these morals and concepts are not "it's". i dunno why people keep saying that. yunno people can think up ideas about how to treat each other without magical intervention. besides, i could make a similarly flawed argument that you should read the koran. also, you dont need to entire the entire bible to realize what it is, folklore. it is way too long and stupid for me to waste time on. grammar note: possessive "it" has no apostrophe.
plus it doesnt matter what it says anyways, because no matter what it says, people will interpret it to mean something, and other people will claim that it means just the opposite. and nobody is right or wrong, which is the point i have been making quite poorly this entire thread. it can justify anything and mean anything. thats why it has zero value. it is the opposite of useful information.
If aliens wanted an understanding of Man, the "Bible" would be at the top of the reading list; a reading of Man's most popular "folklore" that has molded his culture, i think much more than you understand. It's absurd to say that its morals and concepts are not its. It's its and others as well...follow? Would you say that my morals are not really mine, because i did not originate them?--ludicrous gramma note: we've all read "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", but mistakes are human nature. Big Daddy understands this.
Scripture is defined as adequate equipment and nothing else is needed. If something else was needed then scripture wouldn't be "adequate equipment" now would it? Also the greek word used for adequate is G739 artios and it means fresh, that is, (by implication) complete: - perfect. Now there is nothing wrong with tradition if it agrees with what the Bible says but the Bible is flawless Tradition is not guaranteed to be so. Here is another good one from Paul saying the Bible is all you need. emphasis added.
OK, let me rephrase. What Christ's actually said was "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". Better? In any event, I don't know how you can go wrong w/ that philosophy. If you can find a way, then you're just looking for an argument.
The Golden Rule is actually Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. That is the greatest commandment, the second commandment is like it though, Love your neighbor as yourself. The two go hand in hand and for some reason the latter has become known as the golden rule while no one ever mentions the greatest commandment.
You said it was taught by the Apostles to Priests? show me where it is in the bible. You can't support one single thing you've pointed out by biblical text. The verse where you say Peter was appointed the POPE, is WRONG nothing was said about him being POPE it said Peter is the rock that the church will be built on.... YOUR ASSUMPTION is that it IS the Catholic religion IT IS NOT the early church were CHRISTIANS. You keep trying to make your point by insisting that the first church was Catholic but you have no biblical or secular historical documents to back this up. Where as the rest of the world has ROMAN historians and the Bible to prove that there WERE NO CATHOLICS until several centurys later. end of story, you don't want to study you want to argue. The wine thing, Jesus changed water to wine at the WEDDING. I don't see in the scripture where he asked the Apostles to change water to wine at the Lord's supper. These things may not matter, I don't know but I do know THEY AREN"T Biblical and the Catholic church as altered it to suit their tastes. You mock the bible when you say that the ENTIRE GOSPEL message isn't in there. ANYONE who knows 5 cents about the Bible who has seen you post this, is no doubt definately wondering about your views. The bible is the message of CHRIST. If you had nothing else and no one was able to tell you about him, you could find salvation from reading it. YOU plain out MOCK the bible just as Martin does by saying it is not complete. What then makes the message complete, the catholic religion? the Pope>? how is he infallible when the bible says all have sinned except for the son? I am not going to sit here and waste my time, explaining the obvious. I was Catholic for many years and I hold nothing agaisnt those that are. I have family members that are. I changed when I decided to study history and read what they did to Martin Luther. How he actually read the bible and found the 95 articles of dispute. That means non -biblical. No I am not a Lutherean. I read the bible and became a CHRISTIAN that's it just a Christian, not Protestant or any other religion. You are too blind to see the fallicy of the Catholic church. No one is perfect and least of all me, but I don't see how you can just dismiss the bible and blindly follow men. Your religion reveres the bible, yet when you get into a corner and it is in opposition to you, you mock it's validity. and yes the spainish Inquisition by all HISTORICAL accounts was bad. Let me ask you this? if just ONE Death was attributed to forcing heathens to become Catholic and bow down to the POPE does that make it right? And what makes you think I would condone Protestant Witch hunts? There are thousands of non-biblical Protestants also. Like the methodists are splitting now because of gay preachers and women preachers. They think it is ok. Their argument is what harm will it do? I have no idea what harm it will do but it definately isn't biblical. You see man has a habit of Changing God's giuidelines to suit himself. The jews did it in the old testament, just as the Catholics did etc. etc.. One of the reasons I posted that verse about the Pharisess and their Corban practice was to illistrate this. I may not be right but it wont be because I changed something as it was given. If iI go to hell it will be because of sin, not because I followed the wrong person's beliefs, or tried to change scripture to suit me. It's really not THAT complicated to read. a commone misconception is that the word is difficult to understand, it is not if you study a concordance and some of the greek root words along with the bible. You made it through High School history didn't you? You suffered through Shakespear didn't you? Well I challenge you to read the bible. if you truly think the bible is incomplete in it's salvation message then it is no use talking to you anymore. From what you've said here, I am no longer going to quote verse for you, you seem to think there is some secret code or teaching that is privvy only to the Catholic church and has been handed down by each generation. Nice theory... cant prove it, so can't argue with it. Highly unlikely though. For your sake I hope you're right, I'll stick to what is in Print and tagged as Inspired word of God. I suggest you donate your Bible to people who haven't had the oppurtunity to hear the word, you certainly aren't doing anything with them. that's not meant as a judgement or a swipe, just a sad observation. If nothing else read the book of ACTS from beginning to end and SEE how the SAVED went STRAight away to be baptized, even in the middle of the night. They didn't schedule it for a week or two after the baby could tolerate water on it's head, that's ridiculous. why do you suppose they were in a hurry to be baptized and just why did they not schedule it for a more convient time? Were there ANY INFANTS baptized in the Bible? if so show me where? OH this must have been more of that secret code that was passed down outside the bible. I see now that we cant discuss this, you have a built in excuse, you think the Catholic church is infallible when in reality it's just a bunch of folks that started a religion in ROME a VERY long time ago. Like I said, for your sake I hope it's right. but if the bible is right, your religion is wrong. take care.
actually Martin the Bible is not hard to understand, the reason it get's mis interpreted so much is because it says things in there that MAN doesn't like or it isn't convinent to do. So he changes it in hopes that God will wink at it. Maybe he does. I kinda doubt it though. Even the VERY learned Bible scholars of different religions KNOW what the Bible says, they just don't agree with it entirely so they ignore it. Like that 45 MPH speed limit sign, you know what it means but when an officer stops you, you say I didn't see it.. or I saw it but I was late, always some excuse.
I had a long reply but my computer crapped out and i lost it so i'll have to give it to you on monday because i'm about to leave and go out of town.
for your first quote. It says that scripture is profitable for teaching, and it surely is, but it does not say scripture imply scripture is all you need. The second quote further points to church hierarchy. He is telling the congregation of Coringth basically not to interpret the Bible for themselves, but rather to allow the Church leaders, who are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret thw Word for them. Neither quote points to sola scriptura.
