Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Boloney sausage that pig won’t fly!
Scripture won’t fly for you ey? Sorry to hear that. Calling scripture a pig may not go over well for you.
So you have been told by the demon led leadership of the LDS. It’s another gospel and it is considered accursed by the one true God.
I will keep praying for you, Dear One. Stay warm and safe.
***
That I need, too much snow...
I will pray for all to have the Joy I have found, and everyday now is witnessing stronger of the things I have learn over the last 32 yrs., and I remember the Joy I receive by the power of the Holy Ghost nothing on earth can descript it, I just had to know more about the Mormons.
Something I thought would never cross my path in all my life I am so bless that it did.
In my personal life so many things have been made stronger where I was weak, and made me a better person, I could not have done this on my own, but with the love of the Lord, all things are possible.
Ping to post 565.
resty, I know that’s what Mormonism teaches because former Mormons have fessed up.
Matter of fact, I worked with a Mormon who told me that, yes, Jesus was Satan’s half-brother. I had to ask him straight out because otherwise I would not have known. But when confronted with that information, he admitted it to my face.
I’m sure that someone can provide evidence from the appropriate Mormon documents.
Lucifer, along with all the angels, are created beings. Created by God so he could not be Jesus; half brother.
If you are unaware of what Mormonism teaches about who Jesus is, maybe you need to investigate it more deeply so that you aren’t deceived.
Zechariah 11 and 13 refer to Jerusalem at the time of Judas' betrayal of Christ (11:12-17,) and Christ's crucifixion (12:10-14.) Chapter 13 begins with the Day of Pentecost (13:1.) But it also refers to one of the fulfilments that Jesus mentioned (13:7) :
This is Judas (Mat 26:15, 27:3-5)
"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." (Zec 11:12-13 KJV)
This is Christ on the Cross (John 19:32-37)
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." (Zec 12:10 KJV)
The day of Pentecost:
"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." (Zec 13:1 KJV)
Smite the Shepherd (Mat 26:31: )
"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." (Zec 13:7 KJV)
Those items cannot be ignored in interpreting "the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem" in 12:2 and the "burdensome stone" in 12:3.
What is the "burdensome stone," anyway? Jesus is mentioned as a type of stumblingstone many times, and also in his prophetic role as the Branch:
Isa 8:13-15, 28:14-18; Zec 3:8-9; Rom 9:30-33; 1 Pet 2:4-10
Philip
***
Hold on CynicalBear all my post testify of the Bible as well, what you did was something one should repent for bearing false witness!
Bitterness is not of a child of God!
***
Well in that case contention is not of the Lord nor is bearing false witness...
sweet dreams!:)
And Mormonism is based on some alleged gold tablets found in Upstate NY that Smith *translated* and no longer exist because some angel (conveniently) took them back so there's no proof they EVER even existed in the first place.
How ironic to complain about copies of copies, which BTW, is what Mormonism is also forced into using if they do indeed use the Bible.
>>>Philip, with all sincerity I urge you to stop promoting the theory you are promoting here and do some study on Biblical and prophetic imagery. You are so far off track a person through this type of forum wouldn’t know where to start.<<<
Cynical Bear, with all sincerity, you have proven nothing except you have an opinion. Where is the beef? Prove that all those images John presented in the Revelation are literal! You can’t, because they are not. All one has to do is take the time to look back on the very short history of dispensationalism to realize that all modern day false prophecies come from dispensationalists. It is all made up out of whole cloth.
Philip
Well if I really want to know about you or someone else, than I should go those who were once their friend and now hate them, makes about as much sense!
Well if I really want to know about you or someone else, than I should go those who were once their friend and now hate them, makes about as much sense!
>>>You didn’t answer my question. Why is Israel once again a burdensome stone when it said they no longer would be after the day of the Lord? And when did all the Jews shout, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” as Jesus said they would?<<<
I have a life, Cynical Bear. You have to wait your turn. But since you are into questions, how about explaining the seven churches in Asia. I believe I asked you about them before, regarding Scofield’s “interpretation.” Forget that. Now, I am asking for “your” interpretation. Please provide it, promptly.
Philip
>>>What difference does that make? When did it dry up?<<<
How do you know it was supposed to literally dry up?
Do you believe the beast will rise up out of the sea?
Do you believe a third part of the trees will burn up?
Do you believe all green grass will burn up?
Do you believe a great star, named Wormwood, will fall from heaven and contaminate a third part of the waters?
Please answer those questions.
Thanks,
Philip
You didn’t answer my question.
If you take the other parts of the prophecy literally, shouldn’t you also take that one literally?
If someone can provide the objective documentation, then it is irrelevant what their opinion about the matter is.
The facts are the facts regardless of the feelings of others are about it.
Since you insist on taking the Revelation literally:
Do you believe the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and are living, will die; and the third part of the ships will be destroyed?
Do you believe an angel will chain the devil with a literal chain?
Do you believe the four angels loosed from the Euphrates will slay a third part of men?
Do you belive John prophesied before many peoples, nations, tongues and kings at the age of 95?
Do you believe fire proceedeth out of the mouth of the two witnesses?
Philip
And Mormonism is based on some alleged gold tablets found in Upstate NY that Smith *translated* and no longer exist because some angel (conveniently) took them back so there's no proof they EVER even existed in the first place.
How ironic to complain about copies of copies, which BTW, is what Mormonism is also forced into using if they do indeed use the Bible.
***
What is that all about? LOL
You never been to my Church, nor our Sunday school, or taken the Missionaries discussions, yet you are such an expert Amazing!
________________________________________
You folks are so lovely in your charming accusations..
These are the old discussions of the OT maybe 10 years ago?
discussions on the old testament: introduction part 1
discussions on the old testament: introduction part 2
discussions on the old testament: introduction part 3
NT Bible Discussions - Acts 10-13 (3of3) #013
These were done on BYUTV on your regular I know that ATT and Direct TV carry this program these programs have been playing on TV for sense the early 2000 who ever wants to watch and also on BYU-TV on the internet.
NT Bible Discussions- Jesus - Pre Messiah
How can all those enormously destructive events I mentioned in the past few posts: those that don't appear to be man-caused if taken "literally;" possibly be compatible with this statement by Jesus:
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (Rev 11:18)
Is Jesus going to destroy himself for all the damage he has done to the earth? Or are literalists misinterpreting the scriptures?
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.