripture.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

SO what are God's words and how do you know they are God's words?

God's Word is not a book, dude. God's Word is the Son of God Himself. There is no substitute.

As to the Scripture, unless you have God saying that the canon made by Christ-hating Jews of the 6th century is better than the one made by those looking forward to Christ and used by those who died in the name of Christ, I'll stick with the men who died for Christ in the first 5 centuries over the Jews which hated Him.

So again, what makes your canon better than mine? I didn't load the question. You did. You have no authority in your scriptures because you can't even say for certain why they are Scripture.

You would not know about Jesus and His gospel, and teachings if it was not for His Word. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Oh and I do have a certainty and an authority in God's Word. The Jesus as described in Scripture has transformed my life. Also, the evidences that back up God's Word clearly show it is a divine book.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-list-of-biblical-evidences.7833944/


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, when a story or teaching is passed down by auditory means, things are forgotten or retold in a different way. God's Word was provided by God so as to prevent men from changing His Word in what He wants us to believe and do. We can even test God's Word to see that it is a divine book unlike any other book in human history.

But this is not the case with tradition.

...

 

[Albion]

You just admitted that Scripture can't cover all of his teachings, but you said that it doesn't matter, so long as it is sufficient. I'm asking you, what is the bear-bones teachings of Christ that would be sufficient?

Look, the Bible itself makes those statements. So for you to continue to push this point amounts to denying the Bible, not just saying that it's inadequate.

And no, it's not a book that teaches you how to raise dairy cattle or build furniture (although Christ may well have known a thing or two about that).

You can say that there is "truth" -- or just information -- that isn't included. But the Holy Scriptures exist in order to teach us what God deemed necessary for the purpose. Why then are you so concerned to add to it?

 

[Albion]

You must believe they are too, since you know Christ didn't write down his teachings, he passed them by tradition, the tradition he passed down is called Holy Tradition.

No, it isn't. What he passed on is called the Bible. What some churches think, for no verifiable reason, that he might have passed on or that God inspired some mortal to think about years after Christ, is called "Tradition" and considered the equal of Scripture.

Some of it is harmless fantasy and some of it contradicts God's word, but none of it has the standing to be made an alternative to Holy Scipture and imposed upon the people, yet that is what is done.

This is also why Sola Scriptura became the watchword of Reform after so many superstitions and theories had been added to the faith like the junk that at first slows your computer but finally causes it to stop working altogether. The appeal we associate with the term Sola Scriptura is for the church go back to what the Apostles actually taught and which has been made available to all men of all times in the Holy Bible.

A lot of Catholics here on CF (RCC or EO) like to rely upon an argument that runs something like this: "WE created the canon of Scripture, so if you believe in the Bible, you ought to be Orthodox/Catholic"--and then they proceed to argue for a system that produced a pile of doctrines that we know for a fact half of the opponents of Sola Scripture who have been posting here do not accept themselves!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Therefore, since the Church is the definer of the Scriptures, the Church is of a high enough authority to be the final grounds to which we look for the meaning thereof.

Learn the truth. The church did not author scripture. The church is not the authority behind the words of scripture. The Bible is known as God's word, not the church's word. All the church did was to through away trash and say it was not to be included as God's word. From this you claim a continued authority above God's word.

Let me point out how absurd your logic is. I read Jesus' words as recorded by the apostles. I then declare them to be true. Therefore I am now a higher authority. You would think me a fool for making such a claim. I think the same for your proof to having higher authority than God's word.

 

[Albion]

Learn the truth. The church did not author scripture.

Then we are all in agreement on that particular point.

Let me point out how absurd your logic is. I read Jesus' words as recorded by the apostles. I then declare them to be true. Therefore I am now a higher authority. You would think me a fool for making such a claim. I think the same for your proof to having higher authority than God's word.

I have no idea where you got that notion from. Maybe you didn't read through the existing posts before writing your own or are confusing me with some other poster??