Posted on 05/04/2011 10:56:18 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
By the way, I know what sola scriptura is.
Forgive me if I'm intruding here.
Is it a general understanding that the original Septuagint was in the form of a hand-copied bound book (or collection of books) rather than simply a name for the accepted canon (which was a actually a collection of individual scrolls)?
Is it believed that this Greek version was read publicly in a religious ceremony, or was it used mostly for less-formal study?
Any such reputable objective historical tome, notwithstanding some self serving protestant revisionist source, would debunk your theory. Note the operative word is “Objective” a term that perhaps need further explanation.
So did the church Fathers.. they trusted the scriptures to be an arbitrator of truth
Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life, - Deu 32:46, 47The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. The priests, prophets, and scribes of Israel certainly function to help the people ministerially. The prophets, who were indeed inspired, came very much in the spirit of Micah who said, He has shown you, O man, what is good, Micah 6:8. The function of the prophets and priests was not to add to or even clarify the law; rather, they applied it to the people who were sinfully indifferent.
If this principle of the sufficiency and clarity of the Word is true in the Old Testament, we do not have to assume it is all the more true in the New Testament - which gloriously fulfills what the Old Testament promises - given the example found in II Tim 3 & 4. There Paul writes to his younger brother in the faith, Timothy who was instructed in the faith by his mother and grandmother also learned all about Pauls teaching (3:10).
Nevertheless, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than the truth of the Word (4:1-4).
Catholic apologists respond by repeatedly asserting II Tim 3 does not teach sufficiency. Sometimes they will refer to Jam 1:4, Mat 19:21, or Col 1:28 and 4:12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word complete in II Tim 3:17 does not mean sufficient. But such passages are not parallel; II Tim 3:17 uses exartizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task, while the other passages use the Greek word teleios, which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end.
In contrast to this assertation, the force and clarity of Pauls teaching is striking. In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because they gave him all that he needed for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. It is Scripture that makes Timothy wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God. The sufficiency and clarity of the Word are taught in this one section of Scripture over and over again. John Chrysostom paraphrased the meaning of Pauls words to Timothy this way: You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know.1
Repeated assertations by Rome's apologists do not prove a point; that is only a propaganda technique; an answer in a responsible, thorough way, is demanded of them.
The great church father, Augustine, in his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible, wrote:
Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.2At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus faced the focused temptation of the devil in the wilderness. And how did He face that temptation? Did he not appeal to the oral tradition of Israel, the authority of the rabbis or Sanhedrin, or to even His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Our Savior, in the face of temptation, turned again and again and again to the Scriptures. It is written, He said.
He implied that even the evil one knew what he said was true. When the devil quoted the Scripture, Jesus did not turn to some other authority. Rather Jesus said, It is also written. [emphasis mine] When the evil one or his representatives misuse the Bible, or imply that it is unclear, Jesus teaches us that we must look more deeply into the written Word, not away from it.
While making much of tradition, they will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is. Historically, they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. For example, one has said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture. But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles.
This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fulness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.3Carefull analysis of the foregoing statments allows one to discern that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church as final arbiter of all things spiritual for Man. What is the Scripture, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you.It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with Gods most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.4
The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church. - John Eck5"I am tradition"6 was the declaration made by Pope Pius IX at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870; sola ecclesia is the unimpeachable doctrine of Rome. The Reformers saw that the words of Jesus to the Pharisees applied equally to their day: You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition (Mat 15:6).
That notwithstanding it can be shown that tradition contradicted tradition. For example, the tradition of the Roman church teaches that the pope is the head of the church, a bishop over all bishops. But Gregory the Great, pope and saint at the end of the ancient church period, said that such a teaching came from the spirit of Antichrist:
I confidently affirm that whosoever calls himself sacerdos universalis, or desires to be so called by others is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist.7The evident tension in tradition about the value of reading the Bible can be seen in The Index of Forbidden Books of Pope Pius IV in 1559:
Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles.8In marked contrast
Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. . . Since the word of God should be available at all times, the Church with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. - II Vatican Council9Does tradition believe that the Bible is dangerous or helpful? Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches. Moreover, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (I Cor 14:33). We know where that comes from. That notwithstanding, and nevertheless, nowhere does Scripture say that the church is true in all it says. Rather, although the church as a whole will be preserved in the faith, wolves will arise in the church (Act 20:29, 30), and even the man of lawlessness will sit at the heart of the church teaching lies (II Ths 2:4).
At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, Christ has spoken, the matter is settled. Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.
The Bible tells us that the Word of God is the light that enables us to walk in the ways of God.
I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Thy statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey Thy precepts. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light for my path. The unfolding of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. - Psa 119:99, 100, 105, 130Roman apologists object to an appeal to Psalm 119 on the grounds that it speaks of the Word of God, not of the Bible, and therefore could include in its praise tradition as well as Scripture. But their argument is irrelevant because it proof-text to the clarity, not the sufficiency of Scripture! The Psalmist clearly states that the light of the Word shines so brightly and clearly that if one meditates upon it, and obey it, they are wiser than any teacher or elder. The simple can understand it. The Word is like a strong flashlight in a dark forest. It enables me to walk on the path without tripping.
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. - Mat 11:25Adam Clarke's Commentary: The scribes and Pharisees, vainly puffed up by their fleshly minds, and having their foolish hearts darkened, refusing to submit to the righteousness of God (God's method of saving man by Christ) and going about to establish their own righteousness, (their own method of saving themselves,) they rejected God's counsel, and God sent the peace and salvation of the Gospel to others, called here babes, (his disciples,) simple-hearted persons, who submitted to be instructed and saved in God's own way. Let it be observed, that our Lord does not thank the Father that he had hidden these things from the wise and prudent, but that, seeing they were hidden from them, he had revealed them to the others.
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God...And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. - Rom 2:17,19-20Adam Clarke's Commentary: Ye believe the Gentiles to be babes and fools when compared with yourselves; that ye alone possess the only true knowledge; that ye are the only favourites of Heaven; and that all nations must look up to you as possessing the only form of knowledge, the grand scheme and draught of all true science, of every thing that is worthy to be learned: the system of eternal truth, derived from the law. If, therefore, ye act not as becomes those who have such eminent advantages, it must be to your endless disgrace and infamy.
How is the the dogma proclaimed by contemporary Rome any different than the attitude held by the Jews of Paul's day? Contrast Rome's dogma with Paul's exhortation to Timothy, "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Consider the account of Paul preached in Berea in the synagogue and many Jews responded to his preaching with eagerness (Act 17:10-12). We are told that after they listened to Paul each day they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Did Paul respond by declaring the Scriptures to be unclear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin were of sufficient caliber to interpret Scriptures for them? Did Paul say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter - as the purported first pope - as the only one capable of interpretion of Scripture with authentic veracity? None of that was proclaimed. Instead the practice of the Bereans was praised; they Bereans were called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God.
...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. - I Cor 4:6b===============
1) Cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge,: University Press, 1849) P. 637
2) Augustine, On Christian Doctrine trans. by D.W. Roberston, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 11:9.
3) The Documents of Vatican II, ed. waiter M. Abbott (New York: Herden and Herden, 1966) p. 116. Dei Verbum, 8.
4) Ibid., p. 118.
5) John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) P. 13.
6) Jesef Rupert Geiselmann, The Meaning of Tradition (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966)p. 16, note on pp. 113,114.
7) Cited in Cambridge Medieval History, section written by W. H. Hutton, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney,(New York: The MacMillan Co., 1967) 11:247.
8) James Townley, Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Vol. 2 (London: printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821) p. 481
9) Documents of Vatican II, PP. 125,126.
It would be wise to check your history friend . There was no unified Roman canon until trent.. various provincial councils declared a canon for their area . Each province had different canons ...
Any such reputable objective historical tome, notwithstanding some self serving protestant revisionist source, would debunk your theory. Note the operative word is Objective a term that perhaps need further explanation.
LOL ... Catholics do little or no research and they want to call protestants "self serving
As an example let me cite . Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.
Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
There3 are more variances if you are interested..
Josephus considered everything written after the time of Artaxerxes to be non-canonical, because prophetic messages had ceased. It is highly probable, since Josephus was a historian, that this was not his own idea, but reflected an earlier Jewish tradition (see Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 1988, pp. 32-34). The most interesting evidence concerning the Hebrew canon comes from tractate Sanhedrin: The rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit has left Israel (Rodkinson VII/VIII:24). Thus, Jewish oral tradition held that Malachi was the last inspired book of the Old Testament.
Around A.D. 90, a group of Jewish rabbis gathered at Jamnia in western Judea to discuss the established canon. Testing for books that defile the hands (i.e., were prophetically inspired), they debated including certain apocryphal books and removing some disputed books. However, the conclusion was that only the books that comprised the Hebrew Bible were the inspired, canonical books (Bruce, pp. 34-36; McDowell and Wilson, 1993, p. 37). These books which were stamped with the "seal of approval" had been in wide use for centuries before, and in fact had been translated into Greek 200 years before these councils met. They in no sense "created" the Old Testament. And they completed their work two centuries before Constantine.
The fact behind the councils being convened was for the very purpose of dealing with the issue of flawed and false doctrines that were being promulgated at that time. This was becoming especially rampant with the emergence of Gnosticism and moreover, especially critical after the desctruction of the second temple. All the councils established was what the people had already been using for generations. They didn't affirm, but confirmed the canon of Hebrew Scripture.
It is clear from the evidence that the Jewish people accepted the thirty-nine Old Testament books as their canonno more, no less. The New Testament refers to an established division. Josephus said that Malachi, as the last inspired author, completed the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The rabbis at Jamnia, who had access to apocryphal writings, did not include them in the canon of Scripture. Moreover, the ancient oral tradition of the Jews held that the thirty-nine books in our Old Testament are the only Scriptures.
"There are a vast number of false and spurious writings that deserve mention at this point; not because anyone would seriously contend for their authority, but because they do represent the religious lore of the Hebrews in the inter-testamental period. The New Testament writers make use of a number of these books Of course, it should be remembered that the New Testament also quotes from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts 17:28); Menander (1 Cor.15:33); and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). Truth is truth no matter where it is found, whether uttered by a heathen poet, a pagan prophet (Num 24:17), or even a dumb animal (22:28). Nevertheless, it should be noted that no such formula as it is written or the Scriptures say is connected with these citations. It should also be noted that neither the New Testament writers nor the Fathers have considered these writings canonical" - (Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody),p. 262, emp. added)."Nowhere does the biblical text state that Jude and Paul equated pseudepigraphal writings with those of Scripture, so any reference to them in the biblical account was merely inspired use of an uninspired source. The first, and most obvious, explanation for the exclusion of any book from canon is that they contain false information about their respective authors. If a book lies about its origin, then its contents most likely contain falsehoods. If a book requires a false attribution in order to be canonical, then it must have characteristics that make its inspiration and canonicity suspect.
The early Christians quickly developed four criteria for accepting a book as Scripture. First, it must have been written by an apostle or based on his eyewitness testimony. Second, the book must possess merit and authority in its use. For instance, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ tells of a man who is changed into a mule by a bewitching spell but converted back to manhood when the infant Christ is put on his back for a ride (7:5-27). In the same book, the boy Jesus causes clay birds and animals to come to life (ch. 15), stretches a throne his father had made too small (ch. 16), and takes the lives of boys who oppose him (19.19-24). It was easy to dismiss such fiction.
Third, a book must come to be accepted by the entire church, not just a single congregation or area. And lastly, a book must be approved by the decision of the larger church, not just a few advocates.
Here is how this process unfolded. In the first century, a number of books were soon produced in response to the ministry of Jesus. As an example, Peter told his readers, "[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Thus Peter considered Paul's writings to be "Scripture."
F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible canon. "One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."
In order to qualify as inspired, a text must pass all the tests for inspiration:
Furthermore, divine providential preservation of The Word is explicitely promised in scripture:
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." - Psa 12:6-7
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." - Isa 59:21
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Deu 29:29
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mat 24:35
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Mat 5:18
Scholars taking a naturalistic approach to Bible preservation, support a critical text approach. To be consistent, they are forced to deny and/or misrepresent a literal interpretation of many of God's promises of Bible preservation.. Having rejected God's supernatural preservation of His Holy Scriptures, they are open to believe the scholarship claims of textual errors in the Bible. Having replaced God's promises of divine preservation with the theories of 19th century naturalistic scholarship their future hope is to correct and restore what they now believe to be a corrupted Bible. Such a Biblical philosophy of preservation is totally inconsistent with the eternal salvation of God's saints. For if God cannot, or did not keep His Holy Scriptures intact as He promised, what assurance do we have that we can trust His promises to keep our souls for all eternity? A generation without faith in God's promises to keep His holy Scriptures on earth will surely reproduce a new generation without faith in God's promises to keep their own souls in Heaven.
And just what authority do you cite, when you state that these works “were never part of the Jewish Canon”?
Tobit, Baruch, Judith , Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, together with 7 chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel and the 13th & 14th chapters of Daniel, were deliberately cut out of the Bible.
There is no basis for the claim they were not part of Jewish Canon.
Luther made no such reference when he discarded these works. In fact he cited personal taste as he pronounced “throw it overboard”, in reference to 2 Maccabees, daring to proclaim “it is holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”
ALL of the works listed above formed a part of the Hebrew Bible over 100 years before Christ!
Sorry...
Here’s the link - http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Though Jesus didn’t quote those scriptures, He did reference them. Is your argument that the books must be quoted from before they can be acceptable? Jesus didn’t quote from every book in the Protestant Old Testament either.
Septuagint. The word for the day.
1. How do you define the word "Unified"and how do you define your use of the term "Provincial Councils. It is apparent from your sentence in this regard that the measure of your historical knowledge regarding these affairs has been taken and found wanting. Unless you write in an exacting precise fashion, your commentary is merely self serving and of no value.
2. How do you define province? What empirical evidence do you possess that "Catholics do little or no research" Such commentary bereft of any objective historical evidence merely serves to expose the bigotry and poor quality of thought process of the author
This unsubstantiated comment alone clearly demonstrates you make comments totally unsupported by historical evidence only evidencing apparent biased and bigoted emotions which Jesus categorically condemns in the Bible see Mt 7:1. Making extraneous cites with no relationship to the topic under consideration only serves serves to underscore your apparent ignorance of Bible history
Perhaps taking a historical course at some post secondary facility as a junior a or community facility would provide you with a means to discuss and argue these matters in a logical informed fashion. But do not become too exercised when you discover the error of your misinformed ways.
The 27 books of the New Testament were first authoritatively by St. Athanasios in 367:
Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.The Athanasius NT canon was officially recognized in the Council of Rome (382) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563).39'th Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival
Luther did not remove james from the canon
Okay. I was mistaken about Luther removing James, but
Luther placed the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation at the end of his translation and failed to note their page numbers in the index. He wrote a preface to James claiming it "contradicts Paul by teaching justification by worksThe OT belongs to the jews ... not Rome
The First Century Jewish council of Jamnia rejected Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, but Protestants as well as Rome include these books.
The seven deuterocanonical books in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox OT canons come from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was used by the Apostles and Evangelists for the OT passages in the New Testament.
The King James Bible uses the Septuagint as the source for OT books, such as Isaiah, that include prophesies of Christ. Also, the original King James Bible includes the deuterocanonicals but American publishers took out these books to save on printing costs. The King James version published in England includes the deuterocanonicals from the Greek Septuagint.
The Church Fathers. They’re doing it wrong.
:)
let's take one, Sola scriptura
first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura | None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!
|
||||
Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture! |
|
||||
Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura |
The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit |
||||
Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one? | Let's see --
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
The Bereans as an example of the errors of Sola Scriptura | The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles. So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible? Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines
Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ. Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God. The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas. if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura. |
||||
The Thesalonians | The key point about the jealousy of the Thesalonians is this:
|
||||
The Bereans | As this article says
|
|
|||||
Now the sola scriptura types say they hold to scripture alone, | Yet they hold on to things like
|
For instance, the books of Maccabees etc. were included in the King James version of 1611 and the Luther Bible. So they are scriptural books.
Scripture
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.
Sirach and 2 Maccabees some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 Paul says he thinks that he has the Spirit of God.
Also, Scripture does not have to be written by a prophet, just by a person under divine inspiration.
the book of Kings and Judges are cases in point. Also, if we look at the Psalms by David or the Proverbs or books by Solomon -- were these two Prophets? Not really, however, they were inspired by God to write what they wrote
Also, do note 2 Macc. 15:11-16 where Judah Maccabees gets his prophetic vision
Finally -- as you can see in my post above, these books are referenced in the New Testament, while some OT books like Obadiah are not.
You said: The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "
You state that All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source -- Can you find anywhere in scripture which says that ALL should be found in scripture? Didn't Paul write in 2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.?
If you say that only all of the matters needed for salvation, then we agree. The basic truths of Salvation are "God exists; God is a Trinity; Jesus is God the Son; Jesus died for our sins; and we must repent, believe, and be baptized to be saved"
but not "all" -- that is unscriptural :)
2 Pet 1:21 says 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- sticking by your own personal interpretation means that you fall into the trap outlined in 2 Pet 3:16 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.