Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

[adf417]

What God writes is not conditional to a magisterium or tradition, but a right tradition and and a right decreeing magisterium is conditional to God’s say so in writing.

This statement sounds like you are putting the writings above tradition and magisterium. Forgive me if that is not what you are saying. If so the problem you come up to is all the differing copies of NT manuscripts in existence. Which of those copies are the correct ones God intended and how do you know?

Peace!!!

 

[annem]

I suppose this depends both on what one believes constitutes “consideration” and what one considers a Gnostic text. Certainly lots of early Christians used texts that today would be considered to be in error in various ways, including texts considered Gnostic.
*

*

Not really. There was never the smallest shred of evidence any Gnostic text was up for consideration for the canon. Period. Come on, this is undeniable. Look at the lists. Read the second century theologians. You can’t name one who didn’t argue straight down the line for orthodox Christianity. Look at how they regarded Gnostic texts.

The sole instance we have of any Christian promoting a Gnostic text, other than to condemn it, was one reading of Peter. And what happened? Bishop Serapion promptly stomped down on that heresy. And of course we don’t even know if that Gospel of Peter had anything to do with the text we have from the - what was it? 9th century or so? - but even if it was the same, Peter is mostly a pious text, only touched by a bit of Docetism perhaps.

And here is where I feel you veer suddenly into confusion with “lots of texts” you point out “in error”. Now, let us think about that. Is that really true? Sorry, I must disagree. Orthodoxy was a passionate concern of the church from the first day. Look, look at all the earliest texts. Does one or two fall into an error? Of course. But these would be argued over, corrected, and, if found not to be completely orthodox, tossed out. Hello, Origen.

Paul was outraged by any lapse from orthodoxy, So also in 95 AD 1 Clement and then in 110 AD in the letters of Ignatius we see bishops insisting on orthodoxy. Marcion tried to gift the church in Rome with a sum quite utterly fabulous, which was rejected because: lack of orthodoxy.

There simply is no way that I can see to argue that there was a happy confusion over beliefs, or large. numbers of people who didn’t know there was any difference between a Gnostic text raving on about the Demiurge and aeons, and the Gospel of Matthew/.

 

[TMC]

You seem a lot more certain in your understanding of what transpired 2,000 years ago than most historians of that era. Personally, I disagree with you in that I think there was a lot of diversity in the beliefs of Christians in the early years of the Church. Given that we are already so far adrift of the topic, its probably not worth arguing about, however.

 

[mcq72]

. If so the problem you come up to is all the differing copies of NT manuscripts in existence. Which of those copies are the correct ones God intended and how do you know?

Yes, that is to be spiritually discerned, with and in faith. No different than discerning which differing traditions or magisteriums/church/ communities have things correct.

 

[mcq72]

This statement sounds like you are putting the writings above tradition and magisterium

I don’t think believers question the inerrancy of scripture here. What some question is whether inerrancy of (a) tradition or a magisterium is equally unconditional.

If that places Scripture as a servant (the least being greater) to a magisterium and any tradition, so be it.

If God must be true to His own Word, even as it is written, how so much more the traditions and decrees of His body/bride/church ?

 

[adf417]

I don’t think believers question the inerrancy of scripture here. What some question is whether inerrancy of (a) tradition or a magisterium is equally unconditional.

So, which of the copies are in fact the correct copies? And more importantly, how do you know? If you say the one you use, please finish the question, how do you know if not for the tradition or magisterium?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

ColoradoCatholic:

Its absolutely done by Catholics, you should ask all of the Angels and Saints in Heaven to pray for you every day!

Even though Elijah technically isn’t in “heaven” yet…he never died…but that’s a different topic lol

Yes it seems to be a catholic thing. To ask for approved and un approved dead saints to pray for you to receive grace from God.

If one is uncomfortable with direct requests of intercession by the saints in Heaven, one can always ask God to hear their intercessory prayers for us, just as we ask Him to hear the prayers of His saints on Earth.

 

[JonNC]

The doctrine is self-defeating.

It isn’t a doctrine. It is a hermeneutical principle.

Protestants claim Scripture alone is the sole source of authority, yet Scripture doesn’t teach this anywhere!

And so it isn’t. What sola scriptura teaches is that Scripture is the sole final norm by which doctrine and teachings are held accountable.
The teaching authority that acts on this principle is the Church. The effect is that the conscience of the believer cannot be bound to doctrines not found in scripture.

Protestants rely on their own ORAL tradition of Sola Scriptura.

As was pointed out, there are numerous passages in scripture that support the principle

It’s a foundational doctrine of Protestantism wthat, by its very nature, disproves itself.

Only if misunderstood. A couple of points.

1. there are no foundational doctrines of Protestantism. That premise assumes that Protestantism exists now or ever has as a single monolith. This is untrue.
   One could say it is a foundational principle of Lutheran hermeneutics. I think it safe to say that it is not a principle or doctrine of (most?) Anglicans, and perhaps Methodists.
2. it only disproves itself if the incorrect description you’ve provided were true. Properly understood, it is properly understood as an exercise of the Church.

How can Scripture be the only source of doctrine if Scripture doesn’t teach such?

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine. It is a practice. There are numerous things we do that are not explicitly proscribed in scripture.

If there is no external source of authority, how can you be sure that the books you have in your Bible are correct? The Bible itself never included an inspired table of contents…

The authority is the Church. Sadly, we are not united, so different traditions within the Church use different canons.

 

[adf417]

Since scripture isn’t a boundary and tradition is whatever they say it is, then the Catholic church has a one legged stool. IMHO.

Do you mean like at the council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15 where there was no fullness of scripture and tradition of circumcision had not yet been established?

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Do you mean like at the council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15 where there was no fullness of scripture and tradition of circumcision had not yet been established?

Well, none of today’s church are apostles so that is comparing apples and oranges. They were delivering apostolic teaching, we are following it. Not delivering it.

 

[mcq72]

Do you mean like at the council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15 where there was no fullness of scripture and tradition of circumcision had not yet been established?

Well besides lanmans point of apostles being there, they were still biblically astute (the OT is still superlative scripture), per James citation of prophets

“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,”
Acts 15:15 KJV

Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written | King James Version (KJV) | Download The Bible App Now

I do not see James citing any tradition or magisterial/ rabbinical teaching, how be it there may have been some from which to do so.

He cites what is written.

We seem to each find what we seek from that council.

 

[mcq72]

So, which of the copies are in fact the correct copies? And more importantly, how do you know? If you say the one you use, please finish the question, how do you know if not for the tradition or magisterium?

I think i finished the question but will state again SS does not deny tradition or a magisterium that by divine grace and assistance are used to that end. Divinely written, received, maintained, copied, understood. Yet as Jon points out, sadly there are variations.

 

[adf417]

Well, none of today’s church are apostles so that is comparing apples and oranges. They were delivering apostolic teaching, we are following it. Not delivering it.

Well like you say, that is your humble opinion. It also seems un comforting to me especially since Acts 1:12-26 shows something much different. Maybe the “casting of lots” was just for fun.

peace!!!

 

[adf417]

I do not see James citing any tradition or magisterial/ rabbinical teaching, how be it there may have been some from which to do so.

Ummm, thats because they are making the tradition, right there, 1st hand. And they are making it agreement with the OT writings. Without a declaration of new understanding guided by the Holy Spirit, all they have is OT tradition of circumcision.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

adf417:

So, which of the copies are in fact the correct copies? And more importantly, how do you know? If you say the one you use, please finish the question, how do you know if not for the tradition or magisterium?

I think i finished the question but will state again SS does not deny tradition or a magisterium that by divine grace and assistance are used to that end. Divinely written, received, maintained, copied, understood. Yet as Jon points out, sadly there are variations.

Thats not what im referring to. Im referring to the textural variants in the thousands of hand copies throughout the early preservations of scripture well before the reformation, not the many bible versions with different canons. So which of the thousand textural variants fit into this paridigm?

What God writes is not conditional to a magisterium or tradition, but a right tradition and and a right decreeing magisterium is conditional to God’s say so in writing.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

So which of the thousand textural variants fit into this paridigm?

Which Christian beliefs are effected by variants?

 

[mcq72]

Thats not what im referring to.

Ok, I was. My answer applies to discernment of copies, as well as to which books, and etc.

By the way, not sure there are many significant textual variations in textus receptus.

Anyways, still a function of the church to discern all of this.

 

[mcq72]

Ummm, thats because they are making the tradition, right there, 1st hand. And they are making it agreement with the OT writings.

Again, wouldn’t say that is contrary to SS.

all they have is OT tradition of circumcision.

For the most part perhaps, but from what I understand there was some teaching, practice differences in regards to gentiles converting or becoming believers in OT. Not sure all rabbis taught 100% circumcusion as necessary. That is what I referenced. Certainly Paul was was not circumcising gentiles 100%, in fact, rarely. and that before the council. Was he aware of this variant teaching?

 

[meltzerboy2]

And the Karaites today do NOT abide by the Oral Law. Otherwise, to varying degrees, Judaism is built on the Written Law AND Oral Law.

 

[meltzerboy2]

This is not correct. There is NO contradiction between the Oral Law and the Written Law. The Oral Law complements the Written Law; it does not contradict it. Most of modern Judaism follows the Pharasaic Law and the Oral tradition, which is in keeping with the Torah.

What you state is like saying that the Magisterium of the Church contradicts the Bible. This is exactly what some Protestant denominations say about Catholicism.