Sola gratia justificamus et sola fide justificamur et sola scriptura docebit

Sola gratia justificamus et sola fide justificamur et sola scriptura docebit...

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

? Latin

Yes.

What it's telling ?

Something to the effect of

>solely by grace are you justified and solely by [tradition?] are you justified and solely by scripture [something].

Just started picking up Latin myself.

Only by grace do we justify and only by faith are we justified and only by scripture do we teach.

OK, latin IS à Good t hing for understanding the past

>Only by grace we forgive and only by faith are we forgiven and only by scripture do we teach

How'd I do? It's been a while.

Quite true !

>docebit

Did you intend to use this form OP?

Not necessarily, no. I'm trying to include the sola scriptura into the original phrase from Melanchton and I'm having trouble in the translation.

Just realized scriptura is nominative. I revise to:

>Only by grace we forgive and only by faith are we forgiven and only scripture will instruct

You have to go back

Do you want it to say "and only by scripture are we taught"? You need to put doceo in the third person passive plural and scriptura into the ablative case

See I had doceo originally but for whatever reason I backed out.and I thought sola scriptura was in the ablative case already?

Why say sola scriptura anyway? Are you implying Christians did not exist before the Bible was written?

Oh, yeah you right on it being ablative already. For doceo, change it to "docentur." So you have:

>sola scriptura docentur

"Only by scripture are we instructed"

Interesting. I was trying to think of the best word to say guided/taught. I'll use docentur from now on.

No, not at all. To me, scripture is the word of God. Which has been around since the beginning of the word itself.

Sola [insert protestant shit here] is horse shit, dude.

You were on the right tract, doceo can mean both of those things. Docentur is just the passive third person plural of doceo, which gives you the "we are instructed," rather than the active docemus - "we instruct." BTW wiktionary is really helpful for parsing Latin words

Romanes Eunt Domus

I disagree but as long as you believe in Christ and were raised in the western Christian tradition, I won't be too critical.

Historically "sola scriptura" was the battle cry of the reformation which rejected the belief that certain parts of Christianity can, and have always been, taught through tradition.

You seem fairly knowledgeable in Latin. I have a question.

What is a good method in learning all the declensions and recognizing when to use them? There just seems to be so many forms, it kinda makes me dizzy.

Is the only way to just basically learn over time?

Yeah it's a lot to memorize, unfortunately. Are you using a textbook to learn? That will be essential. A pocket Latin dictionary helps too. As far as memorizing declensions and conjugations, there's no easy way. Just have to write it down over and over again, or record yourself saying them out loud and listen to it over and over again. Pretty boring desu, but I'm unaware of another method

I'm aware and, well, it was a bit more detailed than that...

See see see... "tradition."
Sola scriptura and sola fide were Luther's memes used to piss in the cheerios of the 16th century church.

Hmm... more heresy. Nothing new under the sun. Read the Church Fathers and learn about the Church.
>protip: it's not the Roman Catholic Church

It was much more detailed than that but believe what you like, as long as you're Christian.

I choose not to believe the teachings of the "Catholic" Church, but I believe in the Lord, my God.

I'm utilizing Lingua Latina per se Illustrata as a primary text, and Wheelocks Latin as a secondary text for more specific details.

Supposedly the trick to truly learning Latin is not to translate into English and write down those translations, but to speak, write and basically learn IN Latin. It's actually sound advice and is working well for me so far.

Cool. I actually agree with how YOU are saying it but those phrases were wrong when they were started and still carry that meaning today.

>Read the Church Fathers

I'd rather not be corrupted by false teaching for personal wealth and power thanks. I'll stick with the Gospel and the Word of the Lord.

>Men devoted to the Holy Trinity and martyred often for God
>Corrupted
user, who and how do you think the New Testament came to be? Did the Apostles walk around with their leather bound Bibles?

To each his own. If the Catholic Church didn't teach Christianity then I wouldn't listen to them either but as a catholic I also believe all Christians a part of Christ's Church.

Yep, that's for sure. It becomes easy to fall into the habit of writing out translations, but you're right - much better to try to just read the Latin. BTW, being that this thread has a distinctly Christian theme, try reading the New Testament in Latin. If you've read it in English already you'll breeze through it compared to, say, Horace or Cicero. It's much easier grammatically speaking too

Don't tell him about Revelation, he'll lose his faith entirely.

how would one translate ;'RENATUM' to English?

Not all of the church fathers are catholic. If you read a book by Franklin Graham or Joel Osteen but not by someone who is only a couple generations removed from Christ... then that's just retarded thinking.

So originally my plan was to learn Latin just well enough to read it proficiently, but I'm beginning to learn that you can't quite do that without simultaneously learning to speak it, as it's a very vocal language. I want to become proficient enough that I can begin reading ancient texts in the original Roman source.

Also, it was my understanding that later Church Latin was a bit different in pronunciation to early Roman Latin, Vulgar Latin so it's called, right?

You should look into Orthodoxy, which is His Church that he'll will not prevail against. Roman Catholic left the Church, and added many innovations in heresy.

I'm not opposed to that. What areas do the two diverge?

Learn Greek, since that's what the original Bibles were written in.

So my understanding was that Vulgar Latin was just everyman's Latin from classical times, while church Latin, like in the Middle Ages, was called Ecclesiastical Latin. But yeah there are some pronunciation changes, vocabulary changes, etc. compared to Cicero's latin. It also becomes markedly easier - as the language grew older it started to lose a lot of its inflected qualities, and prepositions began to replace certain declensions. At the absolute limit, compare it to modern French, which isn't declined at all.

Stop, user.

I am a Protestant. Matthew 23 and 24. That being said, I don't think Catholics are of the devil or anything like that. Just misguided. Not evil.

I have to go to bed now. Best of luck to all.

Well only the NT was originally written in (Koine) Greek. The OT was a Greek translation of Hebrew if I'm not mistaken.

I've always been one to get as close to the original source as possible, you know? And I'm more interested in the sources of the early Roman republic, like Cicero, at the moment. Eventually I will start moving up the time line, but I kind of want to start at the root.

Agnostic chiming in, redpill me on christianity. I concede that there is most likely a God... How can I know JC is the saviour...would like answers and resources that don't just say hey believe in it because the bible says so..

Dude... don't be that guy. I'm not saying they'll convert you away from anything. Just don't dis the church fathers as propaganda when they're the ones that kept Christianity alive during a time in which other forces were trying to influence it and steer it off path. Ask your pastor for guidance.

Look up Scott Han

Hmm... not memeing, but:
>Bishop of Rome having power over all Bishops in Christiandom
>Baptism not being three submissions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
>Mary being born without Sin
>Thinking that the Holy Spirit comes from.the Son and the Father, which destroys the Trinity aka "the filioque"
>removing canonical books from the Bible
>Papal infallibility in place of Ecumenical Councils
>Clergy not being able to be married as it was in the beginning
>the Eucharist not being mixed
>Not Baptism, Chrisimating (Comfirmation) and having First Communion together as it was in the beginning. Thus allowing even infants to become Closer to Christ instead of waiting 15 years for confirmation.
>Selling of Indulgences
>Purgatory
>Penal Crucifixion theory

That's a shortlist, but 1000 years later after they broke away they've been warped by this fallen world . No surprise Protestants came out of it, as heresy begets heresy.

Reading:
>The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
>The Path to Salvation by St Theophan the Recluse
>Orthodox Study Bible
>Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham

Good starters for the curious.

Or William Lane Craig

You might enjoy the writings of St Justin Martyr. They're free online and relatively short. He lived around 150AD. Same with Polycarp.

Digits on both... it's a sign.

Correct, the OT of the Orthodox Church is known as the Septuigint and was the translation of the Hebrew Holy Scripture 200 years before Christ. We use it because it has all the prophecies regarding the Messiah. The Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not use it, but use the Jewish Masoritic Text, which was completed around 1000AD by Jews and altered deliberately to "disprove" Christ as the Messiah. So Psalms, ages of people, and Prophecies were corrupted purposfully. Hence why the Septuigint is best, it's older and literally the same Scripture Christ and the Apostles used in the Temple, those that weren't gentiles.

AHHHHHHH

Thanks alot.

St Justin Martyr First and Second Apology
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

I'll have to screenshot that. There's no it'll take a lot to disseminate. I can tell you you're wrong about baptism. We do three submissions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Besides the point, I meant where do they diverge in time? It's been a while since I learned this but it was with the church fathers that the church split, correct? I mean catholic and orthodoxy split of course.

>We do three submissions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
As an infant I was Baptised Roman Catholic, it was three "spinklings/pours" of water on my forehead.
The date cited a lot for divergence is 1054AD, aka the Great Schism. It was centuries in the making, however.

Yeah we stopped that... you have to be "immersed" I believe. My wife was baptized last Easter and our priest dumped three entire pitchers over her head while she kneeled in a pool.
*Edit: you said sprinkles/pours. Why would a pour not count? I do think I immersion is the word used now, I could be wrong though.

It's not classical so it's hard to read.

>whore of babylon
>not going into the lake of fire prepared for her
Pick one and only one.
Come out of her, my people, so that you may not have fellowship in her sins, and so that you may not receive of her plagues

>Sola blah blah
Dead language. Dying religion. It's time to end all Abrahamic religions anyway. They've caused us far too much grief. We're all adults now. We don't need magic sky wizards to control us anymore.

>Ubi deus est?
>Ubi est?

Pater dei, quod es?

Baptism means immersion in Greek. It's literally immersion.
>Baptizo

Hahaha! Well then... now it's all making sense.

I actually have been wanting to study up on the schism. It was on my to-do list. So, I'm not just paying you lip service by saying I'll look into it, pun intended.

Good luck in life juggling that lack of humility!

>Calls Latin a Dead language
>As he uses an image saying religion is bad because it comes from a word in that dead language
>Is not even a good translation of its roots
>Le sky fairy maymay

Literally misinformation. Cancerous people like you are worse than any religiouscuck has ever been. You are probably not even a real atheist, you are just an edgy nonChristian like most manchildren claiming to be atheists these days.