- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:02 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Of course they did.
They did indeed. However, it was an oral gospel. Few if any ever read the words of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, or St. John. They heard it verbally through an apostle or the disciples/followers of an apostle.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:02 pm to MemphisGuy
Of course they didn’t. How did the Christians who Saul was persecuting have the scriptures that he had not yet written? And I want even hit you with the fact that we know most of the books attributed to the disciples weren’t actually written by them.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:04 pm to Revelator
quote:
Are you simply being obtuse. According to the Bible, God appeared to Paul and spoke to him. Later it says the Lord himself appeared to Paul and gave him revelation.
Yes, but did Paul have the full Cannon of the NT? Would you critique anyone who went out to preach and said "I only was able to look at 60 percent of the NT before writing to praise/admonish you"?
Does part of Scripture = a sufficient amount of Scripture? At what certain percentage?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:23 pm to Foch
quote:
Yes, but did Paul have the full Cannon of the NT? Would you critique anyone who went out to preach and said "I only was able to look at 60 percent of the NT before writing to praise/admonish you"? Does part of Scripture = a sufficient amount of Scripture? At what certain percentage?
I don’t understand your point. There are people in nations today that don’t have a Bible, or they simply have a few pages, but they’ve had the gospel shared to them and they become believers.
So no, a person doesn’t have to have access to a complete Bible to be saved, but this in no way diminishes it’s importance.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:28 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Please tell me that you are not actually attempting to claim that Scripture alone is NOT sufficient
Sola scriptura claims that every Christian doctrine must be proved from scripture alone.
Sola scriptura is a proposed Christian doctrine.
Therefore, sola scriptura must be proved by scripture alone.
Since it cannot be, sola scriptura is false.
I would grant, however, that scripture is materially sufficient. Sola scriptura argues that it is formally sufficient. If scripture were formally sufficient, the Ethiopian eunuch wouldn't have needed Philip to interpret the scroll of Isaiah for him.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:29 pm to Stitches
quote:
If scripture were formally sufficient, the Ethiopian eunuch wouldn't have needed Philip to interpret the scroll of Isaiah for him.
The early Church would have also not needed to call a council in Jerusalem on the question of circumcision when the answer to that question is very clear in Jewish scripture.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:34 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Is the Catholic bible essentially the KJV with the additional books added?
If you're asking about the canon, the original Bible (Latin Vulgate) has 7 more books in the OT, plus a few verses in Daniel and Esther that Martin Luther removed.
There are a few different translations of it into English, with the Douay–Rheims version being the closest to the KJV.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:58 pm to Stitches
A man walks up to a Mormon and asks, how do I get saved
The Mormon says, believe in Jesus and follow the teachings of Joseph Smith found in the Book of Mormons and the Pearl of Great Price.
Same man walks up of a Jehovah’s Witness and ask him how to be saved.
Believe on Jesus and follow the teachings in the Watchtower.
Same man walks up to a Catholic and asks, how do I get saved?
Believe in Jesus, become a Catholic, believe in the sacraments and follow the traditions of the RCC.
Same man walks up to a Protestant and asks him how to get saved.
He says,”
confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”
Which one is different from the others?
The Mormon says, believe in Jesus and follow the teachings of Joseph Smith found in the Book of Mormons and the Pearl of Great Price.
Same man walks up of a Jehovah’s Witness and ask him how to be saved.
Believe on Jesus and follow the teachings in the Watchtower.
Same man walks up to a Catholic and asks, how do I get saved?
Believe in Jesus, become a Catholic, believe in the sacraments and follow the traditions of the RCC.
Same man walks up to a Protestant and asks him how to get saved.
He says,”
confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”
Which one is different from the others?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 2:58 pm to MemphisGuy
Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are so closely united with each other that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
Wikipedia
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:02 pm to Revelator
quote:
Which one is different from the others?
The Catholic, because it's the only one where their views are being completely misrepresented.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where scripture shows the "shift" from Scripture + Tradition to only the written Scripture as our ultimate authority.
You admitted that oral preaching (tradition) came first, followed by the written word, in a different thread.
If the paradigm of Tradition + Scripture supposedly shifted to Scripture Alone, Scripture would need to show this happening.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:03 pm to Stitches
quote:
The Catholic, because it's the only one where their views are being completely misrepresented
Surely not by Revelator!Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:04 pm to Revelator
quote:
Which one is different from the others?
Well...for one you are being intellectually dishonest because while Mormons accept the triune God, they deny that Christ is consubstantial with the Father. Thus making them heretics.
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:16 pm to Stitches
quote:
If you're asking about the canon, the original Bible (Latin Vulgate) has 7 more books in the OT, plus a few verses in Daniel and Esther that Martin Luther removed.
There are a few different translations of it into English, with the Douay–Rheims version being the closest to the KJV.
I phrased it wrong... I didn't mean "added to", I mean "in addition to". I know that they started out and Martin Luther removed them. Personally, I don't think they are divinely inspired, but I also don't think that in the scheme of salvation, it's material.
The translations is what I was curious about. We have dozens... some good, most middling and some really bad ones. And by really bad I mean... taking out all the pronouns, making God a woman, removing anything that is not considered "conservative" (from a political viewpoint) and so on.
And... The Living Bible IS NOT A TRANSLATION. It is a Paraphrase. And it's a bad one.
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:19 pm to Stitches
quote:
he Catholic, because it's the only one where their views are being completely misrepresented.
"confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”
That's all it takes from a Catholic perspective either, correct?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:34 pm to Stitches
quote:
The Catholic, because it's the only one where their views are being completely misrepresented.
Nope, the Protestant. All others preach a Jesus plus gospel
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Well...for one you are being intellectually dishonest because while Mormons accept the triune God, they deny that Christ is consubstantial with the Father. Thus making them heretics.
And the RCC says if you don’t believe Mary was born without original sin, remained sinless and remained a virgin her entire life, this is a mortal sin and you are a heretic.
How is that any different?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:38 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
That's all it takes from a Catholic perspective either, correct?
Nope. You must believe in and follow the dogmas of the RCC
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:41 pm to Revelator
Again with the dogmas. 
You really hate that “there is only one god” dogma, don’t you?
You really hate that “there is only one god” dogma, don’t you?
Posted on 12/31/23 at 3:44 pm to Revelator
quote:
You must believe in and follow the dogmas of the RCC
You absolutely have to follow the dogmas of Christianity in order to be Christian. If you deny any part of the Nicene Creed then you aren't a Christian.
Page 7 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News