Catholics Vs Protestants: Who is Right? 11-2-24

[backNforth]

..we're talking about contradictions.

First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in i Corinthians 14:8.

The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.

Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound - in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.

 

[Rhema]

Again, the NASB. .... Still no contradiction.

I was first concerned about your mental acuity. Now I see you're just duplicitous or why else would one omit verse 4; the very verse that shows the contradiction?

and he fell to the ground ... The men who traveled with him stood speechless​

(Acts 9:4,7 NASB)

And when we had all fallen to the ground,​

(Acts 26:14 NASB)

In verse 7, the verb translated as "stood" is NOT written in the Aorist tense, nor in the Present tense to indicate that they "stood up" as a current action after falling down, whether in response to a voice they could not understand, or as a matter of simple recovery.

ἵστημι (to stand) is written as Pluperfect Active Indicative (ειστηκεισαν). The pluperfect tense is used to describe completed action through the past time (i.e. I had studied Greek). Hence:

The men who traveled with him HAD stood speechless (with the implication "while this was happening"). They did not fall down and then stand up. 9:7 contradicts 26:14.

This is just one more item I can add to my list of horrid NASB renditions.

I see no contradictions.

I guess it depends on your Bible translation. I almost always use the NASB.

... hearing the voice but seeing no one.​

(Acts 9:7 NASB)

And those who were with me saw the light, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.​

(Acts 22:9 NASB)

With all due respect, B-A-C... in both verses it's the exact same verb: G191 ἀκούω akouō

So let's read the NASB without the false pen of their lying scribes getting in the way:

The men who traveled with him stood speechless, G191 the voice but seeing no one.​

(Acts 9:7 NASB)

And those who were with me saw the light, but did not G191 the voice of the One who was speaking to me.​

(Acts 22:9 NASB)

So did they G191 the voice, or did they not G191 the voice?

Surely the contradiction can be seen now, yes?

I almost always use the NASB.

You may wish to strongly reconsider.

Rhema

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of YHWH is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

(Jeremiah 8:8)

 

[backNforth]

Surely the contradiction can be seen now, yes?

Rather, it takes Godly discernment, not man's textual criticism or "mental acuity" or the latest lex-icon, to understand context.

You may wish to strongly reconsider.

 

[Rhema]

Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something.

Great, now EVERYBODY thinks they're a Greek expert.

But thank you for the completely irrelevant lecture on the word "voice."

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

(Acts 9:7 KJV)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.​

(Acts 22:9 KJV)

So did they G191 something, or did they not G191 something?

No wonder Jesus wept.

Rhema
(You should stick to your wheelhouse of preaching that dead people broadcast radio signals.)

 

[Rhema]

Everyone thinks they are the sole arbiter of truth.

Exactly like YOU.

The irony... oh the irony.

 

[backNforth]

Great, now EVERYBODY thinks they're a Greek expert....No wonder Jesus wept....You should [blah blah]...

For men shall be lovers of their own selves...boasters, proud...unholy, Without natural affection...false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which [are]..Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:2-7).

God tells us man's inability to understand the bible has a number of causes, none of which is a limitation in his vocabulary. The bible is not difficult to understand - it is impossible - unless God's criteria are met. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: (Isa. 29:10-11).

The Bible is a sealed book. God hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (Mat. 11:25). This is why you are spiritually ignorant and thus powerless.

 

[B-A-C]

So did they G191 something, or did they not G191 something?

-Strong
G191
ἀκούω
akouō
ak-oo'-o
A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.
Total KJV occurrences: 437

-Mounce
ἀκούω
akouō
428x: some list the future active as a middle deponent, ἀκούσομαι, to hear; to hearken, listen to, Mar_4:3; Luk_19:48; to heed, obey, Mat_18:15; Act_4:19; to understand, 1Co_14:2; to take in or admit to mental acceptance, Mar_4:33; Joh_8:43; Joh_8:47.

-NASEC
ἀκούω
akouō; from a prim. verb mean. to hear; to hear, listen:—
comes to the governor's ears(1), every(1), grant us a brief hearing(1), hear(102), heard(214), hearing(21), hears(18), listen(38), listened(3), listeners(2), listening(15), listens(8), reached(1), reported(1), understand(2), understands(1).

-Thayer
ἀκούω
akouō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
2b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
2c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
3a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one’s presence
3b) to get by hearing learn
3c) a thing comes to one’s ears, to find out, learn
3d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
3e) to comprehend, to understand
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root

Strong's #191 - ἀκούω - Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

Strong's #191 - ἀκούω in the Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

 

[Rhema]

This is why you are spiritually ignorant and thus powerless.

How you doing down there in that ditch?

But yes, I have no doubt that you are blind about the difference between the forgiveness of a debt and the payment of a debt.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

understand.

Okay, out of your word dump, you highlighted only the above. So let's go with that.

Acts 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, UNDERSTANDING the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not UNDERSTAND the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

So did they UNDERSTAND the voice, or did they not UNDERSTAND the voice?

It's irrational to think that the same person telling the same story using the same verb would mean something different in one account but something else in another account. Do you think Paul's that stupid?

To claim this requires a measure of cognitive dissonance that borders on medical impairment.

But I guess I should thank you. You had me beginning to doubt my previous assessment that all Christians are bloody insane at best, or knowingly insidious liars at worst (i.e. the lying pen of your translators).

Rhema
Then again, maybe y'all are just duped.

 

[Garee]

I guess it depends on your Bible translation. I almost always use the NASB.

Acts 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

I would offer..

In that parable the signified understanding .The temporal seen as a sign. It is used to give the spiritual understanding so mankind can compare the spiritual unseen things to the same unseen eternal .Or also called faith (the unseen) to the same faith. Faith to faith

Both verses you offered would seem to be supported of below . You could say hearing "let there be" and "it was good" the witness of the eye

Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

The law of faith


Ear. . ."Let there be" the understanding of faith the unseen it was good

Revelation 21:4-6Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.;(hearing and believing) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; (hear and believe) or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate;He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

No hearing ear... no seeing eye .Both working as one

 

[Christ4Ever]

No one is upset, but just look at the implications of what you posted.

The ABSOLUTELY MOST IMPORTANT EVENT of Paul's entire life - you're saying that he couldn't remember it accurately or keep the details straight.

Then how could you trust that Paul could remember anything accurately of his supposed direct revelations of doctrine from his ChristLight visions?

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)

What do you think Paul, or should I say Saul was focused on? If you say everything to do with the men with and what they heard or did not hear, whether they were standing or not instead of the Lord, and His words, the implication/experience, I'd say reality is a much tougher road to live than document.

First, embellishments are lies. But more importantly, we're talking about contradictions.

Only for a lack of a better term then "lie" "brother gnat" (humor). However, for what I was trying to communicate, if done would have been an irrelevant datum instead of a lie of commission. Does everything from your mouth become a lie, because you once did it knowingly or not? That is how non-believers see things, because they judge, and do so wrongly.

We won't know perfect if we stumbled upon it. I truly hope you do find the original autographs, though you might not know them if you were to find them, but on the off chance that you do find them; I suggest you don't worship them or use them as kindling.

As you know, Luke wasn't a witness. He merely records witness' accounts, of which I can readily agree that they may differ. But when a contradiction is present, given the doctrine of inerrancy, how can one know which account was actually true?

Contradiction vs Differ: One would need to know that both accounts written by Luke were told to him by Paul and not from another source.
Considering the doctrine of inerrancy is fairly new term, the concept I do believe is valid. Which rests upon is God being truthful and is the Bible trustworthy. For me, both are yes; however, from all accounts, I am certain the latter is no for you.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

I'd say reality is a much tougher road to live than document.

Why didn't you just say scribal error? Or that Paul misspoke?

Does everything from your mouth become a lie, because you once did it knowingly or not?

Sorry, the question makes no sense.

But @B-A-C stated directly that he saw no contradiction. And yet the contradiction is there for everyone to see. (There are others.) Then the excuses started.

the doctrine of inerrancy is fairly new term

I can agree with this observation, but press in to figure out why the term even became necessary. (And why it's wrong.)

Which rests upon is God being truthful and is the Bible trustworthy. For me, both are yes; however, from all accounts, I am certain the latter is no for you.

I believe in God and the teaching of His Son, Jesus Christ. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and that a Bible isn't even necessary.

Did the 3,000 saved as recorded in Acts 2 need a Bible?

And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.​

(Exodus 20:19 KJV)

Rhema

For me, both are yes; however, from all accounts, I am certain the latter is no for you.

While the conclusions drawn in Dr. Ehrman's book are wrong, the evidentiary facts should be addressed by every Christian.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bibl…

For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts w…

www.goodreads.com

 

[Christ4Ever]

Why didn't you just say scribal error? Or that Paul misspoke?

Because you're a smart man and would know what I meant. For as you know apart from God man's existence is guaranteed to be in error. That being said, one must consider that what we are talking about specifically here is not a revelation by God to man communication, but a testimony of man-to-man event and so prone to err in the retelling.

I can agree with this observation, but press in to figure out why the term even became necessary. (And why it's wrong.)

I couldn't say. I believe the story has more to do with non-believers questioning the accuracy of the Bible, and so we have "inerrancy" which I believe you brought up. (shrug)

I believe in God and the teaching of His Son, Jesus Christ. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and that a Bible isn't even necessary.

Did the 3,000 saved as recorded in Acts 2 need a Bible?

And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.(Exodus 20:19 KJV)

"necessary" true, the Bible is not.

All one needs is the Gospel and the Holy Spirit for guidance, but even then, this understanding can be found in the Bible and though not necessary is helpful.

It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:31 NASB20

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

For as you know apart from God man's existence is guaranteed to be in error.

I know that even with God, man's existence is guaranteed to be in error. The proof of which (among other proofs) is all these denominations and "believers" that do indeed think they are right. The number of cults is astonishing, but nobody thinks they may be in one. And while I champion accuracy, I'm also not one to think that one must be Right in order to be saved (though it helps). I'm pretty much an Acts 2:38 Xhristian.

I understand the guidance of the Holy Spirit, having been blessed with such on possibly too many occasions (or not enough), but what to make of it when two people both claiming to be under God's guidance arrive at separate and contradicting conclusions?

a testimony of man-to-man event and so prone to err in the retelling.

I can readily assure you that if something to the extent of Paul's road to Damascus experience were to happen to you (as has to me on more than one occasion) you would not forget the details. Do you forget any of the details when you accepted Christ? And my apologies if I misrepresent, but it would be unlikely that an angel of light had actually appeared to you. Why the contradictions exist is a separate question from accepting whether they are there or not (and there are others). And I'm not mentioning these things to conclude that the Bible is riddled with errors, or that it cannot be an adequate testimony to both historical events and spiritual truths. But to deny contradictions (or even worse prohibit the discussion of such) is a turn toward the dark cloud of cultism.

I couldn't say. I believe the story has more to do with non-believers questioning the accuracy of the Bible, and so we have "inerrancy" which I believe you brought up. (shrug)

If I may, it actually stems from the foundational shift of Ecclesiastical Authority from the Church writ large to the Bible during the Reformation of Martin Luther (this Sola Scriptura). How could Sola Scriptura be a foundational authority unless such Scriptura is inerrant? Mr. Luther just didn't think this through. His Big Mistake was thinking that no one reading the exact same scriptural passage (regardless of translation) could arrive at any other conclusion than he did. At least within the Catholic Tradition there was some semblance of theological order. (Not saying they are right.)

All one needs is the Gospel and the Holy Spirit for guidance, but even then, this understanding can be found in the Bible and though not necessary is helpful.

And therein lies the rub. There are four separate Gospel messages found in the New Testament texts. The one preached by Jesus, and ratified by Peter, but altered by James the brother, and a fourth that is radically different, according to the visions of Paul.

I have a long time friend who likes to share the Gospel, but when I ask him which one, he's then not too sure.

Early on (in this thread about who is Right), I had stated neither, and (a bit like Luther) have yet to be dissuaded.

Peace on Earth,
Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

I understand the guidance of the Holy Spirit, having been blessed with such on possibly too many occasions (or not enough), but what to make of it when two people both claiming to be under God's guidance arrive at separate and contradicting conclusions?

You stop walking with each other, if you can't agree to disagree. The problem with this is, that you both might know His voice, but you may not have the same understanding. Eventually you'll both find out the truth, and usually it will be what neither of you expected it was, but maybe not for you because of course both can't be wrong. lol

I can readily assure you that if something to the extent of Paul's road to Damascus experience were to happen to you (as has to me on more than one occasion) you would not forget the details. Do you forget any of the details when you accepted Christ?

A little long in this part, but here goes.

I know what I know as a man, but apparently you have allowed the intellect to override the reality of those experiences by another for the details no less. Ask me how many were in the pews, when I walked down the aisle on what I call "my coming to Jesus day or to be a bit more accurate night." As I walked down the aisle, did I pass a woman, man, man, child, woman, etc., was the carpet blue, green, or was it just wood and was there carpet? I couldn't tell you, but if you asked me a couple of times, I might come up with something to satisfy the asking and the detail might even be a bit different in the next telling. I might even be able to tell you what I was wearing. lol

What won't change is that the experience of being filled as I was with an unexplainable light over the darkness within me even as the tears ran down my cheeks, while on my knees will not. Unless you believe it didn't happen or meant less to me because I lack the details of my environment or what others were doing or saying at that moment in time instead of my having an inward reflection/focus? If from your words above that is what you believe, you keep believing that brother gnat (humor), because it matters naught to me whether you or anyone else thinks it does or doesn't. Not your testimony, just as Paul's is his in Acts, as does everyone who professes belief in Christ Jesus has to give. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not for lack of detail/consistency, unless you think it matters if another believes your own testimony as true or not for lack of a period or a comma in the retelling.

You can't even begin to imagine, nor can I, that Saul from one moment talking with the Son of God who he had been persecuting, to the next being unable to see and staying in that condition for days, and the truthfulness of Luke's writing is now questioned because his telling (first telling might not have been from Paul to him for as far I know it doesn't say and could have come from another) years later conflicted from one telling to the next....by You and others! Ah, but you're only questioning the details of the two writings of the same experience not the testimony itself...or are you? If this is doubtful, or unknown, what it does to scripture but make it all questionable??? What if Jesus hadn't come through the door so Thomas could see him, and touch him? Would he have continued to doubt what the others were telling him? What would the division have been between these apostles? Some seeing truth, and one seeing a fable.

You would have done better to be called Thomas instead brother. For you are casting doubt on the very testimony that probably has even moved others to seek our Lord as they never would have if they known your "contradiction", because you're just being honest. Ah huh, Brother gnat! I hope no one in reading your words or perceiving your logic is ever turned away from our Jesus, like self-righteous Christians have been doing to unbelievers for years. For you have presented no other alternative! Though you still have time, and to do so without taking away from the testimony!

I was going to delete the following but have decided to allow it to stand. You know less than you think you know, and the cynicism that you display because it doesn't align perfectly with what "you believe" as evidence to the contrary, is for me amazing! Oh, I am not mad or upset. Pride in one's intellect goes a long way, in this world, but since I myself do not have such to go by in that area, a failing I know, I must fall on but my own experiences of life and the people I've dealt with these 68 years, to stand on.

I must apologize for feeling sorry for you because I do. The doubt/surety you have must be comforting for it allows you to continue to dig...you're almost to China Brother. For you in truth in this respect are no different than the atheist that says there is no God. You say instead that a testimony of a man, is more important for the details because the truth of the story now can't be known for the confusion caused. For confusion is what you cause brother. It might not be your intent, but there you have it. You may argue that that is not true and you're not saying that at all, but a seeker/teller of the truth! Yet to the less intelligent that is exactly what it appears that you are saying it to be, so it must be so.

And therein lies the rub. There are four separate Gospel messages found in the New Testament texts. The one preached by Jesus, and ratified by Peter, but altered by James the brother, and a fourth that is radically different, according to the visions of Paul.

I have a long time friend who likes to share the Gospel, but when I ask him which one, he's then not too sure.

Does your friend still share the Gospel with others and if so which one or is he still unsure of which one would be right to use? Or have you left him to his own devices now that you have shared your insight with him?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Bill]

Has it ever occured to anyone, neither are right and neither are wrong. It is the same in any family. Lol

Prodical son. The Protestants would take the view of the older son, and the Catholics would also take the view of the older son. Yet neither son is right. Lol

God is my Father (i am catholic) and God is your Father. Neither of us can deny to the other that God is our Father. Therefor there is only One God and only One family.

Go smoke that in your pipes. Lmao

 

[Rhema]

You stop walking with each other, if you can't agree to disagree.

No, Nick. That's the prevailing mindset in America that has caused such divisive vitriol from politics even into religion and families. Rather, one is to pray for that person, no? One is to do good for that person. Neither can be done if one "stops walking." (Have you stopped walking with your daughter?)

The problem with this is, that you both might know His voice, but you may not have the same understanding.

So God is unable to ensure that the person to whom he speaks has understanding of what He is saying? ( ) No. Rather, I find that God stands mute if a person might misunderstand, and the ability for one to understand IS guided by his education. Could you explain calculus to a third grader just learning math? Could God? (No... not even.) Moses was educated in Pharaoh's household, and yet there were thing God could not teach him.

Eventually you'll both find out the truth, and usually it will be what neither of you expected it was, but maybe not for you because of course both can't be wrong. lol

One hopes you will. But humans are not rational, making decisions by emotions instead. How often have you needed to keep your emotions in check because they would override that which Jesus teaches you to do? Even here in this quote, you needed to end with an emotional sarcasm, "because of course...". Why do you feel the need to belittle me like that? (There's a reason.) When I let God guide me into truth, after having prepared (..education..) to stand and seek, I don't bring expectations with me. They get in the way. But when the Rhema of the Pneuma speaks, it is never wrong.

Ask me how many were in the pews, ... was the carpet blue, green, or was it just wood and was there carpet?

How utterly absurd. The accounts in Acts mention significant facts not paltry "details." Who cares if the rocks were brown or grey? Or even the names of the people with Paul? What stands important is that details VOLUNTARILY provided out of the mouth of Paul contradict others in the account. And it's a truth that should not be lied about.

(BTW, when I walked forward at the age of eight, the carpet was red. )

More later... (I've been called away).

 

[Garee]

Has it ever occured to anyone, neither are right and neither are wrong. It is the same in any family. Lol

Prodical son. The Protestants would take the view of the older son, and the Catholics would also take the view of the older son. Yet neither son is right. Lol

God is my Father (i am catholic) and God is your Father. Neither of us can deny to the other that God is our Father. Therefor there is only One God and only One family.

Go smoke that in your pipes. Lmao

A better name for that parable is the "Waiting long sufferings Father" The Holy Father seeing the son from a far of the heavenly vison The father is shown running towards him. The other son never entered fellowship

Luke 15:20And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

A parable as a picture of the gospel

The third parable in a roll with one following the next chapter (16) A series of parables protecting the integrity of Christ the author .The parable "No man can serve two teaching masters" coming from one lord. Using the riches of this word to represent the wisdom of this word as Mammon compared to sola scripture the hidden riches

Luke 16:13-31 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets (sola scriptura) were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.; And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.;And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.; Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear (sola scritura) them.And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,( sola scriptura) neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Call no man one earth Holy Father, Holy See .