/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why do people still propagate such strawmen?

Some people think the word == the bible. Very silly though

Why do so many catholics think Dante's Inferno is canon?

People think all sorts of things.

Why do Catholics like OP bear false witness?

Sage for romanism.

Not the bible, but the law and commandments

Why do protestants think Jesus failed to establish His Church on earth?

>>263377

>his church, it remains on earth today and consists of all sincere believers from a variety of protestant denominations

So His Church consists of a bunch of contraditory, unbiblical, mutually exclusive false doctrines?

Made flesh? That sounds more like a Catholic thing. They're like obsessed with flesh.

>>263717

Wouldn't be surprise if they think the bible in that perspective, because, you know, Catholics are wanna-be cannibals and everything.

>>263717

>>263759

Please tell me you're just being ironic

ha true i was totally thinking this when watching some anderson vids recently

i realized that jesus is the word incarnate; so does that make the bible jesus?

the cooler way to think of it is like the matrix

and the code for jesus' body would be all scripture

>>263233

None do though

>>264103

none + ones I met that thought so. So there you go.

>>264108

>>263233

It's just very good fanfic

Christ is the living word of God, the bible is the written word of God.

Always keep in mind the meaning of the term "word," as pertaining to speech.

There's something i want to know.

Since many protestants claim that the Bible is the 100% complete, one-to-one written word of God, how does one justify the fact that the Bible itself states that it is physically impossible to fully archive all of the words and deeds of Christ Jesus (who is traditionally held to be the Word of God incarnate)?

Would that not make the one-to-one claim inherently false?

>>264552

We believe not that every word which Christ spoke is archived in the scripture, but that it is an accurate and sufficient record.

No one believes that the Jesus only spoke the words we have written down, and for 99.999% of the 33 years He was on this earth He was a mute. That's absurd.

>(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

>{16} All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

>{17} That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God gave us all that we need to know in the Bible, no more, and no less.

>>265195

The original straw man argument that we think Jesus only spoke the words written in the Bible is what I was refuting, not the doctrine of tradition.

The verse I quoted should be enough to demonstrate that if all we had was the Bible, and no external tradition tied to it then we would have all that was necessary for salvation, and holiness.

This basic statement of course does not nullify traditions role in the church.

>>265200

>The verse I quoted should be enough to demonstrate that if all we had was the Bible, and no external tradition tied to it then we would have all that was necessary for salvation, and holiness.

The bible is too infallible on its own to do this.

All the different American heresies are enough proof of that.

Man if I just start talking with 5 different protestants I know I'll get 5 different denominations.

The bible was compiled with the help of the Holy Spirit to be used with the Holy Tradition.

>>265201

>implying the scripture didn't exist before it was compiled

Because no canon was set back then, nobody had a perfect bible as we know it.

Some missed books because they weren't deemed canon, some had extra books they deemed canon, some had wholly different books that were deemed canon but now aren't.

The chances of a parish having an exact bible weer very slim.

Most people including priests and bishops wouldn't even know the bible like we do. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that scripture is profitable, not sufficient.

>implying that because we can read now but they couldn't, therefore we shouldn't trust what we read

No, I am implying that because most christians couldn't read or even afford a bible untill the 19th century nobody was saved because they couldn't adhere to sola scriptura at all and were fully dependend of Holy Tradition.

>>265205

>strawman: the post

Implying I ever said "sola scriptura"

>>265212

"The bible is sufficient" is exactly what sola scriptura means.

>The Bible is the "Word of God"

>Jesus is the "Word Made Flesh"

>[a general failure in logic]

>Jesus is the Bible made flesh

>>265292

a = b

b = c

a = c

??

>>263373

He didn't fail, men are just crafty and corrupt it from the inside.

>>265212

> then we would have all that was necessary for salvation, and holiness.

>then we would have all that was necessary for salvation, and holiness.