The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Swag365]

Clearly you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters.

You hold that the Bible contains 66 books. The Catholic Church holds that the Bible contains 73 books. What is the "supreme authority" for your belief that the Bible contains 66 books, and not 73 books? Since you assert that Scripture is sufficient as the supreme authority in all spiritual matters, and which books are the inspired word of God comprising the Bible is a spiritual matter, please show me exactly where Scripture teaches that the Bible consists of 66 books, and not 73 books.

You can give me the chapter and verse that proves what you believe, or Sola Scriptura is refuted.

 

[FredVB]

Where does it say that Jesus didn't eat meat (the flesh of killed animals). He said that it is permissible to everything.

Mark 7:14-19, "Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)

And while they still could not believe it (because of their joy) and were amazed, he said to them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he (Jesus) took it and ate it in front of them. Luke 24:41-43

"When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord." John 21:9-12

So Jesus ate fish and cooked some for His disciples. He was not and they were not vegetarians.

It would be an embarrassment to misuse scripture with such poor exegesis, I am sorry for where I see it. Contexts matter. Original texts also matter, where nothing originally there is deleted.

I don't see believers sacrificing animals, from that. And the misuse of scriptures about a heretical cult to apply to those not eating meat or products from animals is really an embarrassment. Really one should know better.

It is a long stretch to speak from what requirements there were for the priests who were descended from Aaron to apply any more generally.

This thread topic is regarding faith and practice beyond just scriptures alone, which I was initially responding to. I don't want it closed because any are going off-topic. I would not have been, but when response to my posts are for showing something I said was wrong, if I have information to show for it I then should. Maybe we can go on about whether behaving according to faith is something further than scriptures alone. Still nothing should be contrary to things shown in the Bible to do.

Evidence That Jesus and The Original Aramaic Christians Were Vegetarians

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INSIDE A MAJOR U.S. HATCHERY | Animal Equality

I like to think that you are better than someone just saying, "God made them for us to do this with them, so we can enjoy things."

God's compassion is greater, God cares for the creatures of God's creation.

Respect the life of all God’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.

In Genesis 1:29-30 it reads,
God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

This describes animals having hayyah (life). However, in the Hebrew it also has the word nephesh in combination with hayyah, which is the exact same wording as the description of the soul in the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7. In other words, though nephesh is only translated as “life” here, the Hebrew speaks of the soul. Animals thus have a nephesh hayyah just like Adam. The Creator cares for the creatures too.

There is not the unhealthy way with the perfect will of God. That perfection was shown in the design of the creation in the beginning. It will be that way in Heaven in eternity, there being no harming and no hurting, which came about with curses with falling to sin. God shows care for creatures in the Bible, and we are liable for not showing the care. Do you think God is okay with diseases and health problems connected with eating from such animal products which that would mean? Cancers, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, forms of diabetes, unhealthy weight, and many more issues? And there are verses like Proverbs 12:10 which contradict God being okay with all that abuse. And consider it is said God hates the actions of those destructive to this earth (Revelation 11:18).

Elimination of using meat and products from animals could help to really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing.

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

Data point: Stop eating meat to save the planet?

Scientists Made Grim Discovery in Greenland Ice Sheet Made Possible by Improved Models - NewsBreak

What will Louisiana look like if Thwaites Glacier melts? Here's your answer. | Toni Koraza | NewsBreak Original

We are to come out, from anywhere we see ungodliness, it is spread widely even now.

I agree 100% that it would be an embarrassment to misuse scripture with your using such poor exegesis. Really one should know better. See my "signature" below.

Then I would expect that you would really look into all of it, everything, rather than just tell me you do and agree it is an embarrassment to use poor exegesis.

Context in Mark 7 shows that Jesus had just said the teachers were teaching followers commandments which were the traditions of men in place of requirements from God. Then saying what enters the mouth does not make one unclean, this is not about permission to just eat anything and overlook what God has said, but that washing hands for everything is not needed, it is other things that make our person unclean, and making oneself unclean still happens.

It is abuse to scriptures to teach something for doctrine without consideration of the original written passage and ignoring changes to it. Luke 24:40-43, When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.

"It" would mean just one thing. It is wrong to teach meat is meant for us from this questionable passage with insistence that Jesus ate the fish. No scripture shows that.

 

[pescador]

Then I would expect that you would really look into all of it, everything, rather than just tell me you do and agree it is an embarrassment to use poor exegesis.

Context in Mark 7 shows that Jesus had just said the teachers were teaching followers commandments which were the traditions of men in place of requirements from God. Then saying what enters the mouth does not make one unclean, this is not about permission to just eat anything and overlook what God has said, but that washing hands for everything is not needed, it is other things that make our person unclean, and making oneself unclean still happens.

It is abuse to scriptures to teach something for doctrine without consideration of the original written passage and ignoring changes to it. Luke 24:40-43, When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.

"It" would mean just one thing. It is wrong to teach meat is meant for us from this questionable passage with insistence that Jesus ate the fish. No scripture shows that.

I agree, it is abuse to scriptures to teach something for doctrine without consideration of the original written passage and ignoring changes to it.

Jesus was not a vegetarian. He said that it was permissible to eat everything. Do you think He was wrong and that He didn't follow His own teaching?

Mark 7:18-19, " He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

 

[FredVB]

Then I would expect that you would really look into all of it, everything, rather than just tell me you do and agree it is an embarrassment to use poor exegesis.

Context in Mark 7 shows that Jesus had just said the teachers were teaching followers commandments which were the traditions of men in place of requirements from God. Then saying what enters the mouth does not make one unclean, this is not about permission to just eat anything and overlook what God has said, but that washing hands for everything is not needed, it is other things that make our person unclean, and making oneself unclean still happens.

It is abuse to scriptures to teach something for doctrine without consideration of the original written passage and ignoring changes to it. Luke 24:40-43, When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.

"It" would mean just one thing. It is wrong to teach meat is meant for us from this questionable passage with insistence that Jesus ate the fish. No scripture shows that.

I agree, it is abuse to scriptures to teach something for doctrine without consideration of the original written passage and ignoring changes to it.

Jesus was not a vegetarian. He said that it was permissible to eat everything. Do you think He was wrong and that He didn't follow His own teaching?

Mark 7:18-19, " He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

Why do you still conclude that when I took the extra step to show the context, about the teachings from man that Jesus right then pointed out that the Pharisee teachers put in place of God's commandments? And then your interpretation is that Jesus right then after pointing that out meant that God changed his mind, and commandments from God don't apply and anything one eats will be alright?

I don't hold that God's will and the mind of God ever changes. What was right or what was wrong remain so. God's perfect design was without killing or suffering and food was from vegetation and animals were not used for that, Genesis 1:29-31. God permitted meat from animals for food, as you would point out, still much later, at a time when there really was not food available for the people left from vegetation growing there, but God did not say it was very good, as it was for what was in the design for us from the start, and God did not say that meat from animals is what we should have, and God did not even say this permission was to last. In prophecies it is shown that it won't last, and there won't be ongoing killing or suffering. There is abundant evidence now that meat and products from animals continually is not really good for us. It is certainly not good for animals kept for it, or wildlife in natural environments, or for this planet's condition still. And will it then be concluded that God had a change of mind to this way in place of what God meant in the original design for us? Why? And why conclude God does not care for what the animals go through regardless, and that we don't have responsibility to check? And commandments for Jews that were not aimed at gentiles did not make commandments not good anymore, but salvation was not going to be withheld from gentiles who did not observe those after it was presented to the people of Israel. But all should be growing spiritually toward God's will, always still further.

Genesis 1:29-31
God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man respects the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Psalms 104:10-12
God sends springs into the valleys. They run among the mountains. They give drink to every animal of the field. The wild asses quench their thirst. The birds of the sky nest by them. They sing among the branches.

Isaiah 11:6-9
The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, the calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together; and a little child will lead them. The cow and the bear will graze. Their young ones will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.

Jesus is moved completely by compassion. Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, Jesus was moved with compassion for them

Galatians 5:22-23
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

 

[pescador]

Why do you still conclude that when I took the extra step to show the context, about the teachings from man that Jesus right then pointed out that the Pharisee teachers put in place of God's commandments? And then your interpretation is that Jesus right then after pointing that out meant that God changed his mind, and commandments from God don't apply and anything one eats will be alright?

I don't hold that God's will and the mind of God ever changes. What was right or what was wrong remain so. God's perfect design was without killing or suffering and food was from vegetation and animals were not used for that, Genesis 1:29-31. God permitted meat from animals for food, as you would point out, still much later, at a time when there really was not food available for the people left from vegetation growing there, but God did not say it was very good, as it was for what was in the design for us from the start, and God did not say that meat from animals is what we should have, and God did not even say this permission was to last. In prophecies it is shown that it won't last, and there won't be ongoing killing or suffering. There is abundant evidence now that meat and products from animals continually is not really good for us. It is certainly not good for animals kept for it, or wildlife in natural environments, or for this planet's condition still. And will it then be concluded that God had a change of mind to this way in place of what God meant in the original design for us? Why? And why conclude God does not care for what the animals go through regardless, and that we don't have responsibility to check? And commandments for Jews that were not aimed at gentiles did not make commandments not good anymore, but salvation was not going to be withheld from gentiles who did not observe those after it was presented to the people of Israel. But all should be growing spiritually toward God's will, always still further.

Genesis 1:29-31
God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man respects the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Psalms 104:10-12
God sends springs into the valleys. They run among the mountains. They give drink to every animal of the field. The wild asses quench their thirst. The birds of the sky nest by them. They sing among the branches.

Isaiah 11:6-9
The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, the calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together; and a little child will lead them. The cow and the bear will graze. Their young ones will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.

Jesus is moved completely by compassion. Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, Jesus was moved with compassion for them

Galatians 5:22-23
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Jesus declared all foods to be "clean", thereby acceptable to eat. Why do you think that plants don't suffer when they're pulled from the "womb" of the earth and devoured raw?

If you truly believe that Isaiah's ideal world has arrived, would you do this..? "The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den." or "A baby will play over the hole of a snake; over the nest of a serpent an infant will put his hand." Isaiah 11:8 If you have a child (or niece or nephew), would you actually place her/him in front of a cobra's nest and have her/him put their hand into the hole? It's insane and criminal!!!

I had (meat) chili for dinner while watching the Super Bowl. It was very enjoyable (even though I wish Cincinatti had won). And you know what, I didn't get sick or suffer from eating meat. Although I almost felt that way because of the outcome of the game.

Mark 7:18-19, He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

What is it about these words of Jesus that you can't/won't understand.

 

[FredVB]

Why do you still conclude that when I took the extra step to show the context, about the teachings from man that Jesus right then pointed out that the Pharisee teachers put in place of God's commandments? And then your interpretation is that Jesus right then after pointing that out meant that God changed his mind, and commandments from God don't apply and anything one eats will be alright?

I don't hold that God's will and the mind of God ever changes. What was right or what was wrong remain so. God's perfect design was without killing or suffering and food was from vegetation and animals were not used for that, Genesis 1:29-31. God permitted meat from animals for food, as you would point out, still much later, at a time when there really was not food available for the people left from vegetation growing there, but God did not say it was very good, as it was for what was in the design for us from the start, and God did not say that meat from animals is what we should have, and God did not even say this permission was to last. In prophecies it is shown that it won't last, and there won't be ongoing killing or suffering. There is abundant evidence now that meat and products from animals continually is not really good for us. It is certainly not good for animals kept for it, or wildlife in natural environments, or for this planet's condition still. And will it then be concluded that God had a change of mind to this way in place of what God meant in the original design for us? Why? And why conclude God does not care for what the animals go through regardless, and that we don't have responsibility to check? And commandments for Jews that were not aimed at gentiles did not make commandments not good anymore, but salvation was not going to be withheld from gentiles who did not observe those after it was presented to the people of Israel. But all should be growing spiritually toward God's will, always still further.

Genesis 1:29-31
God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man respects the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Psalms 104:10-12
God sends springs into the valleys. They run among the mountains. They give drink to every animal of the field. The wild asses quench their thirst. The birds of the sky nest by them. They sing among the branches.

Isaiah 11:6-9
The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, the calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together; and a little child will lead them. The cow and the bear will graze. Their young ones will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.

Jesus is moved completely by compassion. Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, Jesus was moved with compassion for them

Galatians 5:22-23
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Jesus declared all foods to be "clean", thereby acceptable to eat. Why do you think that plants don't suffer when they're pulled from the "womb" of the earth and devoured raw?

If you truly believe that Isaiah's ideal world has arrived, would you do this..? "The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den." or "A baby will play over the hole of a snake; over the nest of a serpent an infant will put his hand." Isaiah 11:8 If you have a child (or niece or nephew), would you actually place her/him in front of a cobra's nest and have her/him put their hand into the hole? It's insane and criminal!!!

I had (meat) chili for dinner while watching the Super Bowl. It was very enjoyable (even though I wish Cincinatti had won). And you know what, I didn't get sick or suffer from eating meat. Although I almost felt that way because of the outcome of the game.

Mark 7:18-19, He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

What is it about these words of Jesus that you can't/won't understand.

I don't care to discuss what you were eating. That was your choice, and since you don't ask I don't say what I am eating. I mention some things I have on other threads, for that discussion.

You still don't respond to points I made, and regardless of the context you still insist on a passage saying that Jesus said, "All foods are clean, acceptable to eat." I look right at the passage, and see it does not say that. And context shows what Jesus meant. The commandments from God were not to be changed. Rituals people were doing as others called for had nothing to do with whether food was clean for them. Sort of like how wearing masks can become empty ritual. In fact, a lot of empty rituals that actually exist comes to mind. But choices including disregarding what things God said or commanded are things from people's hearts. Those can be wrong and defile them.

And why do you bring up a belief that plants suffer things? Is it from the Bible? No, it is not there. Food God meant for us stated from the beginning was from plants, and plants don't show response, or bleed, or run from anyone, they don't have any brain and don't have any nervous system whatsoever. So this stated belief, which you might not say in any other communication except in response to the subject of veganism, like I see it is that way among others, is from some other source, or what you heard others say. There is no reason for me to dignify that stated belief any further. If you really did not want more plants to die you would not take products from animal agriculture, which uses a lot more plants for the demand, besides a lot more resources, and land and water, than would be used if there was not demand for products from animal agriculture.

And the ideal world indeed has not come, but I show as it is in heaven and will be on earth shows the ideal from God's will and eating products from animals was never meant to last.

And you just avoid responding to the actual issues that are mentioned. Animals suffer huge amounts of abuse with no way of freedom from that, which should not be supported. Proverbs 12:10. Don't say we have no responsibility to look into what happens to animals whose products we use. It is demonstrably much better for our health and well-being to avoid animal products, along with avoiding processed foods, salt, sugar, and added oils. It is better for the environment. It is avoiding contribution to using up more resources, land and water. It is avoiding contribution to gas emissions with the demand for those products from which there is climate change. And don't tell me God does not care for any of those things, or even our health or our well-being.

 

[BBAS 64]

You hold that the Bible contains 66 books. The Catholic Church holds that the Bible contains 73 books. What is the "supreme authority" for your belief that the Bible contains 66 books, and not 73 books? Since you assert that Scripture is sufficient as the supreme authority in all spiritual matters, and which books are the inspired word of God comprising the Bible is a spiritual matter, please show me exactly where Scripture teaches that the Bible consists of 66 books, and not 73 books.

You can give me the chapter and verse that proves what you believe, or Sola Scriptura is refuted.

Good Day, Swag

Normal conflation of two unrelated issues, by a member of the Roman Church.

The historical Doctrine of Sola scriptura has nothing to do with the books of the Canon. Now I do understand and allow for the Roman denomination to create for it's members a Canon. Seeing I am not a member of that denomination it has little impact on me.

You have built a nice little strawman, and effectively burned it down. The employment of a fallacy is not very convincing.

For your learning

What is Sola Scriptura:

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

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

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

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

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

In Him,

Bill

 

[pescador]

I don't care to discuss what you were eating. That was your choice, and since you don't ask I don't say what I am eating. I mention some things I have on other threads, for that discussion.

You still don't respond to points I made, and regardless of the context you still insist on a passage saying that Jesus said, "All foods are clean, acceptable to eat." I look right at the passage, and see it does not say that. And context shows what Jesus meant. The commandments from God were not to be changed. Rituals people were doing as others called for had nothing to do with whether food was clean for them. Sort of like how wearing masks can become empty ritual. In fact, a lot of empty rituals that actually exist comes to mind. But choices including disregarding what things God said or commanded are things from people's hearts. Those can be wrong and defile them.

And why do you bring up a belief that plants suffer things? Is it from the Bible? No, it is not there. Food God meant for us stated from the beginning was from plants, and plants don't show response, or bleed, or run from anyone, they don't have any brain and don't have any nervous system whatsoever. So this stated belief, which you might not say in any other communication except in response to the subject of veganism, like I see it is that way among others, is from some other source, or what you heard others say. There is no reason for me to dignify that stated belief any further. If you really did not want more plants to die you would not take products from animal agriculture, which uses a lot more plants for the demand, besides a lot more resources, and land and water, than would be used if there was not demand for products from animal agriculture.

And the ideal world indeed has not come, but I show as it is in heaven and will be on earth shows the ideal from God's will and eating products from animals was never meant to last.

And you just avoid responding to the actual issues that are mentioned. Animals suffer huge amounts of abuse with no way of freedom from that, which should not be supported. Proverbs 12:10. Don't say we have no responsibility to look into what happens to animals whose products we use. It is demonstrably much better for our health and well-being to avoid animal products, along with avoiding processed foods, salt, sugar, and added oils. It is better for the environment. It is avoiding contribution to using up more resources, land and water. It is avoiding contribution to gas emissions with the demand for those products from which there is climate change. And don't tell me God does not care for any of those things, or even our health or our well-being.

So should I believe what the Bible clearly says or your latter-day rationalization? If Jesus says that all foods are permissible, then they are, regardless of those who disagree with Him.

Animals are killed as humanely as possible, regardless if they're hunted or slaughtered. Plants die as well before they're consumed. Your feeling sorry for the former has nothing to do with their status in the Bible.

Your humanism is simply "feel good about myself" thinking, but again, in Mark's gospel -- scripture -- it says "He [Jesus] said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

This is what the Bible says. I believe God's Word, not modern "feel good about myself" thinking.

 

[FredVB]

I don't care to discuss what you were eating. That was your choice, and since you don't ask I don't say what I am eating. I mention some things I have on other threads, for that discussion.

You still don't respond to points I made, and regardless of the context you still insist on a passage saying that Jesus said, "All foods are clean, acceptable to eat." I look right at the passage, and see it does not say that. And context shows what Jesus meant. The commandments from God were not to be changed. Rituals people were doing as others called for had nothing to do with whether food was clean for them. Sort of like how wearing masks can become empty ritual. In fact, a lot of empty rituals that actually exist comes to mind. But choices including disregarding what things God said or commanded are things from people's hearts. Those can be wrong and defile them.

And why do you bring up a belief that plants suffer things? Is it from the Bible? No, it is not there. Food God meant for us stated from the beginning was from plants, and plants don't show response, or bleed, or run from anyone, they don't have any brain and don't have any nervous system whatsoever. So this stated belief, which you might not say in any other communication except in response to the subject of veganism, like I see it is that way among others, is from some other source, or what you heard others say. There is no reason for me to dignify that stated belief any further. If you really did not want more plants to die you would not take products from animal agriculture, which uses a lot more plants for the demand, besides a lot more resources, and land and water, than would be used if there was not demand for products from animal agriculture.

And the ideal world indeed has not come, but I show as it is in heaven and will be on earth shows the ideal from God's will and eating products from animals was never meant to last.

And you just avoid responding to the actual issues that are mentioned. Animals suffer huge amounts of abuse with no way of freedom from that, which should not be supported. Proverbs 12:10. Don't say we have no responsibility to look into what happens to animals whose products we use. It is demonstrably much better for our health and well-being to avoid animal products, along with avoiding processed foods, salt, sugar, and added oils. It is better for the environment. It is avoiding contribution to using up more resources, land and water. It is avoiding contribution to gas emissions with the demand for those products from which there is climate change. And don't tell me God does not care for any of those things, or even our health or our well-being.

So should I believe what the Bible clearly says or your latter-day rationalization? If Jesus says that all foods are permissible, then they are, regardless of those who disagree with Him.

Animals are killed as humanely as possible, regardless if they're hunted or slaughtered. Plants die as well before they're consumed. Your feeling sorry for the former has nothing to do with their status in the Bible.

Your humanism is simply "feel good about myself" thinking, but again, in Mark's gospel -- scripture -- it says "He [Jesus] said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)"

This is what the Bible says. I believe God's Word, not modern "feel good about myself" thinking.

Do you have any basis from research into animal agriculture for the claim that animals are killed as humanely as possible? If hunted or slaughtered? And can you suggest any way that you might be killed humanely? And going on about plants being killed does not doing anything for your argument, there is nothing against eating food from plants and nothing in the Bible suggests anything about any suffering from plants, and they do not bleed, or try to flee, or have any brain or any nervous system for any response. Your argument for plants comes from somewhere else, which you don't say. Yet a lot more plants are killed for our demand for animal agriculture. Rain forests are being destroyed right now for more land for animal agriculture, with more feed for that.

There is nothing about humanism in this communication from me, we each are supposed to answer to our conscience, and there are scripture passages which show these things. Nothing is showing "all foods are clean". That is showing an interpretation, without the context. God did not have a change of mind, God never did. God does not change. The will of God does not change.

Your interpretation is what you are believing.

The context in Mark 7:
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said,‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God) then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

“What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

In the beginning what God's word tells us is that everything in this world of God's creation was perfectly according to God's will. It is certain that much less of this world now is according to God's will, with the curse from sins which are disobedience to God spreading, but disturbingly having the way of living as meant according to God's perfect will, as it was, is not even desired by any generally, not even Christian believers, who are told to pray for God's will on earth as it is in Heaven, while they really just picture what they themselves want regardless of what is shown of God's will to start with.

Elimination of using meat and products from animals could really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing. The awareness of this should go to others.

Earthling Ed: Vegan Educator & Public Speaker

https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0e1zco5Q?s=a99&pd=04Qsp0Qo

So now there is great destruction to this earth for things as we want in our lives, and that God hates the destruction to this earth does not mean anything to most. If we lived in the way shown of God's will for us from the start, we would not be contributing to that destructiveness that we can't see how to change as it is. And it will involve, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, and we would not put any limits to hold any of it to (Galatians 5:22-23).

I find the healthiness of this way with just food from plants and some vitamin supplements without processed foods that is avoiding or able to reverse cancers also deals with avoiding other health issues and problems, which are all diet related, certainly includes circulatory issues that lead to heart attacks and strokes, and high blood pressure. And besides abuse to animals, animal agriculture is involved with starving people and ruining the environment. This has abundant evidence and these things just are not according to God's will for us. There is curse to us and our world with insistence on what we choose in serving our belly.

 

[Albion]

Normal conflation of two unrelated issues, by a member of the Roman Church.

Talk about getting right to the heart of the matter!

No further discussion here is warranted until all the Sola Scriptura critics get the starting point of it correct! I'm referring to the meaning of the term Sola Scriptura.

 

[pescador]

Do you have any basis from research into animal agriculture for the claim that animals are killed as humanely as possible? If hunted or slaughtered? And can you suggest any way that you might be killed humanely? And going on about plants being killed does not doing anything for your argument, there is nothing against eating food from plants and nothing in the Bible suggests anything about any suffering from plants, and they do not bleed, or try to flee, or have any brain or any nervous system for any response. Your argument for plants comes from somewhere else, which you don't say. Yet a lot more plants are killed for our demand for animal agriculture. Rain forests are being destroyed right now for more land for animal agriculture, with more feed for that.

There is nothing about humanism in this communication from me, we each are supposed to answer to our conscience, and there are scripture passages which show these things. Nothing is showing "all foods are clean". That is showing an interpretation, without the context. God did not have a change of mind, God never did. God does not change. The will of God does not change.

Your interpretation is what you are believing.

The context in Mark 7:
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said,‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God) then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

“What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

In the beginning what God's word tells us is that everything in this world of God's creation was perfectly according to God's will. It is certain that much less of this world now is according to God's will, with the curse from sins which are disobedience to God spreading, but disturbingly having the way of living as meant according to God's perfect will, as it was, is not even desired by any generally, not even Christian believers, who are told to pray for God's will on earth as it is in Heaven, while they really just picture what they themselves want regardless of what is shown of God's will to start with.

Elimination of using meat and products from animals could really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing. The awareness of this should go to others.

Earthling Ed: Vegan Educator & Public Speaker

https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0e1zco5Q?s=a99&pd=04Qsp0Qo

So now there is great destruction to this earth for things as we want in our lives, and that God hates the destruction to this earth does not mean anything to most. If we lived in the way shown of God's will for us from the start, we would not be contributing to that destructiveness that we can't see how to change as it is. And it will involve, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, and we would not put any limits to hold any of it to (Galatians 5:22-23).

I find the healthiness of this way with just food from plants and some vitamin supplements without processed foods that is avoiding or able to reverse cancers also deals with avoiding other health issues and problems, which are all diet related, certainly includes circulatory issues that lead to heart attacks and strokes, and high blood pressure. And besides abuse to animals, animal agriculture is involved with starving people and ruining the environment. This has abundant evidence and these things just are not according to God's will for us. There is curse to us and our world with insistence on what we choose in serving our belly.

Anybody can go through the Bible, add their own predetermined thoughts, and come up with false doctrine. But that doesn't make it true. All it does is reveal the intent of that person to make the Bible conform to their thoughts.

Regarding the death of animals... do you have an estimate of how many, many thousands of "innocent" animals were killed in sacrifice to appease God and feed the priests? Why were lambs killed for the Passover and their blood smeared on the doors of people's homes? You no doubt find this repulsive, but that's between you and God. Why don't you ask Him why He had so many, many animals killed???

You specifically wrote "Nothing is showing "all foods are clean". That is showing an interpretation, without the context." Jesus declared all foods clean (a verse that you conveniently left out). Mark 7:18-19, "He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)" Read that again! That is what the Bible says about which foods are permissible: all of them!

Also, you asked if I have any basis from research into animal agriculture for the claim that animals are killed as humanely as possible? There is ample basis for this, but I'll leave you to do your own research. I have raised animals for food and also hunted. I know the facts about animals slaughtered for food, following the USDA requirements; I know what I'm talking about.

Your interpretation is what you are choosing to believe. But it's not in agreement with what Scripture clearly says in both covenants. Should I believe what God's Word clearly says about the killing of animals or what you claim that it says.

BTW, I hope you enjoyed eating eggs for breakfast. How does consuming the unborn fit into your thinking?

 

[Swag365]

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. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

OK. Let's take this as the definition then. You stated that "All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source."

Must a Christian believe that the Bible contains only the 66 books that Protestants commonly accept as the Bible? Yes, or no?

If the answer is "yes" then you must show where that belief is "found in Scripture" just like you wrote above. So please give me the chapter and verse that teaches that the Bible contains only those 66 books.

If the answer is "no" then the Scriptures are not "sufficient to function as the rule of faith" per your definition above, because in that case any Tom, Dick, or Harry, even a member of your church, could come along and decide for himself that the first chapter of the Quran and the book of Mormon are part of the Bible, and there would be nothing you could do to prevent him, since in this case your canon would not binding on the Christian conscience.

So even exactly as you define it, Sola Scriptura remains refuted. Smugly writing things like "Normal conflation of two unrelated issues, by a member of the Roman Church" and other irrelevant things does not change that.

Have a nice day.

 

[Swag365]

Talk about getting right to the heart of the matter!

No further discussion here is warranted until all the Sola Scriptura critics get the starting point of it correct! I'm referring to the meaning of the term Sola Scriptura.

Refuted above, using the exact definition that he provided. How do you like those apples?

 

[Albion]

So even exactly as you define it, Sola Scriptura remains refuted. Smugly writing things like "Normal conflation of two unrelated issues, by a member of the Roman Church" and other irrelevant things does not change that..

Well, it's not refuted; you merely mistook the meaning of the term for something else. That's a problem every time this topic arises, it seems.

 

[Albion]

Refuted above, using the exact definition that he provided. How do you like those apples?

I'm not surprised, therefore I cannot be terribly upset.

As has been noted several times previously, just about every critic of Sola Scriptura on these forums misrepresents the term. So much so, that correcting them has gotten to be tiresome as well as unrewarding.

 

[Swag365]

Well, it's not refuted; you merely mistook the meaning of the term for something else. That's a problem every time this topic arises, it seems.

No, I did not mistake the meaning of the term. I used the precise definition that he gave me.

I am constantly amused by this "you merely mistook the meaning of the term" response. You ask 10 different Protestants for the meaning of the term and you'll get 10 different answers, and each one of them thinks he has the "secret knowledge" of the Gnostics that everyone else lacks. You use a definition straight from Wikipedia, and silly people offer their own pet definition of what Sola Scriptura "really" means as if it were the gospel. You use the exact definitions that are offered and refute them, and there is no substantive response, only more "you don't know what it means" Gnosticism . It's all smoke and mirrors because the doctrine is found nowhere in the Bible and contradicts the Bible.

 

[Albion]

No, I did not mistake the meaning of the term. I used the precise definition that he gave me.

It's still incorrect.

I am constantly amused by this "you merely mistook the meaning of the term" response. You ask 10 different Protestants for the meaning of the term and you'll get 10 different answers

Well, we could ask 10 Catholics for their definition of some Catholic doctrinal matter, and I assure you that we'd get a variety of answers from them, too.

And in neither the Sola Scriptura case or one of these dealing with a Catholic doctrine like Purgatory (which always brings a range of answers), are the answers terribly completely off.

In the case of Sola Scriptura when it's being attacked by people who are determined to poke holes in the belief, it's important not to settle for "sorta" correct.

 

[friend of]

Would someone who is not born again really care to read the scriptures?

 

[pescador]

Would someone who is not born again really care to read the scriptures?

I read the Scriptures before I was born again, primarily to argue with a pastor. Of course, God knew what He was doing! Shortly after, I changed from being an atheist when Jesus healed me in the hospital.

 

[Swag365]

It's still incorrect.

More smoke and mirrors. I could not care less whether you think that definition of Sola Scriptura is correct. He provided his definition. I refuted his definition. If you want to discuss your own pet definition of Sola Scriptura, you can provide your precise definition of it right here in this thread. Otherwise you are just blowing more smoke.

Since both you and I know that you will never provide your precise definition of Sola Scriptura, so you can continue playing this "that's not Sola Scriptura" game because you have no substantive rebuttal and providing the definition will inevitably result with it being refuted, I will give you a definition:

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.[1]

Let me guess, "That's not Sola Scriptura" either.

Well, we could ask 10 Catholics for their definition of some Catholic doctrinal matter, and I assure you that we'd get a variety of answers from them, too.

That's irrelevant. The Catholic Church has formally defined dogma which is binding on all Catholics regardless of their own pet opinions, including a formally defined doctrine concerning purgatory. There's no equivalent with Sola Scriptura. When I debate purgatory, I debate what the Catholic Church has formally taught and that which is binding on all Catholics. When you discuss Sola Scriptura, you've got nothing but your own pet definition, which is binding on no Protestant on the planet Earth other than yourself.

And in neither the Sola Scriptura case or one of these dealing with a Catholic doctrine like Purgatory (which always brings a range of answers), are the answers terribly completely off.

What you write with respect to purgatory is always off, because you do not use the formally defined dogma but refer only to your own speculative pet opinions of what the Church "really teaches" concerning purgatory. The reason why confusion appears here on the forums is because people like you sow confusion by stating your pet opinions about what the Church "really" teaches, instead of quoting what the Church has formally taught in her councils and other authoritative documents.