60 I'm not sure how saying it means "scripture only" is misrepresenting it.
Mebbe u should read your own post 62:
interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it
62 No, it doesn't.
Yes it does
Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?
That's what u partially misunderstand, and therefore misrepresent in part
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures are not only the final authority, but also the complete authority. That is to say that the reformers believed that God no longer gives revelation to humanity,
To the contrary of your 2nd sentence: Martin Luther received the same revelation Paul got: the just shall have life, and live, by faith. Which was helped, based on, Joel's Scripture, God's word.
This is what i mean when i refer to either ignorant, or deliberate, distortion on Ms Llama's part.
Additionally, the Scriptures are neither for themselves, nor apart from His believers. As the Lord Jesus Himself said, "It's written. Man shan't live by bread alone, but on every word which proceeds out from the mouth of God" Mt 4:4
...the concept of ex cathedra authority in Roman Catholicism...
"I've something against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices...But I say to you---the rest in Thyatira, as many as don't have this teaching, who've not known the deep things of Satan, as they say---I put no other burden upon you" Rv 2:20, 24
60 ...Which also has nothing to do with this thread.
To the contrary: i got the reference to "Roman Catholicism and Eastern" and "Mormonism" from this very thread (post 5)
Yeah, ok, but where?
Different places. Judea, Jerusalem (Matthew). Rome perhaps, later (Mark). Greece (Romans)...
And, why was it that the church existed for years and nobody ever saw it?
What?
It sounds like u have little, if any, idea what you're writing about
65 Sola Scriptura is one of the silliest beliefs ever concocted by man in any field of study.
This comment sounds like one of the silliest blogs ever concocted by a blooger in any field of study
Sola Scriptura is the belief that the bible alone authoritatively speaks on issues of faith & morals).
No it isn't. This blogger's ignorant. And perhaps even purposely so to a large degree
How is it that a 15 or 16 year old can recognize this gross error, while grown men with advanced theological degrees can embrace such a fantastically impossible concept?
Cuz he's blind?
The number one reason why Sola Scriptura cannot possibly be true is that it is what is called a self referential paradox. Even if I were to write to you and say what Im writing is inspired by God that wouldnt make it so!
You're not writing Scripture. At least u haven't copied any so far. That's a self-referential fact
Without 3rd party endorsement, on what authority could you accept the truth of my statement? On its own?
I not only not acccept the 65's silliness. I contradict it with by a 3rd-party authority. Namely the Bible
After all, it says right there in plain English that it is inspired by God. Therefore it cannot be wrong...right?
No, God's not wrong
This logical fallacy is similar to what is happening with the bible in Protestant churches.
This straw-man, nonsensical creation, is what's happening in post 65
Protestants believe that the bible says The bible is inspired therefore it is.
65 believes it's not, therefore it isn't?
Actually, the Scripture was inspired before anybody read it, even it's author(s)
Lets break this down and find out why this is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone could ever say.
No, post 65's quote competes for that title
The bible doesnt say that.
To the contrary: 2 Tim 3:16 reads "all Scripture's God-breathed"
The bible didnt exist at the time of the writing of the bible
To the contrary: Paul wrote his portions of the NT when the OT existed
so we know for absolute certain that it didnt say that and even if it said something similar it would be talking about something different than what we consider the bible.
My impression's #65 knows little of anything
Even if it did say that, remember above that it would need 3rd party endorsement to legitimize its authority.
To the contrary: God's Authority, Who is His Scripture's Inspirer (or Respirer), through His prophets and apostles. As He Himself, in the flesh, said when He was on the earth. "It's written..."
An entity cannot have authority (and certainly not devine authority) by merely claiming that it does.
Paul, like the Lord Jesus, was not writing, or claiming, authority alone
Protestants reject the 7 books of the Apocrypha considered by the Church to be inspired.
What "Church"? Roman Catholicism and "Eastern Orthodoxy" are not the church. Never have been. Never will be. At least not the Body of Christ.
Nor was the Apocrypha ever Jewish Scripture. Nor does "considering it" Scripture make what isn't, and wasn't Scripture, Scripture.
As Jerome and Luther realized
Since we know that Catholic Church in various councils predominately the ones at Nicaea (325 AD), the council of Hippo (393 AD) and the third council of Carthage (397 AD) selected the books, the books themselves cannot have sole authority.
What a joke.
A) that was not "the Catholic Church" as we know Jezebel aujourd'hui.
B) believes at those coucils, such as Augustine, "selected" the books because the NT books have authority. And were Scripture, and were accepted, and were read, and were received, and, most importantly, were written, LONG BEFORE (about 2.5 to 1.3 centuries) before those various councils
The bible doesnt give the church authority; the church gives the bible authority.
As was mentioned earlier, the church wrote the NT. But the church didn't write the OT. The OT, and its prophecy of Christ and the church, existed a long time (even up to 2 millenia) before the church.
As Paul the apostle wrote: "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" Eph 2:20. Etc
If it werent for the Catholic Church there would be no bible
If it weren't for the Catholic Church, William Tyndale wouldn't be murdered for translating the Bible (excellently) into English
Mebbe u should read your own post 62:
interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it
62 No, it doesn't.
Yes it does
Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?
That's what u partially misunderstand, and therefore misrepresent in part
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures are not only the final authority, but also the complete authority. That is to say that the reformers believed that God no longer gives revelation to humanity,
To the contrary of your 2nd sentence: Martin Luther received the same revelation Paul got: the just shall have life, and live, by faith. Which was helped, based on, Joel's Scripture, God's word.
This is what i mean when i refer to either ignorant, or deliberate, distortion on Ms Llama's part.
Additionally, the Scriptures are neither for themselves, nor apart from His believers. As the Lord Jesus Himself said, "It's written. Man shan't live by bread alone, but on every word which proceeds out from the mouth of God" Mt 4:4
...the concept of ex cathedra authority in Roman Catholicism...
"I've something against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices...But I say to you---the rest in Thyatira, as many as don't have this teaching, who've not known the deep things of Satan, as they say---I put no other burden upon you" Rv 2:20, 24
60 ...Which also has nothing to do with this thread.
To the contrary: i got the reference to "Roman Catholicism and Eastern" and "Mormonism" from this very thread (post 5)
Yeah, ok, but where?
Different places. Judea, Jerusalem (Matthew). Rome perhaps, later (Mark). Greece (Romans)...
And, why was it that the church existed for years and nobody ever saw it?
What?
It sounds like u have little, if any, idea what you're writing about
65 Sola Scriptura is one of the silliest beliefs ever concocted by man in any field of study.
This comment sounds like one of the silliest blogs ever concocted by a blooger in any field of study
Sola Scriptura is the belief that the bible alone authoritatively speaks on issues of faith & morals).
No it isn't. This blogger's ignorant. And perhaps even purposely so to a large degree
How is it that a 15 or 16 year old can recognize this gross error, while grown men with advanced theological degrees can embrace such a fantastically impossible concept?
Cuz he's blind?
The number one reason why Sola Scriptura cannot possibly be true is that it is what is called a self referential paradox. Even if I were to write to you and say what Im writing is inspired by God that wouldnt make it so!
You're not writing Scripture. At least u haven't copied any so far. That's a self-referential fact
Without 3rd party endorsement, on what authority could you accept the truth of my statement? On its own?
I not only not acccept the 65's silliness. I contradict it with by a 3rd-party authority. Namely the Bible
After all, it says right there in plain English that it is inspired by God. Therefore it cannot be wrong...right?
No, God's not wrong
This logical fallacy is similar to what is happening with the bible in Protestant churches.
This straw-man, nonsensical creation, is what's happening in post 65
Protestants believe that the bible says The bible is inspired therefore it is.
65 believes it's not, therefore it isn't?
Actually, the Scripture was inspired before anybody read it, even it's author(s)
Lets break this down and find out why this is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone could ever say.
No, post 65's quote competes for that title
The bible doesnt say that.
To the contrary: 2 Tim 3:16 reads "all Scripture's God-breathed"
The bible didnt exist at the time of the writing of the bible
To the contrary: Paul wrote his portions of the NT when the OT existed
so we know for absolute certain that it didnt say that and even if it said something similar it would be talking about something different than what we consider the bible.
My impression's #65 knows little of anything
Even if it did say that, remember above that it would need 3rd party endorsement to legitimize its authority.
To the contrary: God's Authority, Who is His Scripture's Inspirer (or Respirer), through His prophets and apostles. As He Himself, in the flesh, said when He was on the earth. "It's written..."
An entity cannot have authority (and certainly not devine authority) by merely claiming that it does.
Paul, like the Lord Jesus, was not writing, or claiming, authority alone
Protestants reject the 7 books of the Apocrypha considered by the Church to be inspired.
What "Church"? Roman Catholicism and "Eastern Orthodoxy" are not the church. Never have been. Never will be. At least not the Body of Christ.
Nor was the Apocrypha ever Jewish Scripture. Nor does "considering it" Scripture make what isn't, and wasn't Scripture, Scripture.
As Jerome and Luther realized
Since we know that Catholic Church in various councils predominately the ones at Nicaea (325 AD), the council of Hippo (393 AD) and the third council of Carthage (397 AD) selected the books, the books themselves cannot have sole authority.
What a joke.
A) that was not "the Catholic Church" as we know Jezebel aujourd'hui.
B) believes at those coucils, such as Augustine, "selected" the books because the NT books have authority. And were Scripture, and were accepted, and were read, and were received, and, most importantly, were written, LONG BEFORE (about 2.5 to 1.3 centuries) before those various councils
The bible doesnt give the church authority; the church gives the bible authority.
As was mentioned earlier, the church wrote the NT. But the church didn't write the OT. The OT, and its prophecy of Christ and the church, existed a long time (even up to 2 millenia) before the church.
As Paul the apostle wrote: "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" Eph 2:20. Etc
If it werent for the Catholic Church there would be no bible
If it weren't for the Catholic Church, William Tyndale wouldn't be murdered for translating the Bible (excellently) into English