ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

No. When Jesus taught from scripture, He taught only from scripture.

• This claim has already been directly refuted in a previous posts (#119 and #121).
• So your claim is that Jesus believed in sola scriptura, but somehow failed to teach his belief to the apostles who---as you admitted---did use oral Tradition in their teaching, yes? For you wrote that "There was never any doubt that the Paul did" [that is, use Tradition]. So, then, Jesus believed it, but the apostles did not---is this now your assertion?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

When did Jesus advocate getting doctrine from anywhere but himself and scripture?

Already answered (Post #121). Try to keep up.

...a bunch of old pagan homos like the RCC clergy.

Now your bigoted mouth-breathing ignorance is showing.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

• This claim has already been directly refuted in a previous posts (#119 and #121).
• So your claim is that Jesus believed in sola scriptura, but somehow failed to teach his belief to the apostles who---as you admitted---did use oral Tradition in their teaching, yes? For you wrote that "There was never any doubt that the Paul did" [that is, use Tradition]. So, then, Jesus believed it, but the apostles did not---is this now your assertion?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

My statement remains unchanged despite your attempts to distort it. When Jesus taught from scripture, He taught only from the scripture. He never taught from the Pharisees writings about scripture or from oral tradition.

 

[Cruciform]

But the Bible, " Good News" is here now. And the ancient writings and letters somehow found there way into the Bible and back to Gods people.

And how does this supposedly make the Bible "the only rule for faith and practice for Christians"...?

 

[Cruciform]

My statement remains unchanged despite your attempts to distort it. When Jesus taught from scripture, He taught only from the scripture. He never taught from the Pharisees writings about scripture or from oral tradition.

Already answered---and corrected---in Post #141 above.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Was everything that Jesus said for thirty-plus years "scripture"?

Don't we wish we had everything Jesus said. Was each and every word spoken for 30 years scripture? Probably not. There were pleases and thank yous and learning to speak. Certainly every word when He began His ministry was. God preserved what we needed to know.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered---and corrected---in Post #141 above.

You keep using that word, corrected. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Cruciform]

You keep using that word, corrected. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Post #141.

 

[Cruciform]

Don't we wish we had everything Jesus said. Was each and every word spoken for 30 years scripture? Probably not. There were pleases and thank yous and learning to speak. Certainly every word when He began His ministry was. God preserved what we needed to know.

Every single word that Jesus uttered for three years was "scripture"? Is that actually your claim now? :doh:

 

[Daniel1611]

Already answered (Post #121). Try to keep up.


Now your bigoted mouth-breathing ignorance is showing.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I make no bones about the fact that I hate the RCC because it is evil and leads many nice catholic people to hell.

 

[Cruciform]

I make no bones about the fact that I hate the RCC...

If your posted statements on this forum are any indication, you know virtually nothing about the very thing you say you "hate." Therefore, my observation about your "bigoted ignorance" stands exactly as posted (#142).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Every single word that Jesus uttered for three years was "scripture"? Is that actually your claim now? :doh:

I'm am sure that reasonable and honest people will understand the very clear intent of my statement. Others more intent mincing words than seeking Truth will quibble over the slightest turn of phrase to avoid the actual issues.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Post #141.

Yet again, I accept your concession.

 

[Cruciform]

Others more intent mincing words than seeking Truth will quibble over the slightest turn of phrase to avoid the actual issues.

• First, Pot, meet Kettle.
• Second, if you expect to be understood, learn to properly communicate in the English language.
• Third, your failure to answer the posted question is noted.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Yet again, I accept your concession.

Yet again, I point out your glaring Straw Man Fallacy.

Back to Post #141.

 

[Bright Raven]

That doesn't amount to sola scriptura. Catholics also believe that the Scriptures are inspired. So the basic authority of Scripture is not an issue between us, since we both accept Scripture as a divine authority. Thus, we both believe Paul's teaching in 2 Tim. 3:16.

What, then, was your point in citing 2 Tim. 3:16, since it has nothing at all to do with sola scriptura? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

That scripture is the final authority on all things.

 

[Cruciform]

scripture is the final authority on all things.

Unfortunately, the Bible itself---including 2 Tim. 3:16---teaches no such thing, and so your claim merely refutes itself.

 

[Bright Raven]

Unfortunately, the Bible itself teaches no such thing, and so your claim merely refutes itself.

Is this said because you believe that Church Tradition trumps scripture?

 

[Cruciform]

Is this said because you believe that Church Tradition trumps scripture?

Divine Revelation (God's Word) is comprised of both Scripture (written) and Tradition (unwritten) (2 Thess. 2:15), and so neither can rightly be pitted against the other as you're attempting to do here. It is the task of Christ's Church to authentically and authoritatively interpret Divine Revelation and to formulate binding Christian doctrine from its content.

See the citation in Post #157 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Divine Revelation (God's Word) is comprised of both Scripture (written) and Tradition (unwritten) (2 Thess. 2:15), and so neither can rightly be pitted against the other as you're attempting to do here. It is the task of Christ's Church to authentically and authoritatively interpret Divine Revelation and to formulate binding Christian doctrine from its content.

See the citation in Post #157 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

And where does tradition come from?