Search results

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true". 2. A question: I notice that while many Christians affirm this principle of "sola scriptura" Catholics...

Not sure what your question is -- are you asking if Mark 7 includes Mark 16?

There is another thread that is so general in its topic regarding the RCC that almost anything would qualify. I am taking one subject from it for this thread. That subject is "sola scriptura". 1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see...

This thread has such a generalized title/subject that almost any topic on something you don't or do like about the RCC qualifies.

And "still" it is a "sin to take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 even for Christians... even in the NT.

you make good points but that part about the "son of man" you might want to rethink it because in Daniel 7 was see "the Son of Man" coming to the "Ancient of Days" - with the "Clouds of heaven". So Jesus' use of that term might have been a higher claim than just "another guy" :)

They were addressed in #862 And by the fact that it is not "surprising" that people differ. It is also not surprising to find that some of those who accept the Bible as "The Word of God" tell other people read it and accept what it says.

as for the wild speculation that the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" is mere "fairy tale" we have this response Good point. No wonder the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura" Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation. Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and...

Paul said "after my departure wolves will come in" Acts 20 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in...

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation. Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation "20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this...

On that one particular "week day 1" they are gathered "BECAUSE" Paul was going to leave. Not "on the Lord's Day" Not "on the Christian Sabbath" But "on week-day-1" And the "reason" is "because Paul going to leave" instead "because we gather every week-day-1 which we now call the LORD's Day in...

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"??? You appear to be inserting the idea that "sola scriptura cannot possibly include searching what we call today - the OT -- to test doctrine"...

as for the "second blessing" idea 1. All of the Apostles were baptized only by John - none of them were baptized by Christ. They were in the same condition as those that Paul finds in Acts 19. 2. All of the 11 Apostles of Acts 1 - had been sent out in Mathew 10 with spiritual gifts - " 8...

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation. Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation "20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this...

Because things like "sola scriptura" as we see it demonstrated by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 and also in Acts 17:11 practice even by non-Christians to determine if one of the first-order Apostles was teaching truth or false-doctrine, means that just about anybody could "test" RCC doctrine and...

1. What passes for the "gift of tongues" today is not even remotely what we find in the Bible in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12, 1 Cor 14. 2. I do not speak in tongues (the real Bible version of it) nor do I have the gift of interpretation. Not an option in your poll -- but I think a great many Christians...

Good point. In fact if one were to take the time to actually "read" the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-33 would show up. And that says "this IS the Covenant.. I will write My LAW on their heart and mind". So then as you point out - simply replacing "LAW" with "Old Covenant" would turn it into "I...

The bottom line. 1. The NEW Covenant is in the OLD Testament - Jeremiah 31:31-33 2. It does not say what many have imagined it to say. 3. It is the "one Gospel" of Gal 1:6-9 4. It remains "unchanged" in the NT - see Hebrews 8:6-10

Would have been a bit more impressive had you demonstrated inclination to look at the actual texts under discussion.

Hint: if you are searching for credibility - start by actually reading the OP before wildly speculating that those texts do not exist. (aside from a few pointless rants against the Adventist denomination you have had a hard time being focused on the actual Word of God ... rather than...