Posted on 12/05/2014 7:18:21 PM PST by Salvation
“...not much of an argument against Sola Scriptura...”
Sola Scriptura is a manmade doctine. The canon of the bible is not found within the bible or listed within the bible so it is extrabiblical.
“...Wow!! that really doesn’t make much of an argument against Sola Scriptura...”
Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition not found in the bible. Where does the bible list its own canon? It does not.
The Alexandrian Canon used by Jesus includes the deuterocanonical books rejected by protestants. This canon is referred to by Jesus Himself in the New Testament.
The false argument that the “extra” Alexandrian canon books were only found in the Greek and not the Hebrew or Aramaic was discredited when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and all of the books except Esther (including Maccabbees that speaks of purgatory) were found in the ancient languages.
The Jewish people did not settle their canon until after Jesus. They rejected the biblical books used by the early church (Alexandrian canon) after they had also rejected Jesus, so thier judgment is no longer valid at that point; Jesus did use the Alexandrian canon and his judgment is valid. Since Jesus used it, it is good enough for the Catholic Church.
Those verses merely refer to tradition.
It does not tell us what those traditions are.
What are those traditions of which he speaks?
How do you know they are his and how do you know they have been passed down faithfully?
How do you know that someone didn’t make them up along the way and claim they came from Paul? A very real possibility considering the work of the enemy in trying to draw people away from the truth.
That is only a presumption. Paul doesn't tell us how he knew and for Catholics to include detail like that is adding to the word of God.
Simply because Scripture doesn't tell us how Paul knew does not give anyone license to make stuff up as they go along and proclaim it as truth.
You can't know that. Unless you were there and saw it happen, there is no possible way for you or anyone else to know that as a fact.
But in GREEK there is.
Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother “and brothers” were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ‘His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and ‘brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not ‘His sisters’ here with us?”
John 2:12 “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and ‘His brothers’, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, ‘and with His brothers’.”
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, ‘and’ the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, ‘the Lord’s brother’..
Strong's Concordance
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Original Word: συγγενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
Even Luther, Calvin and Zwingli claim Mary was a perpetual virgin.
WHO CARES?!?!?!
The following words and terms are not found in the Bible either so they must be, according to your criteria, also of necessity be extra-Biblical. And yet the Catholic church teaches them as truth.
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
Funny that......
Lot’s of circular reasoning in that article. None that stand up to scripture. Catholics can not prove that what the Catholic Church today considers tradition is what the apostles taught as tradition. And Catholics will never get by the admonition of Paul about “any other gospel”. The Catholic Church today teaches many things the apostles didn’t teach and are thus to be considered accursed.
10Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him)
The Greek word used for cousin is: ἀνεψιός. Guess what it means...cousin, nephew.
It is used ONE time in the NT.
Now, with clear Biblical evidence supported by using the Greek I wonder if catholics will finally ditch the talking points that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters and that these were His cousins?
I pray that catholics begin to read and embrace the Bible and it's teachings and follow Christ and Christ alone.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
That is what I was trying to say in my own crude way in post #22. I certainly wasn't calling anyone here a liar but talking ,in general, that is why tradition does not hold the same weight as Scripture. I was thinking this was an open forum but post #24 seems not to support that. I seemed to have fallen victim to a new tradition.
LOL Some here do not like being taken to task with scripture.
Apparently, Catholicism does not allow for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men.
Oh, they do pay lip service to Him, acknowledging that He exists, but for virtually anything else, nothing.
Heck, we’re even told that the college of cardinals picks the pope, not God, and that they’re not guided by the Holy Spirit.
But it’s still tradition — passing the Word from one person to another orally.
It's obvious to me that as far as in the lives of Catholics they are right.
No, tradition is not merely oral communication.
When I relate an event that happened to me yesterday to someone, that does not make it a tradition.
That would be orally teaching what the apostles taught. Catholics have NOT proven that what they teach is what the apostles taught.
Yes, mountn man, do read that post again. The context is “oral tradition” versus the Word of God. The example I gave in 1 Kings is centuries before the Catholic Church was ever started. The old prophet that lied could not have been a Catholic. Oral tradition, in general, is notoriously subject to error. Whether it be Catholic, Hindu or Southern Methodist. Then multiply centuries of “tweaking” and . . . . no, we cannot give it the same gravitas as Scripture. So, no, I did not call Catholics liars. But merely disagree with their assignment of the import of tradition.
So laughable when non-Catholics try to tell Catholics what Catholic need to believe. Especially when the information isn’t accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.