Once more into the breech...

[The Berean]

Thought this was interesting, if only to the believer.

http://www.aomin.org/SS.html

an excerpt.

“The constant refrain was, ‘sola scriptura is not biblical, nor is it historical. I just can’t believe it anymore.’ I could not get her past that one issue. She refused to hear any counter-argument; she refused to apply the same standards to Rome she was applying to the Bible and Protestant churches. It was like it was a mantra--not really a cohesive thought, but a feeling, a chant, something that must be true. I had seen the same kind of look and experienced the same kind of responses when talking to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when we would touch on one of their “pet” doctrines. They just have to be right about that, for if they are not, the entire system crumbles."

[The Berean]

Man this sounds so familiar:

"Modern-day converts to Rome, especially those who fall into the EWTN/Scott Hahn/”The Journey Home” style of conversion experience, are zealous for their newfound cause. And they are armed with a legion of heart-tugging audio and video tapes, along with full color magazines and friendly sounding books to add to the force of the appeal. There seems to be something about getting others to “come along” that helps them to be comforted in their own decision to embrace Rome’s authority claims. And the questions that come out over coffee eventually get quite pointed. “So have you ever really thought about why you believe the Bible alone is enough?” Then comes the personal story, “See, I was just like you, and had heard that all my life, but I had just accepted it. But then I started to read the early church fathers, and found out that sola scriptura is really just a human tradition, and we really need an infallible church to guide us into the fullness of the truth, and that the one true church has been around for two thousand years!”

[GenX]

Character assassination; that will send people running to your Protestant churches. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Maybe someday...someday, you'll explain where it is sola scriptura and sola fide are in the Bible.

[GenX]

Hurry guys...find something to use in your character assassination techniques!! This one is a BIGGIE!!

It will be difficult. He was one of yours until just a few months ago...and so respected in Protestant circles he was actually the leader of over 4,000 of Protestantism's leading theologians.


"The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.

The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies."

LINK (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18261/francis-j-beckwith)

The equivalence of this would be somewhere between the most influential Cardinal today or the Pope leaving the Catholic Church.

His leadership position in Protestantism was very close to the position Cardinal Ratzinger had in the Roman Catholic Church before he assumed the papacy.

Good luck on this one, boys /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Chester Field]

Free agency is just ruining this sport. Players keep switching sides and the agents are laughing all the way to the bank.

[GenX]

Certainly humor is a very good way to go about this situation (if you're Protestant).

Huge, huge blow, boys.

[Chester Field]

This doesn't affect me, except for any spin off damage that may occur from my brothers obsessions and public peeing contests in the name of their beliefs.

I made a joke. I thought it was funny. Nothing else to it at all.

I still think it's funny, but maybe just to me.

[GenX]

It is funny, but it also sheds light on a very basic truth.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This doesn't affect me </div></div>

so then you are something other than RC or Protestant?

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is funny, but it also sheds light on a very basic truth.

</div></div>Which truth, that free agency is ruining the game or that pointless peeing contests accomplish nothing but getting into the way of meaningful debate. To be clear, I'm not putting all of this on your shoulders. I just don't see the point of the endless jousting over whose particular version of Christianity is better. It is no different than than non-believers running down Christianity as a whole. What you take offense to by others "attacks" on the Roman Catholic church is no different than your own "attacks" on a generalized version of their own denominations. You have cried ignorance at the lack of insight into your own denomination, yet have shown the same ignorance towards specific denominations when "attacking" under the generalization of "protestant". Everyone thinks that they are right.

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This doesn't affect me </div></div>

so then you are something other than RC or Protestant? </div></div>

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The equivalence of this would be somewhere between the most influential Cardinal today or the Pope leaving the Catholic Church.

His leadership position in Protestantism was very close to the position Cardinal Ratzinger had in the Roman Catholic Church before he assumed the papacy.

</div></div>

Then how come we have never heard of this guy before you brought up his name???

"Modern-day converts to Rome, especially those who fall into the EWTN/Scott Hahn/”The Journey Home” style of conversion experience, are zealous for their newfound cause. And they are armed with a legion of heart-tugging audio and video tapes, along with full color magazines and friendly sounding books to add to the force of the appeal. There seems to be something about getting others to “come along” that helps them to be comforted in their own decision to embrace Rome’s authority claims."

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then how come we have never heard of this guy before you brought up his name??? </div></div>

Who???

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Character assassination; that will send people running to your Protestant churches. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Maybe someday...someday, you'll explain where it is sola scriptura and sola fide are in the Bible. </div></div>

Tell us what you think sola scriptura is??

[GenX]

Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then how come we have never heard of this guy before you brought up his name??? </div></div>

Who??? </div></div>

An evangelical Baptist.

But there are 300 varieties of Baptist in the good old USA. How influential could he posibly be??

Ratzingy right.

[GenX]

Conkat, relax and slow down.

WHO are you talking about?

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines </div></div>

Nope.

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority."

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conkat, relax and slow down.

WHO are you talking about? </div></div>

You posted the link, you figure it out.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines </div></div>

Nope.

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority." </div></div>

that's different from my definition...how???

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conkat, relax and slow down.

WHO are you talking about? </div></div>

You posted the link, you figure it out. </div></div>

Hahn?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

LINK (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18261/francis-j-beckwith)


</div></div>

This would be the link about the great nobody that YOU posted.

[The Berean]

Thanks BM.

[GenX]

Francis J. Beckwith, a leader of over 4,000 Protestant theologians. Obviously Protestants of all denominations felt strongly about this man's credentials as far as a being a leader of many Protestant faiths.

Because there is no central authority in Protestantism as there is in the RCC obviously a direct comparison cannot be made. But one need only understand the importance of Beckwith's former job to understand there is certainly some correlation between what he did and what top Cardinals do.

You may not have heard of Beckwith, but I can guarantee you had some type of indirect contact with home through the years. He no doubt published many important and much sought-after work that were one way or another slipped in to thoudsands of Protestant sermons over the last few years.

Oh, this one is huge, just huge. Why else does it describe his former Protestant theologians as "gasping for breath" over it all?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks BM. </div></div>


/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

THE greatest name on the board yet!!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

How fitting!!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks BM. </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

[GenX]

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

[GenX]

I don't think I've EVER laughed this hard on this board!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines </div></div>

Nope.

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority." </div></div>

that's different from my definition...how??? </div></div>

"This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures."

This is the key. Practices would also be inferior.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines </div></div>

Nope.

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority." </div></div>

that's different from my definition...how??? </div></div>

"This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures."

This is the key. Practices would also be inferior. </div></div>

Now...where is it in the Bible??? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

If Barry conducts 'Allegro from Spring of the Four Seasons' with the Sault Symphony Orchestra is it considered a "BM movement"?

[The Berean]

Speedy, unless you want to prove the opposite (your) viewpoint by showing exactly, verse by vers, where it is in the bible, I doubt you want to go there.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speedy, unless you want to prove the opposite (your) viewpoint by showing exactly, verse by vers, where it is in the bible, I doubt you want to go there. </div></div>

I don't have to, we have Bible AND Tradition.

You' however, are Bible only.

Now, show all the people, those infamous 'lurkers' BM drools over, just how wrong I am.

Show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Barry conducts 'Allegro from Spring of the Four Seasons' with the Sault Symphony Orchestra is it considered a "BM movement"? </div></div>

Interesting.

[GenX]

Yes, it is.

Now, prove me spectacularly wrong! Show all the lurkers where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible!!!

[GenX]

UNIVERSAL NEGATIVES

By JAMES AKIN


ONE tactic Protestant debaters use when discussing sola scriptura, the "Bible alone" theory, is to shift the burden of proof to their Catholic opponents. A common dodge is their claiming that there is a sense in which it is impossible to prove sola scriptura and it is thus unfair to ask them to do so. Instead, they insist, the Catholic must prove his position on revelation.

This argument implicitly admits that the Catholic wins the debate, since nobody would make this move if he felt he had adequate proof for the doctrine of sola scriptura. By saying that it is impossible for anyone to prove sola scriptura, the Protestant admits it is impossible for him to prove sola scriptura. Hence he loses the debate automatically.

There is another problem with this argument. It is usually developed by saying that sola scriptura cannot be proven because it is a "universal negative" proposition. A universal negative is a proposition which can be stated in the form "No X are Y." In the case of sola scriptura, the proposition might be "No things which are not Scripture are norms for our faith." Universal negatives are difficult or impossible to prove.

The proposition in the Madrid/White debate, "The Bible teaches sola scriptura,"is an affirmative proposition, fitting the form, "The Bible teaches X." It doesn't matter what X is. Xcan be affirmative or negative, universal or particular. In order to win the debate, White would need to show that the Bible teaches X.

Imagine White speaking to Mormons (who are polytheists) during one of his visits to Salt Lake City and saying, "I don't have to prove there is only one God. In fact, I can't prove there is only one God, because to do that I would have to search the entire universe to see if there were a second god."

White would be laughed out of Temple Square for using such an argument. To prove there is only one God he merely needs to show that the Bible says there is only one God, just as in the debate with Patrick Madrid he merely needed to show that the Bible says there is only one rule of faith and that it is Scripture.

[GenX]

"ONE tactic Protestant debaters use when discussing sola scriptura, the "Bible alone" theory, is to shift the burden of proof to their Catholic opponents"

My, my...did he ever nail Conkat with that one or what???

[The Berean]

I believe the opposite of sola scriptura an this context is sola ecclesia. That is what you must be claiming by saying "I don't have to, we have Bible AND Tradition."

[GenX]

Conkat, why is it soooooo difficult for someone who subscribes to Sola Scriptura to show where it is in the Bible?

All you're doing is biding time.

[GenX]

You said the Bible is the only authority.

Fine.

Now, where in the Bible does it say it is the only authority?

[The Berean]

Im not biding time, Im waitng for something from you. Debating this issue always comes down to Romes claim of authority.
Rome infact claims COMPLETE authority over Scripture, and claims her prounouncements have greater authority that the words of the writers of the bible itself.

Sola Eclessia.

[GenX]

Thats an absolute lie and no doubt intentional mis-representation of sola eclessia. It is "Church, Bible, and Tradition", equal, with the Bible being the first source. If you did any research you would know that.

Now, notice 'lurkers', how it always goes back to the RCC when they are asked to support a doctrine of theirs.

Conkat, let's say Rome is wrong. Show the people where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible, and deliver the final death blow to the Papacy!!!

[GenX]

JMJ

I have heard the term "Sola Ecclesia" in many debates, and have seen it in websites as well. The definition of Sola Ecclesia is that the Church has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and Tradition. This is totally fine with me. Why? Because we can see that the Church, as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), is holding up the Scriptures and Tradition. "Sola Ecclesia" is just a phrase that would confuse many who would think that the Church does not hold up anything else. I would rather follow Sola Ecclesia than following Sola Scriptura.

The phrase, "I do not want any Church standing between me and God" is very unfortunate. One would not say, "I don't want the government to stand between me and my country." As Fulton Sheen said,

"To say one between God and me is anti-Christian because it implies that your brother is a barrier to God's grace and not a means to it."

Fulton Sheen is definitely right. One does not have their own mathematics, science, and astronomy. When our Blessed Lord taught us how to pray, He said, "Our Father, daily bread, trespasses" NOT "My Father, daily bread, trespasses." If one searches the Scriptures, one would find that God always dealt with mankind through human corporations or races, or moral bodies, presided over by a divinely appointed head. First it was Noah, then Abraham to Jacob and on through the prophets. These people were part of the kahal. Throughout Jewish history one will find that being cut off from the kahal is the greatest punishment of all.

The kahal was also visible. One would know the kahal that was called the Jews. And so if God always dealt with a visible head, why would He not do it again to His new kahal? God sent our Blessed Lord to save the people. We can see that God is giving revelation through His Son as well. The Son also promised, and built a new kahal. Note that Our Blessed Lord NEVER promised NEW SCRIPTURE. Jesus said to Peter,

"You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church." (Matthew 16:18)

Many scholars, including many Protestants, would admit that the rock refers to Peter. We also see just like Abram (Genesis 17), Jesus gave Simon a new name. This means that Simon will now have new powers and privileges. Also note, that Jesus said He would build His Church. The Greek word for Church in this verse is ekklesia, in Hebrew, kahal. So we see that Jesus is building a new visible organization. Not only is it an organization, but an organism. It is the Mystical Body of Christ. Just as revelation was given from Jesus, now it will be also given from His Mystical Body. What kind of authority does this new kahal have?

"Whatever you shall bind will be bound, and whatever you shall loose will be loosed." (Matt 16:19; 18:18)

So this new kahal is an authoritative Church like the old one. One example of this is when they were trying to figure out if Gentiles had to be circumcised. Note that they did not leave it up to the individual to decide. We read,

"My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7)

If one practiced Sola Scriptura those days, you would hear something like this,

"Can you give me any document that says you were given that task? How do we know that God made that choice through you?"

They didn't argue with Peter, but fell silent (Acts 15:12). Then we read that James will back up what Peter had decided. He quotes Scripture,

"After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things, known from my old." (Acts 15:16-17)

James is quoting from Amos 9:11-12. Now, how come no one is arguing with him? I can sure argue with him pretty well. He only used two verses to prove his point. How many verses in the OT say to keep the Mosaic Law and circumcise people? There are a lot more verses where I can support circumcision. Now, what if this was done today? Would the people argue with the Church? A good example is the Assumption of Mary. The Church has defined the woman in Revelation 12 to be Mary. Can someone refute that? Of course they can. Just as I can refute what James has said on Amos 9:11-12.

Another example is the case of Ptolemy, Barnabas, and Marcion. Marcion of Pontus believed an inferior god in the Old Testament who was so ignorant, the god could not find Adam (Gen 3:9). Barnabas believed that the Jews lost the covenant immediately after Moses received it when the Jews worshipped the golden calf. Ptolemy believed in three lawgivers: God Himself, Moses, and the elders of the people. The Church then made some big decisions.

"The Church excommunicated Marcion and condemned Marcionism. Barnabas found no disciples. Ptolemy's principles were rejected. Generally, the early Church did not define its teachings on its own initiative. Instead, it defined them by reacting. Only when someone announced, "I've got it all figured out," did the Church take a long look at the solution, measure it against its sense of the faith, and often enough say, "No, you don't; that's not in line with our faith." Thus, in rejecting Marcion as a heretic, in not following Barnabas, and in not accepting Ptolemy's principles, the Church made some important affirmations." (The Bible, the Church, and Authority by Joseph T. Lienhard, pg 19)

Let us say that we are people living in 40 AD. How would we know about this man Jesus? How would we know His teachings? How would we know His TRUE teachings? One cannot go to the Scriptures then and find about this man. He would have to go to the Church. When the Apostles died, revelation ceased. Now, who would know what the Apostles taught? Who would know about what their true teachings were? Where did their authority go? Did it cease?

We see in the NT Scriptures that the Apostles passed their authority on. One example is Paul passing his teaching authority to Timothy (1 Tim 1:3; 3:2; 4:11-16; 5:17; 6:2ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14). Timothy will also pass on his authority (2 Tim 2:2). And from that day on, we have many that have their authority. One might ask, "Where can we find Jesus' teachings?" The answer will be just like the answer in 40 AD. The Church. You will not find one passage where the Apostles passed their authority to their Gospels or their Epistles. It is also impossible because a book cannot bind and loose.

Many Protestants will have to give up to the Catholic Church eventually. They will find themselves contradicting themselves. One example is a discussion with a Protestant friend:

Avbcl111: How do you know who wrote Matthew? Aren't you going to rely on the early fathers????

Protestant: We can date the document by internal evidence, and its authorship is attested by internal and external evidence.

Avbcl111: can you give me an example?

Protestant: Yes. For example, Matthew frequently mentions fulfillments of prophecy. But he doesn't mention any fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 A.D. Therefore, it's likely that the document was written prior to 70 A.D. I can cite books and scholars on this subject. There's a lot of evidence for the authenticity of the books of the Bible.

Avbcl111: yes but how do you know Matthew wrote it though? how do you know it wasn't a Gnostic?

Protestant: The author's name is part of every relevant m****cript we have. We also know that documents during that time usually had the author's name attached all along. The widespread, early, universal acceptance of Matthew as the author suggests that there was no competing authorship claim, and that the Matthean claim was highly credible. People who lived with the apostles or shortly after specifically implied or named Matthew as the author.

Avbcl111: so in other words...you are relying on tradition

Protestant: No, things like m****cripts, archeology, and the writings of Christians are not the same as the tradition you believe in as a Catholic.

Avbcl111: that is a written tradition

Protestant: The tradition you believe in contradicts much of what the church fathers wrote.

Avbcl111: But you are still relying on the authority of tradition. So far, you are relying on scripture and tradition and you said that a church has authority as well.

This was a discussion on Authority. We see that my Protestant friend is relying on the Early Church Fathers and m****cripts, which of course, are written traditions. One would not have the Bible if he does not accept the authority of the Church who did it, and the canons (which is a written tradition as well). The person who practices Sola Scriptura would not even give citations of early Church Fathers to try to contradict the Catholic Church if they do not rely on written tradition. By trying to contradict the Catholic Church, he will have to rely on these writings as authoritative, or else, even though citing them, they do not really matter. A person who follows Sola Scriptura is actually relying on three authorities: Scripture, Church, and Tradition which is of course, just like the Catholic Church.

One example also is the Canon. Some might say that Athanasius had the right number of books. But who would argue from one man's authority? How is his Canon correct and the others were not? Who has the final authority? The Church has this final authority and she has made her decision.

In one of my "debates" we discussed Sola Scriptura. I would find it interesting how the Protestant would attack the Catholic Church in that debate. Why would he even mention the Catholic Church, knowing that the Catholic Church doesn't practice Sola Scriptura? Let us say that I am converting from "Rome." Where would I go? How would I know who has the truth? What kind of worship did the Early Church do? Is it Liturgical? Shall we baptize infants? What about salvation?

Let us say that I was debating with Mr. X. Mr. X made me convert from Rome. Mr. X is a Reformed Baptist, and I will be converting from Rome to become a Presbyterian. Now, would not Mr. X (if he really cared for me, and believed he had the truth) keep on bothering me on many issues? Mr. X will not be satisfied until I convert to his denomination. It looks as if Mr. X is a Pope.

If two people are arguing on Infant Baptism, shouldn't there at least be a final authority that would interpret Scripture? Could one imagine if the Church had not even defined the nature of God? If a person believes in the Trinity, it is because the Church has defined it and that has been passed on to our day. If you give a person who does not know anything about the Trinity or any council, one will find that he would not define God as a Trinity and cannot define it like today.

What if the Church didn't decide anything on circumcision? Can anyone say that we should still circumcise people in order to enter the covenant? We follow the decision on Acts 15 not because it's in the Bible, but because the Church has infallibly decided on that issue. A person in that day will not believe because he reads the Gospel of Matthew or the book of Acts, but because he knows it is taught by the Apostles and the Church.

A person who says something like "Sola Ecclesia" is forgetting that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. A body cannot live if one of its organs is not in harmony with the others. To say "Sola Ecclesia" is really saying "Sola Christos," the Mystical Body that is authoritative and knows who Jesus is, and His teachings.

One will also find that the kahal (Church) was always first, then came the Scriptures. God breathed through men and the men later wrote it down (cf. 2 Tim 3:16). One will also find Our Blessed Lord not writing anything because He was not an author, but an authority, in which He passed His authority to twelve men.

The phrase "Sola Ecclesia" is actually the whole truth; the Church that has with her two other authorities (Scripture and Tradition), and the fullness of Christ. "Sola Ecclesia" is saying that you are a member of the Mystical Body, and that you are chosen from the people. Ekklesia means those who are "called out," meaning called out from the secular order to be partakers in the divine (2 Peter 1:4). And one should be proud to be part of the ecclesia, the Catholic Church. You are part of the ecclesia that many have died for and in which many saints have lived and are living



Apolonio Latar

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Im not biding time, Im waitng for something from you. Debating this issue always comes down to Romes claim of authority.
Rome infact claims COMPLETE authority over Scripture, and claims her prounouncements have greater authority that the words of the writers of the bible itself.

Sola Eclessia. </div></div>

http://blogs.sltrib.com/tv/uploaded_images/Hourglass-775902.jpg

And we wait...and wait...and wait...

[The Berean]

I have avoided the practice of posting huge reams of material. Id appreciate your condensed versions in return.

Back to our discussion:


Does not the Roman Church have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture?

Isnt it true that Rome claims the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’?

So, if Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she be subservient to two things that she defines and interprets?

That is what sola ecclesia is all about: the Church as the final authority in all things.

[GenX]

Who is the final authority in Protestantism?

Me! You! The guy down the street! The baker the next street over!!

And what if we all have differing views on what somethings means or says???

That's they way it goes, says Protestantism.

[GenX]

Conkat, if you can show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible you will have dealt a serious, serious blow to my entire case. I'm offering you a chance to administer a serious blow to my beliefs.

If you can show me where Sola Scriptura is then I have NO reason to stay in the RCC. None.

Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

[GenX]

I'm going to watch The Journey Home (http://www.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp) program. I'll be back later. You have plenty of time.

[The Berean]

I always have plenty of time; God made lots.


Here are some passages that speak about what God Himself gave us:

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

2 Timothy 15-17:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

And:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are 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 the things which are written in this book"
Revelation 22:18-19

Dont add anything, tradition included, to what we recieved from God.

That in essence shows sola scriptura.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who is the final authority in Protestantism?

Me! You! The guy down the street! The baker the next street over!!

And what if we all have differing views on what somethings means or says???

That's they way it goes, says Protestantism.



</div></div>

"If there are 250 meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting non-Christian religions and the like that are often lumped into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but even then, those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek to consistently practice it would be an even smaller number."

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who is the final authority in Protestantism?

Me! You! The guy down the street! The baker the next street over!!

And what if we all have differing views on what somethings means or says???

That's they way it goes, says Protestantism.



</div></div>

"If there are 250 meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting non-Christian religions and the like that are often lumped into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but even then, those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek to consistently practice it would be an even smaller number." </div></div>

So, the guy that says automatically any links to Catholic sites are to be swept aside links to Alpha and Omega Ministries (http://www.aomin.org/SS.html). Now, once again, why is it okay for you to link to a Protestant apologetic site but not for me to link to a Catholic apologetics site? I never could keep that little criticism form you guys straight.

And saying there is probably less than 250 denominations is some kind of proof of anything? That's like saying "40,000 denominations is too high of a number; God is so great He wouldn't allow more than 200". That's laughable, and sad.

Truth is Truth, period.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always have plenty of time; God made lots.


Here are some passages that speak about what God Himself gave us:

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

2 Timothy 15-17:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

And:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are 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 the things which are written in this book"
Revelation 22:18-19

Dont add anything, tradition included, to what we recieved from God.

That in essence shows sola scriptura. </div></div>

"In essence"? What is this "essence" thing all about. Sola Scriptura says 'Bible only', not 'the essence of the Bible.

Not one of those passages come right out and say to use Scripture alone. Therein lies your great conumdrum: you say "Bible only", yet top 'prove' Bible only you quote passages that show an "essence" of Sola Scriptura. You refute your premise with your answer.

You show me "essence". Essence is not a slam dunk, which Sola Scriptura must obviously be.

You have shown me that Scripture is very important, and needed. And there we do not disagree. What you have failed to do is show where it is Scripture ALONE.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have avoided the practice of posting huge reams of material. Id appreciate your condensed versions in return.

Back to our discussion:


Does not the Roman Church have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture?

Isnt it true that Rome claims the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’?

So, if Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she be subservient to two things that she defines and interprets?

That is what sola ecclesia is all about: the Church as the final authority in all things. </div></div>

Why doesn't Speedy answer this?? He can't. No reason to, actually since it is simple truth.

[GenX]

How does Sola Scriptura stand up to these?



"Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15)



"I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13)

"no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:21)

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)


"[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1 Thess. 2:13)

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have avoided the practice of posting huge reams of material. Id appreciate your condensed versions in return.

Back to our discussion:


Does not the Roman Church have the ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture?

Isnt it true that Rome claims the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’?

So, if Rome determines the extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she be subservient to two things that she defines and interprets?

That is what sola ecclesia is all about: the Church as the final authority in all things. </div></div>

Why doesn't Speedy answer this?? He can't. No reason to, actually since it is simple truth. </div></div>

I answered it, BM. Take a look back.

[GenX]

Barry, decipher 2 Pet. 1:21 for me, please.

[Soundbear]

"Not one of those passages come right out and say to use Scripture alone."

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Seems clear to me.

I did notice on interesting fact re "Tradition". Apparently the canon of scripture is infallibly proclaimed by the Roman Church.

Why isn't "Tradition"???? You'd think if your eternal soul depended on it, it would.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, decipher 2 Pet. 1:21 for me, please. </div></div>
Your eternal soul rests on this one, BM /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" </div></div>

Martin Luther, the bedrock of your faith, added words to the Bible. He admits as much. Also, he took out books of the Bible that Christians had accepted for 1,200 years.

"It is my Testament and my translation, and it shall remain mine. If I have made some mistakes in it (although I am not aware of any, and would most certainly be unwilling to deliberately mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the papists to be my judges."

"But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges"

-M. Luther

LINK (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html)




"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
-from the Bible, Revelations, 22:18

"If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so"
-Martin Luther

[GenX]

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

CA

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" </div></div>

Martin Luther, the bedrock of your faith, added words to the Bible. He admits as much. Also, he took out books of the Bible that Christians had accepted for 1,200 years.

"It is my Testament and my translation, and it shall remain mine. If I have made some mistakes in it (although I am not aware of any, and would most certainly be unwilling to deliberately mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the papists to be my judges."

"But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges"

-M. Luther

LINK (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html)




"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
-from the Bible, Revelations, 22:18

"If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so"
-Martin Luther </div></div>

Let's put this "bedrock of our faith" to bed once and for all.

Where Luther put the word "alone", supposedly "added", he was interpreting a word that means "apart". Now, if you don't want to accept that, that's OK by me.

But during searches for other material, I found this:

"However, Martin Luther, judged various books of the Bible, God's holy Word... however, Luther is not the Church, has ho authority to change the number of books of the Bible, and in fact they stay the same as before Luther. But here are some of his comments on the Word of God:
1- On the Old Testament: Of the Pentateuch he says: 'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses".... "Job is merely the argument of a fable"... "Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete"... "There is too much incoherent matter in it, Solomon did not, therefore, write this book"... "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness"... "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible" .
2 - The books of the New Testament fared no better. He rejected from the canon Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse. These he placed at the end of his translation, after the others, which he called 'the true and certain capital books of the New Testament.' . . .
"St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others".... "In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels"... The Epistle to the Hebrews did not suit him: "It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw"... The Epistle of St. James, Luther denounced as "an epistle of straw." "I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books." He did this because it proclaimed the necessity of good works, contrary to his heresy... "There are many things objectionable in this book," he says of the Apocalypse, "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting it" . ."

So much for YOUR definition of a "bedrock". The guy was welcome to his opinions. But like it says, Luther ain't the church.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

CA </div></div>

OK sure, and as soon as an infallible definition of Tradition comes around, we'll consider it.

"But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" " Yeah, so?? You've been asked before to explain what exactly one must believe, but you can't.

You can yap about disputed doctrines in Protestantism all day long, but in six years you haven't seen fit to bring one up. Or even clarified what a Protestant is!!!!

[GenX]

Barry, you're trying to deflect the pressure.

You cannot prove Sola Scriptura.

You ran like a vampire form garlic when asked to define 2 Peter 1:21.

Here's what's very obvious: I am showing you contradictions in your faith you never knew existed, never believed could exist. Most of these Catholic apologetics are new to you, and they have you in quite a quandary.

But, I was on your side. I came at the question of who is correct from both sides. I know many of the arguments both sides employ. I weighed the evidence, and could no more deny the RCC than deny my child.

You can try to deflect the light, Barry; but anyone reading this can see how you are unable to answer even the most fundamental questions of your faith.

[GenX]

You want some division?

Here ya' go... LINK (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi2.htm)

[The Berean]

Why do you have an implied insult in your signature??

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" " Yeah, so?? </div></div>

"Yeah, so"?????

But you and Aydeloof just spent last week telling us how some divisions do not matter because they are "minor"! Yet you just admitted such an attitude is certainly not based on Scripture!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you have an implied insult in your signature?? </div></div>

Why are you deflecting pressure?

[The Berean]

"We are in a difficult position with Catholics, Orthodox and Watchtower believers alike, because when we point out the verses that prove sola Scriptura is taught in scripture, they don't believe they can understand the Bible without their church interpreting it for them... and they say sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What an amazing system of circular deception the Catholic, Orthodox and Brooklyn New York, churches have invented"

[GenX]

Character assassination. Is that the best you have?

We are STILL waiting for biblical proof of Sola Scriptura.

[GenX]

Seems to me like you guys are running for the words of men to somehow justify your faith /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Soundbear]

There's a joke.

Is this the scripture??

2 Pet 1:19-21
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What's your point with it??

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We are in a difficult position with Catholics, Orthodox and Watchtower believers alike, because when we point out the verses that prove sola Scriptura is taught in scripture, they don't believe they can understand the Bible without their church interpreting it for them... and they say sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What an amazing system of circular deception the Catholic, Orthodox and Brooklyn New York, churches have invented" </div></div>

Ain't it the truth!!!

Speedy, the master of character assassination, has the gall to call it deflection.

Tomorrow is another day.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Character assassination. Is that the best you have?

We are STILL waiting for biblical proof of Sola Scriptura. </div></div>

WE??? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[GenX]

"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man"




And you will cry, but it also says "but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".

Yes, the Prophets were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But Barry, the Holy Spirit was not given to all mankind until after Jesus. There was no Bible to interpret when Peter said this, and there wouldn't be for almost three hundred years after.


"you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation"

So even the great Prophets, the men we admire all these centuries later and who were filled with the Holy Spirit, could not interpret God's word on their own. But according to Sola Scriptura, we can.

How fortunate, eh?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We are in a difficult position with Catholics, Orthodox and Watchtower believers alike, because when we point out the verses that prove sola Scriptura is taught in scripture, they don't believe they can understand the Bible without their church interpreting it for them... and they say sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What an amazing system of circular deception the Catholic, Orthodox and Brooklyn New York, churches have invented" </div></div>

Ain't it the truth!!!

Speedy, the master of character assassination, has the gall to call it deflection.

Tomorrow is another day. </div></div>

Why don't you pray to God to open your heart tonight? Your ego has over-ruled your heart and reason.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The guy was welcome to his opinions</div></div>


Sure, Barry, I’ll give you that; Martin Luther was welcomed to his opinions.

Now, the question is: how important are those opinions? Words mean things.

This so-called "opinion" actually ADDED WORDS to the Bible! Yet you were the one that posted a biblical passage recently that warned any man to not add or take out words from the Bible. So in one post we have you linking to this great and dire warning from God that no man add or delete form the Bible, and a few posts later you're saying that when Martin Luther added to the Bible he was just forming "an opinion."

This casual ‘opinion’ of Martin Luther’s that you so callously wave off is really quite an extraordinary ‘opinion’. It is such a strong opinion, as a matter of fact, that it is the foundation of your Protestant beliefs: the Bible alone.

This little ‘opinion’ provided the impetus to break away from the Church. Without Sola Scriptura (what Luther’s little opinion is in theological form) there was really no reason to leave the Church. Fight for reform, yes; leave it? No.

So in that sense Luther’s little opinion is in fact the foundation of your Protestantism. “Protestantism’s root word in “protest”. They were protesting the RCC primacy, and instead developed a theology that gave that primacy to each individual.

As you can see, some opinions are much, much more powerful than others.

[GenX]

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

"...if anyone preaches any
other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." Galatians 1:9-10


"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted,
you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4

"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

Here is Barry Morris' answer to the fact Martin Luther added to the Bible, and also took out books that were in it for 1,200 years:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The guy was welcome to his opinions.
</div></div>

[starterwiz]

I was taught that some of the Old Testament instructions from God, were directed towards a relatively ignorant people, and are not relevant today.

My own opinion is that we are still a relatively ignorant race.
It somehow goes against my better sense to believe that there have been no "new scriptures" in some 2000 years, despite the fact that we have learned, and grown by many fold since that time.

There have been many bearers of truth since the Bible, and will be more to come.

The division I see between the various religions stems from the fact that they are based on various interpretations, inclusions, and ommissions from 20 century old documents, as holy as they may be.

If one wanted to prove that 5 loaves of moldy bread (I'm assuming they were moldy, since there were thousands of starving people about) were turned into a feast for thousands,with leftovers, or perhaps that a tiny crumb of wheat mold (ergot) could make 5,000 people not hungry and hallucinate....well we're a bit smarter now. I don't believe that the fish had any effect.
(That's my own theory anyways...you heard it here first). This interpretation was impossible until 1943 when Hofman discovered LSD.

I'm sure there are other examples of how the Truth can take on new meaning with new knowledge

And this time Speedy, you are right that this is way over my head. I just thought it a very interesting thread.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man"

And you will cry, but it also says "but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".

Yes, the Prophets were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But Barry, the Holy Spirit was not given to all mankind until after Jesus. There was no Bible to interpret when Peter said this, and there wouldn't be for almost three hundred years after.

"you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation"

So even the great Prophets, the men we admire all these centuries later and who were filled with the Holy Spirit, could not interpret God's word on their own. But according to Sola Scriptura, we can.

How fortunate, eh? </div></div>

The Holy Spirit was never given to all mankind, only those who are God's children. There are instances mentioned of "spirit filled" people BEFORE Jesus sacrifce.
I don't understand what yopu say about "300 years" since it took WAY longer than that to settle the canon. But the reference is to what we call the Old Testament, considered scripture even in Peter's day.

And this:

"you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation"

That means the WRITING of the Scripture, specifically the OT, not it's interpretation.

[Soundbear]

"..few posts later you're saying that when Martin Luther added to the Bible he was just forming "an opinion."

I suggest you read it again, especially about the word "apart" being interpreted, quite legitimately, as "alone".

Thanks for the learning challenge, by the way. It's interesting some of the stuff I've read in the last few days.

[Soundbear]

"It is such a strong opinion, as a matter of fact, that it is the foundation of your Protestant beliefs: the Bible alone."

As if Martin Luther was the only one with such opinions.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That means the WRITING of the Scripture, specifically the OT, not it's interpretation. </div></div>

What?????

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That means the WRITING of the Scripture, specifically the OT, not it's interpretation. </div></div>

What????? </div></div>

I think the Living Bible, a paraphrase, explains nicely:


2 Pet 1:20
20 For no prophecy recorded in Scripture was ever thought up by the prophet himself. It was the Holy Spirit within these godly men who gave them true messages from God.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I suggest you read it again, especially about the word "apart" being interpreted, quite legitimately, as "alone".


</div></div>

Romans 3:28 states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (NKJV). Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That means the WRITING of the Scripture, specifically the OT, not it's interpretation. </div></div>

What????? </div></div>

I think the Living Bible, a paraphrase, explains nicely:


2 Pet 1:20
20 For no prophecy recorded in Scripture was ever thought up by the prophet himself. It was the Holy Spirit within these godly men who gave them true messages from God.


</div></div>

Barry, I'm trying to work with you here. What are you trying to say?

[Soundbear]

Rom 3:28
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What word is translated by "without" here?? And what does it mean?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Barry, I'm trying to work with you here. What are you trying to say? </div></div>

Sorry, Speedy. "A" I don't believe you, your history here denies the possibility and "B" I can't do any better than to quote and clarify the word of God.

If your church hasn't told you what to believe about this, then there's nothing I can do about it.

[GenX]

Okay, I'm totally lost now.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rom 3:28
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What word is translated by "without" here?? And what does it mean?

</div></div>

After faith he added "Alone".

When he added it then it was used to justify the theology of "faith alone" (sola fide), which is absolutely crucial to your faith.

No Christian Church father ever wrote on sola fide, because no one believed it until 1540.

Now, is the Bible clear that we should add or delete not one word to the Bible?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rom 3:28
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What word is translated by "without" here?? And what does it mean?

</div></div>

After faith he added "Alone".

When he added it then it was used to justify the theology of "faith alone" (sola fide), which is absolutely crucial to your faith.

No Christian Church father ever wrote on sola fide, because no one believed it until 1540.

Now, is the Bible clear that we should add or delete not one word to the Bible? </div></div>


Did you read what I wrote or not?? Seems not.


I don't understand why you don't see the word meaning "apart" in the Greek, which is quite legitimately translated "alone". Or are you trusting the Vugate as a source, which may not have it??

[GenX]

Where is "apart"?

[GenX]

I can be "apart" from something, yet that does not mean it doesn't exist.

I can be a father apart from a little league coach. I am both, not either/or.

If am am a father "alone", then I have no other things that define me, such as little league coach. Something "apart" from something else is distinct, but not exclusive.

"Alone" means exclusive.

[Soundbear]

Even in english the word is not as cut and dried as you hope it is.

The irony of arguing a bible verse whose meaning you cannot accept without approval from Rome.

[GenX]

My point has been made. You're stuck.

Next...

[Soundbear]

Stuck?? Hardly.

Let's see what the first thing up in google shows when searching "choris" (the greek word), Hebrew and definition.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 5565 xwriðv
Original Word Word Origin
xwriðv from (5561)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Choris kho-rece'
Parts of Speech TDNT
Adverb None
Definition separate, apart without any besides

Translated Words
KJV (39) - beside, 3; by itself, 1; without, 35;
NAS (41) - apart, 10; besides, 2; independent, 2; itself, 1; separate, 1; without, 25;

Now if you think the meaning of this word in its context still somehow means "with" or "including", then I fear it is you who is stuck.

[GenX]

Barry, you're so far out in left field on this you're arguing with phantoms of your imagination.

"Alone" is the word he used, Barry, alone.

[The Berean]

It doesn't really matter if Speedy doesn't think that apart, besides, independent, itself, separate or without might be translated as "alone".

The fact is that if he studied for the resst of his life and came to agree with the Protestant meaning of every passage in scripture, it would not mean a sthing as long as he accepts that Rome decides what he should beleive.

[GenX]

I looked at both sides, unlike most of you.

I could never, ever, be Protestant again.

Ever.

[The Berean]

Or christian.

Really. How could you possibly know for sure???

You have never told us just what works you must perform along side of your faith to get into heaven.

But of course you dont relly have any idea do you??

[GenX]

I was a Protestant, took on my dad's faith.

I found it wanting. Coming on Soonet only reinforced what a hodgepodge of man-made theologies it really is.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was a Protestant, took on my dad's faith.

I found it wanting. Coming on Soonet only reinforced what a hodgepodge of man-made theologies it really is.
</div></div>

Funny, I thought the same as I reviewed your catechism.

Conkat has it right. Whatever Rome tells you, that is all you are allowed to believe. At least officially. I get along with Roman Catholics quite well, mostly because a lot of them recognize that there are indeed Christian brothers outside the Roman church.

As far as "taking on your dad's faith", there is a saying often used in Christian circles: "God has no grandchildren."

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny, I thought the same as I reviewed your catechism. </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

That's right up there with Aydeloof reading it in two languages!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

If you have read twenty words from it I'd be surprised.

You guys are quite the liars, I tell you! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatever Rome tells you, that is all you are allowed to believe </div></div>

Says the guy who subscribes to a version of Christianity that has 40,000 separate denominations. That certainly doesn't make the options of not being a Roman Catholic look too good.

[Soundbear]

Here's the site from my favourites list:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

No, I haven't read all, what, 2800 odd pronouncements, but it is interesting, I'll grant that.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the site from my favourites list:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

No, I haven't read all, what, 2800 odd pronouncements, but it is interesting, I'll grant that. </div></div>

Wow, Barry, you linked to the one I've linked to twenty times over the past two months.

You're really good!

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatever Rome tells you, that is all you are allowed to believe </div></div>

Says the guy who subscribes to a version of Christianity that has 40,000 separate denominations. That certainly doesn't make the options of not being a Roman Catholic look too good.

</div></div>

Has your number gone up??? Amusing to see that same number used in the site that started this thread. Along with so many of your pet sayings!!!

Tell me, is a church that denies the diety of Christ Protestant??

[GenX]

"diety"

Jesus is a member of Weight Watchers?

Or is it the Weight Watchers-Tower?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Wow, Barry, you linked to the one I've linked to twenty times over the past two months.

You're really good! </div></div>

Oh no, not at all, Speedy. Just used google.

You should try it, it's really very handy. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Soundbear]

Deity??

Hmmm???

[GenX]

Yes, Barry, it's the first one that comes up when you Google the Catechism.

You're getting good at this Internet stuff /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Who gets a cookie tonight???

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deity??

Hmmm??? </div></div>

Ohhhh...DEITY.

Ummm, no, the Church that denies the deity of Christ is not Protestant...yet. In enough time one of your breakaway denominations will deny it, though.

[Soundbear]

So do they get subtracted from the 40,000???

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the site from my favourites list:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

No, I haven't read all, what, 2800 odd pronouncements, but it is interesting, I'll grant that. </div></div>

Wow, Barry, you linked to the one I've linked to twenty times over the past two months.

You're really good! </div></div>

They even have a link "How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church". Funny they never say to pray for guidance, as Christians are told to do as they read God's word.

[GenX]

Sure.

What are we down to now, 21,000?

Great. God, He who says "I AM", has 21,000 different views of His own truth.

Geez, that's swell. Can't believe I'm not knocking down the door of my nearest Protestant church right now.

Great apologetics.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the site from my favourites list:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

No, I haven't read all, what, 2800 odd pronouncements, but it is interesting, I'll grant that. </div></div>

Wow, Barry, you linked to the one I've linked to twenty times over the past two months.

You're really good! </div></div>

They even have a link "How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church". Funny they never say to pray for guidance, as Christians are told to do as they read God's word.

</div></div>

Search for "prayer" in the Catechism /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, Barry, it's the first one that comes up when you Google the Catechism.
</div></div>


Gee, I wonder how on earth I ever found it.

Sorry to give away your secrets.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Search for "prayer" in the Catechism /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

Cha-ching!!!

[GenX]

2670 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace. Since he teaches us to pray by recalling Christ, how could we not pray to the Spirit too? That is why the Church invites us to call upon the Holy Spirit every day, especially at the beginning and the end of every important action.

1695 "Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God," "sanctified . . . [and] called to be saints," Christians have become the temple of the Holy Spirit. This "Spirit of the Son" teaches them to pray to the Father and, having become their life, prompts them to act so as to bear "the fruit of the Spirit" by charity in action. Healing the wounds of sin, the Holy Spirit renews us interiorly through a spiritual transformation. He enlightens and strengthens us to live as "children of light" through "all that is good and right and true."

2664 There is no other way of Christian prayer than Christ. Whether our prayer is communal or personal, vocal or interior, it has access to the Father only if we pray "in the name" of Jesus. The sacred humanity of Jesus is therefore the way by which the Holy Spirit teaches us to pray to God our Father.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Search for "prayer" in the Catechism /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

Cha-ching!!! </div></div>

What????? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

[GenX]

Barry, you have no concept of the Catechism whatsoever. It is more sad than funny, because it shows you've grown accustomed to the divisions and disunity that is Protestantism today.

The Catechism is a summary of what we believe. It is a source to reference when needed. Now, compare that to Protestantism, where no such central source exists. Want to figure out why your denominations split and split? Look no further.

As Canadians, is your government ran on how people feel, or is there a written document that serves as a summary, and a place for clarity when need be? Of course you have a central, written source, just as ALL governments do. Now, this does not mean the RCC is a government, but rather that man needs a central authority to look to.

What would happen if Canada didn’t have this central source that summed up the fundamentals for your country?

Chaos and division.

Welcome to Protestantism.

[starterwiz]

You guys make Ireland look like a peaceful place to live.

[The Berean]

Sppedy you just like to say theres division. You can believe whatever you like, as we go from denomination to denomination, happliy fellowshipping with each other.

Probably happier than two disaparte Roman church groups.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys make Ireland look like a peaceful place to live. </div></div>

Prov 27:17
17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Speedy's personality doesn't allow for any connection between folks who might disagree on some theology. He exagerates differences in order to (think he can) win arguments.

His viewpoint just can't conceive of the reality of the fellowship between believers of all denominations and the similarities of our beliefs. Neither will it allow him to admit that most times people go to different churches because of ethnic, age, music, preaching or other minor difference rather than some deep theological divide between them.

So I consider our discussions here to be educational. Like the word says, iron sharpens iron.

To you, Starterwiz, the Peace of Christ.

[starterwiz]

Thanks Barry, and to you as well.
I must say it has indeed been educational reading these threads, and the level and degree of detail of your examinations is impressive.

[Soundbear]

God bless you for your encouragement!!

[GenX]

To you, Starterwiz, the Peace of Christ

God bless you for your encouragement!!


Barry gets so excited when someone encourages him, rather than roll their eyes (99% of the time).

This is cute /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To you, Starterwiz, the Peace of Christ

God bless you for your encouragement!!


Barry gets so excited when someone encourages him, rather than roll their eyes (99% of the time).

This is cute /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Enjoy!

[GenX]

I am, I am! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Peace be with you!

[starterwiz]

"the level and degree of detail of your examinations is impressive."

That was directed to you as well Speedy. You both go to great lengths discussing issues.

[GenX]

God's blessings on you!!!

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">God's blessings on you!!! </div></div>

The signature is Thanks BM.

How can you call down Gods blessings with an insult just below??

[The Berean]

Question:

"If sola Scriptura can't be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?"

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question:

"If sola Scriptura can't be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?" </div></div>

No, because either you are RC or you are not. You are free to leave, but you are leaving Complete Truth.

Some are much closer to Truth than others. For instance, the Orthodox Church is very close to Truth; but because they do not believe in Apostolic Succession, they are not in full Truth, rightly ordered. The Church of England is close to the RCC in some ways.

On the other hand, Mormons, JW's, and even a few very liberal Protestant churches are very distant from Truth.

[GenX]

Tell me once, an opinion
Tell me twice, make sure I heard
Tell me three times, try to control
Tell you four times because your head is as thick as a concrete block

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question:

"If sola Scriptura can't be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?" </div></div>

No, because either you are RC or you are not. You are free to leave, but you are leaving Complete Truth.

Some are much closer to Truth than others. For instance, the Orthodox Church is very close to Truth; but because they do not believe in Apostolic Succession, they are not in full Truth, rightly ordered. The Church of England is close to the RCC in some ways.

On the other hand, Mormons, JW's, and even a few very liberal Protestant churches are very distant from Truth. </div></div>

That is a pure example of sola eclessia.

[GenX]

Thank you.

[The Berean]

Theere we have it.

My church is right becasue my church says its right.

[GenX]

No, it's right because Jesus says it's right.

I realize that's hard to understand for someone that thinks 40,000 different views of what God says and wants is no big deal.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My church is right becasue my church says its right.</div></div>

Conkat, you obviously picked the church you attend for good reasons. Tell me how you know the church you picked is right.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it's right because Jesus says it's right.
</div></div>

Since the Roman church determines exactly what the bible actually says, this is circular reasoning.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it's right because Jesus says it's right.
</div></div>

Since the Roman church determines exactly what the bible actually says, this is circular reasoning. </div></div>

No, circular reasoning is saying you believe in "Bible only", and then attempt to defend your foundational belief of Sola Scriptura by saying it's not in the Bible, but implied.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My church is right becasue my church says its right.</div></div>

Conkat, you obviously picked the church you attend for good reasons. Tell me how you know the church you picked is right. </div></div>

The church I am part of the the true catholic (universal) church. Members of many denominations, including Rome, may be part of it, if they are born again.

The church I attend is part of this same church re above.

[GenX]

That's a non-answer a poltiican would even be embarrassed to use.

Anyways, moving on. Please define what you mean by this: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if they are born again. </div></div>

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No, circular reasoning is saying you believe in "Bible only", and then attempt to defend your foundational belief of Sola Scriptura by saying it's not in the Bible, but implied. </div></div>

Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.

What you just said is total bs.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.
</div></div>

Absolutely untrue.

Tell me, if the buck stops at the Bible, why is Sola Scriptura only implied (according to you) in the Bible?

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> That's a non-answer a poltiican would even be embarrassed to use.

Anyways, moving on. Please define what you mean by this: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if they are born again. </div></div> </div></div>

What I mean by it??

I suppose it would be pointless to quote the words of Christ, since your church doesn't nesessarily accept the actual words but puts its own tradition above the bible.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I mean by it??

I suppose it would be pointless to quote the words of Christ, since your church doesn't nesessarily accept the actual words but puts its own tradition above the bible. </div></div>

That's not an answer, that's an attempt to skirt the question.

don't worry about me, answer for all those 'lurkers' out there that Barry performs for...tell them.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since your church doesn't nesessarily accept the actual words </div></div>

You use a Bible that has books taken out of it because Martin Luther said so. Those books he took out were part of Christianity for 1,500 years.

Luther added words to the Bible, also.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.
</div></div>

Absolutely untrue.

Tell me, if the buck stops at the Bible, why is Sola Scriptura only implied (according to you) in the Bible?

</div></div>

Can you name any other doctrine implied in scripture??

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.
</div></div>

Absolutely untrue.

</div></div>

"If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected."

"If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?"

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.
</div></div>

Absolutely untrue.

Tell me, if the buck stops at the Bible, why is Sola Scriptura only implied (according to you) in the Bible?

</div></div>

Can you name any other doctrine implied in scripture??

</div></div>

Yes, but that's not the point. You use a implication to determine how to read and understand the Bible. In that sense, you're faulty from the start.

[starterwiz]

When I see someone claiming to have all the answers, And making statements like "my way is the only true way", I immediately dismiss them as having ZERO credibility.

There are many "Truths" in this life, and some are in direct opposition to each other, and yet remain true. That's what makes life a paradox.

Speedy, when you claim that the RC's are the only "perfect" religion, you class yourself with the JW's and all the others that believe "my way is the highway".

While the bible may be perfect in it's original intended form, there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true.

And even if your claims are true, the fact that life is full of paradoxes precludes any notion that if yours is true, then all others must be untrue.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Our "buck stops here" is the bible. Your church has changed its mind many times.
</div></div>

Absolutely untrue.

</div></div>

"If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected."

"If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?" </div></div>

Wait a second...all you're doing is copying and pasting from a site. I thought you hated that? I thought Barry berated all who do that? I thought Aydeloof criticized all who do so?

You're relying on someone else to tell you what to believe. Isn't that the criticism you throw at Catholics?

Why the double standard gents?

And why are you afraid to link to your site, Conkat?

Also, you have yet to explain what "born again" means.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> While the bible may be perfect in it's original intended form, there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true</div></div>

You just made the case for a magesterium perfectly!!

See, that's Protestantism. It is circular, and ends up refuting itself.

Look at what is 'bold' in your quote, and then try to defend Sola Scriptura.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true </div></div>

I'm just shocked you said that. It absolutely refutes Protestantism.

"My version" is the version used in Christianity since day one. My version came out 340 years after Jesus.

Your version came out 1,500 years after Jesus. How much more did that "human imperfection" affect your Bible?

[GenX]

Conkat took the following quote from a website that prides itself in specializing in "questions Catholics cannot answer" : Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?"

Well, that site is remarkable for many things, but knowing its Church history certainly isn't one of them.

"The Council of Trent in 1556 infallibly declared the extent of the canon in response to the reformers. Some of the descendants of the reformers removed Song of Songs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Luke, and Acts, while others added 1 Clement and 3 Corinthians. Most of the reformers, however, were unanimous in their rejection of the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals."

They do not even know their own history. Pray for them.

[starterwiz]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> While the bible may be perfect in it's original intended form, there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true</div></div>

You just made the case for a magesterium perfectly!!

See, that's Protestantism. It is circular, and ends up refuting itself.

Look at what is 'bold' in your quote, and then try to defend Sola Scriptura. </div></div>

Exactly right. But by the same reasoning, your definitions that you vehemently argue MUST be correct, must be just as "wrong".

I'm not at all up on the merits of Sola Scripture. I just know that there are many more "truths" in life than my limited senses can perceive.

[starterwiz]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true </div></div>

I'm just shocked you said that. It absolutely refutes Protestantism.

"My version" is the version used in Christianity since day one. My version came out 340 years after Jesus.

Your version came out 1,500 years after Jesus. How much more did that "human imperfection" affect your Bible?

</div></div>

As our level of peception increases, so too does our understanding.
Modifying ones core beliefs as new knowledge and understanding of our universe is revealed is crucial to growth.

"Your version" from 340 A.D. was conceived when we thought that the world was flat, and gods were plentiful.
While it surely contained truth then, as now, that truth must fit within the world of today, which in many ways is differnt from then.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conkat took the following quote from a website that prides itself in specializing in "questions Catholics cannot answer" : Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?"

Well, that site is remarkable for many things, but knowing its Church history certainly isn't one of them.

"The Council of Trent in 1556 infallibly declared the extent of the canon in response to the reformers. Some of the descendants of the reformers removed Song of Songs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Luke, and Acts, while others added 1 Clement and 3 Corinthians. Most of the reformers, however, were unanimous in their rejection of the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals."

They do not even know their own history. Pray for them. </div></div>

I do note that you can't answer the questions.

They are interesting.

Why don't YOU post the link??

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is too much imperfect humanity between the original and your version to possibly make a claim like that ring true </div></div>

I'm just shocked you said that. It absolutely refutes Protestantism.

"My version" is the version used in Christianity since day one. My version came out 340 years after Jesus.

Your version came out 1,500 years after Jesus. How much more did that "human imperfection" affect your Bible?

</div></div>

Day one I doubt that.

"If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?"

[The Berean]

Sorry about the link:

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

[starterwiz]

OK...had to look up magisterium.
Infallable??? Humans???

[GenX]

No, because our Truth in the Church comes from God. There is no middle area, no room for debate. Truth is Truth. Only one Church can have it, be the very nature of Truth.

I realize modern man hates to hear such things. It grinds like fingernails on a chalkboard to his modern senses. We like to have our cake and eat it too; and declaring there is one Truth makes it much more difficult to have our cake and eat it too. Therefore, we decide there is more than one Truth. Well, that can only be true if there is more than one God, Almighty. The RCC is like a strict parent, and man today is like the rebellious teenager. At the end of the day, the parent was right.

Anyways, you totally blew Sola Scriptura out of the water, whether you meant to or not /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Day one I doubt that.</div></div>

Conkat, where did the Bible come from?

Also, what do you make of the fact the Bible you use came 1,500 years after Jesus?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK...had to look up magisterium.
Infallable??? Humans??? </div></div>

No..infallible, humans guided by the Holy Spirit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK...had to look up magisterium</div></div>

And yet you are trying to argue Catholic theology with me???

why, oh why do I waste my time?!?!?!?! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

[starterwiz]

I am not arguing for or against Sola Scripture.
I'm stating that any man that thinks he's got it all right...most surely doesn't.

You are right in the fact that we need parenting, and even poor parenting is far better than none, but I've yet to meet a perfect parent. Great analogy. Thanks Speedy...I like it when you talk in circles too.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Day one I doubt that.</div></div>

Conkat, where did the Bible come from?

Also, what do you make of the fact the Bible you use came 1,500 years after Jesus? </div></div>

Sure answer that one (again) as soon as you complete your answers.

[starterwiz]

Hey...I'm new at this type of debate, and certainly ignorant on the specifics of the topic, but I do have a good grasp, and a bit of a background. And I am learning.

[starterwiz]

"No..infallible, humans guided by the Holy Spirit."

I understand one putting total faith in God, but I find it hard to put total faith in those that I KNOW do less than perfect things to determine my truth for me.

Someone that purposely covers up shameful acts is supposed to be trusted on doctrine?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey...I'm new at this type of debate, and certainly ignorant on the specifics of the topic, but I do have a good grasp, and a bit of a background. And I am learning.
</div></div>

What? Did you say, debate??
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool_shades.gif

[starterwiz]

If I'm being overly negative to the topic then I apologize, but I seek answers to some questions that I cannot as yet define.

I find it perplexing that these questions remain unanswered to a degree, and the answers that are, are incomplete. If that makes sense.

I find that as I type a thought, a different idea emerges than was my original intent, and I must assume that these words go beyond my conscious awareness to some deeper level.

I am very new to this discussion group, so forgive me if I overstep any bounds. I trust that you will "gently teach" me the rules.

Like you Speedy, I thought I was wrong once....I was mistaken. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Soundbear]

Starterwiz, years ago I began to wonder about some of the absolute pronouncements I used to hear in my denomination, especially as compared to the lives of those in other denominations. Catch phrases such as born again, washed in the blood, sanctified, justification were words that I saw some very godly people not grasping at all.

I have met true believers among Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Anglican, United Church, and many other denominations who name Christ as Lord. Some really humble people who trust God just like a child trusts its mother.

So it finally occurred to me to consider, "What's the bottom line?" Where do all these people come to a consensus, an agreement about what salvation REALLY is. I believe now it must be a simple submission to God. As long as we live, we will never fully understand His infinite love and grace, or what He has done for us and why. But from the moment we begin to search for Him sincerely, we are His children. And He will never let us go.

I believe this to be backed up by the bible. Though we argue here about authority and what the bible actually means, none of that really affects our salvation.

I do believe this. Read God's word for yourself, and pray that God will give you understanding. I believe He will. Don't trust ANY religion.

Starterwiz, which questions perplex you the most?

[starterwiz]

Barry, that makes sense to me.
I find it somehow disturbing that religions do tend to get caught up in itself, and fail to see the forest for the trees.

Aydeloof, I'm not sure of the questions as yet, although I know they are there, and somehow feel that my being drawn to this board may have something to do with them.

I've been on Soonet for a number of years now, mostly just reading, and making the occasional post, and yet have only glanced this way recently.
I think that as I absorb some more, they will become clearer and I'll be able to express them.

It occurs to me that despite the various and inumerable possible interpretations, that it boils down to faith. At some point one must choose to believe.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Day one I doubt that.</div></div>

Conkat, where did the Bible come from?

Also, what do you make of the fact the Bible you use came 1,500 years after Jesus? </div></div>

Sure answer that one (again) as soon as you complete your answers. </div></div>

Can't answer, huh? Oh well, maybe next time?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read God's word for yourself, and pray that God will give you understanding. </div></div>

Again, back to Sola Scriptura.

12,000 Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone, and each one trusted that God gave them the insight and wisdom into his truth and what His church is and should be like.

Speaks for itself.

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."






"Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation.

If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men."

LINK (http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html)

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey...I'm new at this type of debate, and certainly ignorant on the specifics of the topic, but I do have a good grasp, and a bit of a background. And I am learning.
</div></div>

What? Did you say, debate??
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool_shades.gif </div></div>

Aydeloof considers anything he is not involved in as anything but debate. I mean, really, how can anyone learn if his great wisdom is not part of the equation?

Meanwhile, he takes his cues from the Scofield Bible.

Research it.

Then pray for him when you're done.

And Speedy is just a big meany who calls people names and calls it a debate. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And Speedy is just a big meany </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

That's hitting below the belt!

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read God's word for yourself, and pray that God will give you understanding. </div></div>

Again, back to Sola Scriptura.

12,000 Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone, and each one trusted that God gave them the insight and wisdom into his truth and what His church is and should be like.

Speaks for itself.

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."






"Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation.

If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men."

LINK (http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html)

</div></div>

Or we could accept the unchristian claims of authority OVER scripture by men.

Either the Holy Spirit indwells us and we can understand what the bible says or He does not and we cannot. Chritian believers accept the former, the Roman church insists on the latter.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Meanwhile, he takes his cues from the Scofield Bible.

Research it.

</div></div>

The Scofield BIble uses, unchanged, the KIng James Version, with footnote often giving alternate readings in translation, or pointing out verses that are not in the best ancient m****cripts.

The rest of the book is commentary on the bible, mostly very good, but a few errors. But that's commentary for you.

There are hundreds of commentaries on scripture avaiable, and indeed, when a pastor/teacher stands in the pulpit, reads a portion of God's word, and then explains it, he is doing exactly the same thing.

The Scofield Bible is no better or worse than any other similar work, except it DOES refer to a broader base of source material than, say, the bible the Roman Church uses.

[GenX]

You're creating strawmen, Barry.


The RCC does not teach man has authority over Scripture, but YOU do.


How? By claiming each man can interpret Scripture as he sees it!

'Round, 'round we go!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and then explains it</div></div>

Much like the Catechism explains it for Catholics, or the Magesterium does also...

'Round, 'round we go, Protestantism's circular logic is in full force today!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Scofield Bible is no better or worse than any other similar work</div></div>

"After Scofield's death in 1921, his pupil and colleague Lewis Sperry Chafer took up the dispensational torch. Like Scofield, Chafer had no formal theological training, a fact he took apparent pride in..."

LINK (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea1.asp)


"Scofield (who had no formal theological training) decided he would create a "study Bible" containing extensive notes, cross-references and commentary so that the "scientific" nature of the dispensations and biblical prophecy would be evident to the average layman.

After several year's labor and with the assistance of a group of editors, the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published in 1909. Presented in a neatly organized and systematic manner, its dispensational premises regarding key passages of Scripture-especially books like Daniel and Revelation-entered into the mainstream of conservative American Protestantism. In the first thirty years following its publication, Scofield's reference Bible sold about two million copies. It is still used widely today, along with the updated version, the New Scofield Reference Bible.

Scofield largely followed Darby's teaching in outlining his seven dispensations: Innocence (Adam), Conscience (to the Flood), Human Government (Gentiles after flood), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Church), and the future Kingdom.

Scofield taught that Scripture contains passages meant for each respective time period and therefore that many passages had nothing to do with present day Christians in the "Church age." This meant that most of Christ's teachings, including the Sermon on the Mount, were for the future Kingdom age, not for the Church. This was another radical break from nineteen hundred years of Christian teaching."

Speedy also floods the board with about three posts to each one of ours.. he has a problem called, "I must have the last word, no matter how superfluous the remark." /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

It sure keeps the board lively, if nothing else. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Apparently the Apostle Peter never went to seminary either.

[GenX]

" Scofield was converted in 1879, and three years later was ordained a Congregational minister. With no formal theological training he wrote his reference Bible"

LINK (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/COX1-3.HTM)

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speedy also floods the board with about three posts to each one of ours.. he has a problem called, "I must have the last word, no matter how superfluous the remark." /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

It sure keeps the board lively, if nothing else. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

I know you're upset. You've been shown to have lived a lie for a long time.

I feel for you.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the Apostle Peter never went to seminary either.
</div></div>

Were there seminaries back then?

Nope.

Were there seminaries in Scofield's time?

Absolutely.

See how easy it is to refute a Protestant minister??? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

[GenX]

" Dispensationalism at the end of the 19th century still possessed a variety of viewpoints, with many key issues still unresolved and heavily debated. Cyrus I. Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer, would change that by cementing the way dispensationalism would be understood for the next few decades. Having gained a reputation as a speaker and leader during the Niagara Conferences, Scofield (who had no formal theological training) decided he would create a "study Bible" containing extensive notes, cross references and commentary so that the "scientific" nature of the dispensations and biblical prophecy would be evident to the average layman. "

LINK (http://www.nativityukr.org/various_files/Waiting_for_the_Rapture.html)

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Day one I doubt that.</div></div>

Conkat, where did the Bible come from?

Also, what do you make of the fact the Bible you use came 1,500 years after Jesus? </div></div>

Sure answer that one (again) as soon as you complete your answers. </div></div>

Can't answer, huh? Oh well, maybe next time? </div></div>

Where did the bible come from?? I'll take a crack, and use Conkat's site.

The Jews wrote what we refer to as the Old Testament, ending with Malachi, its last book, about 400 years before Christ. NONE of the OT was proclaimed as canon by the Jews. Much of the Apochrypha was written in the time after Malachi, and before Christ. We do not accept the Apochypha as scripture.

Speedy claims that the Roman church gave us the bible in 397 AD, but two synods to determine the canon, at Hippo 393 AD and Carthage 397 AD were NOT in Rome at all but in Africa. These two synods were actually under the control of what would later be the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, if the Roman church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards??

Then, If the Roman church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon? Speedy harps on "not having the bible till 1540" but that rings a little hollow considering it took over 1000 years for "God's ONLY Church!!" to get it right. (And it's still wrong!!)

[GenX]

"The Scofield Reference Bible looks like a lot of Bibles: Each page contains two columns of scripture separated by a narrower column of cross-references. What distinguishes it from most Bibles is that it also contains extensive footnotes. These footnotes add up to a highly tendentious dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible. There are whole books of Scofield's Bible in which the annotation is minimal, almost absent; but in other books there are pages on which the annotation takes up far more space than the text. Like Jefferson's Bible, then, Scofield's Bible is an extraordinary act of audacity.

"His footnotes never offer up different possible interpretations of a text; instead, they set forth, with an air of total authority, a detailed, elaborate, and consistent set of interpretations that add up to a theological system that few Christians before Darby could have conceived of -- and that, indeed, marked a radical departure from the ways in which most Christians had always believed. Yet Scofield brazenly proferred his theology as if it were beyond question. And he presented it as if it were traditional, and as if every other way of understanding the true nature of Christian belief marked a radical departure from the true faith.... The chutzpah here is mind-boggling."

LINK (http://www.911-strike.com/christian-zionists.htm)

"C. I. Scofield, deserted his first wife, Leonteen Carry Scofield and his two young daughters Abigail and Helen.... he never sent them any financial support even though he became very wealthy. They never got a dime. A woman in the 1880s did not have government welfare. And good paying jobs were not usually available in those days. He treated his wife and children as though they did not exist.

According to every reference I could find about him and his background in the areas from which he came I found that he was in love with 2 other women. Running with both at the same time. A young lady from the St Louis Flower Mission, whose name I have not yet been able to discover, and a Helen Van Wark a woman he later married. After his wife, stayed abandoned for many years, she would not divorce him for Scriptural reasons. Finally, when she found out about his activities, she had no choice and divorced him....

You know, every time you see a Scofield Bible, think about that lady. As a Christian Mr. Scofield entered the legal and political career. After he was alleged to be saved he stole thousands of dollars from his Christian and secular friends. One of his financial scams was quite serious and he got convicted of forgery, and spent 6 months in the St. Louis Missouri jail. He defrauded his mother in law of 1,300 dollars in gold, and never paid her back even though his finances were such he could have done so...."

[Soundbear]

"Scofield (who had no formal theological training)"

Ya know, it's almost as if Speedy thinks we all use and completely agree with Scofield.

Sure, Speedy, sure.

[GenX]

Barry, the so-called "apocrypha" was always in the Bible, it was only the Council of Trent that re-affirmed its infallibility in response to the Reformation.

And as for where the councils took place, well, I must say you gave me a great laugh, Barry. Of course not every council was in Rome (thus the reason every council was not called the Council of Rome! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/idea.gif). But each council WAS under the authority of the RCC.

Nice try, but incredibly lacking, which isn't too surprising for a person that must ignore Church history for very obvious reasons.


Next...

[Soundbear]

Got any more "cut and paste" or are you exhausted for today??

Talk about strawmen!!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Scofield (who had no formal theological training)"

Ya know, it's almost as if Speedy thinks we all use and completely agree with Scofield.

Sure, Speedy, sure. </div></div>

Methinks the goalposts have been moved!!!

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got any more "cut and paste" or are you exhausted for today??

Talk about strawmen!!! </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wavey.gif

Panic time!!

[GenX]

"In 1880, a year after his Christian conversion, C. I. Scofield was in the St. Louis jail for forgery because he'd stolen his mother-in-law's life savings in a real estate scam. In 1883 his first wife divorced him (for desertion) and he remarried three months later. Although he had no formal theological training, he began putting a non-conferred "D.D." after his name in the1890's"

LINK (http://www.scionofzion.com/pretrib_rapture_diehards.htm)

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're creating strawmen, Barry.


The RCC does not teach man has authority over Scripture, but YOU do.


How? By claiming each man can interpret Scripture as he sees it!

'Round, 'round we go!!

</div></div>

I believe the Roman church considers itself to have authority over scripture. Being made up of men, the magisterium takes on itself that authority.

I doubt whether Speedy has ever seen a Scofield Reference Bible in his life.

He must not realize that a Scofield Reference Bible is nothing more than a King James Bible with footnotes.

Sort of like a Ryrie Study Bible, or a Nelson's reference Bible or a Thomson Chain Reference Bible. The Scripture is all the same.

Secondly, if Speedy were to come to our church &lt;gasp!&gt;, he would likely not find a single Scofield Reference Bible among our attendees. He would find one on my bookshelf, but he would have to blow the dust off of it first.

He would also find a New World Translation Bible, and about 15 other versions and translations along with my Hebrew and Greek Bibles.

The 2 central issues with any Bible is,
1. Is it faithful to the original text
2. Is it comprehensible?

Footnotes and references have never been considered as part of the inspired text, and Speedy may not know that. But he should, because he sure is wasting a lot of energy trying to blackball Scofield, and all for nought.

Scofield is last century's news.
Speedy does not understand the theological issues. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, the so-called "apocrypha" was always in the Bible, it was only the Council of Trent that re-affirmed its infallibility in response to the Reformation.

And as for where the councils took place, well, I must say you gave me a great laugh, Barry. Of course not every council was in Rome (thus the reason every council was not called the Council of Rome! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/idea.gif). But each council WAS under the authority of the RCC.

Nice try, but incredibly lacking, which isn't too surprising for a person that must ignore Church history for very obvious reasons.


Next... </div></div>

So the Council of Trent re-affirmed the councils before it?? And those councils were eventually under the authority of the Orthodox church, which uses a different set of books in their bible, is that right??

And you thought we were confused.

[KDawg]

This talk of the apocrypha that the RCC included in their bible got me thinking. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif Now, I may be wrong, because I really don't know much about the apocryphal books, but doesn't one of them suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married? If it does, then how is it in harmony with the other gospels?

The apocryphal books were authored before Jesus came.
You are thinking of the gnostic gospels.

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read God's word for yourself, and pray that God will give you understanding. </div></div>

Again, back to Sola Scriptura.

12,000 Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone, and each one trusted that God gave them the insight and wisdom into his truth and what His church is and should be like.

Speaks for itself.

2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."</div></div>

I like to look at bible verses in context.

2 Peter 19-21:
"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Verse 19 references the prophetic word, or the word of the prophets, which means the prophetic books like Daniel, does it not? Verse 19 is telling us to heed the prophetic word, and we can do this because the prophecy is not the prophets' own interpretation, but the word of God. So the statement in 2 Peter 1:20, "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," doesn't apply to the reader of the bible, but to the prophets who wrote it. Therefore, I don't believe it works as an argument against Sola Scriptura.

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The apocryphal books were authored before Jesus came.
You are thinking of the gnostic gospels.
</div></div>

OK, thankyou. I knew I was thinking too much. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Speedy needs to demonstrate that the RC church declared the apocryphal books as a part of the canon anywhere prior to the Council of Trent and that the church was even agreed that those books should be canonized.

There was no official “infallible” declaration on the canon by Rome until after Martin Luther rejected them. It was an over-reaction to Luther’s rejection of the same that caused the Roman Catholic Church to declare them to be Scripture at Trent. Until that time, they were doubted by most and labeled either Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.

Could it be that because sola Scriptura became the cry of the Reformation, the counter-reformation movement (which is what Trent was about) saw it necessary to include the Apocrypha as canon because that is where they found support for some of its teachings?

I'm just asking. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the Council of Trent re-affirmed the councils before it?? And those councils were eventually under the authority of the Orthodox church, which uses a different set of books in their bible, is that right??

And you thought we were confused. </div></div>

Okay, I want one person to come on here and tell me that made any sense whatsoever!

My goodness Barry, you've seemed to come of your rocker lately.

Everything okay?

[GenX]

The Council reaffirmed the Books in the Bible because Luther was spreading his apostasy about certain books.

The fact is Luther rewrote the Bible to his liking to justify his break from the Church.

Protestantism, my friends, is a farce. And I say that as a former Protestant.

Be that as it may, I think we need to focus on ecumenism. The enemies of Christianity are having a field day.

You want to focus on ecumenism??

We can do that. But why are we not able to discuss disagreements without being divisive or without "giving the enemies of Christianity a field day"? I have been a part of many discussions where we fail to see eye to eye on a lot of stuff, but we really enjoy being with each other.

So I guess I am asking, why can't we do both? Demonstrate a spirit of harmony as well as discuss our differences? What did it contribute to the discussion to say "Protestantism is a farce?" See why I doubt your sincerity?

The disharmony comes more from the way in which we disagree rather than the fact that we disagree. Agreed?

[The Berean]

Aydeloof said:

"Speedy needs to demonstrate that the RC church declared the apocryphal books as a part of the canon anywhere prior to the Council of Trent .."

Speedy said:

"The Council reaffirmed the Books in the Bible ..."

I ask: What do you mean re -affirmed???? When was the frist time??

[GenX]

They were in the Bible. That's a pretty good affirmation /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[GenX]

"In one of her college mid-terms, my daughter April was asked, "Why and when did the Catholic Church add seven books to the Old Testament?" It was an interesting question that, as Protestants, piqued both her curiosity and mine. She had several questions to choose from, but she picked this one. We had no idea that answering it would signal a change in our perspective about the Bible and that "cult" we called Catholicism.

Indeed, why and when did the Catholics add books to the Bible? Certainly the answer would be another proof that Catholics were not Christian. As Evangelicals we knew you couldn't mess with the Bible. We revered it, refusing to place another book upon it, or turn over a corner of its pages. Sacred stuff. So, how could Catholics so easily sacrilege God's Holy Word? It seemed unfathomable, so arrogant, so wrong. Adding books to the Bible was certainly proof that Catholicism was a permutation of Christianity that could not be trusted.

April's research question came to her before the Internet was widely available, so we combed through my rather extensive library of Bible reference books for a little pale orange pocketbook that I had never read. In fact, it always seemed heretical to even own it — The Apocrypha: An American Translation by Edgar J. Goodspeed (Vintage Books, NY 1959). The Apocrypha was, of course, the collection of books that Catholics had added to the Bible.

Cracking the cover we read together the opening sentence of Goodspeed's Preface. It was one of those moments when a few simple words would change forever my vision of the Holy Bible, as a monolith of writings that Jesus must have pulled from his knapsack and handed over to the Apostles moments before his ascension: "Here! Read this. It'll help." (What was I thinking?) With 26 simple words, Goodspeed let his lead foot drop on the accelerator as he laid rubber across my sanctimonious vision.

"THE APROCRYPHA FORMED AN INTEGRAL part of the King James Version of 1611, as they had of all the preceding English versions from their beginning in 1382."

Whoa, there, Goodspeed! Slow down. This is not what I was expecting. He sped ahead:

"They [the Aprocrypha] were part of the Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books were all in that version.""

LINK (http://www.catholicexchange.com/es/node/65026)

[The Berean]

"THE APROCRYPHA FORMED AN INTEGRAL part of the King James Version..."

Misleading at best.

http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/apocrypha.html

Didn't the 1611 King James Bible contain the Apocrypha?

Yes, it did. But we must remember that in that day, the Apocrypha was considered an historical document and was added as supplementary historical material IN BETWEEN the Old and New Testaments. The KJV translators WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to let everyone know that the Apocrypha books were NOT a part of Inspired Scripture. They gave 7 reasons in the preface as to WHY the Apocrypha was not a part of Inspired Scripture. Contrast this with The Catholic Bibles from the corrupted Alexandrian M****cripts which dispersed the apocryphal books throughout the Old Testament, implying they were a part of Inspired Scripture! The Apocrypha Books were not inspired, and taught many Unscriptural things such as prayers for the dead; magical incantation, sinless perfection, etc.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't the 1611 King James Bible contain the Apocrypha?

Yes, it did </div></div>

Next!!

[The Berean]

" formed an integral part"

Bull****

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" formed an integral part"

Bull**** </div></div>

Papal Bull /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did it contribute to the discussion to say "Protestantism is a farce?" </div></div>

It accomplished about as much as you saying there were many people who were children in the RCC in the '60's and '70's who now hate God.

Would you agree?

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" formed an integral part"

Bull**** </div></div>

Papal Bull /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

Nice of you to admit it!!!

[GenX]

I knew it was over your head.

[The Berean]

Says not much about your reading and comprehension.

[GenX]

okey dokey artichokey!

[Soundbear]

Yup, really showing us Speedy.

Really.

Honest.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't the 1611 King James Bible contain the Apocrypha?

Yes, it did </div></div>

Next!! </div></div>

If the situation were reversed, Speedy would scream "LIE, LIE!!"

[GenX]

If the situation were reversed, Barry would scream "LIE, LIE!!"

[Soundbear]

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[GenX]

I'm growing inexplicably fond of you /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

[Soundbear]

I request that you change your signature to something that is not directed at me.

[GenX]

I request you accept my hand in friendship.

If not, I will change said sig.

[Soundbear]

Interesting. To what extent? A meeting??

[GenX]

Well, I don't think we need to go that far...but I will send you a box of chocolates for Valentine's Day if that will smooth the waters. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Barry, make sure it is shrink-wrapped! He might inject the chocolates with something sinister. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

Oooohhhhh, I hate it when people butt into conversations they don't belong in!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

Don't listen to A, Barry.

How 'bout I send you a gift package? Just disregard the <span style='font-size: 26pt'>DANGER: HIGH EXPLOSIVES</span> tag on the back.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oooohhhhh, I hate it when people butt into conversations they don't belong in!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

Don't listen to A, Barry.

How 'bout I send you a gift package? Just disregard the <span style='font-size: 26pt'>DANGER: HIGH EXPLOSIVES</span> tag on the back. </div></div>

Does it go tick, tick, tick

[GenX]

Nope, tock, tock, tock.