Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
    That's why I asked, seems to be a common misunderstanding.
    If that's not it, what is sola scriptura?
    Matthew 6:34
    "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
      If that's not it, what is sola scriptura?
      That any claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture as canon (measuring rod). If it does not contradict scripture - i.e. God - then it passes. If it contradicts scripture, it does not pass.

      Comment


      • I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura, most Protestants I've met agree with my idea of it, that's where I got the definiton. Also, can you provide scriptural proof for this belief?

        Pax,
        Zach
        Matthew 6:34
        "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
          I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura, most Protestants I've met agree with my idea of it, that's where I got the definiton. Also, can you provide scriptural proof for this belief
          Majority based in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
            I've never heard this as a definition for sola scriptura,
            I concur with Xel on his definition.
            "Few men are born brave. Many become so through training and force of discipline"
            -Flavius Vegetius Renatus

            "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:26

            Watch This! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyheJ480LYA - Christian Artist Lecrae

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
              That any claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture as canon (measuring rod). If it does not contradict scripture - i.e. God - then it passes. If it contradicts scripture, it does not pass.
              Ok, but what does it mean to be the Word of God, how do you determine your beliefs? doesn't that play into my definition?

              Pax,
              Zach
              Matthew 6:34
              "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                Ok, but what does it mean to be the Word of God, how do you determine your beliefs? doesn't that play into my definition?

                Pax,
                Zach
                You're asking the same question.

                Comment


                • So, you just take everything scripture says at face value? That's where you get your beliefs?

                  I'm going to make a few assumptions here, so, my apologies if they're way off. I'm going to assume, from your definition, that the Bible is your sole rule of faith because it is the inspired Word of God. I'm also going to assume that this belief, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. With these assumptions in mind, I'd like to address them.

                  First, I'd like to address 2 Timothy 3:16, I want to show what the Church makes of this verse and surrounding verses.

                  2 Timothy 3:15-17

                  "15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
                  16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

                  I would first like to point out that these "scriptures" that Paul is refering to, that Timothy knew from "infancy", must be refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament wasn't formally defined until around 400 I believe. So what this is saying is that the Old Testament should be the sole rule of faith, no Christian believes this.

                  I'm not a Greek scholar, but I have looked up a few things, one thing is that the word rendered "profitable" is ophelimos in Greek. Ophelimos means "useful" not "sufficient". Another thing I see is that the "man of God" is made perfect, Paul is writing this to Timothy, a bishop. What this is implying is that bishops are mad eperfect not just any individual reader.

                  Here I'd like to show the previous two verses:

                  "13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them"

                  Paul first shows that evil main will fall away from Jesus' teachings, so he tells Timothy to continue in the things which have been commited to them. In other words oral Tradition, supporting his injunction in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 to stand fast to the traditions which have been handed down.

                  To address the first assumption, how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

                  Pax,
                  Zach
                  Matthew 6:34
                  "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                    So, you just take everything scripture says at face value? That's where you get your beliefs?

                    I'm going to make a few assumptions here, so, my apologies if they're way off. I'm going to assume, from your definition, that the Bible is your sole rule of faith because it is the inspired Word of God. I'm also going to assume that this belief, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. With these assumptions in mind, I'd like to address them.

                    First, I'd like to address 2 Timothy 3:16, I want to show what the Church makes of this verse and surrounding verses.

                    2 Timothy 3:15-17

                    "15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
                    16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

                    I would first like to point out that these "scriptures" that Paul is refering to, that Timothy knew from "infancy", must be refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament wasn't formally defined until around 400 I believe. So what this is saying is that the Old Testament should be the sole rule of faith, no Christian believes this.
                    I'm going to be honest with you, it's getting a little tiring all these assumptions you pull on "us" while you attempt to differentiate yourself [as Catholic] and then paint us as if we're persecuting you or some how against you because you're Catholic. Cut it out.

                    You are correct, Paul is referring to the Tanakh, the Pentateuch, the Torah, the "Old Testament" (no one denied this). It isn't because the New Testament wasn't "formally defined" until "around 400" (which I will disagree with but is superfluous to this discussion). It's because at the time of Paul's writing to Timothy, there was very little in the way of New Testament, simple as that.

                    Moving on to two things:

                    1. You've completely missed what I've been saying
                    2. What do you mean "no Christian believes this"?

                    Addressing the first point - read 2 Timothy 3, focus on 15-17 if you must then do this: Take the Old Testament as inspired and against the Old Testament compare New Testament writings. Do you see how they cohere and form a continuance of revelation? (thus one must understand what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying and what I'm saying) Is it any wonder why Paul's writings were considered equal (this is stated in scripture) with Moses'? That is what I mean when I say scripture is a measuring rod - that we believe in sola scriptural, not solo scripture, as you keep trying to insinuate.

                    Which forces me to beg the question; why in the world do you keep returning to the word 'sole'? I haven't used it, scripture hasn't used it... You've used it - stop forcing it, you're completely missing the point.

                    As for the second point I will simply cay that 'Christians' are quite aware of and acknowledge what I just stated.

                    Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                    I'm not a Greek scholar, but I have looked up a few things, one thing is that the word rendered "profitable" is ophelimos in Greek. Ophelimos means "useful" not "sufficient". Another thing I see is that the "man of God" is made perfect, Paul is writing this to Timothy, a bishop. What this is implying is that bishops are mad eperfect not just any individual reader.
                    You're joking, right? What else is there to say but that this is non-sense.

                    Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                    Here I'd like to show the previous two verses:

                    "13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them"

                    Paul first shows that evil main will fall away from Jesus' teachings, so he tells Timothy to continue in the things which have been commited to them. In other words oral Tradition, supporting his injunction in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 to stand fast to the traditions which have been handed down.

                    To address the first assumption, how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
                    Why you have all these assumptions and go on these tangents is beyond me (you know what they say about assumptions). To answer your question (how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God) - red herring; stay on topic and don't keep asking questions that have already been answered ad nauseum.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                      I'm going to be honest with you, it's getting a little tiring all these assumptions you pull on "us" while you attempt to differentiate yourself [as Catholic] and then paint us as if we're persecuting you or some how against you because you're Catholic. Cut it out.

                      You are correct, Paul is referring to the Tanakh, the Pentateuch, the Torah, the "Old Testament" (no one denied this). It isn't because the New Testament wasn't "formally defined" until "around 400" (which I will disagree with but is superfluous to this discussion). It's because at the time of Paul's writing to Timothy, there was very little in the way of New Testament, simple as that.

                      Moving on to two things:

                      1. You've completely missed what I've been saying
                      2. What do you mean "no Christian believes this"?

                      Addressing the first point - read 2 Timothy 3, focus on 15-17 if you must then do this: Take the Old Testament as inspired and against the Old Testament compare New Testament writings. Do you see how they cohere and form a continuance of revelation? (thus one must understand what 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying and what I'm saying) Is it any wonder why Paul's writings were considered equal (this is stated in scripture) with Moses'? That is what I mean when I say scripture is a measuring rod - that we believe in sola scriptural, not solo scripture, as you keep trying to insinuate.

                      Which forces me to beg the question; why in the world do you keep returning to the word 'sole'? I haven't used it, scripture hasn't used it... You've used it - stop forcing it, you're completely missing the point.

                      As for the second point I will simply cay that 'Christians' are quite aware of and acknowledge what I just stated.



                      You're joking, right? What else is there to say but that this is non-sense.



                      Why you have all these assumptions and go on these tangents is beyond me (you know what they say about assumptions). To answer your question (how do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God) - red herring; stay on topic and don't keep asking questions that have already been answered ad nauseum.
                      Ok, I reread my post and I admit I looked very stupid and disrespectful and I'm sorry. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. I've just recently realized (with help from my girlfriend) that I don't really consider other peoples opinions, and can be very disrespectful, and I really don't want to be like that.

                      I believe sol"o" scriptura is wrong. Period. I now realize that if I wanted to talk about it and see the belief from different angles, I shouldn't have approached it the way I did. No one should ever approach anything like that. I know this probably sounds cheesy and that I'm just trying to cover my butt so to speak, but I'm really sorry. I don't want to be the Jack Chick of Catholicism, if it's not too bold to say. With my assumptions I lumped all Protestants together and that's really a dumb thing to do, I'm really sorry Xel, and everyone else that I may have offended (not that you were offended Xel, but I'm sure that kinda put you over the edge of annoyance.)

                      I still want to talk about this subject though, so in regards to it . . . In the earlier definition you gave, you said all claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture (I may be paraphrasing), what I want to know is, why Scripture? Why not Moby Dick? I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to find a base for this conversation.

                      Pax,
                      Zach
                      Matthew 6:34
                      "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                        Ok, I reread my post and I admit I looked very stupid and disrespectful and I'm sorry. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. I've just recently realized (with help from my girlfriend) that I don't really consider other peoples opinions, and can be very disrespectful, and I really don't want to be like that.
                        Girlfriend problems?

                        Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                        I believe sol"o" scriptura is wrong. Period. I now realize that if I wanted to talk about it and see the belief from different angles, I shouldn't have approached it the way I did. No one should ever approach anything like that. I know this probably sounds cheesy and that I'm just trying to cover my butt so to speak, but I'm really sorry. I don't want to be the Jack Chick of Catholicism, if it's not too bold to say. With my assumptions I lumped all Protestants together and that's really a dumb thing to do, I'm really sorry Xel, and everyone else that I may have offended (not that you were offended Xel, but I'm sure that kinda put you over the edge of annoyance.)
                        Don't worry about it. I was in the processing of splitting up with my fiancee so it wasn't you that brought me to the edge of annoyance. You're intelligent and just fine to discuss things with... Aside from what the girlfriend pointed out Though we're all guilty of that.

                        Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                        I still want to talk about this subject though, so in regards to it . . . In the earlier definition you gave, you said all claimed revelation must be held according to Scripture (I may be paraphrasing), what I want to know is, why Scripture? Why not Moby Dick? I know it sounds silly, but I'm trying to find a base for this conversation.
                        Well, Moby Dick never claimed to be inspired of God.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                          Girlfriend problems?
                          Nope, thankfully, she's really patient with me but she can also put me in my place if I'm getting far out of it.

                          Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                          Don't worry about it. I was in the processing of splitting up with my fiancee so it wasn't you that brought me to the edge of annoyance. You're intelligent and just fine to discuss things with... Aside from what the girlfriend pointed out Though we're all guilty of that.
                          I'm sorry to hear about your split, hopefully things will work out for the best in the end. Thanks for the nice comments, too, I know it's not always easy to do something nice when someone's been such a hothead, but I'll try to cool down as best I can.

                          Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                          Well, Moby Dick never claimed to be inspired of God.
                          But, just because something claims to be insipred of God, or anything claims to be anything for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, right? I mean, the Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is inspired, is that different from the text claiming itself to be inspired? I'm not sure if the actual Book of Mormon claims to be inspired.

                          Pax,
                          Zach
                          Matthew 6:34
                          "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                            But, just because something claims to be insipred of God, or anything claims to be anything for that matter, doesn't mean it's true, right? I mean, the Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is inspired, is that different from the text claiming itself to be inspired? I'm not sure if the actual Book of Mormon claims to be inspired.
                            Right, and that's where the rule comes in: if something or someone claims to have written a message from God, that message must be compared with scripture. The book of Mormon would be considered part of that because of what's his face who wrote it claimed it was from God. Though I would say the text itself making the claim is important.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                              Right, and that's where the rule comes in: if something or someone claims to have written a message from God, that message must be compared with scripture. The book of Mormon would be considered part of that because of what's his face who wrote it claimed it was from God. Though I would say the text itself making the claim is important.
                              Ok, I get that, but how do we determine that scripture or the book of mormon is trustworthy or not? It would be pretty naive to just take the Bible at it's word.

                              BTW, not that you didn't really know this or anything, but it was Joseph Smith.

                              Pax,
                              Zach
                              Matthew 6:34
                              "34 So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by catholicdude View Post
                                Ok, I get that, but how do we determine that scripture or the book of mormon is trustworthy or not? It would be pretty naive to just take the Bible at it's word.

                                BTW, not that you didn't really know this or anything, but it was Joseph Smith.
                                Yeah, him and his spectacles. Well, one way of determining whether or not scripture's claim of divine authorship is authentic or not would be to take the claims of scripture - historical, philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, etc. - and apply them to the world as we know it. If things don't make sense then it's probably not trustworthy. Prophecy would be a good example of this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X