[–] Tallest_Skil ago
CTND
but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Because only a jew operates based on the emotional strength of a word (cough gematria cough), instead of on the doctrinal heirarchy
For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
Wow, you’re really doubling down on the use of a word unconnected to the argument.
the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Fun fact: good deeds and purity come exclusively from adherence to doctrine, as outlined in the Scripture.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured."
Imagine thinking you’re going to heaven simply because you prayed–arbitrarily and facetiously–without knowledge of scripture. Imagine actually believing that. It’s why we have so many “christians” today who think “thoughts and prayers” make them a good person, when they’re godless sinners.
Finally
Oh good, I was getting bored of your non sequitur.
why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally?
Oh, okay. So Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John aren’t scripture because it’s a written account of what Jesus SAID to them, got it. I see. Phew, that was a close one. Guess Christianity is fake because Jesus wasn’t a mute who simply wrote everything down and handed it to his disciples to read and copy.
This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Literally just reconciled it. Why am I capable of holding a conversation on this subject–and even exposing how and where you got your doctrinal perversions–but you’re forced to just copy and paste from already disproven sources written by jews?
"For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.
Oh look, you’re adding to the book. Whoops!
1) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to the Sacred Scripture.
Your next claim (copied and pasted that is; you’re personally too stupid to even comprehend what I’ve said) is that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time were “following God” in a biblical manner. It is the only claim you can possibly make, having just quoted this heresy of heresies as something you believe.
To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text
lol, “Mary was a virgin her whole life”
especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written
Huh, I thought you said it was spoken. Hmm…
But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text.
Yeah, you sure as shit haven’t done that in the above. Definitely not.
how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an infallible teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse?
But if such an infallible authority exists
God.
then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.
“God is null and void.” Got it. Thanks, papists!
The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2
If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture
Except Jesus held the law fulfilled.
all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms.
Which is why we reject papists’ claims that they are Christian; they aren’t.
The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding," therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write
Magical. So no one can even talk about scripture now.
There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
You say that, except it has nothing to do with the statements preceding.
Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ
Back to the MMLJ argument from earlier.
and is writing his Gospel only so that they
Can hear the words after he’s dead, yeah.
Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
No no, shlomo. Words have meanings. The gospel of Jesus is not the “oral tradition”; it’s the scripture. What your papacy says is not equivalent.
Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.
Oh good, I’ve been holding this pee in for decades because nowhere did it say that Jesus peed.
These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
No no, shlomo. Your Talmud Lite isn’t equivalent to scripture.
Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition
No, to maintain the teachings of Christ.
Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Except what they learned, received, heard, and saw in him… comes from scripture. It’s why he taught it to them.
these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures.
Once again, you can’t answer this because you’re just copying and pasting, but I’ll ask anyway.
You have to answer that before this point can continue.
We need divinely appointed leadership
The papacy isn’t infallible, kiddo.
Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.
Funny how he’s quoting Jesus saying that circumcision is meaningless in the face of unrighteousness. Oops!
Have fun with that.
Destroyed. Enjoy hell, papist.