Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. Your post is very timely fashioned.

On one hand I want to agree that any Jewish tradition is in agreement to Scripture, as holding her Scripture as a superlative norm.

On the other hand would have to examine what happens when that is not the case, ( when a tradition or teaching/ practice make the law/ Scripture of no effect).

Jesus does not only cite bad practice or hypocrysy of Pharisees etc, but says to beware of their leaven, which is explicitly stated as doctrine, as in bad doctrine. For sure He otherwise says to do as instructed by those in Moses seat . It would seem to do so but only when they do really represent Moses and the Law in truth and Spirit.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds contradictory to…
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.
Click to expand...
Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Sounds contradictory to…
Click to expand...
What I posted is not contradictory to SS , or that a church has superlative Scripture as it’s norm.

That a church relies on grace for divine assistance in Scriptures’ reception and preservation, even translation, is not contrary either, but a testament to the superlative nature of Scripture as God’s Word.
 
mcq72 said:
What I posted is not contradictory to SS
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was. However i will add that your definition of SS is not necessarily common among some Protestants i know. Many arguments in bible study among them resulting in - :man_shrugging:t3:.

Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Many arguments in bible study among them resulting in - :man_shrugging:t3:
Click to expand...
I’ve seen untold numbers of arguments about doctrine between Catholics here, too.
adf417 said:
However i will add that your definition of SS is not necessarily common among some Protestants i know.
Click to expand...
Which is why I say, regarding practice and doctrine, use of the term Protestant is folly.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
This is not correct. There is NO contradiction between the Oral Law and the Written Law.
Click to expand...
Christ demonstrated otherwise.
meltzerboy2 said:
What you state is like saying that the Magisterium of the Church contradicts the Bible.
Click to expand...
I am okay with this statement. At times those in the Church have stated things that contradict the Bible. This is why Paul refers to scripture’s ability to teach, reprove, and correct.
 
And even with that, the Council of Jamnia is most likely a myth, so it would have been far later. Here is Brant Pitre on the supposed Council of Jamnia:
 
adf417 said:
Many arguments in bible study among them resulting in - :man_shrugging:t3:.
Click to expand...
Been to more than a few bible studies and never had this topic (SS) come up specifically…however it’s like always running in the background (app).
 
Last edited:
Way too many translations do not have this wording in v7 but all are consistent in v8 with the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. seems odd to read v7 and v8 together in this manner in only a few translations. Do you know the reason?
v7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. v8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Click to expand...
Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Way too many translations do not have this wording in v7 but all are consistent in v8 with the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. seems odd to read v7 and v8 together in this manner in only a few translations. Do you know the reason?
Click to expand...
If I recall they are not in all the manuscripts, or some say not found in " better" manuscripts.

Calvin says, "Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, "

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_john/5.htm
 
Last edited:
David_Catholic said:
The Arians changed the verse to remove the reference to the Trinity, and as a result, the verse is absent in the earliest copies we have of 1 John. Modern Textual Critics, the idiots that they are, have thought that just because it’s absent from the two oldest manuscripts, it shouldn’t be there. They are idiots. The Council of Trent said that the Latin Vulgate must be accepted in all it’s parts.
Click to expand...
Hmmm! Makes one wonder why the USCCB source not having this wording.

Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Do you know the reason?
Click to expand...
Most scholars posit that it originated as a gloss in Latin manuscripts, a scribal annotation written in margins to better explain the text. It was essentially an ancient form of commentary. At some point, it was incorporated into the body of the text itself, and then was passed onto Greek manuscripts.

The Johannine comma (as it’s termed in scholarship) is absent from nearly all Latin manuscripts prior to the 7th century, and all Greek manuscripts prior to the 15th. In addition it is absent from nearly all early NT translations, including Coptic, Syriac and Arabic. There are also no unambiguous references to the comma amongst the early Church Fathers, and one would have expected them to cite it profusely given its undeniable exposition of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top