M
mercygate
Guest
He probably did not ask the question. Those who did ask the question trusted their specific rabbinic tradition.
- Status
M
MysticRose
Guest
You know what I think?
I think this is a way to derail the thread in a different direction altogether so as to undermine the logical argumentations that have already been given and ignored Richard …:tsktsk:
Back to the thread if you please as this is not about the Jews at all is it? It is about how CHRISTIANS Validate the use of Sola Scriptura…
As far as your question goes … to answer this once and for all for you …
2.2 The Council of Jamnia
The next major piece of evidence to be noted is the Council of Jamnia, which seems to have taken place around 90 AD. This council established and closed the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews. It has been their canon ever since. Yet it should be noted that the council did not speak for all Jews, there were Jews living in Ethiopia who either did not hear of it or did not accept the decision of Jamnia. To this day they use a different canon than their Palestinian brethren [Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol 6, p 1147].
It would seem that for most Jews this Council did indeed seal the del for them … As most Jews accepted it …
The Mishnah was accepted at around 200 AD
The Mishnah (Hebrew משנה, “repetition”) is a major source of rabbinic Judaism’s religious texts. It is the first recording of the oral law of the Jewish people, as championed by the Pharisees and is considered the first work of Rabbinic Judaism.
The Mishnah was redacted around the year 200 CE by Judah haNasi (“Judah the Prince”). He is usually simply referred to as Rebbi (“Rabbi”). Nearly all of the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew, except for a few verses, which are written in Aramaic. Rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnah over the next three centuries were recorded mostly in Aramaic and were redacted as the Gemara. The Mishnah and the Gemara together form the Talmud.
The Mishnah is noteworthy in Rabbinic literature for its depiction of a religious universe in which the Temple in Jerusalem, destroyed a century earlier, still retains a central place. Laws concerning the Temple service constitute one of the Mishnah’s six divisions.
Also noteworthy is the Mishnah’s lack of citation of a scriptural basis for its laws. It is said that the Oral Law was given simultaneously with the Written Law (Torah) and so does not derive directly from it. Connecting the Mishnaic law with the Torah law was a major enterprise of the later Midrash and Talmuds.
The Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah are called Tannaim the plural of Tanna. Tanna is an Aramaic term for the Hebrew word shana, which also is the root-word of Mishnah. The verb shano literally means 'to repeat [what one was taught] and is used to mean ‘to learn’.
IOWs Oral Tradition
R
Richard_Hurtz
Guest
I know that. Where did I indicate that the priest’s only function was to instruct?
I don’t disagree that a denomination has the right to obligate its members to know its doctrines. But so what? The average Evangelical knows his doctrines too.
Private judgement is not the act of turning to the Magesterium for clarification. Private judgement, for the purposes of this discussion, is the act of interpreting and integrating of those teachings into the individuals’ faith. My point is that either the priest can be incorrect or the individual can misunderstand the further clarification of the priest.
Again the alleged safe guard of ‘eliminating the confusion created by sola scriptura’ is subject to the variablility of individual reception. At best, it creates the illusion of a safe guard.
My scenario was this:
“So, if I and the Pope were having lunch, and I asked a question regarding a matter of faith, his answer to me would probably be intelligent, insightful, learned, compassionate, etc…but I have no guarantee that it is ‘without error’.”
As you do (or should) know, the charism of Infallibility does not extend to the Pope in cases where he is NOT speaking ex cathedra EVEN when he IS speaking on issues of faith and morals.
“A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.”
Were this not the case, Catholilcs would have no defense against the charge that Pope Honorius taught heresy.
Peace to you,
Richard
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I wasn’t there and I’m not enough of a historian to know for sure, so this is just a guess: But I think that a Jew living in 200 BC would have followed the teachings of his Rabbi. Which is, in a sense, the whole point of this discussion. He followed the teachings of his religion as handed down to him by a real person.
I look at it this way: The father of a family might want to write down all the family rules and post them in the house, or even have an extensive loose-leaf folder full of family rules. Even if he does, that certainly doesn’t mean that questions won’t come up that aren’t covered in the book. And he himself will have to resolve disputes among the children about who is right in a particular matter. He can’t relinquish his headship or his authority simply by writing a book. Because, as I mentioned before, the book can’t explain itself.
R
Richard_Hurtz
Guest
I’m not trying to “derail this thread”. What I’m trying to make as a point is that Scripture is self-proclaiming both to the Old Testament saint and the New Testament saint. The same God that inspires Scripture, REVEALS scripture.
Blessings,
Richard
M
MysticRose
Guest
And who said that every single word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible for heaven’s sakes … The man is a man of course but he is also an instrument of God used to Guide the Church …
Therefore the Lord does have to have a mouthpiece so to speak, and the Pope is the Vehicle He uses…
He does not use millions of vehicles when it comes to teaching Doctrine and Dogma but one, otherwise all you have is chaos and that is readily apparent as no Protestant religion can agree with one another …
M
MysticRose
Guest
No one ever said that HE DIDN’T…
The balance of Sacred Scripture and Tradition is exactly that balance …
They harmonize one another and when they do not then something is obviously wrong, as Sacred Scriptura cannot contradict Tradition and Tradition cannot contradict Sacred Scriptura …
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I won’t disagree with that. But just going on experience alone, it would seem that God’s revelation of himself in scripture has resulted in much more uniformity of understanding in the Catholic tradition than in the Protestant traditions. And if Christ wishes, as he prayed, that we may all be one, uniformity in the understanding of truth is a good thing.
R
Richard_Hurtz
Guest
That may be your experience, but it most certainly is not mine.
Peace to you,
Richard
R
Redbandito
Guest
What? Richard I was merely responding to your assertion that requiring the laity to know what the orthodox faith is would negate the importance of the priest. Are you following this thread or are you just reading excerpts of posts and responding?
Richard, there are only three doctrines that Evangelicals must accept, and TWO of these have so many “orthodox” understandings it is impossible to discern which one really is. One, sola scriptura. Two, sola fide. These are both debated amongst Evangelical groups. Finally, there is the one that unites all Evangelicals, and that is that Catholics are wrong. This is the only doctrine that all Evangelicals agree upon. Thus, it is very different to speak of Evangelical doctrines vs. Catholic doctrines. Based on sola scriptura, there is no basis by which we can determine who is orthodox in their appeal to the Bible and who is not.
Uh…no it’s not. You again misunderstand what you’re talking about. The Catholic faith teaches the blue print to orthodoxy. When one rejects it, they have departed from the blue print. The very nature of sola scriptura is that it is based on “my own interpretation of Scripture”. My interpretation is the blue print, thus there is no means by which to claim orthodoxy other than a subjective appeal. It’s different, and you’re not getting that.
What? Just because we have the blue print doesn’t mean everyone is going to follow it. That doesn’t take away from the blue print. It just speaks to our fallen human nature. The “safe guard” is that the blue print is there. It doesn’t guarantee that everyone will accept it or follow it. What does one have to do with the other?
That’s correct. A pope only speaks infallibly when defining doctrine over faith and morals. That doesn’t hurt my argument. Pope Honorius did not teach heresy. Check out some Catholic responses to that. This has been clearly refuted.
R
Redbandito
Guest
And we agree with you. The question is not whether God reveals Scripture, it’s how. You seem to keep missing that.
R
Redbandito
Guest
You don’t get out much then. Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Non-denominationals, Anglicans (low church and high church), Assemblies of God, Church of Christ (the list could go on ad nauseum. None of these even agree on what the “fundamentals” of the faith are. Again, the only thing they do all agree on is that Catholics are wrong. Catholicism, on the other hand, CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED in ONE WAY! That is the way the Church teaches. Period! You can call yourself a Christian all you want, but if you don’t believe in Christ, you really aren’t. You would use this against Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the same way, you can call yourself Catholic, but if you don’t adhere to ALL the teachings over faith and morals, you have fallen away. Thus, I can’t be Catholic and accept homosexuality, abortion, contraception, sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. I can be Protestant and do that though. There are many different churches that accept all of these things as part of their “orthodox doctrine”, based on the “Bible”. Again, you are not seeing the fairly obvious difference between the two.
I
IanS
Guest
Just keepin’ it alive.
:yawn: :yawn:
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Richard, I would very much appreciate an answer to this. If God’s Word in Scripture is merely SELF revealing and not revealing THROUGH the Church, then why has that self-revelation not reached the two largest Christian Churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? Both of those Churches use the Deuterocanonicals but Protestants don’t. I find it extremely hard to believe that God allowed His Sacred Scripture to falsely reveal itself for 1500 years before Luther came and “saved” it. Either Scripture is not revealing itself to Catholics and Orthodox (and therefore leading them into heresy) or it is not revealing itself to Protestants. Or, it has already revealed itself fully to the Church and Protestants are the ones in error.
You have to choose one of two options here: Either the Catholic Church had the authority (at least at one point in time) to definitivley define the canon of Scripture, infallibly, or Martin Luther had the authority to definitively define the canon of Scripture, infallibly. Which is it?
In Christ,
Rand
Richard, I would very much appreciate an answer to this. If God’s Word in Scripture is merely SELF revealing and not revealing THROUGH the Church, then why has that self-revelation not reached the two largest Christian Churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? Both of those Churches use the Deuterocanonicals but Protestants don’t. I find it extremely hard to believe that God allowed His Sacred Scripture to falsely reveal itself for 1500 years before Luther came and “saved” it. Either Scripture is not revealing itself to Catholics and Orthodox (and therefore leading them into heresy) or it is not revealing itself to Protestants. Or, it has already revealed itself fully to the Church and Protestants are the ones in error.
You have to choose one of two options here: Either the Catholic Church had the authority (at least at one point in time) to definitivley define the canon of Scripture, infallibly, or Martin Luther had the authority to definitively define the canon of Scripture, infallibly. Which is it?
In Christ,
Rand
M
mercygate
Guest
Peace to you,
Richard**Are you saying that uniformity of understanding is not a good thing?*
I
IanS
Guest
I tell you what. To help Richard out I will open this up to any Bible on the face of the earth, protestant or Catholic. I’ll even open it up to the NT only. Is there ANY possibility?? I may get burned on this, but I just love livin’ on the edge.
P
Philthy
Guest
Yeah right - you got any proof of that? I didnt think so.
Yeah right - you got any proof of that? Gave it to whom, and what did they do with it?
Yeah right - you got any proof of that?
Yeah right - you got any proof of that?
My thoughts are that this is pure fantasy.
I
IanS
Guest
Well, I guess the total and complete lack of response by any of the “Great Sola Scriptura Reformers” to this most simple of questions speaks more to me than anything that could be written. I’ll consider my part on this thread done now.
Bella premunt hostilia, da robur fer auxilium!
B
Bishopite
Guest
V
Vintagecoils
Guest
Being a convert there was then the necessity for me to show other protestants that it is within the bible that refutes sola scriptura. In addition to the verses in Thes. I was shown that the verses in Acts. It is the situation where Philip was sent by an Angel of the Lord(authority) to the ethiopian on the road.
Acts8:30 And Philip ran thither to him,and heard him reading the phrophets and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? v31. And he said, "How can I except some man should quide me?
Phiilip, instructed him as to what the scriptures meant.
This helped clear things for me with the other verses. Also the bible tell us that the different letters were circulated and then used to teach.
Acts8:30 And Philip ran thither to him,and heard him reading the phrophets and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? v31. And he said, "How can I except some man should quide me?
Code:
The angel did not come to the ethiopian and say just read the scripture yourself and study it then you will be able to figure it all out. The angel sent someone who was of the appointed group by the apostles to instruct the ethiopian in all truth.This helped clear things for me with the other verses. Also the bible tell us that the different letters were circulated and then used to teach.
Thirdly, Christ himself showed us that man can not be left on his own to interprete the sciptures just from reading them. It was obvious through out the new testement that Jesus had to instruct the priests, pharasies and the disciples on the truth of the teachings of the scriptures they knew by heart. They had them for years to read but were wrong with out the Guidance of Christ. The Church, given to us from Christ and past to the apostles is Christ, for us with the Holy spirit to guide us in all truth.- Status