Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

www.cronos.com ^ | 31-May-2010 | Self Topic

[Cronos]

1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?

2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?

4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God

7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'.

8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgements to Rome for the Pope's approval.

9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written

10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Book slike the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why?

11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?

12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabus is not?

14. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

[verga]

Back Atcha dude

[Leoni]

Re: Let me explain, therefore, once again what the Protestant biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works means.

There is no Protestant "doctrine" that I can't refute with another contrary "doctrine". You are just winging it. It's just an opinion among 500 million others.

Answer my simple question "where the rubber meets the road", that's usefull religion. Spare us of an endless debate on justification.

[Leoni]

re: Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386): "Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

The illiterate in Greek , and those that could not afford to pay $25,000 for an NT Bible, were up the creek with this advise as you interpret it. Self interpreting of scripture was already an old error in the year 434:

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.

In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed."Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.

[Anti-Utopian]

See, you saying "Not a doctrinal issue" doesn't change the fact that these traditions specifically deal with doctrine, and that these traditions are different from the Romans. Purgatory is a place where the dead have their sins purged. Not only is that a doctrinal issue, but you can never, ever claim the Greeks believe in an afterlife of purging sin. You say that the Filioque is nor "core doctrine" (whatever that means), but if anything is "core" to doctrine, it is the nature of God. Likewise your bizarre compartmentalizing of "discipline," as if Greek discipline traditions weren't necessary things in their worship doctrine.

I'm sorry that you believe these straw-men made your case, but the fact remains that there are two sets of very different extra-biblical Catholic traditions, and you have yet to explain why one set is acceptable, and one is not.

[conservativegramma]

First off, hardly anyone could read. If they could read, they could not get their hands on a NT bible because it was not put together as a book till the 4th century.

Strawman argument. The letters of Paul were very much passed around prior to the 4th century. Even though many couldn't read, many COULD, and these leaders of the Church were entrusted by God to teach accurately and Scripture was ALWAYS the last and final authority.

How about Christ Himself???? He seemed to think the written Word was important:

Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied "IT IS WRITTEN.” He could have replied ‘You have been taught’ or ‘You have been told’ but He didn’t. He could have appealed to oral tradition but did not. Instead He defeated Satan through scripture by the repeated use of ‘IT IS WRITTEN”.

Luke 10:26 – “And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" - Jesus not only focused on WRITTEN SCRIPTURE, but He commanded personal interpretation ‘HOW DOES IT READ TO YOU?' in Luke 10:26.

Christ made over 100 references to Scripture. HE never relied upon oral traditions but scripture alone. He Himself set a pattern of relying upon scripture!

1. "Have you not read" Matthew 12:3
2. "have you not read in the Law" Matthew 12:5
3. "Did you never read in the Scriptures" Matthew 21:42

Jesus expected the scriptures to be understood by the average man, even his enemies:

1. "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" (Luke 10:26)
2. Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? (Mark 12:24)
3. But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
4. "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him"

There were many oral traditions as to who the messiah was. All were wrong! Some thought he was merely a king, some merely a prophet, some merely a priest! (Matthew 26:24)

5. "What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone'? (Luke 20:17)
6. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (John 5:39)
7. "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" (Matthew 26:54)

Appeal to scripturally contrary traditions to your hearts desire, Scripture replaced traditions, and they are superior to them. The early Church fathers actually knew this and while tradition can be valuable to a non-literate audience, they must NEVER be contradictory to Scripture or be elevated to equal status with Scripture.

This is what happens when you do:

Idolatry.

Then you begin to accept non-christian religions as being EQUAL:

1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church #841

: #841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

That picture above and that catechism is all I need to know about the apostaste and idolatrous state of the RCC. And for that matter its all I need to know that any of your teaching is equally apostate.

[Leoni]

Re:One is either a Catholic Or a follower of Jesus Christ and HIS WORD for Jesus is THE LIVING WORD.

Hilaire Belloc said "One is either a Catholic or anything that they want to be". A Protestants religion is doing what they want to do and maybe finding some conveniently interpreted scripture, as they want to see it, to justify themself. In other words they are what they want to be, their religion is a mirror image of themselves.

Let's get to where the rubber meets the road, LIVING the faith (by their deeds you shall know them): Do you believe that, whether people partake in impure touching, fornicate before marriage, shack up, marry civil only, use contraceptives, divorce from a marriage before God, abort children conceived in a rape, watch immoral programs and movies like Desperate Housewives, watch pornography, go to strip clubs, go to the beach to look at the naked girls... IT”S ALL OK FOR THEM, as long as they “have a relationship with Christ”, they are all saved?

[conservativegramma]

Let's get to where the rubber meets the road, LIVING the faith (by their deeds you shall know them):

Yes lets. Do you believe a guy that goes out on Saturday night fornicating, stealing, murdering, drunken debauchery, etc. etc. then gets up the next day and says a few Hail Mary's to the priest, then leaves the confessional, goes right back to murdering, stealing, fornicating......rinse and repeat....is saved???

A few names:

Teddy Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

John Kerry

Many, many, many members of the Mafia to even begin naming each and every one......

If I were look at the 'rubber meets the road' personal examples of people I have PERSONALLY known in MY LIFE, Catholics don't come out smelling like a rose. Every single one I have EVER KNOWN has lived liked the devil throughout the week, believing they were okay as long as they got to the confessional the next day, then repeated the process over and over and over like the energizer bunny sad to say. Not to say there aren't good moral Catholics out there - just haven't personally met one yet. So my point is you need to clean up your own house first before you start hurling accusations at other faiths.

[Leoni]

re: First off, hardly anyone could read. If they could read, they could not get their hands on a NT bible because it was not put together as a book till the 4th century.

Strawman argument. The letters of Paul were very much passed around prior to the 4th century. Even though many couldn't read, many COULD, and these leaders of the Church were entrusted by God to teach accurately and Scripture was ALWAYS the last and final authority.

You didn't post everything I said, you conveniently disregarded the rest of what I wrote:

First off, hardly anyone could read. If they could read, they could not get their hands on a NT bible because it was not put together as a book till the 4th century. If you erroneously think that the NT Bible was available in the first three centuries, it is irrelevent, since it was in Greek and Latin, and done by hand, costing in today’s money like $25,000 or more, and therefore, they were few and far between. A commoner like ourselves would not have been able to find an NT bible or be able to read it if we ever saw one. THEFERFORE, we would have had to rely on verbal not written teaching. We would have had to rely on a priest’s word, till Guttenberg came along, and we learned how to read Latin/Greek, or it was written in our language. That's like till like the 20th century for most civilizations.

Re:The letters of Paul were very much passed around prior to the 4th century. Even though many couldn't read, many COULD, and these leaders of the Church were entrusted by God to teach accurately and Scripture was ALWAYS the last and final authority

Hardly anyone could read, and no one interpreted scripture on their own LIKE YOU DO, they had to rely on Catholic priests. There were heretics and false letters, epistles and gospels all over. You are the best witness against yourself keep writing.

There were Bible books that were disputed, controverted, in some places acknowledged, in others rejected; and among these we actually find the Epistle of St James, Epistle of St Jude, 2nd Epistle of St Peter; 2nd and 3rd of St John, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St John. There were doubts about these works; perhaps, it was said, they were not really written by Apostles, or Apostolic men, or by the men whose names they carried; in some parts of the Christian world they were suspected, though in others unhesitatingly received as genuine.

In this class of 'controverted' and doubtful books, there were some to be found which are not now in our New Testament at all, but which were by many then considered to be inspired and Apostolic, or were actually read at the public worship of the Christians, or were used for instructions to the newly-converted; in short, ranked in some places as equal to the works of St James or St Peter or St Jude. Among these are the Shepherd of Hernias, Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel according to the Hebrews, St Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of St Clement, and others. Why are these not in our Bible to-day?

There was a class of books floating about before 397 A.D., which were never acknowledged as of any value in the Church, nor treated as having Apostolic authority, seeing that they were obviously spurious and false, full of absurd fables, superstitions, puerilities, and stories and miracles of Our Lord and His Apostles which made them a laughing-stock to the world. Of these some have survived, and we have them to-day

We know the names of about 50 Gospels (such as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the like), about 22 Acts (like the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and others), and a smaller number of Epistles and Apocalypses. These were condemned and rejected wholesale as 'Apocrypha'-that is, false, spurious, uncanonical.

[conservativegramma]

And like I previously posted your teaching is the teaching of apostasy and has absolutely no authority with me.

That picture speaks a million words you don't even have to say.

This 1994 Catechism #841 also speaks VOLUMES.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

If you want to practice goddess worship and Allah worship knock yourself out. I'll stick with Christ, thanks.

[OneWingedShark]

“What then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God Forbid!”

[OneWingedShark]

>>Can I call you Nicodemus?
>
>The correct phrase/ word is “Born from Above”

Ah, thanks. {Though I do remember reading ‘born again’... perhaps in one of my other/less-used Bible translations.}

[presently no screen name]

Hilaire Belloc said...

All you have is "MAN'S" word - born in sin. Christians have GOD'S WORD and NO ONE can trump that.

Christians believe God, Catholics believe man.

God's Word is true and every man a liar. Romans 3:4. Spoken by THE ONE who knows.

[dartuser]

I appreciate your lengthy comment and I acknowledge your 30 hours of theological training. I will get to responding to each of your points in time because I think these are important points that pertain to the discussion ... but my initial reaction to your comments is that you have spent your time on theological training but have ignored the first principles of basic Biblical hermeneutics.

The "special sauce" comments are not meant to be snotty, but rather a play on how Freepers teese as Zogby twittles his results after the fact to make his results conform to his preunderstandings ... the so-called special Zogby sauce. Based on the passages you choose to claim Biblical support ... I think the analogy is valid.

I hope to get back to this later when I'm at home.

[presently no screen name]

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

Acknowledge? Even satan does that. That's in their catechism? Nothing about Jesus - WHO gave us our salvation. Salvation is ALL about Jesus. Professing faith is nothing - it needs to be possessed. Thanks for your post - it's enlightening. No wonder the Catholic Church is so misguided and their sheep so lacking and refuse Truth when presented. I guess, 'depart from Me, I never knew you' means nothing to them because 'man' says otherwise.

[verga]

Ah, thanks. {Though I do remember reading ‘born again’... perhaps in one of my other/less-used Bible translations.}

This is something I wrote for an Adult ed Class I taught several years ago

Born “from Above” Vs. “Again The Greek word Anothon occurs exactly 12 times in 12 verses in the New Testament.

The four words we are concerned with are Anothon which the Catholics contend means “From above” and the Fundies contend means again.

The second word is Apanow, which means above/ over.

The third word is Palon- that really does mean again and Deuteron that means secondly.

If the protestants are correct when we look at each of these verses we should be able to substitute either word and have it make perfect sense. I have included several verses that use the word Palon to document the common use of that word.

You will also notice that in John 3:4 that Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second.

Matt 27:50 50

30 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

Matt 27:51 51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split,

Mark 15:38 16 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom.

Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source anthon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above (Anthon).”

John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

John 3:31 15 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anthon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anthon) down.

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anthon) From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion.

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anthon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)?

James 1: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift 9 is from above (Anthon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.

James 3: 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anthon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

James 3: 17 But the wisdom from above (Anthon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.

All 12 verses with the Greek Translation Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.(Jesus did not cry out from above, he cried out a second time)

Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma

Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split,(The veil was not torn “again” it was torn from top to bottom)

Mat 27:51 kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan

Mark 15:38 16 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon)to bottom.

Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw

Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,(This is the only verse that you could conceivably substitute “Again”, but the colloquial “From their source makes better sense)

Luk 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon).”(Verse in contention, no comment required)

Joh 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou

John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” (Here is where the Prots really put their foot in it). Nicodemus never says again (Palon) he says Secondly (Deuteron)

Joh 3:4 legei prov auton o o nikodhmov pwv dunatai anqrwpov gennhqhnai gerwn wn mh dunatai eiv thn koilian thv mhtrov autou deuteron eiselqein kai gennhqhnai

John 3:31 15 The one who comes from above (Anothon) is above (Apanow) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).Those that come” again” are “again” all, Makes no sense at all.

Joh 3:31 o anwqen erxomenov epanw pantwn estin o wn ek thv ghv ek thv ghv estin kai ek thv ghv lalei o ek tou ouranou erxomenov epanw epanw pantwn estin estin

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anothon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” (Pilate was not given power again, he was given it from above, God allowed him to have power)

Joh 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. (The tunic was not woven again, it was woven from the top down)

Joh 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. (They did not know about Paul “again” they new about him from the beginning)

Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? (The phrase “from above” clearly does not fit here)

Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete

James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. (Is the gift coming “again”, no it is coming from God, who is “From above”)

Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma

James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. (See Previous)

Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv

James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. (Again the wisdom is “from above”, not “again”)

Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov

Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word “Anthon” is “From above/ from the source or beginning”.

There is a perfectly good word for “again” but, neither Nicodemus, or Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron.

As pointed out by Maggie and several others Nicodemus apparent confusion results from Jesus’ use of the word “Born” not “From above” Anothon

Verga

[BipolarBob]

Thank you conservativegramma for plainly showing the error of placing tradition equal to or above Scripture. I believe it was wasted on the our RCC friends, but who knows?

[presently no screen name]

Mary that brought the Savior (Who brought salvation tot he entire Nation of Israel).

The Holy Spirit brought forth The Savior. Mary's part was obedience - 'Not my will, but yours'. Something all Christians are commanded to do daily - His will, not ours. Even Jesus did that - wanted the cup to pass over Him but said, Not My will but yours. It is ALL ABOUT the Father's Will according to HIS WORD!

4)The Tomb that brought salvation over death to the entire world.

The Tomb? NO! Why can't you say the truth - it was the shed blood of Jesus, His painful humiliating death HE willingly suffered for all and the reason HE became man. And, in spite of it all, some can't even say HIS NAME, JESUS.

He is the bread of Life, that He must be consumed, that you don't have life in you unless you consume him.

Who is HE? HE is The LIVING WORD and we are to consume His Word - make it apart of us, to become more like him, how we should think by renewing our mind (to have the mind of Christ).

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every WORD that comes from the mouth of God.'" Mark 4:4, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

Deuteronomy 8:3 "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. GOD'S WORD!

[conservativegramma]

Acknowledge? Even satan does that. That's in their catechism?

Afraid so. Did you check the link? That link is an online copy of the 1994 Catechism. Proves their apostate condition IMO. Notice also it said 'the Creator' - absolutely NOTHING about Christ or acknowledging CHRIST or WHO Christ is! Islam as you know denies the Trinity - now RCC is uniting with those who deny the Trinty. And they call Protestants heretics!

[bkaycee]

Vincent Lerins

Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).2 In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all).

Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in their assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

"Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times."

Rome no longer believes in Vincent Lerins theory, The Lerins theory Can no longer stand historical scrutiny.

It has turned to Newman to explain (away) the lack of historical evidence.

http://www.the-highway.com/tradition_Webster.html

[bkaycee]

Do you believe that, whether people partake in impure touching, fornicate before marriage, shack up, marry civil only, use contraceptives, divorce from a marriage before God, abort children conceived in a rape, watch immoral programs and movies like Desperate Housewives, watch pornography, go to strip clubs, go to the beach to look at the naked girls... IT”S ALL OK FOR THEM, as long as they “have a relationship with Christ”, they are all saved?

The True Biblical Gospel of Salvation By Grace thru Faith in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, produces the reaction you wrote above.

The true saving Gospel of Grace will cause your exact reaction as it did when PAUL answered the same objection in Romans 6.

If the gospel you have believed DOES NOT evoke the same reaction, ("People can sin willy nilly, cause were saved, also called antinomianism"), IT IS NOT the same Gospel PAUL preached.

Paul Answers your objection in Rom 6.

Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.