[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Romans alone is enough Chris.[/quote]
So you’re Sola Romans, now?
Okay, to humor you. I just read Romans two times. Now what?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Romans alone is enough Chris.[/quote]
So you’re Sola Romans, now?
Okay, to humor you. I just read Romans two times. Now what?
[/quote]Romans is sufficient as a biblical anti Catholic source is what I meant Chris. My fault. Wasn’t clear. Not to Catholics though because it’ll be predigested and force fed by mama lest they fire a couple synapses on their own and see what it actually says.
I have become fond of these monks.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Romans alone is enough Chris.[/quote]
So you’re Sola Romans, now?
Okay, to humor you. I just read Romans two times. Now what?
[/quote]Romans is sufficient as a biblical anti Catholic source is what I meant Chris. My fault. Wasn’t clear. Not to Catholics though because it’ll be predigested and force fed by mama lest they fire a couple synapses on their own and see what it actually says.
[/quote]
And, how am I supposed to interpret this single book of the Bible?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, how am I supposed to interpret this single book of the Bible?[/quote]
The reason I ask is because if the Ethiopian minister doesn’t understand without a guide, how am I supposed to understand without a guide? [1]
[1] Acts 8:30-31
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Romans alone is enough Chris.[/quote]
So you’re Sola Romans, now?
Okay, to humor you. I just read Romans two times. Now what?
[/quote]Romans is sufficient as a biblical anti Catholic source is what I meant Chris. My fault. Wasn’t clear. Not to Catholics though because it’ll be predigested and force fed by mama lest they fire a couple synapses on their own and see what it actually says.
[/quote]
Anti-Catholic? LOL! Now your just being obtuse. Ok, I’ll bite. What’s anti Catholic about it? That Christ died for all men? That the gospel is not intended for Jews alone? Or is Chapter 9 the only chapter you read.
Rm 5:18
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness7 leads to justification and life for all men.” ← yup can’t get more anti-Catholic than that!
Rm 10:9-13
“because, if myou confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and nbelieve in your heart othat God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 qFor there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” ← That’s so anti-Catholic I can even stand it!
You do notice that when he’s talking about election, he is talking about the gospel right? Not the elect will go to heaven and the non-elect will go to hell? Those phasing do not exist.
Are you saying the other epistles are irrelevant or somehow less important or absolutely meaningless?
Perhaps you should spend some time with James, or 1 & 2 Peter?
2 Peter 2:2
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. " ← This one’s for you… St. Peter, you see, he knew Christ as man and Lord.
The more you try to prove scripture is anti-Catholic, you more you prove it isn’t. You’re hatred blinds you to the truth. The is the nuclear 3 quadrillion-trillion watt light bulb of truth.
This hate for our church is going the be the death of you. I sense it causes you much pain. You can’t beat truth tirib.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Romans alone is enough Chris.[/quote]
So you’re Sola Romans, now?
Okay, to humor you. I just read Romans two times. Now what?
[/quote]Romans is sufficient as a biblical anti Catholic source is what I meant Chris. My fault. Wasn’t clear. Not to Catholics though because it’ll be predigested and force fed by mama lest they fire a couple synapses on their own and see what it actually says.
[/quote]
BTW, St. Paul was a Catholic Bishop. Just sayin’ he was, it’s true look it up.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
I thought you took the bible literally? Why would you need an explanation, unless you try to change it’s meaning.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
Did you just say that an Ethiopian Jewish Minister, the leading guy for the Queen in Ethiopia is untutored? Sure and Augustine didn’t know Plato.
I found this interesting:
My personal interpretation of these verses is that somewhere in this world, to be found in the historical Church that came out of Jerusalem, led by St. Peter, is men with authority to give actual forgiveness of sins as Jesus actually forgave sins.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
Did you just say that an Ethiopian Jewish Minister, the leading guy for the Queen in Ethiopia is untutored? Sure and Augustine didn’t know Plato. [/quote]Untutored in messianic prophecy Chris. Not uneducated generally.
like Paul didn’t know Aristotle when he wrote 1st Corinthians 1.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
Did you just say that an Ethiopian Jewish Minister, the leading guy for the Queen in Ethiopia is untutored? Sure and Augustine didn’t know Plato. [/quote]Untutored in messianic prophecy Chris. Not uneducated generally.
like Paul didn’t know Aristotle when he wrote 1st Corinthians 1.
[/quote]
Yes, and at the same time we are commanded to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Paradoxical bunch we are. We forgive the unforgivable, yet we are more severe than before (the OT, I mean).
The God of the Philosophers is the Christian God, but at the same time he is wholly the God of Faith, as well. To go for one is to be pagan and the other is to be Socrates. We are neither, for our God is truth, and we have piety to boot.
To be pagan is to have a god that is not truth, but custom. And to be Socrates is to see God as he is but not to recognize him, as Socrates saw God as the Goodness that dictated the rest of the gods; nevertheless, Socrates lacked piety, and so did the rest of the philosophers.
The Christian is different, our God is not a god of custom, but Truth. But, he requires more than for us to recognize him, he requires the piety of the pagan or better yet the Jew.
Being Christian is not easy, there are a 1000 angles to fall down, but only one angle to stand. If you latch on to faith, you become pious to custom, detached from truth. If you latch on to reason, you become the atheistic philosopher. If you dilute the two and meet in the middle, you’ll be lukewarm. The only way to live…is to latch onto both, at the same time. Complete faith, complete reason; anything else makes you a heretic or lukewarm.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
I think the point they are trying to make brother Tirib is that scriptures ARE complicated and without an official interpreter, everyone interprets scripture the way they see fit, which undoubtedly has been the cause of so many denominations, each one claiming THEY are the ones lead by the Holy Spirit. However we know that the Spirit will not lead everyone in a different direction, so without an official guide setup by Christ, who’s to say who’s right?
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have lotsa guides, but none of them offer me manifestly preposterous interpretations as the only ones authorized and possible. Also, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the 53rd of Isaiah. Messianic prophecy and he was like Ethiopian on top of that. Why would anyone, to say nothing of an Ethiopian, know what that means off the top of their untutored heads? Guess where I got my explanation for Isaiah 53?
[/quote]
I think the point they are trying to make brother Tirib is that scriptures ARE complicated and without an official interpreter, everyone interprets scripture the way they see fit, which undoubtedly has been the cause of so many denominations, each one claiming THEY are the ones lead by the Holy Spirit. However we know that the Spirit will not lead everyone in a different direction, so without an official guide setup by Christ, who’s to say who’s right?[/quote]
Actually it’s not even that rigid. The only things of scripture that are held rigid in the church is that which is associated with dogma. That is fairly obvious in the scriptures anyway. Like The institution of the Eucharist is clearly proclaimed in all 3 synoptic gospels. Or that Mary is the mother of Jesus and hence Mother of God, well duh.
But there is a lot of room for personal interpretation and meditation. The church knows that the word of God is ultimately personal for each lover of God. The church allows for scripture to touch each person in a their own way for thier own relationship with God. Guidelines and interpretations are offered, and their is a line in the sand ofcourse. For instance, you can read a particular scripture passage and run off in you own direction with it. It’s got to be with in the context of the New Covenant, and what that means for Christians as a whole. But outside of that, go nuts. Enjoy scripture and make it personal.
Actually, this year I am teaching a Confirmation class and this ^, is my job. I hope that God conveys through me, the relationship he wants with these folks. I hope I can bring an excitement to this relationship that shows them that there is nothing ‘super natural’ about your relationship with Christ. It’s the most natural relationship you could ever have. You’ll let him down, but he won’t let you down. And further that the most important thing is to get up. Never fall and stay down, there’s always hope in Christ; you always get more than you give.
Myth Busters: Sola Scriptura – http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2011/08/myth-busters-sola-scriptura.html
[quote]Over the next few months, I am going to do a series of posts I’ll call “Myth Busters”. Like the popular TV show, my job will be to debunk urban legends, myths, and rumor that plague the world with anti-Catholic dribble.
Like the show, we will “test” the ideas out and see if they work.
First up: Sola Scriptura.
The Start of the Church?
Nope, that would have to wait until the Bible was finished
In the history of the Protestant reforbellion (ht: ow), sola scriptura was what would be known as the formal cause of the schism. It was a war-chant, popular among the peasants, and was a kind of pandora’s box for the worst of what might be conjured in the minds of men furnished with the raw text of Scripture sans the Church. In the early years, men got so excited about the prospects of Christ without a Church they proposed things like: no need to say the “Our Father” (see Luther’s catechism), “who needs baptism” or “I don’t need to go to church on Sunday”. Of course we can sniff the trail from all of these attitudes right down to the present day ecclesial potpourri.
Sola Scriptura means “scripture alone” and by the phrase the Reformers meant that the Scriptures would be the sole, rule of faith. No Church, Pope or otherwise would infallibly teach the word of God. The Bible and the Bible alone is the direct teacher to the people of God.
Boy this sounds great, doesn’t it?
One problem: It’s not in the Bible.
Second Problem: It doesn’t work.
The First Problem- “Nope, not in my Bible”
To evidence the problem, I’ve included an excerpt from Protestant apologists James White’s website regarding the infamous proof-text for sola scriptura. The verse in question is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [/quote]
The rest is in the article.
I have some questions but not sure if I should wait until Q and A 2.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I have some questions but not sure if I should wait until Q and A 2.[/quote]
Naaa, just post them here. I’m sure BC and Pat will answer them promptly. If room runs out, I’ll just make the second Q and A and we’ll continue where we left off 
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I have some questions but not sure if I should wait until Q and A 2.[/quote]
Let it rip…