Would you stay? 3

If you would take off your Baptist glasses you would see clearly what I meant, instead of seeing things that aren’t there. It is very simple. If you are misreading what I’m writing, who says you are not misreading or misunderstanding the meaning of what is in scripture.

Do you understand the meaning of this statement? : “I never said you stole money.”

Are you sure, you understand it, because it meant, “I never said you stole money.” So implying someone else said it. Sorry I actually meant, “I NEVER said you stole money,” but it was implied. No actually I meant, “I never SAID you stole money,” I thought it but never said it. Thinking about it I meant “I never said you STOLE money.” Maybe you could have lost it but I didn’t say you stole it. Or maybe I meant, “I never said you stole MONEY.”

The implications are clear that the six-word sentence depending on how you place the stress on the different words yields up to five different meanings. So I ask you, which is more likely to be open to misinterpretation, that six-word sentence or the Holy Bible?

The INTERPRETATION IS WHAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH HERE, not whether or not the Bible teachings something against the Catholic Church.

The NT was written by Catholics, it was written about Catholics, it was written to Catholics and the NT was preserved by the Catholic Church down through the centuries so the great irony becomes that you wouldn’t even have a Bible to attack the Catholic Church if it were not for the Catholic Church.

No one has yet to answer the issue with the Canon of the Bible from the Bible Alone because they didn’t just float down from heaven. Those who reject tradition because they go by the “Bible Alone” you can’t do that. That is because in order to know what books belong in the NT, you would have to have accepted first the Catholic tradition of which book belong in the NT that is the Canon of Scripture. So nowhere in the Bible tell us which books belong in the Bible so that's a tradition that you must accept in order to be able to say I go by the Bible Alone.You can obviously see the inconsistency and incoherence of that position.

 

Something I forgot to mention, Jon said, “God Gave all Authority to Jesus Christ-The word of God."

Well Jon do you follow his command when Jesus Christ –the word of God- says

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

Right before that He says:

“I am the bread of life”

“but here is the bread that come down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die, I am the living bread that came down from heaven”“

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

So do follow his command when he said to need you eat and drink His blood (not just symbolically or just a remembrance) OR do you follow the traditions (symbol or remembrance) of the Reformers?

A simple Yes or No would suffice because this would be a big thread by itself.

 

That wasn’t that funny. Here is a short answer to that, I'll show an example. Now THIS is funny!

Using the Bible alone, please give me the verses that has the word “Trinity” in it. There should be plenty since it is “basic and essential”. Also please give verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity.

 

Also while your looking up the Trinity, please provide from the Bible Alone where we see the words: Denomination, Bible, Protestant and most importantly the word Incarnation (very basic and essential). Your answer will make me laugh.
(By the way the word Catholic was the only things you wanted to address from all that Bible information and historical info from Early Church History on the "Bible Alone")

 

That wasn't a simple Yes no No. I will keep this short for Jon, from your interpretation it doesn’t make sense. So Jesus keeps saying unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you, and repeats it over and over then later say by the way, all that stuff I just kept repeating doesn’t mean anything. Again makes absolutely no sense.

His point is not to negate what he’d previously said when he says “the flesh is of no avail”. Jesus says Eat my flesh and drink my blood and I'll raise you up and then he goes on to say “the flesh is of no avail” or “the flesh profits nothing” its the spirit that gives life. HE is not negating what He just said when he says the flesh is of no avail. Jon you DID NOT notice that He doesn’t say “MY” flesh is of no avail”, He is speaking of “THE”flesh.

So what is His "word": “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (symbol = tradition of the reformers. If you think not, The Bible and history disagree with you)

Again an example of the interpretation is what is in conflict with here, not whether or not the Bible teachings something against the Catholic Church.

Please don't try and derail this thread with trying to direct all our attention to his topic, cause I'm still wondering where in the Bible the "Bible Alone" is taught because you guys said its plainly obvious.

 

I’ve seen so many irrelevant passages that are thrown out hoping with their fingers crossed that it satisfies the Bible Alone midset. Sorry they DO NOT. So since biblical facts on our side are being simply ignored, I'll just repost it

I guess no one knew what to do or how to make a rebuttal against the oral and extrabiblical traditions of the New Testament (verse that don’t have any OT scriptural evidence to them.) Ignoring the Facts.

Wow the Protestant view of the using the “Bible Alone” stance is devolving. It went from a strict view of you must use the written words only, now steaver and Yeshua1 are basically saying with that with the death of the last Apostle the authority’s active role within the Church (Apostles) also died. You know by insisting on the authority of the Apostles (early Church) gives credence to the Catholic teaching.

By the verses I provided back in part 2 of this thread, the Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. By preaching by oral instruction (Rom 10:17), the Church would always be the living teacher. Nowhere in the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only or that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

So Jesus invested the Apostles (Early Church) with His authority but the Bible says nowhere that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. It’s actually the opposite, the Bible is quite clear that in 1) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and 2) the Apostles clearly chose successors who in turn possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in Act 1:14-26 election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas and in 2 Tim 1:6 and Titus 1:5 where St Paul is passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus.

It was clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time (1 Pet 1:25) Take note the word has been “preached” (ORALLY). This would endure. It would not be ousted, replaced or succeeded by a written record and it still would continue to have its own authority.

2 Tim 2:2 Paul says “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (Remember no canon of the Bible until about 400 AD and the printing press till about 1400AD) This was the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down unbroken from the apostles to our own day. So Paul told Timothy to pass on the oral teaching (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give those traditions to men who would be able to teach others, so continuing the chain. Also Paul gave this not long before his death (2 Tim 4:6-8) as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

So Paul shows us what tradition is in 1 Cor 15:3, 11. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Then the Apostle praises those who follow that Tradition in 1 Cor 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”. Since the very beginning of the Church, Christians have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was an actual NT.

There is a lot of information here so making a 1 or 2 long statement is not considered a rebuttal.

So far we have nowhere in the Bible that says:

Nowhere in says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Nowhere in the Bible: the words Bible, Protestant, Denomination, and most importantly very basic and essential: Incarnation and Trinity.(nor are there verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity.

This snowball (of nowheres) is getting bigger the more we post and will continue to get bigger. This "Bible Alone argument" pillar is showing its hollow inside and with just a small kick it crumbles.

 

Has anyone noticed that these posters (steaver, Yeshua1 and Jonshaff) were very arrogant at the beginning on the thread back in part 1 and 2 but now that they have been presented with information they don't like they are trying to stay away but they are too proud to do. So instead of having a Biblical rebuttal on what we have posted they try evasion techniques. For example, 1) ignoring the question or statements 2) acknowledging the question without answering, 3) attacking the question 4) attacking the questioner.

So as of right now, those three are not being productive in proving anything on the Bible Alone. So I'll just add some more things to the list.


Sola Scriptura
Nowhere says:the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: God’s Word is restricted only to what is written down.

Nowhere says: Jesus gave instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book.

Nowhere says: the Apostles told their followers that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book

Nowhere says: the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Nowhere in the Bible: the words Bible, Protestant, Denomination, and most importantly very basic and essential: Incarnation and Trinity.(nor are there verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity. Nowhere in the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Nowhere says: the Canon of Scripture.

Nowhere says: Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head

Nowhere says: Anything about Altar calls or the sinners prayer.

But like I said this snowball is just getting bigger the more we roll along.