Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 24 of 34   [ 668 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:35 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 6
Religion: i was born again during the sacrament confirmation
Signum Crucis wrote:
If you want to quote someone, go to their post and click on the Quote button in the bottom right corner. Add your comments at the end of theirs.

gherkin is a poster's username, just as gjdgjdgjd5 is your own username.

Sons of Thunder is not a poster's username, it is the name of a group of people on this board. Male posters who are members of that group will have the Sons of Thunder designation underneath their username.


Excellent points! Thank You.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 pm
Posts: 8463
Location: United States
Religion: Catholic
Signum Crucis wrote:
Male posters who are members of that group will have the Sons of Thunder designation underneath their username.

Female posters who are members of that group face even bigger handicaps. :fyi:

That's a joke, by the way. :fyi:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:55 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 6
Religion: i was born again during the sacrament confirmation
specious  [spee-shuhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: misleading
Synonyms: apparent, apparently right, beguiling, captious, casuistic, colorable, deceptive, delusive, empty, erroneous, fallacious, false, flattering, hollow, idle, illogical, inaccurate, incorrect, likely, nugatory, ostensible, ostentatious, plausible, presumable, presumptive, pretentious, probable, seeming, sophistic, sophistical, sophisticated, spurious, unsound, untrue, vain, wrong
Antonyms: real, true, valid, credible

spurious  [spyoor-ee-uhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: counterfeit, fake
Synonyms: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard*, bent, bogus, bum, contrived, deceitful, deceptive, dummy*, ersatz, faked, false, feigned, forged, framed, illegitimate, imitation, make-believe, mock, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended, pseudo*, put-on, sham*, simulated, specious, substitute, unauthentic, ungenuine, unreal
Antonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true

All your arguments appear, look or feel right to you but they are in fact specious, and therefore spurious!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:12 pm
Posts: 6
Religion: i was born again during the sacrament confirmation
gjdgjdgjd5 wrote:
SPECIOUS  [spee-shuhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: misleading
Synonyms: apparent, apparently right, beguiling, captious, casuistic, colorable, deceptive, delusive, empty, erroneous, fallacious, false, flattering, hollow, idle, illogical, inaccurate, incorrect, likely, nugatory, ostensible, ostentatious, plausible, presumable, presumptive, pretentious, probable, seeming, sophistic, sophistical, sophisticated, spurious, unsound, untrue, vain, wrong
Antonyms: real, true, valid, credible

spurious  [spyoor-ee-uhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: counterfeit, fake
Synonyms: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard*, bent, bogus, bum, contrived, deceitful, deceptive, dummy*, ersatz, faked, false, feigned, forged, framed, illegitimate, imitation, make-believe, mock, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended, pseudo*, put-on, sham*, simulated, specious, substitute, unauthentic, ungenuine, unreal
Antonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true

Main Entry:
scurrilous  [skur-uh-luhs, skuhr-] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: foul-mouthed, vulgar
Synonyms: abusive, coarse, contumelious, defamatory, dirty, filthy, foul, gross, indecent, infamous, insulting, invective, lewd, low, nasty, obscene, offending, offensive, opprobrious, outrageous, raunchy, ribald, salacious, scabrous, scandalous, shameless, slanderous, smutty, truculent, vituperative, vituperatory, vituperous
Antonyms: clean, polite, upright

Main Entry:
false  [fawls] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: wrong, made up
Synonyms: apocryphal, beguiling, bogus, casuistic, concocted, contrary to fact, cooked-up, counterfactual, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, dishonest, distorted, erroneous, ersatz*, fake, fallacious, fanciful, faulty, fictitious, fishy, fraudulent, illusive, imaginary, improper, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, invalid, lying, mendacious, misleading, misrepresentative, mistaken, off the mark, phony, sham, sophistical, specious, spurious, trumped up, unfounded, unreal, unsound, untrue, untruthful
Notes: fallacious means intended to deceive; fallible means liable to make a mistake or to be inaccurate or erroneous; false means not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality, or deliberately deceptive, or not genuine or real
Antonyms: accurate, actual, correct, factual, genuine, known, precise, real, right, substantiated, true, valid
* = informal/non-formal usage

All your arguments and questions (not you personally) appear, look or feel right to you, but they are in fact specious, and therefore spurious and scurrilous !!!


Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?

Please refer to my first post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
Neener Queen
Neener Queen
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:33 pm
Posts: 9743
Location: Too Tired to Remember
Religion: Catholic
gjd wrote wrote:
Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?

Please refer to my first post.



I can't tell what is yours and what is another poster's, gjd. Use the quote button when quoting someone else. You can do that by highlighting their comment, and if you don't already have it on your screen in your post, you can copy and paste it. Then highlight it again and hit the quote button that is in the menu above the reply screen. Otherwise, this thread is fast becoming complete confusion as readers try to parse out what someone else said and what you said.

However, Gherkin's question is quite sound. You say the Bible is infallible. Please provide me proof for your argument because YOU saying holds no water for me. And using the Bible to prove the Bible is infallible is a specious argument. If I wrote on a piece of paper that it is the title to the White House and hand it to you, and you use it to as your proof that it is indeed the title to the White House, does not make it the title to the White House.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:28 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:11 pm
Posts: 3313
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Religion: Christian
I don't buy this, but just wondering how you would make this house of cards fall?

http://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-te ... Thess-2-15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:09 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:04 am
Posts: 180
Religion: Catholic
When the catholic councils were ready to put together the bible, the African church believed that Hebrews didnt belong in the bible, but in the end who decided on putting hebrews in the bible ;)?

There was never an inspired table of contents for the bible. It was authority of the Catholic Church and the magisterium that decided on this.

As far as interpretation, what did Saint Augustine say?
Rome has decided, it is settled.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:30 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Candlemass wrote:
I don't buy this, but just wondering how you would make this house of cards fall?

http://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-te ... Thess-2-15


That is easy. The Traditions of Christianity were spoken by Jesus and existed before the Written Word.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:24 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:23 pm
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Benedictine
I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died. How then, did the teachings of Jesus remain intact for those years? Well, the only answer can be that His teachings were handed down verbally by the Church--that's what we call tradition. (To discount tradition as being unreliable, I would submit that most native Americans tribes never had any written language but managed to keep intact all of their traditions by word of mouth.) And, it just so happened (being a little sarcastic here) that when the Holy Scriptures were finally compiled they confirmed the teachings of the Church during those non-bible years. My second comment would be that there are over 250,000 Christian sects today and that number is growing. Each one of those sects broke off from another sect because of doctrinal and/or scriptural disagreement. As someone who would believe in only the Scriptures, how is one to know which interpretation of the Scriptures is the correct interpretation and which Christian sect has the authority to determine Truth? You don't know. You have no assurance from anyone that what you think the Scriptures mean really means what you think it does. That is why Christ established a teaching authority in His apostles. And that is why Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to His Church, not churches. Even before the Scriptures were even known to exist, Christ's teachings were kept intact and true by His Church: the Catholic Church. She is the owner of the scriptures. She alone has the right and power to instruct and interpret the Scriptures and other matters of faith. To quote bible verses does not make a case for truth. There are many who say they believe in only the scriptures--the literal interpretation of the scriptures. Yet, when it comes to Jesus' own words when He says, "You must eat my Body and drink my Blood for eternal life" (paraphrased--can't find the verse), suddenly His words don't mean literally what He says now. Can't have it both ways. Only the Catholic Church has the right and authority to interpret the Scriptures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:30 am 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 70827
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
ChiTownGal wrote:
I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.


Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:02 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Doom wrote:
ChiTownGal wrote:
I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.


Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version


Also, a worthy of note, it is highly unlikely that Saint Jerome used the Masoretic Text, which I also consider to be a revised version -- revised to remove anything Christian from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 70827
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
pax wrote:
Doom wrote:
ChiTownGal wrote:
I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.


Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version


Also, a worthy of note, it is highly unlikely that Saint Jerome used the Masoretic Text, which I also consider to be a revised version -- revised to remove anything Christian from it.


Jerome used, and in fact, preferred the Hebrew text to the Greek, and whenever they were in conflict, he usually side with the Hebrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:15 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:18 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Upstate NY
Religion: Catholic
Signum Crucis wrote:
Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?


The question, as stated, has an implication:

"Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible".....this infers/speculates that there are no infallible books in the Bible, making the entire thing suspect.

"Where does the Bible say that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?"

Again, question has implication:

The Roman Catholic Church (in its authority) has chosen the books included in its Bible (of which some are called, in Protestantism, "apocryphal" and therefore, to them, have no authority).

So: you either believe the infallibility of the Councils and the Popes or you do not. If the Pope at any time proclaims (De fide) something a doctrine of the Church, then it is.

So anyone who might "answer" this question from a Sola Scriptura Protestant point of view would, in fact, be answering a question you, yourself, seem to have regarding the infallibility of the entire Bible. I doubt that was your intention, though.
:nono:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:19 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Doom wrote:
pax wrote:
Doom wrote:
ChiTownGal wrote:
I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.


Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version


Also, a worthy of note, it is highly unlikely that Saint Jerome used the Masoretic Text, which I also consider to be a revised version -- revised to remove anything Christian from it.


Jerome used, and in fact, preferred the Hebrew text to the Greek, and whenever they were in conflict, he usually side with the Hebrew.


My point was that I think it is suspect whether the Masoretic Texts that appeared in the 7th century are identical with the Hebrew Texts used by Jerome in the 5th century.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:00 am 
Offline
**********
**********
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 489
Religion: Roman Catholic
Hello
I I may,
as a child I wanted my own Bible. I didn't just want the family Bible with all the lovely pictures in it. I got one as an Easter present. It was the Revised standard Version Catholic Edition. I began reading that Bible from the Book of Genesis. I got so far, somewhere around the Book of Kings and decided to cheat. I couldn't wait to begin reading the New Testament. The Holy Bible has always been my guide book. The Old testament has always struck me as being dark. It still strikes in that way. It probably always will. I reached a point when I began to think the Church had made a mistake including the Old testament in the Holy Bible. Many people spend more time looking at the Old Testament and the things that don't apply to we who were once Gentiles than thy do the New Testament which is the New Covenant.
Jesus spent three years teaching the apostles how to walk in the New Covenant. The Epistles are also about how to walk in the New covenant. Some people acept the teachings of the the Epistles but don't think what Jesus said applies because he came before the day of Pentecost. So people have not understood. The Epistles don't contradict what Jesus said. St. Paul didn't contradict what Jesus said. In his epistles St. Peter states that St. Paul wrote things that are hard to understand.
To whom was it written, what were the circumstances and conditions? That needs to be taken in to account.
Holy men of God put the Holy Bible together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If something is said and it compliments what is written in the Holy Bible then it may be from God. If something is said and it contradicts what the Holy Bible says then it is an error. The Holy Spirit will no more contradict himself than we will. We know we are wrong when we contradict ourselves.
The Holy Bible has to be relooked at periodically for updates to what words have come to mean in the language we use today for correct understand to follow.
It is for that reason I would recommend no other Holy Bible than a Roman Catholic one. Roman Catholic Theologians are guided by the Holy Spirit. We should know we can trust them.
If tradition is correctly followed it will go right back to what the Holy Bible really states. So if the Roman Catholic Church has correctly followed tradition it can't contradict the Holy Bible.
The reason why a lot of people think the Roman Catholic Church contradicts what the Holy Bible states is because they either have not understood the Holy Bible or understood the teachings of the Church.
Things of the Spirit are not so easy to grasp with the mind. That is why St. Paul wrote as he did. That is why some think he contradicts Jesus.

All of the Sola Scripturists contradict themselves. They make scriptures of what they think the Bible states. So then their works become tradition of those that follow them. If they are really going to follow only the bible then they shouldn't be writing anything.

God bless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:47 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:18 am
Posts: 273
Religion: No religion
Signum Crucis wrote:
Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?



Would Jesus waste His time to know the scripture intimately if they were fallible? John 7:15

Would Jesus have believed every word of Scripture if it were fallible? All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand that they would be. Would this have been the case if it were fallible?

Mark 12:24


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:38 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4365
Location: Castle Black: my chamber behind the Armory
Religion: Catholic
marc wrote:
Signum Crucis wrote:
Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?



Would Jesus waste His time to know the scripture intimately if they were fallible? John 7:15


Strawman.

marc wrote:

Would Jesus have believed every word of Scripture if it were fallible? All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand that they would be. Would this have been the case if it were fallible?

Mark 12:24


Strawman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:48 pm 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 70827
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
marc wrote:
Would Jesus waste His time to know the scripture intimately if they were fallible? John 7:15

Would Jesus have believed every word of Scripture if it were fallible? All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand that they would be. Would this have been the case if it were fallible?

Mark 12:24


Who said anything about the scriptures being fallible? However the correct word isn't 'infallible' but 'inerrant'....inerrant means 'without error', 'infallible' refers to decisions, the Bible cannot make decisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:02 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:18 am
Posts: 273
Religion: No religion
Doom wrote:
the Bible cannot make decisions.


More proof you are clueless........


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:51 am 
Offline
King of Cool

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 70827
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
marc wrote:
Doom wrote:
the Bible cannot make decisions.


More proof you are clueless........


The Bible can make decisions? Really? So if I ask it what I want to make for dinner it will tell me 'make a lasagna' just like Siri? Who knew?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 24 of 34   [ 668 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 34  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: