re: Catholic bishops approve drafting of Communion document that could lead to rebuke of Biden

I'll address all of your individual posts in this one, rather than creating a separate post for each of yours, if you don't mind. I write too much as it is and would rather not post 5 when 1 will do.

quote:

---

Foo, that's not an accurate interpretation of that verse. Paul didn't tell the folks to go read the OT and be satisfied with that. The NT didn't exist yet when Paul said this. The OT was the only written Holy Scripture when Paul wrote here.

---

While you're correct that the New Testament wasn't completed when Paul wrote that statement, that wasn't the point of the interpretation that I gave. The point was the emphasis on scripture for providing all that was needed. At that time, Paul knew his own authority and Peter recognized that Paul's writings were authoritative, even going as far as to lump them in with the rest of scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The point being that scripture (the revealed word of God) was what Paul was addressing as being useful for those purposes he listed and being sufficient for the man of God to be complete. That would include the Old Testament and the continuation of the revelation that he, himself, was partaking in, including his previous letter to Timothy.

quote:

---

Even if there was one of the hand-written books of the Bible handy, Timothy or Paul wouldn't tell the folks "Everybody get one of these and rely only on this." The book would be written in Greek. Those folks spoke Aramaic and didn't read Greek. Most couldn't read at all. Why would Timothy or Paul tell people to rely only on the Written Holy Scripture when none of them had a book and none of them could read Greek? Many of them probably couldn't read at all.

---

Do you suppose that Apostles did not preach the revealed word of God that was found later in the written Gospels as well as the epistles? Do you suppose that all were illiterate, even the recipients of his own written letters? Of course not. The intent of the epistles was to have them read aloud amongst the congregations. Those writings, being recognized as authoritative scriptures, would then be continued to read aloud, studied, and preached on, just as we do today.

quote:

---

You aren't making any logical or reasonable sense here, Foo. You aren't even accurate here.

The only Holy Scripture in existence at the time that Paul wrote this letter was the Old Testament. Paul never said that the Old Testament is all that's needed for salvation, Foo.

---

Please see above.

quote:

---

That verse [Acts 17:11] says that these folks heard Paul preach then read the Old Testament to check Paul's preaching. The Old Testament was the only Holy Scripture around then. There is no logical way to leap to the conclusion of Sola Scriptura from this passage, Foo. You aren't making any sense here.

---

I think you failed to see my point in my entire analysis. Scripture was the standard for that which was authoritative, beginning with the Old Testament (as the Bereans started with) and then expanding into the New Testament as those writings were codified. The bridge for the gap was the Apostles' teaching, which was later written down and preserved in what we call the New Testament scriptures. Paul frequently refers back to his "gospel" which was the gospel of Jesus Christ, which was written down in the four gospel texts and further explained by the epistles that were written. The "scriptures" are the revealed word of God, necessary for life and faith as Christians.

quote:

---

[1 Cor. 4:6] The phrase is "not to go beyond what is written" and from that sentence fragment, you spin the entire doctrine of sola scriptura? That doesn't make sense. Paul was referring to the Holy Scripture, which at the time he wrote, was the Old Testament. You think Paul was telling the folks that his letters were Holy Scripture?

---

Again, see above for the explanation of scripture (OT and NT). Paul knew his own authority from Christ to produce scripture and so did Peter, who included Paul's writings with scripture.

I wasn't attempting to prove Sola Scriptura from that one verse alone, but to show the doctrine is biblical (in response to the accusation that it wasn't) and how the human authors of scripture applied the principle in their writings.

quote:

---

[Mark 7:6-13]This doesn't make any sense at all. You think that this passage is an argument for sola scriptura? This passage is totally unrelated to our discussion.

---

Again, you missed my point. Sola Scriptura is about God's revealed word in scripture as the sole authority, even above tradition. Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees for creating their own traditions that supplanted the revealed word of God as written down in the scriptures. That passage is entirely appropriate for what I'm defending. It's essentially the Old Testament equivalent of what the Reformers accused the RCC of doing.

quote:

---

Jesus wrote down nothing and everything he handed down to the Apostles was by word and deed.

You know darn well that the New Testament clearly states in more than one place that NOT everything that Jesus handed down to the Apostles by word and deed is in the Bible. The NT clearly states that. I read it myself, Foo.

If it's not all written down, then, how did Jesus intend for it to be learned by us? He left good men, the Apostles, to teach us by word and the deed, as they learned from the words and deeds of Jesus.

---

The reason why John 21:25 was included was not to prove the necessity of oral tradition but to demonstrate that even what was written as necessity for the message of the gospel recounting was just a fraction of what Jesus said and did. If the intent of saying that was to prove the necessity of oral tradition, how would one expect fallible men to be able to memorize and retell orally that which "that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"? Of course they couldn't, and they weren't meant to. Not all of what Christ said and did was necessary to prove His message and mission.

quote:

---

There weren't enough written Bibles to go around for sola scriptura to be feasible, Foo, and most people couldn't read back then anyway.

---

Addressed above.

quote:

---

The most logical approach is that the Word of God is both Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is what Jesus Himself handed down to the Apostles by word and deed.

---

Jesus ordained the Apostles to the ministry of the gospel, going throughout the world and preaching for the sake of building the Church through the conversion of lost souls. The scriptures contain all that is needed for the faith and life of Christians, and the oral recounting of those things prior to their codification doesn't change that. Was the message of the cross something different before it was written down? Of course not. The Apostles preached that which God had revealed to them that was necessary for salvation and life in the organized Church and then wrote down that which was intended to be passed down beyond the Apostolic foundation.