StanJ
Lifelong student of God's Word.
The KJV, is NOT the Bible, it is a translation, and not a very good one at that. The Bible is in Greek and Hebrew. NOT Latin. You obviously don't know much about the Bible or how it came to be, despite the links I provided for you. The Qur'an has NOTHING to do with this thread or topic.kepha31 said:The truths expressed in God's written word are absolute truth, but you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible is written in limited human language, as if King James's translators were dictated to word for word by God. If you insist on approaching the Bible the same way as a Muslim approaches the Qu'ran, that's your problem, not mine.
I didn't know the COE existed in the 4th century. Got any proof? The facts of history show us where the Bible came from. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, and NONE of the early Christians were sola scripturists. You haven't a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.
Empty assertion, no documentation. BIG rabbit hole.
Lack of charity on any Catholic forum I've ever been on gets your post deleted. Have you got a link showing such "vehemence" or are you just pouting because you are so easily refuted? Forum link, please.
I can SHOW you where the Trinity is encapsulated but it is not articulated until 325 AD. Most Protestant confessions of faith accept the Council of Nicae on the Trinity but they ignore the rest.
You admit doctrinal development. How refreshing.
John 14:24 doesn't say anything about scripture alone. If you change "word" or "words" to "written words", or whatever way you want to read into it, you render the verse completely senseless.
You obviously have a problem with comprehension. The COE was responsible for the KJV translation, from which you quoted. I corrected your assertion. I keep giving you evidence and you keep ignoring it. That happens a lot with inculcated people.
Now you're just being provocative and rude. If you really desired truth, you would study for it. Seems you are brain washed by the RCC, and have NO desire to learn.
All this shows is ignorance and condescension. I don't go on RCC forums, it is tantamount to casting pearls before swine. If you were actually able to refute anything you would have done so by now. Maybe we should take a poll? Most early Christians never questioned sola scriptura, because it was commonly accepted and not voiced UNTIL the reformers. I can't really tell you when the RCC denied it, but it probably was around the same time...a full millennia after Augustine died at least. You have much to learn.
No need to show me, I know it...the problem is you don't know or refuse to do the same thing for SS, which is also encapsulated in the scriptures and HAS been articulated. The reality of it, is NOT negated by denial of the RCC. The RCC denies it to save their so-called authority, which is diminishing all the time because they are NOT willing to honour God and His word in this regard.
Again, you avoid fact with condescension and facetiousness. Would those same RCC forums ban you for this type of response? Deflection doesn't work here. It just show you have been refuted and don't have the charity to admit it.
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the encapsulation (your word) of the SS truth in all the Bible. The following wording comes from the NAB (RCC Bible);
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A24&version=NABRE