| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2008 02:12:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16 |
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16
The verse in the subject line in the KJV reads:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
And is the most commonly quoted verse in support of the Lutheran
doctrine of sola scriptura.
The essence of sola scriptura being that the Bible is the only source
for Christian dotrine.
But how does 2 Timothy 3:16 support sola scriptura?
It acknowledges that all scripture is inspired by God, does that
support sola scriptura? No.
It acknowledges that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, does
that support sola scriptura? No.
So is its support of sola scriptura implicit rather than explicit? No.
In fact sola scriptura is contradicted by several verses in Matthew 5,
in which Jesus says "You have heard that it was said ..."
Verses which clearly are referring to oral traditions, and that these
oral traditions are a source of doctrine.
And sola scriptura is also contradicted by John 14:26, which says
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Clearly showing that the Holy Ghost is also a source of doctrine.
These clear contradictions of sola scriptura force one to conclude
that the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura is non-Biblical in
origin.
Would anyone care to refute these facts?
Hello,
True, concerning Christianity, oral traditions were referred to back
in the first century, WHEN JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ETC, WERE AROUND TO
AUTHENTICATE THEM. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)
But today we have no such people around to verify the genuineness of
oral traditions, or written works outside of the Bible. Jesus and the
apostles, and those early disciples of Jesus, were given miraculous
powers such as healing and raising the dead etc. Thus they were able
to distinquish false religious information from true information. But
such abilities were prophesied to end. And they did. (1 Co 13:8) So
such ones do not exist today.
There is no way to authenticate ancient oral religious traditions
today. So they can claim anything. Are Christians supposed to believe
anything not from the Bible, but just claimed to be from God? Not at
all.
Also, the Bible wants us to verify from the Scriptures, things claimed
to be from God. That principle is found at Ac 17:11,
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)
Also notice Ga 1:8,
"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a
gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be
accursed." (NASB)
Many apocryphal writings, and oral traditions, contradict the Bible at
times or are not found in the Bible at all. That would make them NOT
INSPIRED by God, and thus should be avoided by genuine Christians as
being a basis to form religious doctrines.
Thus the weight of the evidence shows that true Christians today
should use only the Bible as the basis of their "one faith" religion
(Eph 4:5), until God tells us otherwise.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Timothy 3:16 |
05 Feb 2008 09:05:00 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16
The verse in the subject line in the KJV reads:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
And is the most commonly quoted verse in support of the Lutheran
doctrine of sola scriptura.
The essence of sola scriptura being that the Bible is the only source
for Christian dotrine.
But how does 2 Timothy 3:16 support sola scriptura?
It acknowledges that all scripture is inspired by God, does that
support sola scriptura? No.
It acknowledges that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, does
that support sola scriptura? No.
So is its support of sola scriptura implicit rather than explicit? No.
In fact sola scriptura is contradicted by several verses in Matthew 5,
in which Jesus says "You have heard that it was said ..."
Verses which clearly are referring to oral traditions, and that these
oral traditions are a source of doctrine.
And sola scriptura is also contradicted by John 14:26, which says
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Clearly showing that the Holy Ghost is also a source of doctrine.
These clear contradictions of sola scriptura force one to conclude
that the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura is non-Biblical in
origin.
Would anyone care to refute these facts?
Hello,
True, concerning Christianity, oral traditions were referred to back
in the first century, WHEN JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ETC, WERE AROUND TO
AUTHENTICATE THEM. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)
===>The on-going and very anal argument about "oral traditions" is just
an apologists' cop-out.
There is no historical evidence for the existence of "Jesus and the
apostles". They are simply characters in a number of fiction stories
someof which were selected, edited and compiled into the "Bible" by
Church authorities.
But today we have no such people around to verify the genuineness of
oral traditions, or written works outside of the Bible. Jesus and the
apostles, and those early disciples of Jesus, were given miraculous
powers such as healing and raising the dead etc. Thus they were able
to distinquish false religious information from true information. But
such abilities were prophesied to end. And they did. (1 Co 13:8) So
such ones do not exist today.
There is no way to authenticate ancient oral religious traditions
today. So they can claim anything. Are Christians supposed to believe
anything not from the Bible, but just claimed to be from God? Not at
all.
===>Why should anyone believe anything, whether from the Bible or not,
without any evidence, without any verification?
Also, the Bible wants us to verify from the Scriptures, things claimed
to be from God. That principle is found at Ac 17:11,
===>The "Bible" does not "want" anyone to do anything. Only the priests
and preachers who twist and spin verses and passages from the Bible in
an effort to make their believers do things or not do things they think
should or should not be done.
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)
===>There is no way for anyone to verify the truth of what "Paul",
one of the characters in the book of Acts, may or may not have said,
not from the "scriptures" (whatever that means in that case) nor from
anything else.
Also notice Ga 1:8,
"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a
gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be
accursed." (NASB)
===>Big deal!
Of course they would preach such things. They dod not want any
competition, just like today's sectarian preachers, they will denounce
anyone who preaches anything different from what they preach.
Many apocryphal writings, and oral traditions, contradict the Bible at
times or are not found in the Bible at all.
===>Of course they contradict things in the Bible. The Church
authorities carefully avoided them because of that. But even so,
the material they carefully selected, edited and compiled in their
book very often contradict each other.
That would make them NOT
INSPIRED by God, and thus should be avoided by genuine Christians as
being a basis to form religious doctrines.
===>So, only the stuff the Church authorities included in the "Bible"
need be considered "inspired by God"? What about the entire collection
of the so-called APOCRYPHA, which WERE included in the original HAGIA
BIBLIA but were removed in the truncated Protestant ersatz "Bible".
Thus the weight of the evidence shows that true Christians today
should use only the Bible as the basis of their "one faith" religion
(Eph 4:5), until God tells us otherwise.
===>They are using the Bible, and obey the LAW OF SECTS:
FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE SECTARIAN DOCTRINE,
EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE
AND/OR THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BRAINIAC" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Timothy 3:16 |
04 Feb 2008 04:25:50 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb, 20:12, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16
The verse in the subject line in the KJV reads:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
And is the most commonly quoted verse in support of the Lutheran
doctrine of sola scriptura.
The essence of sola scriptura being that the Bible is the only source
for Christian dotrine.
But how does 2 Timothy 3:16 support sola scriptura?
It acknowledges that all scripture is inspired by God, does that
support sola scriptura? No.
It acknowledges that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, does
that support sola scriptura? No.
So is its support of sola scriptura implicit rather than explicit? No.
In fact sola scriptura is contradicted by several verses in Matthew 5,
in which Jesus says "You have heard that it was said ..."
Verses which clearly are referring to oral traditions, and that these
oral traditions are a source of doctrine.
And sola scriptura is also contradicted by John 14:26, which says
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Clearly showing that the Holy Ghost is also a source of doctrine.
These clear contradictions of sola scriptura force one to conclude
that the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura is non-Biblical in
origin.
Would anyone care to refute these facts?
Hello,
True, concerning Christianity, oral traditions were referred to back
in the first century, WHEN JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ETC, WERE AROUND TO
AUTHENTICATE THEM. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)
But today we have no such people around to verify the genuineness of
oral traditions, or written works outside of the Bible. Jesus and the
apostles, and those early disciples of Jesus, were given miraculous
powers such as healing and raising the dead etc. Thus they were able
to distinquish false religious information from true information. But
such abilities were prophesied to end. And they did. (1 Co 13:8) So
such ones do not exist today.
There is no way to authenticate ancient oral religious traditions
today. So they can claim anything. Are Christians supposed to believe
anything not from the Bible, but just claimed to be from God? Not at
all.
Also, the Bible wants us to verify from the Scriptures, things claimed
to be from God. That principle is found at Ac 17:11,
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)
Also notice Ga 1:8,
"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a
gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be
accursed." (NASB)
Many apocryphal writings, and oral traditions, contradict the Bible at
times or are not found in the Bible at all. That would make them NOT
INSPIRED by God, and thus should be avoided by genuine Christians as
being a basis to form religious doctrines.
Thus the weight of the evidence shows that true Christians today
should use only the Bible as the basis of their "one faith" religion
(Eph 4:5), until God tells us otherwise.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
When the Apostles spoke of and wrote about the Scriptures they were
not referring to what we call the Bible today, or to be honest have
called the Bible since the 4th or 5th century AD.
They - as Jesus did - referred to the Jewish Scriptures and not the
Bible, so your points are actually invalid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
