A test for Sola Scripturists

gjdgjdgjd5 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:35 pm

gjd, etc, please don't answer someone by editing your own post to include an answer. Make a new post.

I see the error of my way of editing my own post to include an answer, i am not repeating it!

gjdgjdgjd5 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:38 pm

I think he was agreeing with gherkin.

Who and where is the gherkin?

Signum Crucis · **Posted:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:19 pm

If you want to quote someone, go to their post and click on the Quote button in the bottom right corner. Add your comments at the end of theirs.

gherkin is a poster's username, just as gjdgjdgjd5 is your own username.

Sons of Thunder is not a poster's username, it is the name of a group of people on this board. Male posters who are members of that group will have the Sons of Thunder designation underneath their username.

gjdgjdgjd5 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:35 pm

Signum Crucis wrote:

If you want to quote someone, go to their post and click on the Quote button in the bottom right corner. Add your comments at the end of theirs.

gherkin is a poster's username, just as gjdgjdgjd5 is your own username.

Sons of Thunder is not a poster's username, it is the name of a group of people on this board. Male posters who are members of that group will have the Sons of Thunder designation underneath their username.

Excellent points! Thank You.

Max Kolbe · **Posted:** Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:39 pm

Signum Crucis wrote:

Male posters who are members of that group will have the Sons of Thunder designation underneath their username.

Female posters who are members of that group face even bigger handicaps. :fyi:

That's a joke, by the way. :fyi:

gjdgjdgjd5 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:55 pm

specious [spee-shuhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: misleading
Synonyms: apparent, apparently right, beguiling, captious, casuistic, colorable, deceptive, delusive, empty, erroneous, fallacious, false, flattering, hollow, idle, illogical, inaccurate, incorrect, likely, nugatory, ostensible, ostentatious, plausible, presumable, presumptive, pretentious, probable, seeming, sophistic, sophistical, sophisticated, spurious, unsound, untrue, vain, wrong
Antonyms: real, true, valid, credible

spurious [spyoor-ee-uhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: counterfeit, fake
Synonyms: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard*, bent, bogus, bum, contrived, deceitful, deceptive, dummy*, ersatz, faked, false, feigned, forged, framed, illegitimate, imitation, make-believe, mock, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended, pseudo*, put-on, sham*, simulated, specious, substitute, unauthentic, ungenuine, unreal
Antonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true

All your arguments appear, look or feel right to you but they are in fact specious, and therefore spurious!!!

gjdgjdgjd5 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:58 pm

gjdgjdgjd5 wrote:

SPECIOUS [spee-shuhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: misleading
Synonyms: apparent, apparently right, beguiling, captious, casuistic, colorable, deceptive, delusive, empty, erroneous, fallacious, false, flattering, hollow, idle, illogical, inaccurate, incorrect, likely, nugatory, ostensible, ostentatious, plausible, presumable, presumptive, pretentious, probable, seeming, sophistic, sophistical, sophisticated, spurious, unsound, untrue, vain, wrong
Antonyms: real, true, valid, credible

spurious [spyoor-ee-uhs] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: counterfeit, fake
Synonyms: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard*, bent, bogus, bum, contrived, deceitful, deceptive, dummy*, ersatz, faked, false, feigned, forged, framed, illegitimate, imitation, make-believe, mock, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended, pseudo*, put-on, sham*, simulated, specious, substitute, unauthentic, ungenuine, unreal
Antonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true

Main Entry:
scurrilous [skur-uh-luhs, skuhr-] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: foul-mouthed, vulgar
Synonyms: abusive, coarse, contumelious, defamatory, dirty, filthy, foul, gross, indecent, infamous, insulting, invective, lewd, low, nasty, obscene, offending, offensive, opprobrious, outrageous, raunchy, ribald, salacious, scabrous, scandalous, shameless, slanderous, smutty, truculent, vituperative, vituperatory, vituperous
Antonyms: clean, polite, upright

Main Entry:
false [fawls] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: wrong, made up
Synonyms: apocryphal, beguiling, bogus, casuistic, concocted, contrary to fact, cooked-up, counterfactual, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, dishonest, distorted, erroneous, ersatz*, fake, fallacious, fanciful, faulty, fictitious, fishy, fraudulent, illusive, imaginary, improper, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, invalid, lying, mendacious, misleading, misrepresentative, mistaken, off the mark, phony, sham, sophistical, specious, spurious, trumped up, unfounded, unreal, unsound, untrue, untruthful
Notes: fallacious means intended to deceive; fallible means liable to make a mistake or to be inaccurate or erroneous; false means not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality, or deliberately deceptive, or not genuine or real
Antonyms: accurate, actual, correct, factual, genuine, known, precise, real, right, substantiated, true, valid
* = informal/non-formal usage

All your arguments and questions (not you personally) appear, look or feel right to you, but they are in fact specious, and therefore spurious and scurrilous !!!

Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?

Please refer to my first post.

MyDogma8MyKarma · **Posted:** Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:29 pm

gjd wrote wrote:

Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?

Please refer to my first post.

I can't tell what is yours and what is another poster's, gjd. Use the quote button when quoting someone else. You can do that by highlighting their comment, and if you don't already have it on your screen in your post, you can copy and paste it. Then highlight it again and hit the quote button that is in the menu above the reply screen. Otherwise, this thread is fast becoming complete confusion as readers try to parse out what someone else said and what you said.

However, Gherkin's question is quite sound. You say the Bible is infallible. Please provide me proof for your argument because YOU saying holds no water for me. And using the Bible to prove the Bible is infallible is a specious argument. If I wrote on a piece of paper that it is the title to the White House and hand it to you, and you use it to as your proof that it is indeed the title to the White House, does not make it the title to the White House.

Candlemass · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:28 am

I don't buy this, but just wondering how you would make this house of cards fall?

http://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-te ... Thess-2-15

Catholic12345 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:09 am

When the catholic councils were ready to put together the bible, the African church believed that Hebrews didnt belong in the bible, but in the end who decided on putting hebrews in the bible

?

There was never an inspired table of contents for the bible. It was authority of the Catholic Church and the magisterium that decided on this.

As far as interpretation, what did Saint Augustine say?
Rome has decided, it is settled.

pax · **Posted:** Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:30 pm

Candlemass wrote:

I don't buy this, but just wondering how you would make this house of cards fall?

http://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-te ... Thess-2-15

That is easy. The Traditions of Christianity were spoken by Jesus and existed before the Written Word.

ChiTownGal · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:24 pm

I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died. How then, did the teachings of Jesus remain intact for those years? Well, the only answer can be that His teachings were handed down verbally by the Church--that's what we call tradition. (To discount tradition as being unreliable, I would submit that most native Americans tribes never had any written language but managed to keep intact all of their traditions by word of mouth.) And, it just so happened (being a little sarcastic here) that when the Holy Scriptures were finally compiled they confirmed the teachings of the Church during those non-bible years. My second comment would be that there are over 250,000 Christian sects today and that number is growing. Each one of those sects broke off from another sect because of doctrinal and/or scriptural disagreement. As someone who would believe in only the Scriptures, how is one to know which interpretation of the Scriptures is the correct interpretation and which Christian sect has the authority to determine Truth? You don't know. You have no assurance from anyone that what you think the Scriptures mean really means what you think it does. That is why Christ established a teaching authority in His apostles. And that is why Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to His Church, not churches. Even before the Scriptures were even known to exist, Christ's teachings were kept intact and true by His Church: the Catholic Church. She is the owner of the scriptures. She alone has the right and power to instruct and interpret the Scriptures and other matters of faith. To quote bible verses does not make a case for truth. There are many who say they believe in only the scriptures--the literal interpretation of the scriptures. Yet, when it comes to Jesus' own words when He says, "You must eat my Body and drink my Blood for eternal life" (paraphrased--can't find the verse), suddenly His words don't mean literally what He says now. Can't have it both ways. Only the Catholic Church has the right and authority to interpret the Scriptures.

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:30 pm

ChiTownGal wrote:

I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.

Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version

pax · **Posted:** Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:02 am

Doom wrote:

ChiTownGal wrote:

I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.

Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version

Also, a worthy of note, it is highly unlikely that Saint Jerome used the Masoretic Text, which I also consider to be a revised version -- revised to remove anything Christian from it.

Doom · **Posted:** Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:05 am

pax wrote:

Doom wrote:

ChiTownGal wrote:

I'm not a bible scholar by any means. But, I do know a few things about the bible. I would point out to the sola scripturist that the bible (the Latin Vulgate) wasn't translated from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew by St. Jerome until almost 300 years after the last apostle died.

Closer to 400.....but the Vulgate was not a 'new' translation, it was merely a revision and standardization of previously existing Latin translations (plural, translationS).....The Vulgate was more like when the Revised Standard Version was revised to become the New Revised Standard Version

Also, a worthy of note, it is highly unlikely that Saint Jerome used the Masoretic Text, which I also consider to be a revised version -- revised to remove anything Christian from it.

Jerome used, and in fact, preferred the Hebrew text to the Greek, and whenever they were in conflict, he usually side with the Hebrew.

A test for Sola Scripturists

Who is online