Guest Judas Machabeus Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Well, it's more than that. Catholic "doctrine" is theologically inconsistent with what is in the Bible. So is sola scriptura. It's not even in the bible. It is a man made doctrine. Shiloh you critise the Catholic Church for making doctrine that's inconsistent with the bible yet cling to one thats not even in the bible. It's man made. You critise the pope for making things up that aren't in the bible. Again neither is sola scriptura yet you cling to it. Edited April 9, 2017 by Judas Machabeus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 (edited) Duplicate post Edited April 9, 2017 by Judas Machabeus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said: So is sola scriptura. It's not even in the bible. It is a man made doctrine. It is in the Bible and I proved it yesterday and so far you have ignored that post. You can't refute it, so you pretend it isn't there. It is in the Bible the same way the Trinity is in the Bible. Quote Shiloh you critise the Catholic Church for making doctrine that's inconsistent with the bible yet cling to one thats not even in the bible. I criticize the Roman Cult for creating doctrine that's borders on blasphemy. And Sola Scriptura can be demonstrated and I have proven it and you cannot refute one piece of evidence I brought up. Quote It's man made. You critise the pope for making things up that aren't in the bible. Again neither is sola scriptura yet you cling to it. You can keep playing that broken record all you want. Saying it over and over isn't going to change the fact that I have successfully defended Sola Scriptura as evidenced by your inability to address the evidence I presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: You can keep playing that broken record all you want. Saying it over and over isn't going to change the fact that I have successfully defended Sola Scriptura as evidenced by your inability to address the evidence I presented. Reading your fallible theology into scripture isn't proof. And it's not like the trinity at all. Now where does scripture say that scripture alone is authority. Paul says to adhere to the traditions he's passed on both oral and written. Quoting scripture and trying to twist it to say something is doesn't isnt doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Just now, Judas Machabeus said: Reading your fallible theology into scripture isn't proof. Then prove it wrong. It seems you can throw around accusations, but accusations are not refutations. Quote And it's not like the trinity at all. It is exactly like the Trinity, actually. The Trinity is discovered functionally in Scripture even though it is not addressed specifically as a doctrine in teh Bible. I have already demonstrated that Sola Scripture is discovered functionally and showed how it works. Quote Now where does scripture say that scripture alone is authority. None of the prophets, none of the apostles, and not even Jesus appealed to tradition as an authority for anything they taught. Quote Paul says to adhere to the traditions he's passed on both oral and written. Quoting scripture and trying to twist it to say something is doesn't isnt doctrine. Yes, you keep repeating that error, and I will keep repeating my response which you cannot refute, as you have ignored it twice already. But as long as you repeat the same error, this will be my response, which is not refutable. "Paul uses "tradition" in the sense of "teaching" here. What the RCC does is, they commit the error of equivocation because they are using the same word but trying to give two different meanings to it. They define tradition as the words of Jesus and the apostles, but they also define "tradition" to refer to the changing and evolving doctrines of the RCC over time. The traditions of the RCC and the traditions that Paul is referring to here, are two completely different things. They are trying to justify their made up doctrines like Mary being assumed into Heaven by forcing Paul's' use of "tradition" in II Thess. 2:15 to mean the same thing as the evolving "traditions" of the RCC. And that is invalid, not to mention a very sloppy form of hermeneutics. Paul is referring to the doctrines that he gave them the last he was there at that church in Acts 17: 1-4, 11. He is not talking about extra oral traditions that are not included in the Bible. Paul is writing in both I and II Thessalonians to re-enforce the doctrinal teachings he already transmitted to them, previously. So what we have in both I and II Thessalonians are the teachings that they had received prior in oral form. That is a far cry from the RCC just pulling something out of thin air, like Mary never having sex (which is really unlikely) or that Mary was born sinless or that Mary was assumed into heaven like Elijah/Enoch, and none of which can they support when it comes to Mary. It's all a pack of lies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SisterActs2 Posted April 10, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 23 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,000 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 1,655 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/27/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/08/1950 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Re Maryology. Absolutely correct TheMatrixHasU7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted April 10, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 Shiloh, i don't think Judas will ever agree to your definition of "oral tradition" because he realizes this backs him into a corner that he can't escape. The conversations I have had with my brother are pretty similar on this matter. My brother is just as adamant as Judas. I know they both read Scott Hahn so either they get that arguement out of his book or they are reading the same RCC website. Unfortunately, some people take a small word out of the Bible and blow it up to mean much more than it was intended. But this error has been going for a very long time. It allows for people to keep supporting their agenda. In this case, Mary is the Queen of Heaven, sinless, sexless, and co- redemptrix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 10, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2017 On 09/04/2017 at 0:35 AM, Judas Machabeus said: Catholic doctrine is rejected and reduced down to man made traditions But you cant find Catholic manmade traditions in the bible. Therein lies the problem. You wont find Mary Immaculately Conceived Queen of Heaven in the bible; Nor will you find anything in reference to a Pope, monks and nuns, the bloodless sacrifice or God allowing anywhere idols of Jesus, His earthly mother, or the saints....need I go on? ALL SCRIPTURE is given under inspiration of God. When the bible NOWHERE says Scripture and TRADITION you have to take that passage for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 10, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2017 17 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said: Paul says to adhere to the traditions he's passed on both oral and written I assume you are speaking of..... 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. They are the SAME thing. The oral may have differed somewhat in form alone but not ever in substance. What was spoken was otherwise EXACTLY the same as what was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 58 minutes ago, Spock said: Shiloh, i don't think Judas will ever agree to your definition of "oral tradition" because he realizes this backs him into a corner that he can't escape. The conversations I have had with my brother are pretty similar on this matter. My brother is just as adamant as Judas. I know they both read Scott Hahn so either they get that arguement out of his book or they are reading the same RCC website. Unfortunately, some people take a small word out of the Bible and blow it up to mean much more than it was intended. But this error has been going for a very long time. It allows for people to keep supporting their agenda. In this case, Mary is the Queen of Heaven, sinless, sexless, and co- redemptrix. That's what happens when someone is getting their talking points from a book. They can't actually refute your points, because they don't own the argument they are making. It's not the result of their own study, but the result of just parroting someone else from a book. Explains why my posts are met with silence. To be honest Scott Hahn is supposed to be Roman Catholicism's, #1 apologist, he is supposed to be the best apologist they have, and frankly, Hahn's arguments are full holes. It's worse than Swiss cheese. If he is the best they've got, I am not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts