Books Outside the Bible

[BobRyan]

Allow me to clarify, because the sola scripturists don't get it. If scripture alone is the sole rule of faith, then there should be a "rule of faith" over what books belong in the Bible.

Actually that is merely a "game" Catholics play. No truth to it.

We see Isaiah 8:20 another great example of the Bible rule demanding "sola scriptura testing" that comes "without a complete index to all books of the Bible". The much-made-up-rule that Catholics invent here -- is merely "a game" for them - it has nothing to do with accurate Bible rendering of the text or logic.

 

[BobRyan]

Using sola Scriptura please list the books that you are required to have in your bible to adhere to the full Truth of God.....

Mary

Games are irrelevant and everyone knows the NT saints were reading long before the RCC was invented.

We also know that the Jews - not the Catholics - wrote the OT. And we know that their own first century historian Josephus tells us they had no books added to the Bible after the time of Malachi (400 years before Christ)

That ends your entire "books of the Bible" rabbit trail. Back to doctrine.

I am glad I was able to show you how sola Scriptura, an unbiblical belief you have held onto for years, is self refuting.

Your welcome.....

Your imagination at that point is not the compelling response you may have at first imagined it to be.

Acts 17:11

Got it....You can't use your own theory (sola Scriptura) to back up what you believe.

interesting fiction.

1. Acts 17:11 is not my statement - its God's . You will just have to deal with it. Mark 7:6-13 Christ shows just how that is done. End of story.
2. Sola Scriptura is not refuted by the fact that all NT texts were completed AND being read long BEFORE there ever was an RCC. Not sure how this escapes you.
3. Sola Scriptura is not refuted by the fact that the Hebrew Bible was fully canonized before the time of Christ - before there was an RCC..Not sure how this escapes you.

You could always "pretend not to notice details" but then.. I will keep bringing them up by way of "response".


This is not the hard part.

Hi.

Acts 17:11 does not contain a list of books that belong in the bible.

And it also does not name your dog or your cat for you. "Making up games" seems to be the Catholic "Answer" when they have no answer these days.

Meanwhile we DO have "They studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- the very thing Catholics imagine you cannot do without the same text giving you a list of the 66 book of scripture.

What you say cannot exist -- exists.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus redeemed and paid for (sins) of every person who ever live or will ever live, IS A FALSE STATEMENT. If that were true, no one will ever be put in hell because all of his sins have been redeemed and paid for! There is NOT one sin he will commit that will threaten him with hell.

That is the most idiotic and heretical theological statement I've ever heard.
Jesus PAID FOR ALL sins. That does NOT mean that ALL will be saved - OR forgiven.

One must REPENT and be Baptized in order to be forgiven (Acts 2:38) - and once must endure in faith to the END to be saved (Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-22, Matt. 5:13, 1 Cor. 9:27, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, Rev. 3:5).

One Baptism

which is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), never water baptism.

That's NOT what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
YOURS is yet another man-made perversion of the Gospel.

Jesus said in NO uncertain terms the one must be born again of WATER and SPIRIT to be saved. He ALSO stated that unless you are BAPTIZED you won't be saved (Mark (16:16) - and he SHOWED the Apostles that it included WATER (John 3:22). Peter stated explicitly that Baptism REQUIRES Water (1 Pet. 3:21) - and that it SAVES you.

STUDY your Bible, son . . .

Normally I would have given up trying to share with anyone the true Gospel who adamantly believes man has a part to play in his salvation, but I am compelled not to do so, or can I argue anyone to heaven.

Firstly, grace and faith is a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9), but did you know that faith is a work and is contrary to verse 9?

Secondly, you and many in Christendom, and especially those on these forums that believe man has a “free will.” Yet Jesus said, “No man can come to me unless the Father draw him” (John 6:44) and again Jesus said, “All that the Father giveth me will come to me and I will have lost none of them” (John 6:37).

But man in his arrogance and perverseness believes he has a “free will” and therefore, he believes his salvation is dependent upon his “cooperation.” Unbeknown to him he is dead in his sins and sold to Satan, therefore, spiritually dead. A dead person has no life in him let alone decide.

SALVATION AS SEEN IN THE RAISING OF LAZARUS.
Before Jesus went to the tomb He told Martha, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”

At the tomb, Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus come forth.” Can Lazarus hear the command of Jesus? Of course not he is physically dead and no life within him! But Lazarus did come forth what had to have happened? Well, Jesus had to reach into the tomb and give him life to respond!

1) As Lazarus was physically dead so are we spiritually dead.

2) As Lazarus was physically deaf so are we spiritually deaf dull in hearing the Gospel.

3) As Lazarus was physically dumb so are we spiritually dumb and no ability to speak in the things of God

4) As Lazarus was physically blind so are we spiritually blind to understand the Word of God.

5) And so on…

Now tell me, what part did Lazarus play in his raising from the dead by Jesus? None! Likewise, man in and of himself does NOT have the power to accept, believe, confess Jesus, nor cooperate with God’s grace as you have indicated! Unless it is given from above! (Matthew 3:27)

I suggest you reevaluate your stand/walk with God because you and your church’s doctrines are full of errors!

You display yourself as being one of those who is “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!”

To God Be The Glory

The Gospel is PACKED with examples of our free will - as are the Parables.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son is how you should view forgiveness and salvation - NOT in the raising of Lazarus. Lazarus's physical death and out salvation are apples and oranges. We're not talking about our physical bodies here - and that isn't very difficult for the rest of us to figure out - except YOU.

The Prodigal Son, however, is a story of sin and breaking ties with God - then repentance and forgiveness from God.
It is a story of a man's FREE WILL do do as HE CHOSE - and the circumstances that brought him to repentance.

Don't just blindly QUOTE the Bible - LEARN what it means . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Matthew 12:46 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Luke 8:19 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

Mark 3:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Matthew 13:55 New International Version (NIV)
55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Matthew 1
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.

Still waiting for you to limit error.

But then again, you were aware of these verses, but chose to avoid them.

I already pointed out your error in the use of father.

I'm STILL waiting for you to show me ONE single verse that says these are MARY'S Children.

I ALREADY showed you that "Adelphos" and "Adelphe" can mean a MULTITUDE of things including brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, cousin, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

As a matter of fact - here are some Bible statistics for you:
Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
41 times (12%)

Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
47 times (14%)

Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:
256 times (74%)

Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and Adelphe":
344 times

Sooooo - to recap: Of the 344 times we see this word in the New Testament only about 12% of the time it is referring to uterine siblings - but a WHOPPING 74% of the time it certainly is NOT.

I ALSO showed you who the mother of James and Joseph was - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.
Try AGAIN . . .

 

[Jun2u]

Don't just blindly QUOTE the Bible - LEARN what it means . . .

I have but you won't listen. I hope and pray the good Lord give you wisdom and opens your spiritual eyes to the true Gospel.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Marymog]

You mean the mythology written by Catholics.

Wow....You are very articulate in the defense of the fictional link you provided. If you knew your Christian history you would know how ignorant and lacking of context that link you provided contains.

Soooooo do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"? Have you even researched the article to see if it contains FACTS or did you just read it, see that it attacks the Catholic Church so you re-post it?

@bygrace and @Willie T liked your post

When you start having trouble with an articulate, educated answer hopefully they can/will help you.

patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

Games are irrelevant and everyone knows the NT saints were reading long before the RCC was invented.

We also know that the Jews - not the Catholics - wrote the OT. And we know that their own first century historian Josephus tells us they had no books added to the Bible after the time of Malachi (400 years before Christ)

That ends your entire "books of the Bible" rabbit trail. Back to doctrine.


Your imagination at that point is not the compelling response you may have at first imagined it to be.

Acts 17:11


interesting fiction.

1. Acts 17:11 is not my statement - its God's . You will just have to deal with it. Mark 7:6-13 Christ shows just how that is done. End of story.
2. Sola Scriptura is not refuted by the fact that all NT texts were completed AND being read long BEFORE there ever was an RCC. Not sure how this escapes you.
3. Sola Scriptura is not refuted by the fact that the Hebrew Bible was fully canonized before the time of Christ - before there was an RCC..Not sure how this escapes you.

You could always "pretend not to notice details" but then.. I will keep bringing them up by way of "response".

This is not the hard part.

And it also does not name your dog or your cat for you. "Making up games" seems to be the Catholic "Answer" when they have no answer these days.

Meanwhile we DO have "They studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- the very thing Catholics imagine you cannot do without the same text giving you a list of the 66 book of scripture.

What you say cannot exist -- exists.

Hi,

Soooo the bottom line is you have failed to use your own sola Scriptura doctrine to list the books that you are required to have in your bible!!! The reason is because we didn't get the list from Scripture. We have it from Tradition.

Now that you know your sola Scriptura doctrine is Traditional and not biblical are you ready to join The Church?

Curious Mary

PS: Here is an easy one for you since you know your bible so well: Who wrote Luke and Acts?

 

[CoreIssue]

Wow....You are very articulate in the defense of the fictional link you provided. If you knew your Christian history you would know how ignorant and lacking of context that link you provided contains.

Soooooo do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"? Have you even researched the article to see if it contains FACTS or did you just read it, see that it attacks the Catholic Church so you re-post it?

@bygrace and @Willie T liked your post

When you start having trouble with an articulate, educated answer hopefully they can/will help you.

patient Mary

Have you ever researched to see if it's true or false? Of course not.

 

[CoreIssue]

I'm STILL waiting for you to show me ONE single verse that says these are MARY'S Children.

I ALREADY showed you that "Adelphos" and "Adelphe" can mean a MULTITUDE of things including brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, cousin, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

As a matter of fact - here are some Bible statistics for you:
Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
41 times (12%)

Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
47 times (14%)

Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:
256 times (74%)

Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and Adelphe":
344 times

Sooooo - to recap: Of the 344 times we see this word in the New Testament only about 12% of the time it is referring to uterine siblings - but a WHOPPING 74% of the time it certainly is NOT.

I ALSO showed you who the mother of James and Joseph was - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.
Try AGAIN . . .

Now you're arguing maybes.

And dodging completely where it says Joseph had sex with Mary after the birth of Jesus. Cannot
get around that one.

 

[Marymog]

Have you ever researched to see if it's true or false? Of course not.

Dear CoreIsssue....One should not bear false witness against thy neighbor!! Shame on you. I have researched it.

So now, once again, do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"? Have you even researched the article to see if it contains FACTS or did you just read it, see that it attacks the Catholic Church so you re-post it?

Curious Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

Dear CoreIsssue....One should not bear false witness against thy neighbor!! Shame on you. I have researched it.

So now, once again, do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"? Have you even researched the article to see if it contains FACTS or did you just read it, see that it attacks the Catholic Church so you re-post it?

Curious Mary

And of course all of your research comes from catholic doctrines and catholic written history.

 

[Marymog]

And of course all of your research comes from catholic doctrines and catholic written history.

Hi. I am really trying to get to the "Core Issue" You rely on protestant doctrine and history so PLEASE spare me your condescending tone.

Once again, do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"? Have you even researched the article to see if it contains FACTS or did you just read it, see that it attacks the Catholic Church so you re-post it?

If you can't answer just let me know and this conversation can move forward. I am more than happy to educate you about your Christian history.

Patient Mary

PS (edit) and no apology from you for bearing false witness?

 

[Marymog]

And of course all of your research comes from catholic doctrines and catholic written history.

I see your struggling to come up with a logical response.....actually any response. You still have a life line!!! @Willie T likes what you are saying. Maybe he can help you?

Patient Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

I see your struggling to come up with a logical response.....actually any response. You still have a life line!!! @Willie T likes what you are saying. Maybe he can help you?

Patient Mary

Perfectly logical and truthful response from me.

 

[Marymog]

Actually that is merely a "game" Catholics play. No truth to it.

We see Isaiah 8:20 another great example of the Bible rule demanding "sola scriptura testing" that comes "without a complete index to all books of the Bible". The much-made-up-rule that Catholics invent here -- is merely "a game" for them - it has nothing to do with accurate Bible rendering of the text or logic.

Lol....If it is a game then it is a game YOU are loosing since your Isaiah 8:20 reference has nothing to do with sola Scriptura testing and that was the wrong move in this game YOU are playing.

However, it is cute that you are relying on the traditional Protestant answers to defend the 500 year old theory of sola Scriptura. Once again, proof that tradition is ok when it comes from Protestantism but not ok if it is Catholic Tradition.....weird. I thought you disagreed with tradition?

Mary

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I see your struggling to come up with a logical response.....actually any response. You still have a life line!!! @Willie T likes what you are saying. Maybe he can help you?

Patient Mary

Hello Mrs. Mog, how are you?
I see you are still struggling to express yourself to others.
Keep trying, you'll get there.
Love, your favorite, Rollo...

 

[Marymog]

Perfectly logical and truthful response from me.

You need help my friend. You are struggling. Please reach out to @Willie T for that help. Maybe the two of you can get together and defeat this old gal?

Here is yours and willie t's homework assignment: Do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"?

Patient Mary

and still no apology from you for bearing false witness?

 

[CoreIssue]

You need help my friend. You are struggling. Please reach out to @Willie T for that help. Maybe the two of you can get together and defeat this old gal?

Here is yours and willie t's homework assignment: Do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"?

Patient Mary

and still no apology from you for bearing false witness?

No false witness and you have been shot down in flames many times.

 

[Marymog]

Hello Mrs. Mog, how are you?
I see you are still struggling to express yourself to others.
Keep trying, you'll get there.
Love, your favorite, Rollo...

Hola RT....long time no see. I am great. The leaves are turning and it is beautiful outside.

Not struggling to express myself. Others are struggling to give a logical answers to my very easy questions.

Would you care to throw your hat in the wring?

I have a feeling you are going to say no....but I thought I would ask.

Love, Mary

 

[Marymog]

No false witness and you have been shot down in flames many times.

Do you know the history of "bible possession banned by the Catholic Church"?

Mary

 

[BobRyan]

Allow me to clarify, because the sola scripturists don't get it. If scripture alone is the sole rule of faith, then there should be a "rule of faith" over what books belong in the Bible.

Actually that is merely a "game" Catholics play. No truth to it.

We see Isaiah 8:20 another great example of the Bible rule demanding "sola scriptura testing" that comes "without a complete index to all books of the Bible". The much-made-up-rule that Catholics invent here -- is merely "a game" for them - it has nothing to do with accurate Bible rendering of the text or logic.

Hi.
Acts 17:11 does not contain a list of books that belong in the bible.

And it also does not name your dog or your cat for you. "Making up games" seems to be the Catholic "Answer" when they have no answer these days.

Meanwhile we DO have "They studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- the very thing Catholics imagine you cannot do without the same text giving you a list of the 66 book of scripture.

What you say cannot exist -- exists.

Lol....If it is a game then it is a game YOU are loosing since your Isaiah 8:20 reference has nothing to do with sola Scriptura testing

Until you actually read it.

"to the LAW and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them" Isaiah 8:20

Less hopeful fiction -- more Bible please.