Sola Scriptura in the Bible

[BobRyan]

Your statement is not justified by the actual facts.

1. The 39 books of the real OT text are the same in Catholic Bibles as in protestant bibles
2. The NT text is the same.
3. The Jewish apocrypha is the only point of difference and even the Jews reject it as canon.

In fact - the Catholic Church's own Jerome rejected the Jewish Apocrypha as canon when doing the Latin Vulgate translation.

When we speak of Catholic doctrine failing a sola-scriptura test - we are talking about the SAME 39 books of the OT and the SAME 27 books of the NT that the RCC itself would confess as being in the Canon of scripture. So that is a red herring you are floating by us.

You don't have objective facts to support the hyperbole in your post.

• Not according to actual history - where in fact all of the Hebrew Bible was completed, fixed, and read for 4 centuries prior to Christ.

• Not according to Jewish historians like Josephus who point out that the Jews were keeping the Hebrew Canon - unchanged in the Temple for over 400 years by that time.

• Not according to Christ where - in Luke 24:27 He teaches "From ALL the scriptures"

The fact that you want to read the Jewish Apocrypha is a choice you make.

The rest of us have the actual OT and NT - just as you also have.

And even your own Jerome - informs you that the Jewish Apocrypha is not in the canon.

So also did your own Glossa Ordinaria -- as it reminded you for over 500 years that Jerome was right about not claiming that the Jewish Apocrypha was part of the "canon"

When Jesus or apostles quote old testament its the Septuagint not the Jewish apocrypha.

And there is not one write in the NT or OT quoting the Jewish Apocrypha as "it is written" or "the Holy Spirit says" or "scripture says".

Our NT is the same.

the 39 books in our OT are -- the same.

But we reject the Jewish Apocrypha written by non-Christian Jews before the time of Christ. So also did Jerome reject it. So also did your own Glossa Ordinaria declare the Jewish Apocrypha to be external to the canon of scripture.

No way to escape that.

Well Catholic's own Martin Luther and John Calvin

True of their origins - they both begin as Catholic - then they become "protesting Catholics".

That does not mean that all Catholics protested -- as we both agree.

Our NT are not the same. You have not included the sacred holy writings of the prophetess Ellen G. White.

That is true - we did not include her writings in the NT canon. Which means that as far as the Bible NT text is concerned - we have the same text.

She cannot be shoved in the closet.

Neither can NT prophets like Anna, Agabus, Philips 4 daughters, all those in 1Cor 14 where "each one has a revelation" when they come to church. It is not "shoving them in a closet" to have the 27 books of the NT that don't include their writings.

Her authority is higher then any bishop even Pope.....She is prophet mouthpiece of God.

What does the Bible say about the inspiration and authority of a prophet in 1Cor 12 and Numbers 12:6?

It is not a "rejection of sola scriptura" to agree to what the Bible text says about God's prophets.

 

[BobRyan]

If Ellen G White was a catholic Prophet I'd slap everything on the table right now, without shame.

Not sure what you want from me on that one. Are you saying that IF you had a real prophet in the RCC that had lived in the last 200 years you would have started a thread here on the RCC and would have quoted some of the benefits received through such a modern-day prophetic ministry?

Are you saying that you would have expected that I do such a thing if in fact Ellen White were a real prophet and I was very convinced of that fact?

You mean... like this?? #1 BobRyan, Oct 31, 2015

Read my posts on that thread -- on my thread view it only shows up as one page of posts - but it is not a 100 or 50 page thread in any case. Just 1 or two page length for that thread. That will give you an idea.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Commandment. WORD. SCRIPTURE.

Those are three different things. If God chose by means of communication smoke signals, I don't automatically conclude that e-mail is a better method.

My sense of reliability can't override God. If God wants you to make a long distance call with two cans and a string, I suggest you do it.

You might have played this password game were one gives message to another and it goes through twenty other people before you get the message. By the time you get it, its wrong not near the original.

Well if given a choice between word of mouth among people or just have the original fellah write it down. Common sense says, hey just give me the writing. One of those twenty is bound to screw up, one could be evil, one can have his own agenda, ect,ect.

That's sweet between us. But when it comes to GOD ALMIGHTY calling the shots. And he tells me he is going to do it with this horribly unreliable group of people rather then ink and paper.

Now we are coming to a test of faith. I have to go with God's choice.


So to give you an example, Jesus Christ "wrote" scripture. He established a particular method, BREAD, WINE and PEOPLE.

If your too Snobby and Proud you won't recognize communion independently. Because its not to your high standard of ink, paper, English grammar.

Jesus Christ used the most humble grammar, inclusive so that even mentally disabled, illiterate and blind could understand.

Bread, wine, people. If you think people can't be trusted with Christianity maybe that's the lesson God is trying to drill you with. It is not about my way it is his way.


I have the perfect scripture DIRECT by the on going living command of Jesus Christ. How much to do you TRUST this method of Christ?

Not at all if you seek to validate by another means then he stated. I do not "check" the bible to see if Jesus is right, I check with Jesus to see if the bible is right.

If I were to crack open a bible to "OKAY" Jesus, I am no longer doing it by his method.
You couldn't trust Christ with the one thing he handed down personally.

Likewise God appointed people his church with teaching Christianity. Now the means may very well be flawed even sinful people.

Paul used a certain word ---everything became this word to him, as Christ became precious to him.

In my tongue that word Paul used, we call the 'three letter word'. @@@. Now that is what your posts are to me.