jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I answered this in "Detail" at least three times over the last few months... Which I might add you never replied to. Your blatant dishonesty..

In spite of your failed replies I again answered this in detail. You asked TexaCan the very same questions, you'll find it there.


I have to laugh at you playing the victim of an insult to TexaCan by me.... I should go back a few months to current and post your insults to myself and other Christians addressing you.
How many pages would your insults add up to?
70? 100? 200?

Your victim-hood of an insult from me... The definition of hypocrisy times one hundred.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Your ignorance of facts is embarrassing.

For the tenth time I answered this again, just now to Doc110.

As usual your reply to facts, evidence and truth will be insults and crickets on the topic.
Your behavior and replies are that of a leftist.

Radiance3

============
JACK SEQUIM, you may know very well about your Sola Scriptura, but your Scriptura is a fake document unauthorized by Christ. You don't find Sola Scriptura in the Bible. Why? Because it is man-made created with various revisions, omissions, and transformation that met the ideology of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli 500 years ago.

Sola Scriptura was NOT authorized by Christ to spread, to teach, and to proclaim, to continue the Gospel. It was the One True Catholic Church authorized by Christ thru Saint Peter and unto the Apostles and Saints, then brought to Rome by Saint Peter to build the Church of Christ as He said. "You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not overpower it." Matthew 16:18.

The Catholic Church as authorized by Christ has the Holy Scriptures, the Sacred Traditions, and the Magisterium.

I am an Auditor, When I find document not authorized, or authorized by the wrong officer, I throw them out. Invalid documents are fraudulent and illegal as far as my audit is concerned. I am for accuracy and validity. Doc110 has been always correct.

All you do is big mouth if you can't substantiate correctly your claims. You have the filthiest mouth I've ever encountered at OPP. Is that Christian? You must be a son of Lucifer! I don't associate with wicked people. Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man who does not keep the company of the wicked.

Peace be with you. And have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Rose42

It's in there. Look at Psalm 19 for starters starting at verse 7.

A happy and blessed Thanksgiving to you Radiance!

bahmer

I see that you are still in attack mode there Doc110. Evidently you finally got the message that it was padremike that brought up the running water issue and not Rose42 and of coarse your apologies were all accepted by both Rose42 and myself for you being stubborn and bull headed and not reading the entire statement that you were responding to. You have no room to critisie others on here with your attitude and anger. Just remember that pride goeth before a fall.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Once again you never examined the evidence, had you your reply would have reflected. You continue to use false catholic information.
Because the Catholic church says...
But when it comes to the Catholic church asking its members to stop using the false 33,000 you even disregard your own church's request.
Futher proving the depths of your dishonesty.

In a word or compressed definition Sola scripture means the Bible is the inspired word of God. Which the Catholic church doctrine agrees with. But they have to disagree so that they can include their false oral doctrine.
Protestant Christians have been the same for nearly 2000, the Christian body of Christ.

Now go read the evidence I posted or continue blind faith in Satan's counterfeit catholic religion that adobted pagan and satanic rituals.
Kiss the ring of your child rapist pope with the many paths he claims to salvation, the pope that claims you can reject God, reject the work Jesus did on the cross but if your a good person you too will be saved.
Blind faith in man made and satanic doctrine, the pope is a one way ticket to hell.

The pope claims "popes are God's"

Only a satanic false doctrine claims its leader of the church is god, that is the definition of an antichrist.

This is a claim” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.
Pope Pius V was Pope from 1566 to 1572.

Do you believe the pope is god on earth?

At which point do you disagree with what the pope says? What does Catholic doctrine say about members disagreeing with the Pope?

The pope claims that Catholics, Muslims Christ
pray to the same God.....

Now you have to believe everything the pope says, right?


Pope says that gays are made by God that way, who is he to judge.. Wow pope the God on earth said it, you best believe it.

Satan's counterfeit religion sending souls to hell.

Happy Thanksgiving

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Quick question, you said the Bible is fake? Do you really believe the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

Rose42

Did I get a quote wrong or something? I believe it is 100% true and is the inspired word of God.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Opps, that was not meant for you, rather one incapable of grasping the meaning of Sola scripture.

I enjoy reading your post, we all are learning from them.

In his Service,
God Bless

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Quick question, you said the Bible is fake? Do you really believe the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

If you do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, then you also must believe the proper application of Sola scripture.....
Which then places you in the same perplexity as the Roman Catholic church.... Hmmm

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not. Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6). It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word. Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12 Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.

Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the Bible

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

Radiance3, see where you have a perplexity?

Radiance3

================

Jack Sequim, you can copy and paste lengthy narratives on your post, but I won’t take any of your answers based on Sola Scriptura.

I have explained to you many times, that though your Scriptures were like the original copied from the Catholic Bible,without authority, I won’t consider that as valid. I was an Auditor remember. I only consider authentic documents.

From the beginning when Christ started creation of the doctrine, the Catholic Universal church was the authorized body to create, to distribute, to preach, to share, to interpret the Gospel. That was done through Saint Peter. Your Sola Scriptura is NOT in the Bible. Though copied from the Catholic Bible but incomplete.

Your Sola Scriptura is the one that makes you puzzled or confused.

And don’t tell me I am a liberal. I am an ultra-conservative in every stage of my life including politics. You’ve accused me to belong to the left? Funny. Fact of the matter is I am actively supporting the Office of the President at the WH since 2017. I am one of the authorized “Presidential Advisory Board”. I have an ID for that. I regularly send messages to the president for advice or material issues I want to present. I am not a liberal.

On the contrary your Sola Scriptura appears like Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate.

Have a good evening.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack, one of these things that is a disturbing trends and pattern, is that you “cut and paste” the article that are clearly not your words and is not your writing style demeanor.



Why is it, that you can’t put your thoughts to paper and text ?

Hmmmmmmm ?

Very disingenuous . . . Jack ! ! !

This is the same Protestant evasive pattern and argumentation prices that you have posted before, on various other threads posts.

The article that you post does not answer my question, that I’ve given to you, which I specific and repeatedly asked you?

Now who is snowballing who ? on the OPP religious post and this thread ?

Why does this Website articles have no URL web addresses listed ?

Are you afraid that it will expose you for your deceitful anti-Catholics denigration ?

That the URL web address is a Notorious anti-Catholic propaganda website that promotes religious bigotry about the Catholics Church, Catholic doctrine-theology and religious Catholic philosophies ?

Jack why are you concealing the identity of the mysterious URL website addresses, where you’re getting this information from ? You clearly didn’t write the article.

That this is just another attempt to sandbag me, placate religious sense-ability and the questions that I ask.

In Which, you can’t answer the questions ?


These are not your words, or you do a great job of plagiarism ?

Jack, Try to explain your self-made “Man-Made” Doctrine of Sola Scriptura in your own words, and not some website posted regurgitate diatribe compost.

As I said you are a pretentious undermining Protestant sandbagger as is Zemirah is also in her articles and comments.

Downright conniving and miserable people you both are . . .

You may try and denigrate me with cruel sadistic words and comments.

But don’t even try denigrating my Catholic faith and Catholic one true apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ, taught by his 12 Apostles, taught to the early church fathers, taught to the Pope’s and the Bishops, the Cardinals the Priests, the Deacons, the brothers and sisters and to the Catholic laity.

This is where you Jack do not cross the Catholic Church boundary lines.

Firstly, this is very religiously disconcerting because that’s what you do and what you say when you comment in you’re replys.

You topically evade the questions that I specific ask. Continually. . .

Secondly, Protestants like yourself are all about the Bible alone.

If it’s not in the Bible Scripture then it has no meaning to your faith.

If that’s the case jack prove it, and do it honestly and fairly.

Where is Sola Scriptura found in the Bible ? and where is it taught in the Bible ?

Thirdly, So if Jesus, the apostles, the early church fathers, didn’t teach Sola Scriptura then it negates you’re Protestant doctrine theory. And the Protestant man-Made theology, religious philosophy, Protestant biblical revisionism and modern day Protestant relativism.

Fourthly, since the council of Nicaea AD 397 the completed codified Bible and did not teach Sola Scriptura and subsequent church ecumenical council did-not also teach Sola Scriptura.

Where did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other Protestant theologians magicaly teaching and pull out of the hat, Sola Scriptura ?

Surprise, surprises, surprise. . .

Fifthly, Throughout 20 centuries 1,987 years of Christian successions of Pope’s, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Teligious Church Brothers-Friars, Church Nuns-Sisters and the Catholic laity theologians and the Catholic laity members.

Sola Scriptura can-not be found in the Holy Bible scripture.

Where specifically did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and other Protestant doctrine-theologians magically come up with Sola Scriptura Doctrinally And this non-biblical nonsense?

Sola Scriptura, is a defensive theological position that Protestant fall back on when cornered on revisionist pratices.

And why the Catholic Church doctrine, theology and religious philosophy, questions man-made doctrine from Sola Scriptura.

It’s all about the new modern man-made Protestantism Relativism.

Lastly, Where do you come up with this bogus articles anti-Catholic articles?

Jack they do not even address the scope of the questions that I’m asking.

Specifically Which is the Church bible and Church historical facts and the Churches oral and traditions questions the validity of Sola Scriptura. . .

Catholics and the Church doctrine and theology, church philosophy have been consistently the same when the True Church was instituted by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church is a wide and deep flowing river of knowledge that is built upon the three legged chair.

A. the Holy Scripture e.g. New and Old Testament and is not contradictory and the Magisterium teaching does not contradict the Old and New Testament Catholic Cannon Bible.

Catholics bibles have 73 books the Protestant bible has 66 books.

What ecumenical church authority removed the six Books, chapters and scriptural verses.

These Man-Made decisions e.g. we’re made by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other biblical Revisionists.

B. the Bible, Church Sacred Traditions e.g. Church history, oral traditions, Church ecumenical council, Church Liturgy and written historical theological manuscripts etc.

C. the Catholic Magisterium the Teaching Arm of the Catholic Church. Doctrine, theology, philosophy and the Catholic lay Catechism etc.

The living breathing Catholic Church with the Holy Spirit, is infallible because the church founded by Jesus Christ is protected till the end of the earth.

Jesus said in Matthew 16:17-19


Really, do you expect me to believe this reply of yours, and to accept this fake article ? And the Protestant premises on church doctrine and Sola Scriptura ?

1. Did Jesus Christ teach sola Scriptura.
Yes or no ? Documentation?

2. Did the Apostles teach sola Scriptura.
Yes or no ? Documentation?

3. Did the early church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura ?
Yes or no ? Documentation?

4. Did any of the Pope’s, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Brothers, Sisters and Church lay members teach sola Scriptura ?
Yes or no ? Documentation ?

Did the Church Ecumenical councils espouse Sola Scriptura ?
Yes or no ? Documentation ?

Jack all you have provided is a convoluted description and a biblical Protestant narrative.

Historicaly this can-not be proven, these verses did not com from Luther, Calvin or Zwingli or other reformers.

Again this is a man-made shallow justification for sola Scriptura . . .

Doc110

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Then I would have to be blunt and say your reply is..... A Droid cult follower lacking intelligence or common sense.

"I'm an auditor"
Your less than poor in your profession incapable of reading supported by God's word.

Pope said Jesus was born in Rome.

Scripture says..... Radiance3 says "I can't accept your evidence Jesus was not born in Rome because the Catholic church has not sanctioned your evidence"

Can you not see that is a Droid cult follower EXACTLY the same as Mormons.

Pope's believe they are God on earth.... That is a satanic blasphemy lie, but your OK with that because the Catholic church has sanctioned anything the pope says.

Brainwashed?
Insecure follower?
Willing to trade your soul to belong to something?
Droid thought process?

Your replying EXACTLY how a leftist responds to evidence if climate change. Do you realize what others must think reading your replies?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

How old are you?
You used a lot of space "cut and paste" url

That's a juvenile response when one cannot respond to "CONTENT"

Ronald McDonald wrote it. Your hiding an argument because you cannot refute the content backed by scripture.

Some Bible studies take days, weeks, and even months depending on subject matter. Do you seriously believe that every question will wait for a week to respond or use work that is already completed. Your the dishonest person deflecting the content. I never said "see what I wrote to you", much of my post are work I have done and others work I always have said " refer to what I posted.

Doc110 you took up over a dozen paragraphs not replying to the content that using God's word vilifies Sola scripture and if you read it you will see the Catholic church's position differs from yours.

Didn't you get the memo.... Catholic church ask you stop using the false 33000 denominations number. Oh, didn't you read the link?
You don't read and examine evidence anyone gives you. It's evident you do a scan and as usual write several insults and demeaning comments, never, never referencing the evidence.

You must realize what others think of you after reading the evidence and then reading your replies...

Doc110, what specifically in the evidence of Sola scripture that I posted do you not agree with?

Do you believe the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

How about trying this again. Read the evidence "Content".

Using scripture the false teaching of the Catholic church is revealed or you must believe the Bible is not inspired (God breathed).