You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] mattsixteen24 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

First off, protestants are full of faggots and rapists. The protestant "churches" have women and openly sodomite "priests" and "bishops" and they believe it's okay.

I was wrong about the Holy Trinity. I was thinking of something else.

As far as bible alone, none of those verses support that belief. Isaiah has nothing to do with bible alone belief but about not seeking fortune tellers.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." Nowhere does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

Regarding The Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:18-19, there are two considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses. The passage – almost the very last in the Bible – reads: "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. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book."

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. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the whole Bible. We know this because St. John says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book," namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)

In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Protestants will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, 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, then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.

2) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." 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 – including the New Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. 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, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/solascriptura.htm

Have fun with that.

0
0

[–] Tallest_Skil ago  (edited ago)

First off, protestants are full of faggots and rapists.

So no argument. Just a bunch of gish gallop (which I will nevertheless still individually disprove) straight from your Talmudic teaching. Got it.

I was wrong about the Holy Trinity.

NO SHIT YOU WERE, YOU FUCKING KIKE.

As far as bible alone, none of those verses support that belief.

They explicitly do.

those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Holy shit, look at that judaism. Look at that fucking Talmudic perversion. This is the sort of conclusion you reach when your entire life is spent growing up on the Talmud. Sane people don’t think this way. Sane people don’t write legalese. The Talmud is literally a book of excuses to get around the law. And what did you do here? “OY VEY GOY THE VERSE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT [X] THEREFORE [X] CAN BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE WORD OF GOD ITSELF!”

Your statement has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy establishing a secondary tradition to the word of God, nor do the verses say anything about doing so. You know who just creates a secondary oral tradition alongside a written tradition and then claims it’s more important than the written one?

JEWS DO THAT.

And when the jews infiltrated the catholic “church”, they brought their jewish perversions of Christian doctrine along with them. DON’T BOTHER DENYING IT; WE HAVE THE FUCKING DOCUMENTS.

Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and the Rabbis is the following:

  1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
  2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
  3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
  4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
  5. As for the other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of state, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.” ~ La Silva Curiosa de Italian de me, pp. 156-7; 1608

Deny it. I dare you.

not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture

Almost as though he spoke in parable, or something…

So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe.

No, because what he taught IS scripture.

Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition

Since you’re just copying shit from a source without understanding it, mind showing, in your own words, where this is done anywhere in the chapter?

there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures

LOOK AT THIS FUCKING JUDAISM.

Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised… This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion except insofar as to become a Christian you MUST ignore the oral Torah, which explicitly denounced Him, and only follow the Old Testament, which prophecied His coming.

this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive.

HahahahahahahHAHAHAH LITERAL TALMUDIC DOUBLESPEAK!

The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.

How does it “underscore” that, subhuman? This is pilpul. You’re not even aware that you’re a fucking neurological jew.

This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive.

You’re literally just making shut up now.

This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word.

No, because that’s not what the word ‘exclusive’ means in this context. Only a jew would claim otherwise, because only a jew pushes pilpul like this.

This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree.

Almost as though you’ve copied and pasted a strawman without comprehending it.

Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring

lol, this is the best you can do, huh. So there was no scripture before the NT? So Jesus’ gospel wasn’t scripture?

included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

Ooh, are these the books where you find sources for your claims about Mary and all that? Why didn’t you quote them instead of being blown the fuck out by Jesus’ own words? Is it because you know you worship a human woman instead of God Himself and don’t care?

2 Tim. 3:17

You’re obviously just copying this from some other source without understanding it, so I won’t even bother pointing out that the “man” used here is simply anthropos and not a distinct term for clergy (fun fact: Bible says ‘call no man father’), nor is it referenced separately as such by Strong’s or other such documentation, simply that it refers to believers. Because you don’t care about the Greek or even the Word itself.

Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit."

No, it means ‘full’ or ‘whole.’ You’re trying to explain away your jews in the clergy who don’t get doctrine correct, on purpose, by claiming that the aspiration for the clergy “is not” to be perfectly in accordance with the Word of God, simply “fit to read it.”

Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman.

Uh… yeah. That was literally never in question.

So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA NO ONE WAS DOING THAT, SHLOMO.

CTND

0
0

[–] 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.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. THIS IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF JUDAISM. THIS IS HOW THE TORAH WAS ABOLISHED IN FAVOR OF THE TALMUD, YOU FUCKING KIKE. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN HISTORY.

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?

  1. How is it that you know any of the books are the Word of God, unless an infallible teaching authority (cough God cough) assures him that this is the correct interpretation?
  2. The papacy is not infallible, never has been, and never will be.

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

NO SHIT. WHICH IS WHY THE TALMUD WAS A BASTARDIZATION OF GOD’S WORD.

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.

This is argument differs from the one originally stated. This is literal judaism in real time. 60 frames a second. HDR.

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.

Who saves souls? And in which manner are souls saved?

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.