You keep pointing out how the RCC reads thousands of verses a year in Mass, but that means little if the church as a whole ignores or twists many of the verses it reads. It’s not about how much Scripture you hear—it’s about whether you live by it and align your doctrine with it.
We just keep going in circle so I'll just concentrate on few points, as it seems that you have a very warped notion of the CC,
What you are doing is bouncing it of theology that emerged in American Millerites or founder William Miller then fragmenting to a number of sects like SDA, you are shaped by this mindset, it's not only the CC but the rest of Protestantism that you’re against, as you claim that you just follow the bible, solo and alone, what are the odds of everyone else getting it wrong and you got it right, that's the bottom line, I’ve covered this with another poster on here where his version of word salad is the only truth, again he won’t have a bar of anything else as his is the only truth using bible alone too to say the least, even claimed that God and Jesus were teaching him
The rest I can assure you, that the CC is very much scriptural, very deep in scripture, like I've told you before, if you combine all Protestantism, they are still no match for CC teaching
Now are you saying that Catholics and even myself don't live up to scripture, hmmm really, see comments like this is a dead giveaway of how little you know, again you are bouncing it off your pre-conceived notion, I can assure you are wrong in this regard,
As for the sabbath, and any other points that you think that you have, all I can say is join the que with all the other Protestants, like I keep telling you anyone is open to their own understanding of scripture, just sit back and look at the name sake of each denominations gives themselves, for example Baptist, for their baptism practice, Methodist, for their methods" in the early practices, Jehovah Witness, for their Jehovah’s Name, Lutheran after Martin Luther, Presbyterian, emphasizes rule by elders (presbyters), Adventist, imminent second coming (Advent) of Jesus Christ., Seventh-day Adventist Church emphasizes the observance of the Sabbath and so on and on, all getting it directly from the bible alone as they claim but all understand it completely different, all can and have weaved a theologically structure to reflect their believe system, this again directly from the bible and will also hold firm to how right they are and everybody else is wrong. This simply doesn’t work when one can see what it produces
Again, you fail to acknowledge this, or maybe you do but it’s a hard pill to swallow and keep oneself in denial as I think you are doing here.
Now, you also keep repeating that trusting our own understanding leads to error. I agree if someone ignores the Spirit or doesn’t study. But that’s not me. I don’t rely on my emotions—I rely on what is written, comparing Scripture with Scripture, praying for wisdom, and testing all teachings.
My dear friend, no you do not as you do rely on others, tell me who was it that they first thing they did when they came on here starting a thread named “Traditions of the CC” with a big list of what you assumed it does wrong, along with posting Photoshop, do you honestly expect people to believe this wasn’t emotional or what is written in scripture or even a typical list coming from others, the notion of bible alone is nothing but another tradition of man, as its not specifically stated in scripture, nor using your logic as you keep saying commandment to be found in scripture, there is no commandment to use “Bible Alone” written by the hand of God
Now I’ll ask you again, do you honestly think that it’s only you who “rely on what is written, comparing Scripture with Scripture, praying for wisdom, and testing all teachings.”
Again, I ask you, why have you got it correct while the rest of humanity that have it different then you got it wrong,
Why is your “praying for wisdom, and testing all teachings.” as to having arrived too the right conclusion and others have not.
Anyone can claim this and even turn blue in defending it with all sort of excuses, it doesn’t mean that they are correct
So yes, I stand firm. I follow Yeshua, not Rome. The Bible is my final authority—not the voice of men, not councils, not traditions.
What you really mean is that you follow your own understanding of what you think the bible means and that’s your final authority period. You have elected yourself to be Pope, listening to only your own voice, throwing out the notion that the apostles taught people and elected others to teach which has been done for 2000 years.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, but sincerity doesn’t equal truth. I sincerely hope you will start testing everything you believe against the Word of YHWH
Fair enough and point taken, but of course what you mean is “truth” as to how you understand it, again you have elevated your understanding to be the ultimate truth, sorry but I have to point out how do you know that you have the truth when anyone can take a verse here a snippet there gluing them together to form theology of faith
Why is your sincerity better then mine, why is your testing better then mine, on this forum alone others claim the same sincerity but are all different, still does not make one right
2 Timothy 3:16–17 (TLV):“All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness, so that the person belonging to God may be capable—fully equipped for every good deed.”
That doesn’t say “Scripture + tradition.” It says Scripture alone is enough to make one fully equipped.
First of all this verse is referring to OT as not all of the NT was written when this was
The passage outlines four key uses of Scripture: teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. This commentary suggests that Scripture is not merely a historical document but is intended for moral and spiritual formation, equipping believers for good works. how Scripture prepares believers for "every good work." This perspective highlights the transformative power of the Word in a person's life, suggesting that engagement with Scripture leads to spiritual growth and service in the community.
"Scripture," typically refers to the written texts that comprise the Bible. However, the concept of Scripture can also encompass oral traditions and teachings in certain cases.
In the early days of Christianity and before the New Testament was officially canonized, teachings about Jesus and theological understanding were communicated orally. Oral tradition played a crucial role in passing down teachings from the apostles and other early leaders of the Church. early Christian communities or churches relied on oral teachings to understand theological concepts and moral guidance. All the apostles including Paul taught orally before anything was written, like it or not scholars and theologians will tell you that oral teachings or “T”radition can also be seen as a form of "Scripture" in that they convey God's truth and guidance. This is sometimes referred to as "the living tradition" of the Church, which encompasses both written and oral teachings.
The relationship between oral and written forms of Scripture is dynamic. Oral teachings can be foundational, but the written texts serve to solidify, preserve, and disseminate those teachings. Thus both “T”radition and Scripture are equal notice the “T” not the “t” big difference
Anyway got things to do, so catch ya with your normal “you just follow how you understand scripture”
Amen
Expand
