/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5198

>What's the deal with this?

I'd answer, but protestants are too thin-skinned for that.

polite sage

>>5201

Protestants are rare on this board. Proceed.

>>5202

No, I want to know. I've spoken to like 2 Baptists personally and they simply stumble over their words like it was the first time anyone suggested the Bible wasn't personally written and edited by Jesus Himself.

It doesn't make sense to me.

>>5206

>No, I want to know. I've spoken to like 2 Baptists personally and they simply stumble over their words like it was the first time anyone suggested the Bible wasn't personally written and edited by Jesus Himself.

I can only imagine how they'll look like when they get to know that not the apostles wrote the New Testament either…

>>5206

>It doesn't make sense to me.

>One could call it heresy

rhyming for the Lord ;^)

>>5206

Interesting.

Let me summarise how I understand the deal.

Protestants think the Bible is literally the word of God and thus make it more than it is. They downplay the role of the Church in it, and discard the RCC in favour of the Bible: Scripture over magisterium.

On the other side of things, Catholics consider the Bible to be sort of secondary to the magisterium because the RCC thinks itself the quasi author of the Bible, which gives it extra rights over it, such as interpretation.

Isn't there a problem with this, though? If Protestants can't argue that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit during the composition and compilated of the Bible and then was no longer, can Catholics argue the reverse? I'll summarise for simplicity's sake:

>Protestants say: "Catholics were led by the Holy Spirit until the Bible was made and then no longer." Problematic.

>Catholics say: "The Catholics were led by the Holy Spirit until the Bible, but then they led even better and that enables them to come back on the Bible and retcon it and interpret it with personal preferences." Problematic too.

Both approaches are paradoxes. If the Holy Spirit helped with the Bible, then you have to take it wholesale and side with Catholics.

If you deny Catholics, then also you must deny the idea of a God-written Bible. It seems both sides are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

>>5207

>Most obvious this is with the KJV crowd that literally believes that the KJV is the one and only true word of God and even above the originals.

Can you point me to a website, article, or anything, which demonstrates how the KJV is a faulty translation? I hear this claim often but I never see the evidence.

>>5208

> when they get to know that not the apostles wrote the New Testament either…

>that heretic syntax

>>5212

>Can you point me to a website, article, or anything, which demonstrates how the KJV is a faulty translation? I hear this claim often but I never see the evidence.

Even if we were to assume that it is a perfectly fine and valid translation, it is written in a language that no one speaks anymore.

There is literally no reason for one that speaks modern English to read the Bible in 17th century English. I also do not read the original Luther bible, should I?

Or do all believers need to lean English and read the KJV? not wanting to be offensive but I literally had people claim this to me

>>5213

Negation still worked like that in 17th century ;^)

I'm just regermanising you

>>5212

Are you in favour of sola scriptura?

If yes, why?

How do you deal with sola scriptura being unbiblical? Does not this make it a paradox?

>>5214

One can always argue that the men who translated King James were divinely inspired too. It's an easy argument but one that the RCC uses constantly.

Still, I would like to see an instance where the KJV deviates from the original language in a way that is significant. Surely you must be aware of at least one such occurrence or you would not dislike the KJV so much.

The NKJV or revised version or what it's called has more contemporary English, by the way. Many will tell you that the KJV has a sense of awe and gravity than more casual translations do not have, and that it is important for the Bible to have this effect on its readers. I can understand that; many of my Bibles don't have "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee", but something corny like

>"Greetings Mary! You have been selected. God is with you."

It means the "same" but the tone and style have meanings of their own and I can't easily digest the latter version. It's on par with Buddy Jesus to me.

>>5215

Yeah but not. Negatives without auxiliaries did exist in 17th century English but that is not what you were doing. It may be German's way, though. Heil Hitler.

>>5213

>>5210

>If you deny Catholics, then also you must deny the idea of a God-written Bible. It seems both sides are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

This is what it looks like to me sometimes as well, and yet there is, there has to be, a reason why people pick one side or the other.

>>5213

Engrish is not everyone's first language.

>>5217

>Are you in favour of sola scriptura?

Not exactly. I tend to think the Bible is the best we have in terms of anything serious. I also believe that nothing after the Bible ought to contradict it, that no man has the right to go against Scripture, because Scripture is tradition written down.

I think it's a false dilemma to oppose Tradition to Scripture, and it is largely a way to go around Scripture, for whatever purpose this may be. But no "experts" should give themselves the right to change the Bible for new ideas.

>How do you deal with sola scriptura being unbiblical? Does not this make it a paradox?

How can the Bible be unbiblical? That's quite a paradox.

>>5220

> Surely you must be aware of at least one such occurrence or you would not dislike the KJV so much.

Why would I be interested in the details of some random English bible?

That it is written in a dead language suffices for me to despise it, regarding the way that Cartain Anglophones seem to worship it.

I could tell you about falsehoods of the Luther bible though

>It means the "same" but the tone and style have meanings of their own and I can't easily digest the latter version. It's on par with Buddy Jesus to me.

What's used in the Hail Mary prayer?

>>5222

It was a joke m8, I just made a mistake.

>>5224

>Not exactly.

Is this also the baptist position?

I never really talked with one

I agree with your post.

>How can the Bible be unbiblical? That's quite a paradox.

I meant the idea of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible is the command to only rely on the Bible in matters of faith.

I'd write it on the cover if I made the book and it was my idea

>>5225

>Why would I be interested in the details of some random English bible?

Because you said it was a badly translated version of the Bible, and I want to know why.

>That it is written in a dead language suffices for me to despise it,

English is hardly dead. For your information, the English used in the 17th century is still what linguists call Modern English, as opposed to Middle English and Old English, which are completely different. Shakespear wrote in Modern English, even if it has changed since then. The differences are not sharp enough to make it a different language, by far.

> I could tell you about falsehoods of the Luther bible though

Go ahead.

>What's used in the Hail Mary prayer?

The exact words originally used in the KJV, which is almost the only Bible to have exactly "Hail Mary, full of grace", while most other Bibles, including Catholic ones, have some goofy "Greetings Mary! You have been chosen by God and He likes you a lot!" and other ridiculous toned down translations.

>>5227

This page may help:

https://www.gci.org/bible/inspiration

>>5231

>Shakespeare wrote in Modern English, even if it has changed since then

He wrote in 'Early Modern English' (his writings still have some remnants of middle english) and did so in a poetic form which no one actually spoke. Hence why it is hard to understand.

The Authorised Version is written in an archaic but understandable version of Modern English. No native speaker of English should have issue with the KJV, apart from a few words here and there. Non-native speakers will struggle a lot more.

–

I hate to attack Papists but their attacks of the KJV seems only motivated by their own tribalism. The KJV is an excellent translation performed by top English scholars (England has been a centre learning for a very long time now, its scholars and resources were among the best in the world at the time). Many people have tried to make better translations and failed for the very reason that to improve the KJV is very hard to do.

Of course many successful translations have occurred that complement the KJV. The NIV, The NKJV etc.

Can I remind Catholics that the Latin versions of the Bible, are translations in of themselves?

>>5268

Most translations of the bible are pretty accurate. In the most widespread translations I actually can't think of any where the translation deviates significantly. With that in mind, the KJV-only crowd seem equally ridiculous. If the message is the same then it really doesn't matter whether or not it's the new international version or in burmese.

I think it's mainly for cultural reasons. The KJV is one of the most important pieces of literature in the English language. In fact, if there was any book that could claim "most important" that would probably be it. The language is powerful and resonant and the beauty of its wording has probably led to many conversions on its own.

But again, that hardly seems a reason to suggest that it's the only valid translation that has ever and can ever be made.

>>5271

The idea of certain translations being inspired by God while others are essentially money-making and politically-minded schemes is essential here.

Video related.

>>5268

>No native speaker of English should have issue with the KJV, apart from a few words here and there.

Wrong. Most native speakers will have major issues.

>>5198

> the belief that the Bible is not only the sole source of religious authority, but that it is perfect and without any error.

No, Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for the Christian faith. Other authorities exist but they are not infallible and must be weighed and judged for their value and accuracy. We know that it is infallible because it is the word of God and God being a God of truth does not lie or commit error.

> How could one reconcile this with the fact that it was the Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Church that collected, categorized and compiled the Bible?

Because that's not true. The Old Testament scriptures were written, collected and categorized long before any Christian Church was even on the horizon of human history. God had His church and His people in Israel and gave them guidance and wisdom through the Law, Prophets and Writings, there was no Pope in the days of Zechariah, there were no cardinals or bishops. Any claim that the Roman or Orthodox churches make to being the only viable source for the content and canon of scripture is on the most basic historical level, absurd because 2/3 of the Bible were already perfectly known and cataloged by and for the people of God before the birth of Christ.

But even more than that the Roman and Orthodox churches in their modern or even Medieval forms did not exist at the time when the church first received the Scriptures, this is a gross anachronism. Protestants don't pretend the early church was protestant and for good reason the early church was the early church, they had their own forms of practice, their own cultural contexts, their own controversies and theological debates that framed the way they understood the Scriptures and the world around them. They did not organize themselves in the same administrative or liturgical manner that the early medieval church did for a number of important reasons. It's dishonoring to those Christians to try and force them into ecclesiastical categories that simply did not exist in their day,

> Was "the Church" perfect and inspired at the time but lost said inspiration somewhere along the way?

No, the Church has never been infallibly inspired. The authors of Scripture were infallibly inspired when they were writing the Scriptures but that is because the Scriptures had a very specific purpose by God for His people and His church. Peter in the New Testament writes that there are things in Paul's writings that are difficult to understand but still refers to them as scriptures Peter's ability to perfectly understand scripture was not a prerequisite for his authorship of scripture.

> Did a perfect book come out of a, not only imperfect but eventually (to protestants) sinful and heretical institution?

1 Timothy 3:16 says that the scriptures are theopneustos, the breath of God. The church is not the source of the scriptures, God is and it is because God is the source that the scriptures are perfect.

>>5207

> They worship the bible as their God

Do not bear false witness you viper.

> instead of God that has revealed himself through the sacrifice of the cross and is still revealing himself to us through the works of the Holy Spirit.

God has revealed Himself to us through His word, he has spoken to us and given us the recordings of His words and actions amongst His people so that we may look back on them and know them. We know of Christ because of the scriptures, the Holy Spirit carried men of God to write the scriptures. the reason we can determine if one church is heretical and the other is not is on their conformity to that infallible rule of faith. the scriptures are not 100% exhaustive but what they are is the yard stick by which to judge everything else.

> Most obvious this is with the KJV crowd that literally believes that the KJV is the one and only true word of God and even above the originals.

A fringe group that arose in the mid twentieth century is not an example of Protestants flocking to bad translations.

>>5210

> Protestants think the Bible is literally the word of God and thus make it more than it is.

2 Timothy 3:16-forward specifically calls it the breath of God and that it equips believers to do every good work. In light of this I can't see how else to understand the role of scripture.

> They downplay the role of the Church in it,

We reject that the Church is infallible, that is all. When any church claims it's traditions are infallible it is making a bald assertion without any support for this claim. We do not reject that Godly men have come before us in ancient times and have much wisdom and knowledge to share with us, nor do we believe that tradition and liturgy hold no place in Christian practice and belief, only that such things are not infallibly or universally true and perfect for all Christian practice in all parts of the world.

>>5268

The KJV would be good enough if people didn't take every ambiguous word or verse and extrapolate entire doctrines from them. If I recall, the KJV is based on a German translation of a Latin translation of a Greek manuscript, following the understanding people had back then of those documents. Newer ones like the NIV look at the original languages and should reflect up to date scholarship, although its still possible those who make the translations have their own agendas.

>>5302

Based.

Finally a Protestant with both balls and brains on this board.

Both Protestants and Catholics err in their idea that the Bible is anywhere near infallibility. Only one example is required to show that it is not, but I'll give a few more:

>Genesis contains two contradictory creation myths

>Genesis contains the idea that we don't live on a planet, but in some sort of dome that has water above and below; space doesn't exist

>Christ has 4 different sets of final words

>Old Testament contains parallel stories with different parameters; in one, Satan kills some people, in the other, God kills those same people

This demonstrates that the texts are not infallible and that God did not write or dictate them and that there was no supernatural supervising of these texts; if there was, and errors survived, then you must accept that supernatural supervision was not enough, which amounts to the exact same as assuming it wasn't supernaturally supervised, since in either case you cannot be sure that the text is the infallible, direct word of God.

The RCC further fails in assuming that it has been supernaturally charged with infallibility in explaining Scripture and establishing dogma, to the point where their magisterium can virtually go against Scripture and smugly "justify" it, not realising that making the Holy Spirit contradict the Holy Spirit should not happen.

Protestants are correct in being skeptical about the RCC, but are even more wrong about their assumptions about the Bible was literally coming straight from God.

Catholics have done well to remain strongly tied to education and knowledge as well as strict organisation, but they have been too arrogant about both.

Protestants are wrong to assume no experts can help with the Bible. It is no easy reading and requires experts.

Catholics are wrong to assume that only experts with the Holy Spirit can say anything truthful; confirmation bias is not the Holy Spirit. Truth is truth, no matter who says it.

>>5304

>If I recall, the KJV is based on a German translation of a Latin translation of a Greek manuscript

No, its translated from original manuscripts m8. We wouldn't use a translation of a translation, we aren't that silly.

>>5302

>It's dishonoring to those Christians to try and force them into ecclesiastical categories that simply did not exist in their day,

Okay, this would be a major difference from the way many people would see it. As I understand it, the Catholic and Orthodox church would trace an unbroken line from Peter to the current leader of the respective church. Though traditions, practices and offices have changed, they'd argue the doctrine and Apostolic authority remain the same. Essentially, it was they who did the compiling and translation.

How would you respond to that?

>>5336

> As I understand it, the Catholic and Orthodox church would trace an unbroken line from Peter to the current leader of the respective church.

It's a bit more complex then that for the Eastern Orthodoxy but in summary yes that is the claim.

My answer would be, so what. If your church can be demonstrated to either be neglectful of or in direct contradiction to the teachings of the apostles then of what use is it to be able to say "Peter anointed X and X anointed Y, and why anointed Z" all the way down to the modern day? After all, even Judas was an apostle of Christ, raised up for the purpose of being the son of perdition. The Arian bishops and pope of the early church who persecuted Athanasius were much more closer to the apostles and could claim an even more direct and clear line to the apostles than any modern pope or bishop could and yet this did not protect them from heresy. If a direct line of succession does exist, if it does nto actually benefit the church in any way by protecting it then what purpose or good does it do the church?

But even beyond that the claim itself is just absurd at least for the Roman Catholic, I am not so familiar with the history of the Eastern Orthodox church so I will refrain from boldly saying they can't make such a claim, I highly doubt it though.

There is no way to document the perfect succession of every cardinal that ever elected a pope. No such documentary history exists you have to rely on word of the Roman Catholic church that they have but to do so you must do it without evidence. On top of that in light of the gross corruption of the Roman Catholic church in the medieval period, where bishoprics were bought and sold and traded for land, where dynastic families dominated the papacy and other high offices of the Roman Catholic church and the fact that there have on multiple occasions been multiple popes lawfully elected and having excommunicated one another. You cannot trace a straight line back to the apostles. The Roman Catholic church has no defining or authoritative system for identifying popes and anti-popes, it simply seems that whoever won the dispute of their day is considered the legitimate pope for posterity to look to but this is an inherently pragmatic and flippant solution that gives absolutely no meaningful or objective standard by which to determine where papal authority actually stood in history.

> they'd argue the doctrine and Apostolic authority remain the same

There is no hint given in scripture that such a thing as "apostolic authority" is passed down from an apostle to the people who he anoints as the elder of a church. There is no outline of what that authority is or how a person can lose it or if they can lose it. There is no description for the idea that some churches hold authority over others. Apostolic authority looks like, from a historical perspective, a political struggle between the major centers of Christendom vying for influence over one another, the fact that all of the seats of Apostolic authority coincide with major metropolitan regions of the ancient world should tip us off to that. There was very clearly a struggle for Alexandria to remain a major player in the history of medieval Christendom and it's theological and ecclesiastical influence wanes with the city itself losing it's political influence in the ancient world.

the entire Pentarchy gives off this same feel with Rome and Constantinople becoming the capitals of Christian religion in East and West by no virtue other than the fact that they were the political capitals of East and West.

Why would the elders anointed by Peter in Rome have any more authority over those he anointed in Cyprus except for the reason that Rome was politically stronger than Cyprus.

Combine this with the rise of Islam oppressing Christianity in the rest of the former territories of the Roman empire, it becomes clear that they only reason that authority remained in these region is because no major Christian episcopal see existed and not by any virtue of any mandate from the Apostles.

> Essentially, it was they who did the compiling and translation

Except for the fact that no council was ever held to define the Canon of scripture until Trent in the 16th century. the church recognized what the word of God was without any apostolic authority defining it for them because it is the Holy Spirit which informs the Church what He has inspired not fallible bishops.

> How would you respond to that?

In short, they are grossly anachronistic claims that only function if the person being told them is ignorant of church history.

>>5337

>My answer would be, so what

This is the best way of viewing it. Anglicans also claim Apostolic succession which is at least as valid as Rome's.

Yet Anglicans also make it pretty clear in their articles:

>Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Tradition and continuity is nice but its just that. A nice addition to Gods word which holds no real validity other than connecting you and helping you understand that word.

>>5337

Well, this is a heck of an answer, thank you. It certainly seems very well informed and, at the very least, very well presented counter claim to what I've usually heard.

I'd have to ask you to be patient to see if any of our resident catholics can offer a rebuttal; my ability to play Devil's advocate is at an end. I am, however, very interested in the subject.

>>5231

>Because you said it was a badly translated version of the Bible, and I want to know why.

It used outdated manuscripts. The original version from 1611 relied on our knowledge from 1611, which is outdated now.

> what linguists call Modern English

Yes, but the average English Chav disagrees probably and would have serious problems understanding it, beside common falsehoods that emerge from the change of meanings since then.

ie the meanings of kill and lust changed, but people don't know and get it wrong.

not that they should try by themselve

>Go ahead.

He left out books and more importantly translated wrongly in order to fit his "Sola I'm right " agenda.

>>5233

Thanks… but I disagree with it.

>>5268

>(England has been a centre learning for a very long time now, its scholars and resources were among the best in the world at the time

No, England was the home of icon clashers and other savages, in no way the centre of education.

>>5271

>Most translations of the bible are pretty accurate.

New world translation.

>>5272

America sucks

>>5302

>No, Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for the Christian faith. Other authorities exist but they are not infallible and must be weighed and judged for their value and accuracy. We know that it is infallible because it is the word of God and God being a God of truth does not lie or commit error.

This is like what he said. And it is a dangerous wronghood.

>Because that's not true. The Old Testament scriptures were written, collected and categorized long before any Christian Church was even on the horizon of human history.

The Chuch is the Ancient Israel. We are a part of the people of God, like Moses was a part of it.

> absurd because 2/3 of the Bible were already perfectly known and cataloged by and for the people of God before the birth of Christ.

No, we decided also which books will be part of the OT.

The Orthodox took some too many, we so and so, and the protties said:"let's rely on what the pharisees did, they will be right".

>the church first received the Scriptures

We never received the Scriptures, they did not fall from the sky, nor did God write them.

We compiled them, the scripture receives its authority from the Church.

> It's dishonoring to those Christians to try and force them into ecclesiastical categories that simply did not exist in their day,

And the Church of today has differences to the Church from the medieval era, it is the exact same Church however.

In the same way it is the early Church too.

> The church is not the source of the scriptures, God is

This is just not the historical reality.

>Do not bear false witness you viper.

Have a nice day.

>A fringe group that arose in the mid twentieth century is not an example of Protestants flocking to bad translations.

Luther himself started with this.

>>5337

>My answer would be, so what.

There is a Church that God founded and promised to keep intact. That's what.

>There is no hint given in scripture that such a thing as "apostolic authority" is passed down from an apostle to the people who he anoints as the elder of a church.

That's how the apostles did it.

That's what the Church always believed.

Anathema.

>>5338

>This is the best way of viewing it. Anglicans also claim Apostolic succession which is at least as valid as Rome's.

The Anglican Church has no apostolic succession.

>>5307

>Both Protestants and Catholics err in their idea that the Bible is anywhere near infallibility. Only one example is required to show that it is not, but I'll give a few more:

These are no errors, the Church was aware of this when it compiled the bible.

One of the reasons for doing it like this was probably to prevent literalism.

> not realising that making the Holy Spirit contradict the Holy Spirit should not happen.

That's why dogma does not contradict scripture.

>Catholics are wrong to assume that only experts with the Holy Spirit can say anything truthful; confirmation bias is not the Holy Spirit. Truth is truth, no matter who says it.

Relying on the Holy Spirit is the better aproach imo. God is the only thing reliable in this whole cold world.

>>5337

> If your church can be demonstrated to either be neglectful of or in direct contradiction to the teachings of the apostles

The methods of the Church are apostolic and the apostles have never been infallible.

Even Peter was corrected by Paul and don't get me started on Judas.

>The Arian bishops and pope of the early church who persecuted Athanasius were much more closer to the apostles and could claim an even more direct and clear line to the apostles than any modern pope or bishop could

No they were apostates.

They were not part of the Church and never will be, it's a tragedy.

>If a direct line of succession does exist, if it does nto actually benefit the church in any way by protecting it then what purpose or good does it do the church?

This is not how apostolic succession works.

You said yourself that the apostles made mistakes and did also bad stuff, but still they were the apostles and the valid Church of Christ.

Same with us, we are still the apostles successors and make mistakes and are still the one true Church.

> corruption of the Roman Catholic church in the medieval period

Our modern idea of corruption is not very old.

A man that takes care of his family instead of going full efficiency mode was nothing evil back in the day.

According to me it still isn't, and I'd prefer him to the modern man any time of the day.

But Simony is bad of course, and that's why it is condemned as a sin.

>There is no hint given in scripture that such a thing as "apostolic authority" is passed down from an apostle to the people who he anoints as the elder of a church

That's how the apostles have done it, it doe not need to be in the bible, why should it even be?

>Why would the elders anointed by Peter in Rome have any more authority over those he anointed in Cyprus except for the reason that Rome was politically stronger than Cyprus.

Because Rome is Peters bishopry and he was the head of the Church.

>s because no major Christian episcopal see existed and not by any virtue of any mandate from the Apostles.

Our success proves our mandate from the apostles. If the others were right, they would be the major "Church".

Quatro Post

>>5341

>He left out books and more importantly translated wrongly in order to fit his "Sola I'm right " agenda.

Here Romans 3,28.

Luther Bibel 1984

So halten wir nun dafür, dass der Mensch gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben

>allein durch den Glauben

=sola fide

Einheitsübersetzung

Denn wir sind der Überzeugung, dass der Mensch gerecht wird durch Glauben, unabhängig von Werken des Gesetzes.

>durch den Glauben

= fide

Here he added the sola and changed the Bible to fit his agenda. When asked why he did this he responded: "IT is like it was always read", especially rich if we remember that he wanted to abolish tradition as a source of morals.

>>5371

>If you aren't willing to deal with Sola Scriptura as it actually is rather than how it is conveneitn for you to truncate it then you demonstrate a complete disregard for meaningful or truthful discussion.

I just cannot regard an authority with much respect in theological matters if it is like this. I literally can say screw the anglican teaching I know it better for reasons and this would be fine.

>The Roman Catholic church is not the Levitical priesthood, it does not operate under it's laws and regulations and it does not worship God or experience atonement in the same manner. Calling them the same church is absurd on every way you could evaluate their relation. There is a meaningful distinction between the old-testament believers and those who come after Christ's work on the cross.

Yes. With time things change, human traditions change. But we are the very same people of God regardless of these changes.

We have the new covenant that replaced the old one, I think this should suffice.

>When, where and who did it.

The Church as a whole in a process that was finished at about 400AD.

But most of it was done before. Origen tells us about all of the canonised books of the bible in 230 essentially.

With the emerging of the Vulgata by Hieronymus everything was clear essentially in 400AD.

>We know the Roman Catholic church made no official pronouncement on the Canon until Trent, that is a fact of history.

It made the Vulgata, isn't this enough? What do you expect?

Back then everyone still knew about the authority of the Church, so when she made the bible everyone knew that this is what we need to go by, not to decide by oneself which are to be taken and which are not.

>Yes but the bulk of Scripture was fully recognized without any official declaration of their authenticity.

The bulk of the OT, and even there there had been significant controversies.

>Then you deny that 1 Timothy 3:16 is true.

Are we playing the scripture game now?

And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

What do you want to say to me? Isn't this verse talking about Jesus? How does this contradict me?

>I agree, this is evidenced that the Roman Catholic church does not have an unbroken line of tradition but is a frankenstein of contradictory and developing lines of thought and philosophy.

No it is evidence that human traditions are a matter of time. There is no contradiction in Church doctrine or in any matter of morals or theology.

> The medieval Church would have burned Augustine at the stake for his belief in election and predestination,

We are so ebul.

Seriously, the Holy Inquisition was still no bad thing. What was bad was what happened in England at that time. Puritanism, icon clashing and other barbarism.

>If a difference in practice and theology are not sufficient enough to demonstrate

There is o difference in theology and the differences in practice are superficial and natural.

>church that wields them to the point of abuse, raising armies and slaughtering villages of so determined "heretics" to every woman and child found there-in are the same church

Some epic revisionism here.

>So you deny 2 Peter 1:20-21?

I do not know the exact rules of the scripture game. Do I "win" after two verses in a row or do I have to show you some verses too?

Or do I rearrange them or something, or look up rhymes to the verses you post?

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

This is 100% affirming the position of the Church as being moved by the Spirit and not a multitude of individuals that make up interpretations for themselve.

>Luther's translation is considered to be one of the most masterful translations of the scriptures into the German language.

By whom?

>Would you commit the same error

He did not commit an error. He deliberately translated it wrong to fit his agenda. When people asked him for arguments for sola scriptura he came up with this verse that he forged. This is betrayal.

Look it up, there is no "only" in the KJV.

Romans 3,28 KJV

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

Douay Rheims

For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

NRSV

For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

Luther was a liar that deceived people.

>Vulgate onlyist

Here you go

arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis

>per fidem

>no sola fide

>The recorded word of God speaks nothing of a transferrel of apostolic authority from singular bishop to singular bishop.

The apostles did.

>So Rome claims without any evidence other than it's own "tradition"

It is decreed by Church authority, the same authority that made the bible.

>Document it.

That people believed in apostolic succession in the early Church?

Here you go, long done:

>>591

>>592

>>593

Here's the important link from the second post before you complain:

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_apostolic_succession.htm

>>5372

>the majority of the ancient church in Athanasius day embraced Arianism.

Majorities are meaningless in matters of morals and faith.

>How can you be certain Athanasius was not the heretic?

Because the Church has made the case clear. Arianismwas a dangerous heresy as was showed there and as is protestantism since some hundred years now.

>If you rely on human tradition as your standard of truth then you have no objective means by which to evaluate which tradition is correct and which one isn't.

At first you said that we would not stay true to our tradition?

Anyway, human tradition is exactly that, human. It can be changed by the humans that made it. Theology is different.

>It is not the same because you are assuming that such a thing as apostolic succession exists. you are assuming your conclusion not actually providing evidence for it.

Previous post.

>Purchasing the see the Rome for a 12 year old isn't corruption? turning the vatican into a literal whore-house is not corruption?

>Are you unaware of the gross pornocracy of the church that occured in the 10th through 15th centuries?

None of this does matter at all.

>Document it, we know what the apostles did after the death ofChrist, it is called the Acts of the Apostles

Seriously? Do you think all they have done is in there? Why should it be? Also it is doubtful how much they actually were involved in this.

>Because without any infallible source for this knowledge

That's why we don''t do that, but rely on the magisterium.

>and the ecclesiology given int he new-testament does not speak anywhere of the existence of episcopal sees.

So what.

>But the fact is Mathew 16:18 isn't about Petrine primacy it is about the identity of the son of man, from beginning to end.

How is Peter giving the key related to the identity of Jesus?

>What about the success of Protestantism or the success of the Eastern Orthodox or the Success of the non-chalcedonian church.

They are not really a success. They are meaningless compared to us. Even all of them combined.

>How can I not make the claim that because Protestantism was not eradicated by Roman oppression it demonstrates that the Protestant church is God's remnant in an old-testament fashion where the major religious power in the world has become an abomination to God?

Oh protestantism has already lost, it is just a matter of time by now. All protestant nations are becoming more and more secular and abandoning the faith. Faster than the RCC could even imagine.

>the Protestant church is God's remnant in an old-testament fashion where the major religious power in the world has become an abomination to God?

We are no abomination firstly. Secondly this cannot happen because the gates of hell will not prevail against us and protestants are not even in apostolic succession so they can barely make the claim.

> How can you say Simony is a sin when the success of the simonists can be said to prove their true and just practices?

Simony was not very successful, it was practiced by bad people and lead to major evils.

>>5207

>>5214

Anderson uses the KJV, that doesn't mean he thinks it's the only good bible translation. The key point is that it is based on textus receptus. There are bibles in almost every language translated from the textus receptus. Everyone everywhere used textus receptus bibles until about the turn of 19th century. You have been misinformed or you are willfully ignorant.

>>5411

> Anderson uses the KJV, that doesn't mean he thinks it's the only good bible translation.

Eh, I'd say he does, as his interview with Dr. James White showed Anderson believes that any true Christian will recognize the KJV as the current infallible record of Scripture even above other English translations such as the ESV, NASB or NIV. He described it as a person being able to learn truth and be saved with the alternate translations but the moment they read or hear from the KJV if they are truly Christian they will recognize it's divine character, going so far as to say he would doubt the salvation of anyone who did not have that response when hearing the KJV.

> Everyone everywhere used textus receptus bibles until about the turn of 19th century.

There isn't one Textus Receptus, there are multiple editions of Erasmus' greek new testament and as I've described briefly in one of my posts in this thread that they contain certain readings such as the Comma Johanneum (in a different form than even appears in the majority text) and the Pericope Adulterae which are generally indefensible as being original to the text.

Erasmus and other 16th and 17th century compilers of the greek new-testament simply did not have the wealth of early manuscript evidence that we have today to work from, they could not benefit from the Nag Hamadi or Qumran discoveries and while the the Textus Receptus was well and goof in it's day considering the resources that erasmus had at his disposal, it simply cannot compete with the modern critical text.

>>5414

>Eh, I'd say he does, as his interview with Dr. James White showed Anderson believes that any true Christian will recognize the KJV as the current infallible record of Scripture even above other English translations such as the ESV, NASB or NIV.

There are many more English Bible translations. If you watch some of his videos that are specifically about this subject you will see he talk about tons of Bibles, both in English and in all kinds of other languages that are completely fine. What is important is if the New Testament is majority text or westcott-hort. None of those Bible translations you mentioned were translated from the majority text

>the wealth of early manuscript evidence that we have today to work from, they could not benefit from the Nag Hamadi or Qumran discoveries

They are obviously a bunch of fakes, if you have read anything about them or their quality you would have known this. Believing these are the correct ones is akint to believing all the gnostic texts that were found as well.

>>5415

> What is important is if the New Testament is majority text or westcott-hort.

The Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority text in areas as I pointed out in my post. What's confusing about your post is that the Textus Receptus differs significantly from the Westcott-Hort greek new testament the WH text is dependent upon Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which do not contain the Pericope Adulterae. Siniaiticus being discovered in the 19th century is evidence for my position that the Textus Receptus is weaker than the modern critical text. Majority text manuscripts are almost set up by definition to come from the middle ages and have much later dates attatched to them. This is why the Nestle-Aland critical text utilizes an eclectic strategy for it's compilation, so that it can make use of the earliest known manuscripts of the the new and old testament.

> They are obviously a bunch of fakes,

Obviously fake? You're telling me a bunch of Egyptian farmers decided on a whim to falsify several thousand pages of papyri copies of new and old testament documents among other very obscure gnostic and pseudo-christian texts in period accurate koine greek, aramaic and hebrew using period accurate writing techniques and utensils and then took the time to falsely age them so as to to pass dating tests that could falsify their accuracy for seemingly no benefit to themselves?

Those are obviously fake? Get out of here with that, you might aswell be telling me the moon really is made out of cheese.

> . Believing these are the correct ones is akint to believing all the gnostic texts that were found as well.

I believe they are authentic Gnostic and mystical jewish texts from the third century BC to the 4th century AD. Their authenticity as ancient manuscripts doesn't make their content true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

>>5420

>>5393

>I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I was just correcting a misunderstanding or misphrasing of Sola Scriptura. I think you're trying to address something here I wasn't speaking to, otherwise I just can't make heads or tells of what you're trying to say.

An authority that can be ignored without consequences, like the Anglican Church, is no authority at all for me.

Is there a single reason to be anglican and not non-denominational? Isn't it more like something people are just used to by now?

>I'm not talking about the identity of the people of God I'm talking about the specfic ecclesiological framework of the Roman Catholic church.

I think we agree then somehow.

>That if the content of scripture gains legitimacy by it's recognition by the magisterial authority of the Roman church that church should be able to produce an early dogmatic and defining proclamation of the content of scripture.

There could have been one, but it was not necessary. I see no problem here.

>Back then there was no singular Bishop in Rome who claimed infallibility in matters of faith or declared primacy of his office over every other bishop in the Christian world,

He claimed primacy, but not like it is today, yes.

But I think that this is not really making a point.

>These aren't theological issues?

Not really, the devil is in the details, most actual things can be perverted into evil.

> Purgatory that could be lessened with the purchase of indulgences

This is not really how it was, but that's a different topic.

>Why don't you actually meaningfully address my criticism rather than handwave the fact that Augustine does not agree with the Roman Catholic church on a point which the Roman Catholic church used to justify it's decleration of the Swiss reformers as heretics and by which it put it's foot down on Augustinian minded Catholics like the Jansenists?

I think this went too far off of sola scriptura by now and we should make an own thread about heresy if you want to continue this.

>Are you unaware of the Albigensian crusade? The slaughter of Beziers? This isn't revisionism this is history, you can ignore it because it highlights the moral destitution of the Papal office but ignoring it doesn't erase it from the record of history.

I do not think that fighting heresy is or was a bad thing, there were sure some bad actions commited by individuals that happened, but in general it was necessary.

>I'm not playing a scripture game I'm citing my sources, if you want to say that the scriptures are not a legitimate source for Christian belief and doctrine you are going to put yourself in opposition with Rome on that point.

The bible is a long, long book, I'm sure that I can justify anything with it if I pick my own translation and interpret it by myself.

>This establishes that the source of the authority of Scripture is not the church but the Holy Spirit.

It is by the Church through the Holy Spirit.

Not all bibles can be accurate and fine because they differ so much, only the "right" ones can be guided by the Spirit.

>>5396

>So you have 2 examples that ostensibly support the claim, 3 that aren't even addressing the subject and 1 that outright contradicts it.

I do not necessaryly agree with your interpretation of the above and still think it conveys a good picture of the idea of apostolic authority in the Early Church.

>>5397

>Except you directly claim that the success of the Roman Catholic church verifies it's claims. You are being so baldly inconsistent I have to wonder if you aren't trolling me.

In this very case because the success of the Church was promised. It is no water proof argument and if we weren't this superior in numbers I would not bring it up.

>But so called “sacred tradition” speaks on theological matters and it is on the grounds of tradition that the marian dogmas were recognized the belief in which is necessary to be apart of the Church outside of which no slavation can be found. If that isn't a theological issue I do not know what is.

Sacred tradition is not exactly human tradition. IE the bible does not change as sacred tradition, while mass as human one can.

>Yes it does because if it can be shown that the papacy is either itself not congruent with apostolic teachings or is installed outside of proper apostolic example then it shows that the modern papacy by it's own standards and traditions is not the legitimate successor of Peter as it so defines the office.

Why should bad stuff done by the papacy prove that it is not apostolic? The apostles have done lots of bad stuff and they still were the apostles.

>It's directly relevant to the issue.

How?

>If the Roman Catholic church desires to bring in alternate sources of information for things not contained in the scripture it must be seen as a fallible source capable of being in error as well as congruent with what is known to be truth from God.

No bacause the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals as a whole.

>It is doubtful how much they were involved in what? Are you saying the book of Acts is a forgery?

I do not exactly think that the book of John was written by John for instance.

>But the Magisterium claims the pope can speak infallibly on matters of faith, how are you not in the same problem you find with finding scripture infallible.

Scripture is infallible,I accept this. But sola scriptura is a silly concept, as is literalism.

>Well we are debating the legitimacy of the construct of episcopal sees as they relate to the legitimacy of the church. The new testament does describe the ecclesiology of the church broadly and so any absolute claim regarding them that can't be found in scripture is setting up seats of power and offices of church authority which the apostles cannot be documented to have established.

Obviously the administration of the Church was different 1500 years ago. This seems not spectucalar to me.

>>5212

mainly inasmuch as all translations are faulty. Most all translations of any large text, really.