ECT JESUS NEVER TAUGHT SOLA SCRIPTURA

[Leatherneck]

You admit, then, that Jesus never taught sola scriptura. Noted.

Jesus did mention the RCC in Revelation 20:10 when He warned of the false prophet.

 

[Omniskeptical]

You admit, then, that Jesus never taught sola scriptura. Noted.

You fail to admit oral tradition is worthless.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Of course not, since there was no Catholic Church until Jesus chose and ordained the apostles, who then began to ordain their own apostolic successors (bishops). Jesus did, however, hold and appeal to Jewish Oral Tradition along with the texts of the Old Testament---in short, Christ did not believe in sola scriptura.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Yes, he did. It is ridiculous for the literate to have oral rather than written traditions.

 

[Leatherneck]

...except that not one of the biblical texts that he cited says anything whatsoever about---or even hints at---the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura. Try again.

Found another biblical reference to the RCC.

Mar 7:13 - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition,which ye have delivered: and many-such like things do ye.

 

[Idolater]

You fail to admit oral tradition is worthless.

1. Not when it's Apostolic oral tradition. That's most valuable!
2. The four Gospels were Apostolic oral tradition before they were written down!

 

[Idolater]

Found another biblical reference to the RCC.

Mar 7:13 - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition,which ye have delivered: and many-such like things do ye.

That would be germane if any Apostolic tradition actually made the Word of God "of none effect"! In fact it corroborates the written Word.

 

[Omniskeptical]

1. Not when it's Apostolic oral tradition. That's most valuable!
2. The four Gospels were Apostolic oral tradition before they were written down!

1. Apostolic Fathers had to reconstruct the canon. The used the nature of the writings to reconstruct it. They many false oral traditions about Paul, Peter, and John.
2. They were being written as Jesus lived. The written accounts were combined into gospels. But you falsely believe oral tradition is necessary.

 

[Leatherneck]

That would be germane if any Apostolic tradition actually made the Word of God "of none effect"! In fact it corroborates the written Word.

Worshipping Mary and dishonestly calling it veneration qualifies as germane as does purgatory, IC, PV amongst many other lies called oral tradition.

 

[Idolater]

Worshipping Mary and dishonestly calling it veneration qualifies as germane as does purgatory, IC, PV amongst many other lies called oral tradition.

Nobody 'worships' Mary Leatherneck.

 

[Leatherneck]

Nobody 'worships' Mary Leatherneck.

Is that why Roman Catholics pray to her and are in the process of committing another blasphemy by making her co-redemptrix with Jesus ? Sell your snake oil to someone else scripture exposes the lies and blasphemies of the RCC, and how do RC,s ignore and get around scripture they just create an oral tradition that contradicts scripture.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Nobody 'worships' Mary Leatherneck.

Nor does apostolic tradition exist outside scripture. You can argue the Trinity doctrine is oral tradition all you want also.

 

[Idolater]

Is that why Roman Catholics pray to her and are in the process of committing another blasphemy by making her co-redemptrix with Jesus ? Sell your snake oil to someone else scripture exposes the lies and blasphemies of the RCC, and how do RC,s ignore and get around scripture they just create an oral tradition that contradicts scripture.

We're not 'blasphemers', the opposite is closer to the truth. You guys are the blasphemers, if anybody is.

Nobody worships Mary because nobody offers sacrifices to Mary, plain and simple. We offer sacrifices to the Father and to Him alone, that's what the Eucharist is.

 

[Idolater]

Nor does apostolic tradition exist outside scripture. You can argue the Trinity doctrine is oral tradition all you want also.

Tons of things exist 'outside scripture', and so what. Show me chapter and verse where if it's not explicit in the Bible then we shouldn't believe it. It's not in there.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Tons of things exist 'outside scripture', and so what. Show me chapter and verse where if it's not explicit in the Bible then we shouldn't believe it. It's not in there.

Duh what? There is no such thing as unwritten tradition in the once Hebrew culture. Your kind don't understand nor read the bible much.

 

[Leatherneck]

We're not 'blasphemers', the opposite is closer to the truth. You guys are the blasphemers, if anybody is.

Nobody worships Mary because nobody offers sacrifices to Mary, plain and simple. We offer sacrifices to the Father and to Him alone, that's what the Eucharist is.

Is that why the Roman Catholic Church is debating declaring Mary co- redemptrix with Jesus because they don’t worship her ?

 

[Idolater]

Duh what? There is no such thing as oral tradition in the once Hebrew culture. Your kind don't understand nor read the bible much.

Duh what?

There's oral tradition in every culture.

"My kind"?

 

[Omniskeptical]

Duh what?

There's oral tradition in every culture.

"My kind"?

You are Roman Catholic who doesn't understand the pre -70 AD rapture of the Church. Oral Tradition where? Should we have made the US constitution with "Oral Tradition". With something as serious as the divine, you argue based oral tradition; which is delusional. Nothing that important is left to "oral tradition."

 

[Idolater]

You are Roman Catholic who doesn't understand the pre -70 AD rapture of the Church.

False. Nobody 'understands' what you're talking about here. Not just me.

Oral Tradition where?

Wherever there are mouths and ears, especially when the mouths in this case are in the Apostles' heads, and the ears are in the heads of the men they made bishops.

Should we have made the US constitution with "Oral Tradition".

Sure. Plain.

With something as serious as the divine, you argue based oral tradition; which is delusional. Nothing that important is left to "oral tradition."

Paul wrote about oral traditions that aren't recorded in Scripture, why did he do that?

And as I already said, the Gospels and Acts were oral traditions before they were written down. They weren't written in real time, so they obviously were oral traditions.

 

[Omniskeptical]

False. Nobody 'understands' what you're talking about here. Not just me.

Wherever there are mouths and ears, especially when the mouths in this case are in the Apostles' heads, and the ears are in the heads of the men they made bishops.

In other words, self-delusional stuff with no evidence. That's really not going to convince the Protestant brothers.

Sure. Plain.

The answer is never.

Paul wrote about oral traditions that aren't recorded in Scripture, why did he do that?

He didn't. You are delusional. Seek help.

And as I already said, the Gospels and Acts were oral traditions before they were written down. They weren't written in real time, so they obviously were oral traditions.

No, you have falsely conjectured. They are compilations of written events. There were a bunch of accounts and they were compiled into gospels.

 

[Idolater]

In other words, self-delusional stuff with no evidence. That's really not going to convince the Protestant brothers.

The answer is never.

He didn't. You are delusional. Seek help.

No, you have falsely conjectured. They are compilations of written events. There were a bunch of accounts and they were compiled into gospels.

Obviously you have a bunch of falsities that you must maintain in order to support your extreme and wildly minority position.