Sola Scriptura began in 70AD?

[Radiant1]

Let me ask you something cheezgrits, or anyone for that matter... A good portion of what Starman wrote about Catholicism above is incorrect. What would you do if he did the same about your faith? Would you let it slide? If he continued to repeat the same incorrect things about your faith even after you repeatedly corrected him would you let it slide?

In other words, am I supposed to have a Coke and a smile and sing Kumbaya while I let diarrhea spew forth from his mouth?

As I said, 500-year old frickin' animosity.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Let me ask you something cheezgrits, or anyone for that matter... A good portion of what Starman wrote about Catholicism above is incorrect. What would you do if he did the same about your faith? Would you let it slide? If he continued to repeat the same incorrect things about your faith even after you repeatedly corrected him would you let it slide?

In other words, am I supposed to have a Coke and a smile and sing Kumbaya while I let diarrhea spew forth from his mouth?

As I said, 500-year old frickin' animosity.

Again, let's both agree to disagree without resorting to insults and animosity: There Is Only One Truth.
Your choice of what to believe has been made, as has mine.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Again, let's both agree to disagree without resorting to insults and animosity: There Is Only One Truth.
Your choice of what to believe has been made, as has mine.

As I said in a previous post

Originally Posted by Radiant1

I get upset and riled up when you continue to propagate lies. That's not a matter of simply disagreeing.

If you want to continually set up straw men to attack and call that truth, then so be it, but I won't nor should I agree to it. If you don't want me to have animosity towards you, then stop creating it. And until you stop creating it I will continue to insult you because you deserve nothing better. There are other Protestants on this forum who have generated my respect, but you're not one of them.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Calling 1 L. Are you in the house? Still waiting for you to splain what your intent or impression of this article was (Like I don't know)...

[onel0126]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Calling 1 L. Are you in the house? Still waiting for you to splain what your intent or impression of this article was (Like I don't know)...

I have been sick--still am. Intent, as always to foster discussion. Impression is the article was kind of written in jest. Surprised so many didn't "get it."

Also surprised at STs sudden barrage of garbage in the new year. Happy New year IS and as I feel better ill add more

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by onel0126

I have been sick--still am. Intent, as always to foster discussion. Impression is the article was kind of written in jest. Surprised so many didn't "get it."

Also surprised at STs sudden barrage of garbage in the new year. Happy New year IS and as I feel better ill add more

In the time it took to post that, you could have explained why, briefly...Get well soon!I just got over it myself

While I'm here I might as well continue with where & when the "Scripture Alone" concept comes from. We can't talk about the Bible being around during the time of Christ or the Apostles because it wasn't compiled (put together) yet. HOWEVER; the books of the OT were.

I know of at least 10 times in the Scripture where the idea of "Scripture Alone" is clear. One verse alone makes anyone who doesn't believe in it, call God a liar: 2 Timothy 3:16

The writer of the OP's article (Devin Rose) says there is no command for "Sola Scripture in 70AD" and he is correct BUT, if he's denying "Scripture Alone" completely, he's dead wrong. It was commanded numerous times in the OT & NT.

[cheezgrits]

Radiant, I understand your frustrations, and I know from personal experience that what he wrote is flawed. But you are not going to change his mind, but I respect and support you.

Starman, I agreed there was one truth, I didn't agree it was yours. I said we will all find out one day.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

Radiant, I understand your frustrations, and I know from personal experience that what he wrote is flawed. But you are not going to change his mind, but I respect and support you.

Starman, I agreed there was one truth, I didn't agree it was yours. I said we will all find out one day.

Thanks. I know he's not going to change his mind. All I ask for is intellectual honesty, apparently that's too much to ask for.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

In the time it took to post that, you could have explained why, briefly...Get well soon!I just got over it myself

While I'm here I might as well continue with where & when the "Scripture Alone" concept comes from. We can't talk about the Bible being around during the time of Christ or the Apostles because it wasn't compiled (put together) yet. HOWEVER; the books of the OT were.

I know of at least 10 times in the Scripture where the idea of "Scripture Alone" is clear. One verse alone makes anyone who doesn't believe in it, call God a liar: 2 Timothy 3:16

The writer of the OP's article (Devin Rose) says there is no command for "Sola Scripture in 70AD" and he is correct BUT, if he's denying "Scripture Alone" completely, he's dead wrong. It was commanded numerous times in the OT & NT.

The errors that crept in the church (that do ot agree with the word) in the generation immediately after the apostles is reason enough for Sola Scriptura.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

The errors that crept in the church (that do ot agree with the word) in the generation immediately after the apostles is reason enough for Sola Scriptura.

Exactly! There HAS to be a standard for all truth or numerous denominations will pop up and it will be a holy mess and...oh, wait...