Yakuda Posted February 7 Report Share Posted February 7 (edited) For 500 years now non catholic Christians have preached the "sola" doctrines. Faith and Scripture alone are the basis of salvation but is true. Sola fide was discussed in another thread and has shown to be untrue. This thread will address the truth of sola scriptura. Protestants will often refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof that sola scriptura is true. But what does the passage actually say? Here: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful (some translations use, profitable) for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in uprightness." Notice it says useful but never mentions only. The whole idea of sola scriptura is to combat "tradition" which Protestants see as contrary to what they call the Christian faith. In fairness Scripture does speak poorly of tradition but it always qualifies a type of tradition. They refer to "human" traditions and traditions of our "elders" or traditions of "man". But Scripture references what must be a different type of tradition. 1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you because you remember me in everything and you maintain the traditions just as I handed them down to you." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore stand firm brethren and hold fast to the traditions that you have been taught whether by word of mouth or by letter of ours." 2 Thessalonians 3:6 "...we command you to keep your distance from any brethren who are living an idle existence and who disregard the traditions you received from us." Protestant belief in sola scriptura is not only wrong it actually contradicts scripture. Edited February 7 by Yakuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 On 2/7/2024 at 6:50 AM, Yakuda said: Faith and Scripture alone are the basis of salvation. You see. All you ever had was Scripture and your feelings. Say my name Yaki. Say my name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) On 2/7/2024 at 6:50 AM, Yakuda said: For 500 years now non catholic Christians have preached the "sola" doctrines. Faith and Scripture alone are the basis of salvation but is true. Sola fide was discussed in another thread and has shown to be untrue. This thread will address the truth of sola scriptura. Protestants will often refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof that sola scriptura is true. But what does the passage actually say? Here: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful (some translations use, profitable) for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in uprightness." Notice it says useful but never mentions only. The whole idea of sola scriptura is to combat "tradition" which Protestants see as contrary to what they call the Christian faith. In fairness Scripture does speak poorly of tradition but it always qualifies a type of tradition. They refer to "human" traditions and traditions of our "elders" or traditions of "man". But Scripture references what must be a different type of tradition. 1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you because you remember me in everything and you maintain the traditions just as I handed them down to you." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore stand firm brethren and hold fast to the traditions that you have been taught whether by word of mouth or by letter of ours." 2 Thessalonians 3:6 "...we command you to keep your distance from any brethren who are living an idle existence and who disregard the traditions you received from us." Protestant belief in sola scriptura is not only wrong it actually contradicts scripture. We see the long list of false teachings and practices that have evolved in the Catholic Church under the pretext it is "tradition". Look where that got the RCC. Mary worship, idol worship, purgatory, doing penances for sin, Mass, and the church and sacraments for salvation. These things are opposed by the Bible so how can they be right. Proof that your claim of tradition don't hold up. Edited February 8 by blackbird 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 14 hours ago, blackbird said: We see the long list of false teachings and practices that have evolved in the Catholic Church under the pretext it is "tradition". Look where that got the RCC. Mary worship, idol worship, purgatory, doing penances for sin, Mass, and the church and sacraments for salvation. These things are opposed by the Bible so how can they be right. Proof that your claim of tradition don't hold up. I thought you said you werent qualified to deal with a radical papist like me? I have no trouble dealing with rabid heretics such as yourself. Two questions for you 1) When tradition is being mentioned in the 3 passages I provided what are the traditions that are being referred to? 2) Where in the Bible does it tells us what books should be in the Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 16 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: You see. All you ever had was Scripture and your feelings. Say my name Yaki. Say my name. You alter what people say. Not only are plastic crack ho youre a duplicitous plastic crack ho. Ken must get his moneys worth out of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 (edited) 5 hours ago, Yakuda said: You alter what people say. Not only are plastic crack ho youre a duplicitous plastic crack ho. Ken must get his moneys worth out of you There's no need to alter what you say. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of your moronic speculations do that very well, without any help from me. Mmmm. I do love it when you say my name though. Say it again. Edited February 9 by CrakHoBarbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 (edited) 5 hours ago, Yakuda said: I have no trouble dealing with rabid heretics such as yourself. As long as being completely inept and out of your depth is considered "dealing". You, Yaki, are an incompetent, religious zealot buffoon. Edited February 9 by CrakHoBarbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 47 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: As long as being completely inept and out of your depth is considered "dealing". You, Yaki, are an incompetent, religious zealot buffoon. Name calling...the domain of the intellectually deprived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Name calling...the domain of the intellectually deprived. Said the guy that called me a "rabid heretic" and made fun of my screen name on multiple occasions. You reap what you sow, yaki. You just can't stop looking foolish, can you? Edited February 9 by CrakHoBarbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Said the guy that called me a "rabid heretic" and made fun of my screen name on multiple occasions. You reap what you sow, yaki. You just can't stop looking foolish, can you? I didn't call you a rabid heretic. Pay attention. You're name is crack ho barbie. Barbie is made plastic isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 Just now, Yakuda said: I didn't call you a rabid heretic. Pay attention. You're name is crack ho barbie. Barbie is made plastic isn't it? Wow.. What a dishonest piece of s__t you are. You do realize editing out calling me names doesn't change anything. Did your God teach you how to be so dishonest? If your God actually existed, you'd have some explaining to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Wow.. What a dishonest piece of s__t you are. You do realize editing out calling me names doesn't change anything. Did your God teach you how to be so dishonest? If your God actually existed, you'd have some explaining to do. Someone is butt hurt I have plenty to answer for this the least of it. I have little patience for people too insolent to listen Just now, Yakuda said: Someone is butt hurt I have plenty to answer for this the least of it. I have little patience for people like you who arentoo insolent to listen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Someone is butt hurt I have plenty to answer for this the least of it. I have little patience for people too insolent to listen If your butt hurts, perhaps you should have your nurse clean it better. I appreciate you admitting the dishonesty. I guess you feel it's warranted in the service of your lord. But you are straying. Youve allowed my words to make you stray. That's why I'm here. I'm the catalyst that leads to true enlightenment. Keep up the good work. Edited February 9 by CrakHoBarbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 9 Author Report Share Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: If your butt hurts, perhaps you should have your nurse clean it better. I appreciate you admitting the dishonesty. I guess you feel it's warranted in the service of your lord. But you are straying. Youve allowed my words to make you stray. That's why I'm here. I'm the catalyst that leads to true enlightenment. Keep up the good work. You should change your name to angry crack ho barbie. Or maybe whiny crack ho barbie. Tough choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Yakuda said: You should change your name to angry crack ho barbie. Or maybe whiny crack ho barbie. Tough choice. Befuddled aren't you. I guess that's why all you're left with is more name calling. You know, I hear that namecalling is the domain of the intellectually deprived. Don't feel bad. All religious zealots are delusional and intellectually deprived. That's how they got to be Religious zealots. Funny how that works. Edited February 9 by CrakHoBarbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 8 hours ago, Yakuda said: 1) When tradition is being mentioned in the 3 passages I provided what are the traditions that are being referred to? The first verse you gave says: " 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2 The word traditions could also be used in place of ordinances. Paul says in this verse keep the ordinances or traditions, as I delivered them to you. So these are referring to teachings that Paul already gave them. That would be his teachings which are in Scripture. The traditions he is referring to would be found in Scripture, not something new invented that is apart from Scripture or contrary to Scripture. Paul never taught that his disciples could invent new doctrines or practices that are not taught in Scripture. " 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matthew 15:3-6 Clearly Jesus condemned the tradition of the Pharisees which contradicted the commandment of God. What is the commandment of God? It is the law and the prophets, that is, God's word, the Holy Scriptures. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrakHoBarbie Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 On 2/9/2024 at 3:28 PM, blackbird said: The first verse you gave says: " 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2 The word traditions could also be used in place of ordinances. Paul says in this verse keep the ordinances or traditions, as I delivered them to you. So these are referring to teachings that Paul already gave them. That would be his teachings which are in Scripture. The traditions he is referring to would be found in Scripture, not something new invented that is apart from Scripture or contrary to Scripture. Paul never taught that his disciples could invent new doctrines or practices that are not taught in Scripture. " 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matthew 15:3-6 Clearly Jesus condemned the tradition of the Pharisees which contradicted the commandment of God. What is the commandment of God? It is the law and the prophets, that is, God's word, the Holy Scriptures. Oh my.... Perhaps you'd know..... Why was Harry Potter so afraid of the dementor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 12 Author Report Share Posted February 12 On 2/9/2024 at 6:28 PM, blackbird said: The first verse you gave says: " 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2 The word traditions could also be used in place of ordinances. Paul says in this verse keep the ordinances or traditions, as I delivered them to you. So these are referring to teachings that Paul already gave them. That would be his teachings which are in Scripture. The traditions he is referring to would be found in Scripture, not something new invented that is apart from Scripture or contrary to Scripture. Paul never taught that his disciples could invent new doctrines or practices that are not taught in Scripture. " 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matthew 15:3-6 Clearly Jesus condemned the tradition of the Pharisees which contradicted the commandment of God. What is the commandment of God? It is the law and the prophets, that is, God's word, the Holy Scriptures. First you want to switch words and use ordinances so you can claim he's taking about his "teachings". This a perversion of scripture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 1 hour ago, Yakuda said: First you want to switch words and use ordinances so you can claim he's taking about his "teachings". This a perversion of scripture Another false accusation. The word in the King James Authorized Version (1611) is ordinances. A comment on the page says it could mean ordinances or traditions. Same thing. Why are you bent on making false accusations? It doesn't help you cause. Deal with the subject, that is, what is the verse referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 12 Author Report Share Posted February 12 (edited) 5 minutes ago, blackbird said: Another false accusation. The word in the King James Authorized Version (1611) is ordinances. A comment on the page says it could mean ordinances or traditions. Same thing. Why are you bent on making false accusations? It doesn't help you cause. Deal with the subject, that is, what is the verse referring to. When did the KJV first make its appearance? Tell me why I should pay attention for that version over others? I know why but I want to see your answer. BTW what word does the KJV use in 2T Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6? While your at it what does James 2:24 say in your KJV? Edited February 12 by Yakuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 Just now, Yakuda said: When did the KJV first make its appearance? Tell me why I should pay attention for that version over others? I know why but I want to see your answer. The KJV (1611) was translated from the Received Text. It was produced by 47 of the world's best scholars. "Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") refers to the succession of printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) to the 1633 Elzevir edition." The KJV (1611) are supported by over 5,000 manuscripts or parts of Greek manuscripts. Nobody has any original manuscripts today, only copies of copies. The KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Scriptures which were carefully preserved down through the centuries. If you compare that particular verse in the KJV with other versions, you will likely find they are very similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 12 Author Report Share Posted February 12 Just now, blackbird said: The KJV (1611) was translated from the Received Text. It was produced by 47 of the world's best scholars. "Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") refers to the succession of printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) to the 1633 Elzevir edition." The KJV (1611) are supported by over 5,000 manuscripts or parts of Greek manuscripts. Nobody has any original manuscripts today, only copies of copies. The KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Scriptures which were carefully preserved down through the centuries. If you compare that particular verse in the KJV with other versions, you will likely find they are very similar. More than 1500 years later. The Thessalonian passages I cited use the word tradition. Paradosis in Greek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Tell me why I should pay attention for that version over others? I know why but I want to see your answer. The KJV is the only version in existence in English that used the Received Text and it agrees with around 95% of existing Greek manuscripts or parts of manuscripts. Modern Bible versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts and are corrupted and cannot be trusted. Edited February 12 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 12 Author Report Share Posted February 12 1 minute ago, blackbird said: The KJV is the only version in existence in English that used the Received Text and it agrees with around 95% of existing Greek manuscripts of parts of manuscripts. Modern Bible versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts and are corrupted and cannot be trusted. That 5% may be very important. Who determined what you claim here? Who said they can't be trusted? On what authority of they speak? BTW your supposedly 95% accurate bible uses the word traditions in Thessalonians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 6 minutes ago, Yakuda said: More than 1500 years later. The Thessalonian passages I cited use the word tradition. Paradosis in Greek. The word ordinances can be understood to mean much the same as traditions. I think it means teachings, instructions, or commands which were given to them already. I don't see a significant difference between traditions and ordinances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.