Sola Scriptura in the Bible

[utilyan]

The catholic idea of magic sacramental holy waters and a priest with the "powers" to mark the soul in baptism of infants -- totally absent the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" -- is that which is in complete contradiction to the texts presented so far.

Bob do you think it would be respectful on my part to call Ellen G. White's relationship with God a "magic power" on her part?

Since we Catholics are of the devil, How bout you leave the "power" of accusation and the accuser to us?
Isn't that good deal? You get all the holy good tools, Kindness, respect, patience, gentleness, love.

We get all the evil tools, accusation, blaming, faultfinding, finger-pointing, vilifying, slander


If we are the bad guys, We'll take that label, but don't play OUR ROLE.

 

[TCassidy]

Sola Scriptura. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[utilyan]

Sola Scriptura. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

When he says "this word" that particular verse is on a piece of paper?

We can look for scripture.....

Isaiah 8
1Then the LORD said to me, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters: Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.


I'm curious, Here we have a report of this scripture of God written down. So where is it independently written work in the bible?

Another example would be The Ten Commandments. Isaiah nor Exodus ratify the scripture of God. If God wrote it, it is what it is. So that first page of your bible does it have the 10 commandments and other scripture directly authored by God?

 

[TCassidy]

So that first page of your bible does it have the 10 commandments and other scripture directly authored by God?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob do you think it would be respectful on my part to call Ellen G. White's relationship with God a "magic power" on her part?

Do you think I ever said that "the pope's relationship with God is claimed as a magic power" or the "Pope says the priests relationship with God is a magic power"??

What I said is that the RCC claims that the Priests "Retain the POWERS" to confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ in the mass - EVEN if that priest is excommunicated by the church for apostasy, or false doctrine.
============================================================

Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126

Q: Our former priest has been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and h as opened his own Church, which he calls “Christ Catholic Mission”. He now has some kind of connection with what he calls the “Catholic Church of God and Christ” with headquarters in Missouri. More and more people are attending his church. Some are former Catholics, but those I asked did not know whether this priest still had the power of consecrating the bread and wine for Communion. Does he? M.M

A.Yes. But he commits a grave sin of disobedience if he is excommunicated… The priest’s Consecration can be valid, that is, there can be the real change of bread and wine INTO the body and blood of Christ, but it is illicit because of his excommunication and brings him no actual graces.

You sometimes hear that the reason the Church recognizes the validity of an excommunicated priest’s Mass, and his continuing power to forgive sin, is the salvation of the dying in cases of necessity. But the deeper reason is the mark of the Holy Orders, along with Baptism and Confirmation, puts on the soul.

Of course “Mark on the soul” is just a figure of speech to indicate the difference between the baptized and the nonbaptized , the confirmed and the nonconfirmed, the ordained and the nonordained. Once the status of a soul is established by any of the three sacraments, it cannot be changed by any human power so as to be like it was before the reception of these sacraments.

The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. He does, by his apostasy, lose the power to do these things licitly, without sin.

The legal mechanics of all this is that only the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, the power to govern. Consequently, the ordained priest must have the permission of a bishop to exercise the powers of Consecration and absolving. The bread and wine consecrated by an excommunicated priest truly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, [/i but the priest and anyone who knowingly receives Communion from him is guilty of extremely serious sin.

============================================================

So that is not "ME" claiming "Powers" for the priest. That is the RCC itself.

Powers -- to forgive sins.
Powers - to confect the body soul and divinity of Christ.


Now what you propose is "what if" - SDAs claimed that Ellen White has "powers" to confect the body soul and divinity of Christ - AND she had the 'powers' to forgive people of their sins... But then we claimed for her - that though she should go into apostasy and promote false doctrine - YET she does not "lose those powers" --

Your claim is - that if we said that about Ellen White - and you had said "magic powers" as your way of referencing this statement of ours -- Magic - to "mark the soul" of the baptized infant, and "magic" to transform bread into the body soul and divinity of Christ - ... I am not entirely sure I could fault you for doing so.

Isn't that good deal? You get all the holy good tools, Kindness, respect, patience, gentleness, love.
We get all the evil tools, accusation, blaming, faultfinding, finger-pointing, vilifying, slander
If we are the bad guys, We'll take that label, but don't play OUR ROLE.

When you yourselves claim that these are "POWERS" that are "retained" by the excommunicated Priest - how in the world would you suppose that a Protestant would view it???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When he says "this word" that particular verse is on a piece of paper?

We can look for scripture.....

Isaiah 8
1Then the LORD said to me, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters: Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.


I'm curious, Here we have a report of this scripture of God written down. So where is it independently written work in the bible?

Another example would be The Ten Commandments. Isaiah nor Exodus ratify the scripture of God. If God wrote it, it is what it is. So that first page of your bible does it have the 10 commandments and other scripture directly authored by God?

Let's ask "Pope Peter". Someone I think you would agree with me - is inspired by God.

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[utilyan]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

My understanding is:

Indeed, Scripture is theopneustos "God Breathed". So is the Church which Jesus breathed on

John 20
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”


one better Jesus is ONE-FLESH with the church.
Ephesians 5
31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

Foundation of the Truth.
1 timothy 3
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.



Profitable means useful, not sufficient. Its USEFUL in the instruction in righteousness rather then simply IS the instruction in righteousness.


You can equip me to go mountain climbing, give me all the ropes, hooks, suits, pick axes, back packs........... FULLY EQUIPPED. I have no idea about mountain climbing.


I hope this one gives you a laugh:

James 1
4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

According to scripture I just need lots of endurance and patience......And I am perfect lacking in nothing.



2 timothy 2
15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

I need proper direction else I could "inaccurately handle" the word of truth.


2 peter 3
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

SOLA SCRIPTURA is dangerous. I'm an untaught and unstable. How could my handling of scripture even lead to my own destruction?


I found better grounds of sola scriptura from something Jesus Christ said himself, I'll look for it tonight and see what you think of it.

Main point of my previous post is not all God written scripture is independently recognized by all bibles. The complete collection would contain commandments of God. Kind of like 3 john 1, half a page long but still has its own spot. The full right and recognition, a work written by God. Who makes the call not to include it on its own or that a mention of it in one scripture negates its independent existence?

The main point I was trying to make on this post is I require your guidance on scripture, it can't work by itself. Consider we all have different views, we read the same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

My understanding is:

Indeed, Scripture is theopneustos "God Breathed". So is the Church which Jesus breathed on

IF Sola Scriptura is God's intended doctrine - then Jesus would hammer the Magisterium of Christ's day - "sola scriptura" - whenever it went into doctrinal error -- like this.

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In keeping with the much older form of it - found in Isaiah 8

Isaiah 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"

And Jesus would instruct "from ALL the Scriptures" Luke 24:27.

And the Apostles would TESTED even by non-Christians - against SCRIPTURE "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul were SO" Acts 17:11

SOLA SCRIPTURA is dangerous.

Especially to the error-agenda of the magisterium that Christ was hammering "sola scriptura" in Mark 7.

 

[BobRyan]

Something that is "not even supposed to exist" by the speculative argument that says Apostles can never be in error - must never be tested "sola scriptura".



Gal 1:6-9 - "Sola scriptura - known from NT times to judge modern teaching/doctrine"
--- EVEN if WE APOSTLES should preach error- a gospel contrary to what you received, - let him be accursed! --

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

[BobRyan]

Once the "protesting Catholics" like Luther figured this out - they would suddenly find a long line of points of deviation where the mother church had veered off of the path set for the NT church as documented in the Bible.

 

[Adonia]

Once the "protesting Catholics" like Luther figured this out - they would suddenly find a long line of points of deviation where the mother church had veered off of the path set for the NT church as documented in the Bible.

Which Bible? The one that came about after Luther started ripping the original one apart? Talk about a "religion of men", this man started it all, though he did continue to adhere to some parts of Christian orthodoxy.

 

[utilyan]

IF Sola Scriptura is God's intended doctrine - then Jesus would hammer the Magisterium of Christ's day - "sola scriptura" - whenever it went into doctrinal error -- like this.

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In keeping with the much older form of it - found in Isaiah 8

Isaiah 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"

And Jesus would instruct "from ALL the Scriptures" Luke 24:27.

And the Apostles would TESTED even by non-Christians - against SCRIPTURE "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul were SO" Acts 17:11



Especially to the error-agenda of the magisterium that Christ was hammering "sola scriptura" in Mark 7.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

IF Sola Scriptura is God's intended doctrine - then Jesus would hammer the Magisterium of Christ's day - "sola scriptura" - whenever it went into doctrinal error -- like this.

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In keeping with the much older form of it - found in Isaiah 8

Isaiah 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"

And Jesus would instruct "from ALL the Scriptures" Luke 24:27.

And the Apostles would TESTED even by non-Christians - against SCRIPTURE "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul were SO" Acts 17:11



Especially to the error-agenda of the magisterium that Christ was hammering "sola scriptura" in Mark 7.

Commandment. WORD. SCRIPTURE.
Those are three different things.

You left one out. Let's look at the text again --

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

1. Commandment of God
2. Moses said
3. Word of God

And all of them refer to Ex 20:12 "Honor thy father and thy mother" - which is also scripture.

All 4 titles for the same text.

I have to go with God's choice.

But in that example - it is the one TRUE nation-church infallibly established by God at Sinai that has their magisterium getting hammered "Sola Scriptura" - something which I think many Catholics have argued "can not happen".

Likewise in Gal 1:6-9 Paul does not say "If it comes from one of US APOSTLES or an ANGEL from heaven - then no need to test it - just accept whatever is said".


Gal 1:6-9 - "Sola scriptura - known from NT times to judge modern teaching/doctrine"
--- EVEN if WE APOSTLES should preach error- a gospel contrary to what you received, - let him be accursed! --

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

[BobRyan]

And so also with Acts 17:11 - instead of "they accepted whatever Paul said as true - since they were not even Christians in the first place and had no basis or authority test an Apostle"

And instead of saying "they were cursed because they studied the scriptures as if to check Apostolic teaching of Paul - when they had no basis for doing such a thing - especially since they were not even Christians in the first place" --

We find this - give as the reason for the blessing pronounced on them.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul) were SO"

 

[DHK]

Which Bible? The one that came about after Luther started ripping the original one apart? Talk about a "religion of men", this man started it all, though he did continue to adhere to some parts of Christian orthodoxy.

Please understand: there is only one Bible. Your continued attack on this point simply shows your ignorance concerning the Word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Which Bible? The one that came about after Luther started ripping the original one apart? Talk about a "religion of men", this man started it all, though he did continue to adhere to some parts of Christian orthodoxy.

Your statement is not justified by the actual facts.

1. The 39 books of the real OT text is 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.

 

[utilyan]

Your statement is not justified by the actual facts.

1. The 39 books of the real OT text is 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.

The fatal detail is the Jewish canon was developed AFTER the death of Jesus IN RESPONSE to the GROWING CHRISTIAN THREAT.

So it makes PERFECT sense to follower the PHARISITICAL MAGISTERIUM who MURDERED CHRIST as they create their new canon of scripture.

The Jews reject Jesus.

The Christians used the Septuagint that contained the Apocrypha.

ALL SCRIPTURE Is God BREATHED. Now you got to SWALLOW IT.

Here is the down and dirty problem. When Jesus or apostles quote old testament its the Septuagint. We can tell by the grammar and vocabulary.

So the Septuagint no matter how absurd and silly, is the most completely official holy scripture of all.

You cannot REWRITE Jesus and the apostles and force them to quote YOUR old testament.

They quote OUR old testament! AMEN!!!!! AMEN!!!! THEY QUOTE OUR BOOK!!!!

Your stuck with a FALSE BIBLE.

You don't have the authority to change the new testament words to FIT your old testament words.


Look here is a chart:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html

 

[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.

The fatal detail is the Jewish canon was developed AFTER the death of Jesus

• 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.

 

[utilyan]

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 reworked all scripture and theology. That doesn't mean all Catholics follow Luther or Calvin.


Our NT are not the same. You have not included the sacred holy writings of the prophetess Ellen G. White. She cannot be shoved in the closet. She is a notch higher the gospels of the New Testament because she is a prophet given dictated scripture from God rather then just inspired scripture.

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

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

 

[DHK]

Well Catholic's own Martin Luther and John Calvin reworked all scripture and theology. That doesn't mean all Catholics follow Luther or Calvin.

You are on a Baptist Board. I am not a Lutheran nor a Presbyterian. Both Calvin and Luther persecuted the Baptists. The Baptists fought for soul liberty in their day. Instead they received repression and persecution.

Our NT are not the same. you have not included the sacred holy writings of the prophetess Ellen G. White. She cannot be shoved in the closet. She is a notch higher the gospels of the New Testament because she is a prophet given dictated scripture from God rather then just inspired scripture.

The Scripture I use is the same the early Christians have used since the time of Christ.
You act like a Muslim who make the allegation that our Bible is so changed and corrupt that not even one verse is now reliable. The only reliable verses of the Bible are now found in the Koran. That is your position as well. Your argument is the same. The only reliable parts of the Bible are found in the RCC editions of the Bible. You are putting for the same foolish argument as a Muslim does and yet without evidence. Let's consider the evidence. I will give you the same evidence I give them.
In this case the change that we are speaking about is the addition of the apocrypha--books written between 200 B.C. and 50 A.D. and yet are supposedly are to be accepted in the OT canon. The OT canon was closed by 400 A.D. at the latest. No book was accepted after that. Even the Septuagint was translated ca.250 B.C. originally did not include them. The later translations may have included them, but not the original translation. So somewhere along the line there was a change. Where and when was this change.
1. The Jews would have to agree to this change, especially since it was an OT change. The Jews, from the beginning were against the Apocrypha. They never agreed to it. To them it was anathema.
2. The early believers, non-Catholics, all the way up to the Protestants and beyond never accepted these books as inspired. It is true some included them in the center of their Bibles or at the end, but in their writings they made it clear that it was for reference and for reading material only. They were not inspired books.
3. Only the Catholics asserted that they were inspired books.

Now to officially have these books, OT Books, to be included in the inspired books and included in our canon there must be agreement between all three groupls mentioned above.

Point to a day in history when the Jews agree with those Christians who were not Catholics and the Catholics to agree that the Apocrypha is inspired.
Point to a day in history when the non-Catholics would agree with Jews and Catholics that the Apocrypha was inspired.
Point to a day in history when Catholics would agree with both Jews and non-Catholics that the Apocrypha was inspired.

Now point to a day when all three of these groups sat down and decided as one unified group and decided to change the Bible forever with the consent of all. Is there such a day in history? Where and when does it exist, and if it did, why don't all believers today follow its decision. The fact is, this is a pipe dream of the RCC. No such thing ever happened, and could not happen.

The Jews would never accept the Apocrypha. All the books are at least 200 years more recent than the closing of the OT canon which was already in circulation when the oldest of those books was written. They were all forgeries.

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

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

I have no dealings with the Pope and EGW. My authority is the Word of God, and it does not include the forgeries that the RCC have forced into it.