Is sola scriptura true?

[Gaétan]

Jesus is a righteous man, and as he ate the flesh of others he wanted us to eat his flesh, it is to put in place the rule of loving one's neighbor as oneself. For God, what you wish for is as good as if you were putting it into practice.

Edited March 6 by Gaétan

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Dougie has his own theology

not at all

culturally,  I am an Ulster Scots Presbyterian of St Andrew's Church

but in terms of my fiery Protestant faith in the supernatural, to wit, intelligent design

I am of course Pentecostal

[Yakuda]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

"This doctrine of the mass, of course, is based on the assumption that the words of Christ, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 6:26-28), must be taken literally. The accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, both in the Gospels and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, make it perfectly clear that He spoke in figurative terms. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). And Paul quotes Jesus as saying: “This is the new covenant in my blood. ... or as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26). In these words He used a double figure of speech. The cup is put for the wine, and the wine is called the new covenant. The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant. How ridiculous to say that they did! Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, “I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to hem, remained “the fruit of the vine”! Paul too says that the bread remains bread: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the pup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. ... But let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). No change had taken place in the elements. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine.

Another and more important proof that the bread and wine are not changed into the literal and actual flesh and blood of Christ is this: the literal interpretation makes the sacrament a form of cannibalism. For that is precisely what cannibalism is—the eating of human flesh. Rome attempts to deny this, but not with much logic. Clearly there is a contradiction in the Romanist explanation somewhere.

Indeed, how can Christ’s words, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood,” be taken in a literal sense? At the time those words were spoken, the bread and wine were on the table before Him, and in His body He was sitting at the table a living man. The crucifixion had not taken place. They ate the Lord’s Supper before the crucifixion took place. Furthermore, we do not, and cannot memorialize someone who is present, as the Romanists say Christ is present in the mass. But in the future, in His absence, these things would symbolize His broken body and shed blood. They would then call to mind His sacrifice, and would then be taken in remembrance” of Him (1 Corinthians 11:25)."

--Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Incidentally nowhere does the Bible say we cannot read commentaries written by others.  Loraine Boettner is far more knowledgeable on Roman Catholicism than I am.  He wrote an in depth book on it.  He explains clearly what the verses you mention mean.

Loraine Boettner is a buffoon and anyone citing him is as well. He is just as a Jack Chick. If you use either of those citations youre not a serious thinker, youre a trained monkey.

Beyond that you are once again appealing to a source other than the bible, so much for your solas.

I will ask you AGAIN if Jesus did mean to say you must eat his flesh and drink his blood what words would he have used?

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Loraine Boettner is a buffoon and anyone citing him is as well. He is just as a Jack Chick. If you use either of those citations youre not a serious thinker, youre a trained monkey.

Beyond that you are once again appealing to a source other than the bible, so much for your solas.

I will ask you AGAIN if Jesus did mean to say you must eat his flesh and drink his blood what words would he have used?

Nonsense.  Loraine Boettner is an extremely professional scholar.  I have his book "Roman Catholicism".  This is very extensive work of scholarship which discusses all the major doctrines of Rome and goes into what the Bible says about each subject.  This was not written by an amateur.  It would be far beyond your abilities.   

It clearly proves the dogmas of Romanism are false and gives a detailed explanation from the Bible why they are incorrect or false.  

There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot read and quote what others say about faith and practices and biblical doctrine.  The point which you conveniently ignore is that these sources quote and explain the Scriptures that are relevant to the topic.  What is the difference between me explaining a verse and someone else explaining it?

I don't understand what your point is in your last line.  Your question is purely hypothetical because Jesus did not mean one must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.   You still have not explained what the point of eating his flesh and drinking his blood would be.  It would be cannibalism anyway.

[Yakuda]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  Loraine Boettner is an extremely professional scholar.  I have his book "Roman Catholicism".  This is very extensive work of scholarship which discusses all the major doctrines of Rome and goes into what the Bible says about each subject.  This was not written by an amateur.  It would be far beyond your abilities.   

It clearly proves the dogmas of Romanism are false and gives a detailed explanation from the Bible why they are incorrect or false.  

There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot read and quote what others say about faith and practices and biblical doctrine.  The point which you conveniently ignore is that these sources quote and explain the Scriptures that are relevant to the topic.  What is the difference between me explaining a verse and someone else explaining it?

I don't understand what your point is in your last line.  Your question is purely hypothetical because Jesus did not mean one must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.   You still have not explained what the point of eating his flesh and drinking his blood would be.  It would be cannibalism anyway.

He's an ignorant hate filled person. Youve been made more ignorant by reading anything that m0r0n writes. 

Of course you dont understand you think boettner is a scholar. He's a buffoon. First Jesus did mean it and it's been long established you ignore Jesus and listen to buffoons like boettner.  

You think when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood" he doesn't mean eat my flesh and drink my blood. Fine. Let's say that's true. But if Jesus did mean to say eat my flesh and drink my blood what words would he have used to tell us that? 

Yeah you sound just like the nitwits in John 6:66 who didn't want to take Jesus at his word. Notice the 666, that's you. Now answer the question don't give us that dunce boettner again. It makes you look like a fool. 

Edited March 6 by Yakuda

[SkyHigh]

Watching you two go back and forth with such contempt for each other, over what is for all intent and purpose, the same religion just shows how silly the idea of a tri omni god is.

Please continue though, your hard work is bringing people out of the darkness of religion better than any atheist could.

[blackbird]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:55 PM, SkyHigh said:

Watching you two go back and forth with such contempt for each other, over what is for all intent and purpose, the same religion just shows how silly the idea of a tri omni god is.

You make two serious errors.

1.  I don't have contempt for an individual whom I am discussing with.  I disagree with his beliefs.  That is a big difference.  The issue is the beliefs, not the person who holds them.   It would be no different if I were discussing religion with a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or any one of the cults.  The discussion must be focused on the beliefs, which I have tried to do.

2.  His religion is not the same religion as mine.  They are complete opposites.  On the surface they may appear the same if you just go by one or two words because they both claim to be Christianity.  But each has an entirely different understanding of some key doctrines.

      Since you claimed to have grown up in a evangelical or Protestant background, I would have thought you knew the differences between Romanism and Protestantism.  Apparently not.

[Yakuda]

21 hours ago, blackbird said:

You make two serious errors.

1.  I don't have contempt for an individual whom I am discussing with.  I disagree with his beliefs.  That is a big difference.  The issue is the beliefs, not the person who holds them.   It would be no different if I were discussing religion with a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or any one of the cults.  The discussion must be focused on the beliefs, which I have tried to do.

2.  His religion is not the same religion as mine.  They are complete opposites.  On the surface they may appear the same if you just go by one or two words because they both claim to be Christianity.  But each has an entirely different understanding of some key doctrines.

      Since you claimed to have grown up in a evangelical or Protestant background, I would have thought you knew the differences between Romanism and Protestantism.  Apparently not.

Good points. I'm a Christian you're a heretic.