Sola-Scriptura destroys itself!

[DragonHawk1959]

There are many reasons why (Bible alone Doctrine) doesn't work. I'm going to share one I came across today.

Today I opened my Bible to

Ephesians 5: 29 no one ever hated their own body, but they nourish and care for their bodies, just as Christ does the church

No one ever hated their own body?? WTF!?! All kinds of people hate their body! I passionately hate my flesh and think being human is gross. I hate eating, hate bowel movements, bodily functions, boogers, tooth decay, and if I could be delivered from this body and be a spirit today, I would do so, and I pray it happens, I'm just not going to kill myself because I'm waiting for God's timing (And I don't have firearms). I have also known people who starve themselves, commit suicide, induce vomiting, whip themselves, burn themselves, cut themselves, and abuse their bodies in all sorts of ways.

Yet Scripture says no one ever hated their body but they nourish and care for it as Christ does the Church. Total falsehood! Duh!

This Scripture verse bothers me because yet again I have come across a verse in Scripture that appears completely false. I would like to tell people that Scripture is reliable and doesn't contain falsehood, but I can present multiple Scripture verses that don't mean what they say.

It bothers me because people constantly use Scripture to rebuke people and assume various people are condemned to the "Lake of fire", yet how do we know when the Scripture actually means what it says? Very often Scripture doesn't mean what it says...like John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

But the main reason Solascriptura doesn't work is because it is a Doctrine that destroys itself. If the Bible is the final and only authority, then there should have to be something in Scripture that says it is. I will renounce my Catholic Faith today if you can show me where Solascriptura is found in the Bible. Solascriptura has splintered Christianity into thousands of denominations because the Bible is soooo confusing. THE BIBLE DIVIDES PEOPLE!

So, don't condemn someone for doing something that isn't found in the Bible, and how about you don't use Scripture to condemn at all, because Scripture contains clear blatant falsehood, as I have shown you and is loaded with Hyperbole, poetry, parable, and symbolic speech that isn't meant to be taken literal.

Yet people constantly use Scripture to judge and condemn other faiths or say "don't do that, it isn't in the Bible". Nothing in the Bible says something has to be in the Bible to be true!

Most people who claim Sola-Scriptura is sufficient unto itself ... DON'T believe it. They load on thousands of years of biblical instruction and interpretation. So much so that they are quite happy to refute the bible itself.
99.9% of Christians think they understand the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet though the Bible is unusually lucid on the subject:
Pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49);
Hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13);
Arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8);
Evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17);
Adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12)

Not even one of the Prophets mentions same-sex behavior in relation to the cities of the plains, yet most Christians insist on this unbiblical understanding.
Given the words of the Prophets it is clear that the men of the city did not trust these men who had come to Sodom and wished to know their business in the city.

 

[Deidre]

Well, I don't believe that Sola Sciprtura is necessary, but I also don't believe that the RCC is necessary, either. The Catholic Church doesn't own how believers view Jesus, or what parts of the Bible to take literally or not. But, the RCC would like its members to believe that without ''her,'' no one can understand the faith, and it's just sorry to say, a man made fallacy.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

There are many reasons why Sola-Scriptura (Bible alone Doctrine) doesn't work. I'm going to share one I came across today.

Today I opened my Bible to

Ephesians 5: 29 no one ever hated their own body, but they nourish and care for their bodies, just as Christ does the church

No one ever hated their own body?? WTF!?! All kinds of people hate their body! I passionately hate my flesh and think being human is gross. I hate eating, hate bowel movements, bodily functions, boogers, tooth decay, and if I could be delivered from this body and be a spirit today, I would do so, and I pray it happens, I'm just not going to kill myself because I'm waiting for God's timing (And I don't have firearms). I have also known people who starve themselves, commit suicide, induce vomiting, whip themselves, burn themselves, cut themselves, and abuse their bodies in all sorts of ways.

Yet Scripture says no one ever hated their body but they nourish and care for it as Christ does the Church. Total falsehood! Duh!

This Scripture verse bothers me because yet again I have come across a verse in Scripture that appears completely false. I would like to tell people that Scripture is reliable and doesn't contain falsehood, but I can present multiple Scripture verses that don't mean what they say.

It bothers me because people constantly use Scripture to rebuke people and assume various people are condemned to the "Lake of fire", yet how do we know when the Scripture actually means what it says? Very often Scripture doesn't mean what it says...like John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

But the main reason Solascriptura doesn't work is because it is a Doctrine that destroys itself. If the Bible is the final and only authority, then there should have to be something in Scripture that says it is. I will renounce my Catholic Faith today if you can show me where Solascriptura is found in the Bible. Solascriptura has splintered Christianity into thousands of denominations because the Bible is soooo confusing. THE BIBLE DIVIDES PEOPLE!

So, don't condemn someone for doing something that isn't found in the Bible, and how about you don't use Scripture to condemn at all, because Scripture contains clear blatant falsehood, as I have shown you and is loaded with Hyperbole, poetry, parable, and symbolic speech that isn't meant to be taken literal.

Yet people constantly use Scripture to judge and condemn other faiths or say "don't do that, it isn't in the Bible". Nothing in the Bible says something has to be in the Bible to be true!

I think you have things way out of context. The context is that the Apostle Paul is presenting a comparative illustration of a husband loving his wife and vice versa, and showing that is the way Christ loves the church which is His body. No one could ever hate their own body and see that relationship successful. We are talking about normal relationships that serve as an example. If you say that you hate your own body, then that is abnormal, and is a result of depression which needs to be seen to by a professional. Here is the context which you have not cited.
The first reason why there are a lot of different Christian denominations, is that people are not careful to responsibly employ all the principles of Biblical interpretation.
The second reason is that people are sinful, and they want to see their preconceived ideas reflected in Scripture, and they force Scripture out of context to get their desired result. This is the Scripture in question:-
Ephesians 5:25-30 (KJV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Hope this helps, Certainty for eternity.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, I don't believe that Sola Sciprtura is necessary, but I also don't believe that the RCC is necessary, either. The Catholic Church doesn't own how believers view Jesus, or what parts of the Bible to take literally or not. But, the RCC would like its members to believe that without ''her,'' no one can understand the faith, and it's just sorry to say, a man made fallacy.

That's why all people should pray for enlightenment, have a personal relationship with God, and as it says under your name "Follow thy heart".

People should follow their heart. The answers to each person's destiny lie within better than they can be found in a book.

It is good to silence the mind and listen to the still small voice inside us. Being too busy and too much noise can prevent us from hearing that voice. Many people miss out on their destiny because they never learn how to listen to the heart. It's sad

 

[Spiderman]

I think you have things way out of context. The context is that the Apostle Paul is presenting a comparative illustration of a husband loving his wife and vice versa, and showing that is the way Christ loves the church which is His body. No one could ever hate their own body and see that relationship successful. We are talking about normal relationships that serve as an example. If you say that you hate your own body, then that is abnormal, and is a result of depression which needs to be seen to by a professional. Here is the context which you have not cited.
The first reason why there are a lot of different Christian denominations, is that people are not careful to responsibly employ all the principles of Biblical interpretation.
The second reason is that people are sinful, and they want to see their preconceived ideas reflected in Scripture, and they force Scripture out of context to get their desired result. This is the Scripture in question:-
Ephesians 5:25-30 (KJV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Hope this helps, Certainty for eternity.

My point is it has a false statement. "No one ever hated their own body" is falsehood. also, ask anything of me in my name and I will do it John 14:14 is falsehood as well as faith of a mustard seed moving mountains is falsehood. Since the Bible contains multiple Scripture verses that are falsehoods, how do we know when the Bible speaks truth or falsehood? We don't.

 

[Spiderman]

"Religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation."

People need to find the answers within themselves and not use ancient texts with clear falsehoods, hyperbole's, parables, poetry, symbolic language, and contradictions to judge and condemn other Faiths.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes. Throw out the whole Bible because of one verse. Maybe one word is missing. Maybe it should say no sane person hates their body. What those who are not sane do is another subject.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes. Throw out the whole Bible because of one verse. Maybe one word is missing. Maybe it should say no sane person hates their body. What those who are not sane do is another subject.

It isn't just one verse. I've pointed out others. Scripture also states that those who believe in Christ will do the works Christ did and greater works, Says ask anything in Jesus name and it will be done, Says faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. Scripture also has verses that say the opposite of what other verses say, leading believers to opposite beliefs

 

[Spiderman]

I also think a sane person could hate their body because Scripture says the flesh is at war with the spirit and we are to "put to death the deeds of the flesh"

 

[Etritonakin]

About hating one's body.....

Also in the bible is that God will turn to us a pure language.
Our languages are built from ignorance and change as things are learned -but they still allow for much misunderstanding.

The statement is more about self-concern than the body specifically.
Though the body is specifically mentioned, the fact that you want a better body -or for your body to be better -is more the point.

You love your body enough to not like it as it is and want it to be the best it can be.

The statement is true as intended and stated -but not necessarily in every way it can be read.

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church doesn't own how believers view Jesus, or what parts of the Bible to take literally or not. But, the RCC would like its members to believe that without ''her,'' no one can understand the faith, and it's just sorry to say, a man made fallacy.

Actually the RCC doesn't teach that.

 

[shmogie]

But that simply does not change the fact that the scriptures not only were not written before or at the same time as the creation of the church, but also that the canon hadn't also been decided until centuries later, and that was done by the church.

Secondly, the oral tradition was not uniform across the board, which is why selection of the canon was difficult and very time consuming (over 1/2 century).

There is every evidence that the Gospels were written early, and by the observers of the events. the oral Gospels flowed from those living witnesses who ultimately recorded what they saw (exception Luke, probably the first detective) Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the council of Nicea was " centuries later ", I will refresh my memory. How can you state "the oral tradition was not uniform across the board" ? You never heard those oral traditions of the time given at the time. I don't see how you can comment on their uniformity. Yes, the Church decided on the canon. But it was an objective process based on a number of rational criteria, including insight into the writing dates of the various Gospels and letters. Though they lived long ago, these were very intelligent people,and I personally believe in their integrity and objectivity in this process.

 

[shmogie]

It's the other way around. The scriptures are based on christ not christ based on scriptures. You should be able to experience the Word/creator's message without the need of scripture. Once you become dependant on it, it's like what christ says about people looking at hebrew scriptures as if they obtain eternal life when he is referring to himself as a medium to it instead.

Scripture is used as an idol to christ. Scripture isn't divinely inspired in and of itself. That's saying that what Moses says does not come from god but from Moses since he was inspired by god. If anything, the people were inspired by god and they wrote the bible based on their inspiration.

Whether you want to follow the law (as given to moses) or follow your inspiration as the same as with Moses and Christ that's up to the christian.

But sola scriptura is not authority. The creator is and the words (not Word) of the bible is based on Christ. So you guys are going to scripture as if it were christ all because the people who wrote it were inspired. Yes, the Bible is based on Christ, and yes, the Bible was divinely inspired to explain who he is, what he did, why he did it, and what it means for humanity. Without it, how would you be able to truly know those things ? Decide for yourself ? But that certainly is idolizing self isn't it ? Giving yourself permission define God, rather than allowing He to define Himself ?

To me, that's idolism.

 

[miodrag]

People need to find the answers within themselves ...

But you hate yourself. And hating your body is a sin.

... and not use ancient texts with clear falsehoods, hyperbole's, parables, poetry, symbolic language, and contradictions to judge and condemn other Faiths.

With every message you become more convincing - that you are not religious at all.
In spirituality, we walk the path of elephants, we depend on what was passed down to us. Many others walked that path and reached destination; if you do not know of them, you are on the wrong path.

If you have problem with falsehood and contradictions, then you are following the wrong authorities.

 

[Spiderman]

But you hate yourself. And hating your body is a sin.



With every message you become more convincing - that you are not religious at all.
In spirituality, we walk the path of elephants, we depend on what was passed down to us. Many others walked that path and reached destination; if you do not know of them, you are on the wrong path.

If you have problem with falsehood and contradictions, then you are following the wrong authorities.

I didn't say I hate myself. I hate the flesh which is only temporary. I long to be a spirit, which is eternal and more free of so much of what I find a burden. The flesh is at war with the spirit.

No, I'm not religious, you are right, but I am very spiritual and pray constantly.

 

[metis]

There is every evidence that the Gospels were written early, and by the observers of the events. the oral Gospels flowed from those living witnesses who ultimately recorded what they saw (exception Luke, probably the first detective)

Most theologians do not believe that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, plus they were written three decades or more after Jesus was executed, depending on which gospel we're considering.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the council of Nicea was " centuries later ", I will refresh my memory.

325 c.e.

How can you state "the oral tradition was not uniform across the board" ? You never heard those oral traditions of the time given at the time.

Because there's variance between the gospels themselves, and also some disagreements found in the epistles, especially between Paul and James. Secondly, there were other sources that ended up not being included in the canon that had narratives that were different to varying degrees. Oral traditions tend to be very "flexible" and typically quite subjective.

Yes, the Church decided on the canon. But it was an objective process based on a number of rational criteria, including insight into the writing dates of the various Gospels and letters. Though they lived long ago, these were very intelligent people,and I personally believe in their integrity and objectivity in this process.

But that process was very contentious as different communities were using different books, which is why Constantine literally ordered the selection of a canon..

 

[Etritonakin]

Actually, the bible calls our present bodies "vile" -or of low estate -though they are also "fearfully and wonderfully made".

I could do without body odor and other such things.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

My point is it has a false statement. "No one ever hated their own body" is falsehood. also, ask anything of me in my name and I will do it John 14:14 is falsehood as well as faith of a mustard seed moving mountains is falsehood. Since the Bible contains multiple Scripture verses that are falsehoods, how do we know when the Bible speaks truth or falsehood? We don't.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. We mustn’t fall into the trap of throwing out the whole of the Bible because we don’t understand every verse. There may be 1000 verses, are you going to dismiss the 999 for the one you don’t understand. I have been reading the Bible for 30 years and I am still finding new gems of wisdom. Let me comment on a couple of verses you have raised.
1) Let me suggest that you have been looking at the verse "No one ever hated their own body" from the wrong angle. You have been looking at it as literal and factual, whereas I think you need to look at it as a statement that is absurd. The implication is that ‘who in their right mind would harm their own body?’
2) You have cited the verse ask anything of me in my name and I will do it John 14:14 which says:- John 14:13-14 (KJV)
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Notice in the previous verse that the Father may be glorified in the Son. That is the condition for prayers to be granted. We cannot just come to God and Father and get anything we want. Is it according to the will of God?
3) You have also mentioned:- as faith of a mustard seed moving mountains is falsehood. You may find this Commentary comments interesting:-
Having littleness of... faith was a somewhat typical condition of the disciples. Soon after Jesus called them into His service, they sat among the crowd on the mountainside whom He charged with being anxious because of their little faith in God to provide for their physical needs (Matt. 6:25-34). When during the fierce storm on the Sea of Galilee they despaired of their lives, Jesus rebuked them before He rebuked the waves, saying "Why are you timid, you men of little faith?" (8:26). When Peter started to walk on the water but became afraid and began sinking, "Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?'" (14:31). Shortly before healing the demonized boy, Jesus had again charged the disciples with having little faith in not expecting Him to be able to feed the multitude near Magadan (16:8).
Those incidents illustrate that little faith is the kind of faith that believes in God when you have something in your hand, when His provision is already made. When things were going well with the disciples and everything seemed under control, they found it easy to trust their Lord. But as soon as circumstances became uncertain or threatening, their faith withered. Their faith was like the faith of most believers in all ages. When they are healthy and have the necessities of life, their faith is great and strong, but when they are in need, their faith is small and gives way to doubt.
Great faith trusts God when there is nothing in the cupboard to eat and no money to buy food. Great faith trusts in God when health is gone, work is gone, reputation is gone, or family is gone. Great faith trusts God while the windstorm is still howling and persecution continues.
And….
Continuing the lesson on faith, Jesus said, "For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you." Jesus seems to contradict Himself, first rebuking the disciples for having small faith and then telling them that even the smallest faith can move mountains. But as He made clear in the parable of the mustard seed, the seed does not represent littleness as such but rather littleness that grows into greatness. "When it is full grown," He explained, "it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree" (Matt. 13:32). Small faith can accomplish great things only if, like a mustard seed, it grows into something greater than it was. Only when small faith grows into great faith can it move a mountain.
MacArthur New Testament Commentary, The - MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Matthew 16-23. Certainty for eternity

 

[shmogie]

Most theologians do not believe that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, plus they were written three decades or more after Jesus was executed, depending on which gospel we're considering.

325 c.e.

Because there's variance between the gospels themselves, and also some disagreements found in the epistles, especially between Paul and James. Secondly, there were other sources that ended up not being included in the canon that had narratives that were different to varying degrees. Oral traditions tend to be very "flexible" and typically quite subjective.

But that process was very contentious as different communities were using different books, which is why Constantine literally ordered the selection of a canon..

Yes, they were written within 30 to 40 years of the Crucifixion. The variances to me aren't because of the oral tradition, they are the expected results of witnesses writing from memory. I have investigated crimes where eyewitnesses right after the act, show a wide variance in what they saw, Actually the consistency of the Gospels is impressive, and the variances don't effect the doctrines or instructions contained in them. There are letters extant referring to books of the Bible, with varying numbers mentioned from immediate post Apostolic writers. Because they mention in their letter a number, that doesn't mean that was all they had, they were referencing them for a particular purpose. One was Polycarp, who had been the student of the Apostle John, and he confirms the authorship of the Gospel of John. I am suspicious of terms like "most theologians". I don't know how most was determined. Certainly the largest group of Protestant theologians, Evangelicals, believe that witnesses wrote the Gospels, as well as groups like the JW's and SDA's. The word canon originally referred to, not a list of books, but the idea of a yardstick, or measurement, as in whether a book measured up to the standards and fundamentals of the faith, which had been known from the Apostles. So, those that were canonical were true to the fundamentals and doctrine. It later changed to mean an approved list, by someone in authority. Even today, Catholics canonize the apocrypha, Protestants reject it.

 

[metis]

The variances to me aren't because of the oral tradition, they are the expected results of witnesses writing from memory.

But these variances got into the oral tradition by all indications. The main points of the narratives tend to be quite similar, so it's the details that are so often different.

Actually the consistency of the Gospels is impressive

And so are the inconsistencies that go well beyond what I've been saying, but I honestly don't want to get into that.

Certainly the largest group of Protestant theologians, Evangelicals, believe that witnesses wrote the Gospels, as well as groups like the JW's and SDA's.

Well, Evangelicals and others believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that those beliefs are true,

So, those that were canonical were true to the fundamentals and doctrine. It later changed to mean an approved list, by someone in authority. Even today, Catholics canonize the apocrypha, Protestants reject it.

And when they did reject it under Luther's opinion, they did so without explanation or justification. Luther's original German translation of the Bible included the Apocrypha between the two testaments, and even some Protestant Bibles today do the same.

I've read them word for word, and there really isn't anything in them that Evangelicals should be afraid of. The only two "controversial" points are the praying for the dead and purgatory, both that we know were beliefs in the early church.