Another Proof against Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger2 said:
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

When you go to correct someone else’s extra Biblical conclusions, it’s a good idea to check your own statements against Scripture. 😉
Click to expand...
Simeon spoke to Mary, rather than to both Mary and Joseph. How many ways can you take that?
 
Can I inquire what would a Protestant say with the first four hundred years when their was no official Bible. Sola Scriptura?
 
Ginger2 said:
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

When you go to correct someone else’s extra Biblical conclusions, it’s a good idea to check your own statements against Scripture. 😉
Click to expand...
OOOOPS! :o I was also posting regarding another time (the wedding feast), when Joseph was likely deceased. Sorry about the confusion. My cutting and pasting has only cut me! Proofreading. That’s what I’ll concentrate on!
 
po18guy said:
OOOOPS! :o I was also posting regarding another time (the wedding feast), when Joseph was likely deceased. Sorry about the confusion. My cutting and pasting has only cut me! Proofreading. That’s what I’ll concentrate on!
Click to expand...
I can relate. 🙂
 
Chellow said:
Can I inquire what would a Protestant say with the first four hundred years when their was no official Bible. Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 🙂

You guys act the Scriptures didn’t exist before they were gathered in one collection we call the Bible. 🤷
 
Ginger2 said:
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 🙂

You guys act the Scriptures didn’t exist before they were gathered in one collection we call the Bible. 🤷
Click to expand...
Hello? Acts? First book of the New Testament!

The scriptures they were quoting then were from The Old Testament, not The New Testament.

😃
 
Ginger2 said:
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 🙂

You guys act the Scriptures didn’t exist before they were gathered in one collection we call the Bible. 🤷
Click to expand...
Early Christians had only bits and pieces of the Old Testament. There was no such thing as the bible, only collections of hand-copied scripture in varying assemblages. Further, the vast majority of the world’s people were illiterate. We tend to use today as the yardstick for thousands of years ago.

We refer in the present discussion to the New Testament, the Gospel of Christ. It was not formally canonized until the late 300s. John did not write his Gospel until nearly the year 100. Hebrews, not being signed, was argued over for centuries. We are certainly delighted that we have scripture, but we would still have Christ’s church even if the New Testament had never been written. “Bible” churches depend 100% on the bible, yet disagree substantially over the meaning of scripture. How does this serve unity?

Praise God that we have both tradition and scripture. What would the faith look like without both, to provide the needed stability.
 
po18guy said:
Early Christians had only bits and pieces of the Old Testament. There was no such thing as the bible, only collections of hand-copied scripture in varying assemblages. Further, the vast majority of the world’s people were illiterate. We tend to use today as the yardstick for thousands of years ago.

We refer in the present discussion to the New Testament, the Gospel of Christ. It was not formally canonized until the late 300s. John did not write his Gospel until nearly the year 100. Hebrews, not being signed, was argued over for centuries. We are certainly delighted that we have scripture, but we would still have Christ’s church even if the New Testament had never been written. “Bible” churches depend 100% on the bible, yet disagree substantially over the meaning of scripture. How does this serve unity?

Praise God that we have both tradition and scripture. What would the faith look like without both, to provide the needed stability.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
SyCarl said:
That was their error not the Scripture. Jesus told them He was predicted.
Click to expand...
Well of course – Jesus was infallible in the interpretation of scripture,whereas the scribes and Pharisees,who were exegetes,were not infallible.
Jesus was the Word incarnate. He spoke through the prophets. So when Jesus quotes the scriptures he is quoting himself as well.
 
Ginger2 said:
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that **they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

**

Yes,they received the spoken word first,the apostolic tradition,and then they searched the scriptures to find the things which matched and verified what they had been told by word of mouth. The scriptures are composed of the Word of God written in dead words on the page,whereas the spoken Word is living and is passed on through tradition. The dead words of scripture need to be read in light of the living tradition of the Word.
Click to expand...
 
2ndGen said:
Hello? Acts? First book of the New Testament!

The scriptures they were quoting then were from The Old Testament, not The New Testament.

😃
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

The question by Chellow was:
“Can I inquire what would a Protestant say with the first four hundred years when their was no official Bible?”

Or did you think Protestants only use NT Scriptures?
 
po18guy said:
Early Christians had only bits and pieces of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
The earliest Christians were Jews.

:rotfl:

You’re not trying to say the Christians gave the Jews the Torah, are you?

It’s amazing the Apostle’s were able to quote the prophets so well when they had only “bits and pieces”?
 
The question by Chellow was:
“Can I inquire what would a Protestant say with the first four hundred years when their was no official Bible?”
Click to expand...
Most Protestants recognize the Canon of the NT and the process of the canonization of the NT. Here is an article discusing the Canon of the NT on the website of Grace Evangelical Society, which could be defined as ‘Protestant’/Evangelical/Non-Denominational and is a strong proponent of Free Grace theology (a doctrine I support): The Canon of the NT.
 
anthony022071 said:
Yes,they received the spoken word first,the apostolic tradition,and then they searched the scriptures to find the things which matched and verified what they had been told by word of mouth. The scriptures are composed of the Word of God written in dead words on the page,whereas the spoken Word is living and is passed on through tradition. The dead words of scripture need to be read in light of the living tradition of the Word.
Click to expand...
And…what “if” a person received a corrupted version of scripture?

Was one to place all their faith in an inanimate object?

A Bible is just a book…as dead as the stones of a temple.

As Jesus once said about sacramentals (objects used in worship), what’s holier? The altar or th sacrifice “on” the altar?

People, people, people…do “not” place your faith in ink, paper and leather.

The Word of God is not written on stone, but on a man’s heart!

The sacramentals (including a book) are just objects used to help us worship. When is The Bible useful? When we have an authentic translation; as we read it, the text speaks to The Word that’s written in our hearts and we recognize the truths written in it.

Some say that they don’t place their faith in man, only in the bible…they must think that The Bible fell from Heaven as a completed work (with a publisher’s page and all).

Some think that it’s impossible for the bible to be changed, then they accuse others of changing the bible and all this “after” they’ve changed the bible themselves…now, how many contradictions does that make?

🤷
 
Ginger2 said:
Irrelevant.

The question by Chellow was:
“Can I inquire what would a Protestant say with the first four hundred years when their was no official Bible?”

Or did you think Protestants only use NT Scriptures?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t responding to him…I was responding to you when you wrote:

“You guys act the Scriptures didn’t exist before they were gathered in one collection we call the Bible.”

As for Protestants and what they use,
which ones are you talking about?
With so many, how do I choose?
They all do different things.

Did you ever realize that the only thing that Protestants have in common religiously is that their “not” universal Christians?

Theologically, you won’t find two sects that have the same beliefs.

I can answer this…they definately don’t read The Christian Bible.

They only read the European bible based on The Pharissees version of The Old Testament…so yes, they only read the Christian New Testament, but they don’t read the Christian Old Testament used by Jesus Christ.
 
2ndGen said:
And…what “if” a person received a corrupted version of scripture?

Was one to place all their faith in an inanimate object?

A Bible is just a book…as dead as the stones of a temple.

As Jesus once said about sacramentals (objects used in worship), what’s holier? The altar or th sacrifice “on” the altar?

People, people, people…do “not” place your faith in ink, paper and leather.

The Word of God is not written on stone, but on a man’s heart!
Click to expand...
And that is truly the beauty of God’s plan. The Bible is not just “an inanimate object” It is one of the ways God chooses to speak to those who are truly seeking Him!

If you are truly seeking God, He will not allow you to be deceived forever.

Even the most corrupt writings will point to the truth.

The Koran is very corrupt, but points to the Christian Bible.

Sura 5:46:
“But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which IS the command of God.”

Sura 5:50:
“And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious.”

The same is true for the JW’s and SDA
 
Ginger2 said:
The earliest Christians were Jews.

:rotfl:

You’re not trying to say the Christians gave the Jews the Torah, are you?

It’s amazing the Apostle’s were able to quote the prophets so well when they had only “bits and pieces”?
Click to expand...
Do you mean to imply that The Apostles and the Disciples had access to Scriptures that were held and guarded by The Pharisees (who were the only ones authorized to teach Scripture)?

Nobody but the clergy had access to Scriptures. No common man at least. Paul would have had access. He was a Pharisee himself.

So, what they Jews knew, they knew from attending the Temple on the given religious days.

There were no common bibles that one could purchase.

In fact, the Pharisees hadn’t canonized the Old Testament until 60 years “after” Jesus died @ the Council of Jamnia in 90AD.

Up until that point, all used The Septugaint (named because it had in the area of 70+ books). It was the collection they used…that is, until Jesus came. Then they had to “edit” it.

Coincidentally, they ended up removing the same books that the Pharisees, (I’m sorry, the similar “P” throws me off) I meant The Protestants removed.

One group removed them because they represented and confirmed that The Catholic Church and her doctrine and the other group removed them because they represented and confirmed that Jesus was The Messiah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top