Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
John 21:24-25 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Iscool is correct. It does not say *also helpful*.
Why did you add that? I find it incredibly ironic that Luther is castigated for *adding* *alone* to faith and yet here we have a Catholic adding words to Scripture that the context doesn't even imply.
And as Elsie pointed out in post 422, you did not answer this question. Wanna try again?
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
But that is not what I asked. Clearly, he was influential in his lifetime (otherwise, no one would have bothered imprisoning him and killing him.) Thus, like many, many other men, he sought glory despite great danger, and encountered them both. Common story, really.
In other words, you have none. Your anachronistic gymnastics is not evidence.
THIS WHOLE THREAD is about the power and influence Paul held and continues to hold over the development of Christianity. Perhaps you hadn't noticed...?
“As for the second, I don’t believe anyone who says God spoke to him.”
That is both an illogical and irrational prejudice.
On second thought, God just told me that you should give me all your money. I'll send my Paypal information shortly.
I absolutely believe Muhammad was used by an otherworldly entity. I just don’t believe it was God. I believe it was the devil.
Ah yes, I forget your world is full of invisible creatures who, like movie villains, like to tamper with their victims for millennia rather than simply win a decisive victory and be done with it.
Many a revolutionary started on the side of the established power. It's not uncommon at all.
Inquiring minds want to know.....
Context is the enemy of Catholicism.
Your interpretation of those verses add anything and everything else where it does not exist.
It doesn't say *Scripture and......*, *Scripture and tradition*, *Scripture and sacraments*, *Scripture and the magisterium*, *Scripture and (fill in the blank)*.
Again, you are in error. Read the letters. They wanted to be tolerant of other faiths, and primarily tolerant between the Protestant Christian faiths, but there is no question at all which God they served.
All it is, is a statement that it does NOT come from government (because if government giveth, then government taketh away, to paraphrase a quote.) It's just a line in the sand, saying "beyond this point I will not argue, I'll just start shooting."
No, again, Our jurist prudence is based upon the Christian Bible and the dictates of Blackstone's Law. The Judeo-Christian Ethic forms our moral code. I am afraid your position has been compromised by the modern view. Read the founders and you will find that I am right.
“Iscool is correct. It does not say *also helpful*.
Why did you add that? I find it incredibly ironic that Luther is castigated for *adding* *alone* to faith and yet here we have a Catholic adding words to Scripture that the context doesn’t even imply.”
See post 427.
“What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?”
I missed where Elsie asked me that. I will answer here. Sorry, I guess I read it wrong.
The Assumption of Mary would be one answer to the question. Again, if all the miracles Jesus performed are not in Scripture it’s not too hard to see that this too might be omitted. Why?
Because the Scriptures are about Jesus. Their focus is on him. Not Mary.
Oh, I know that. But what they took pains to say was "Creator," not "God,". And in that, they were wise enough to cover all bases. Because at least one of them recognized that rights are not so much taken away as they are given up by those who don't feel they have the moral authority to fight for them. And of course, that is where we are now, losing rights by the leaps and bounds, because we do not fight for them. And no supernatural intervention halting the process, I notice.
No, again, Our jurist prudence is based upon the Christian Bible and the dictates of Blackstone's Law. The Judeo-Christian Ethic forms our moral code.
Yes, they based on what they knew. We excuse their views on slavery because we know they were constrained by the culture of their time and place. So we must understand that the same minds that accepted slavery would bow to some Middle Eastern religion.
But we today do not have to either condone slavery or bow toward Jerusalem or Mecca. It's a matter of choice.
“Thus, like many, many other men, he sought glory despite great danger, and encountered them both. Common story, really.”
He sought no earthly glory and received none.
“Perhaps you hadn’t noticed...?”
I keep asking you for evidence for your odd claims and you keep failing to produce it. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed...?
“On second thought, God just told me that you should give me all your money. I’ll send my Paypal information shortly.”
Mockery is not an argument. Do you know the difference?
“Ah yes, I forget your world is full of invisible creatures who, like movie villains, like to tamper with their victims for millennia rather than simply win a decisive victory and be done with it.”
They can’t win a decisive victory. It has already been won by God. That’s why Paul served Him.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and that she was to be considered the “queen of heaven” and co-redemptrix with Christ. If you cannot we shall consider what the Catholic Church teaches to be “another gospel” and accursed as such.
The only source we know to be inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what the apostles taught is scripture.
Your considerations are duly noted.
If he wasn't influential, why do we even know his name? I don't even know what kind of game you're trying to play. If Paul had not become a leading figure in the development of Christianity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As for God having already won, he's drawing out the end game like a James Bond villain who has a trapdoor over a pool full of crocodiles just waiting. I think the hinges might need oiling at this point.
Of course it is. If one sincerely is seeking God’s truth asking the Holy Spirit to guide them He will get from scripture exactly what God wants that person to get. The problem with Catholics and those who follow a “church” is that they are not listening to the Holy Spirit but are listening to men.
“Vlad, was Paul or was Paul not an influential figure in the development of the church during his lifetime?”
That isn’t the question. The question is was he making everything up for the sake of earthly “power” and the answer is clearly NO.
“You tell me, you’re the expert.”
Compared to you, I apparently am.
“His letters were answered, saved, and published.”
Peter’s letters were saved. John’s letters were saved. Jude’s letter was saved. That doesn’t mean Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
“His directives were followed.”
Sometimes, but not all time. Also, he gave advice, not just directives. And none of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
“Other church leaders met with him.”
And he met with other Church leaders. So? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
“He was apparently dangerous enough to imprison and kill.”
So totalitarian regimes only imprison and execute those who are “dangerous”? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
“If he wasn’t influential, why do we even know his name?”
Malchus was name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. I know his name because it’s in the gospel of John. Was he influential?
“I don’t even know what kind of game you’re trying to play.”
I’m not playing a game, but you sure are jumping around like you’re playing hopscotch.
“If Paul had not become a leading figure in the development of Christianity, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
Sure we would - because your claim was that he did what he did to gain “power”.
“As for God having already won, he’s drawing out the end game like a James Bond villain who has a trapdoor over a pool full of crocodiles just waiting. I think the hinges might need oiling at this point.”
God has His own schedule.
Has nothing to do with that, does it??? It has to do with you adding words to scripture to try to justify your false theology...It's all about honesty...
If those things Jesus did were important for us to know the details, he would have told us...THEN...He certainly didn't tell anyone in your religion about them Centuries later...
Amazing!
Amazing??? Well did the disciples make that claim??? No they didn't and you know it...
How do you know your interpretation of Scripture is correct then? Are you one of the Apostles using a time machine?
Because Jesus told us that if we wanted to know how to get eternal life, to SEARCH the scriptures...
And again, this is the point of contention. You are certainly adding to Scripture when you clam it says anywhere that itself, is the ONLY source of Truth!
This is what you are not getting, or stubbornly refusing to admit. When you show me a Scripture that says, "Scripture ALONE is the source of ALL truth (about Christianity)" then we will talk further.
Until then, I'm not bound by your rule (and hence a man made rule) that says "If those things Jesus did were important for us to know the details, he would have told us...THEN..."
You see my FRiend, you keep wanting me to play your game by your rules. "Show me that in the Bible or else it's not true". You, and all the other anti-Catholic Christians may be able to sucker other Catholics into playing that silly game but NOT me. You will FIRST demonstrate sola scriptura from Scripture or will be ignored
Now, do you want to answer my final question to you? Because I think it will be helpful in this regard:
You cited John 5:39 & 46-47. Luke 24:27 & 44.
Would you agree that what is described in those passages is also what is described, at least in part, in Acts 17:1-11?
Yes or no please.
Joh_20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Well that covers the material and formal sufficiency...What was the next question???
In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.
2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
God says his scripture is materially and formally sufficient and any outside interpretation is not acceptable...That's good enough for millions upon millions of Christians who read and believe God...But to put a cap on it,
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
That's where you learn of God...Not outside of the scriptures but inside...
So you can’t show where the apostles taught those things?
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.