How do we know Jesus is the Messiah?

[Hatikvah]

…so only you are allowed to throw in examples?

Zealots for God and country do commit errors in their efforts to safeguard and communicate… that’s the relevancy!

…still, I concur with you that the Holy Spirit is the Ultimate Guard and Guarantor of Scripture Inerrancy!

Maran atha!

Angel

Wait? Oh, no, you can throw in as many examples as you like! Yes, of course any man or woman can commit errors, especially before the days of spellcheck and the Internet. At least the Holy Spirit knows what he’s doing, right?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Why are some insistent on splitting hairs using English language text???

English is at best a translation. English is a very weak language. And only … what?.. 700 years old?

Christianity goes back 2000 years and its Jewish roots several thousand years more.

You need to study the Greek.

And the Hebrew.

Trivial examples:

“Son of Man” is translated from “Son of Adam”. [ben Adam]

“Thanks be to God” is not as powerful as “Deo gratias.”

 

[Faith1960]

Minor differences like lack of punctuation, etc. And of course there are a few verses like in John 8(let he who is without sin cast the first stone) that are not found in the eatliest manuscripts.

Why weren’t they in the earliest manuscripts?

 

[Hatikvah]

Why weren’t they in the earliest manuscripts?

We don’t have all the manuscripts, and many of the ones we have are relatively late. If we go by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture (both traditional ideas), then we can note that the autographs (original writings) likely had them but the “earliest” manuscripts that we do have are errant.

There is such a diversity in the text, too (e.g., Byzantine, Egyptian, Eccentric, Alexandrian, Antiochian, sometimes Ethiopic, on and on).

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Why weren’t they in the earliest manuscripts?

Great question.

Sometimes the earliest manuscripts are fragmented and pieces of the text are missing. And sometimes they just lack certain verses. We assume they were part of the originals.

Would be nice if a NT version of the dead sea scrolls got dug up somewhere from the 1st century. Would be more conclusive.

As a protestant i was taught we are free accept or reject those verses not found in the earlier manuscripts. As a Catholic i accept them all because i know not everything was written down to begin with and this is all a product of oral tradition.

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

So when confronted with “SS,” I’m assuming you mean sola scriptura and not Sacred Scripture.

Yes.

Let’s review how this conversation ensued:

I said:

Indeed. So you must reject Sola Scriptura.

You responded with:

I just use Luther’s view, perhaps amended a little bit. It still falls under “sola scriptura” as a technicality, but it is far from the Baptist or Fundamentalist reject-all-Tradition-and-Fathers views. (I don’t know how those maintain themselves.)

And since you referenced Luther’s view, I asked what that was.

If you had to say, in a sentence of 2, “This is Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura”, what would it be?

 

[Faith1960]

Great question.

Sometimes the earliest manuscripts are fragmented and pieces of the text are missing. And sometimes they just lack certain verses. We assume they were part of the originals.

Would be nice if a NT version of the dead sea scrolls got dug up somewhere from the 1st century. Would be more conclusive.

As a protestant i was taught we are free accept or reject those verses not found in the earlier manuscripts. As a Catholic i accept them all because i know not everything was written down to begin with and this is all a product of oral tradition.

Pax

Ok, so our Bible is a product of oral tradition and can be trusted to have the truth?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, so our Bible is a product of oral tradition and can be trusted to have the truth?

Yes. The oral teaching came first.

And then the Church reviewed all of the many, many Christian texts, and those texts which conformed to the oral teaching were preserved as part of the canon.

Those texts which diverged from the kerygma were rejected.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes. The oral teaching came first.

And then the Church reviewed all of the many, many Christian texts, and those texts which conformed to the oral teaching were preserved as part of the canon.

Those texts which diverged from the kerygma were rejected.

What’s kerygma mean? I looked it up but need you to dumb it down for me. I looked elsewhere…
Does it mean oral tradition in the early Church?

 

[PRmerger]

What’s kerygma mean? I looked it up but need you to dumb it down for me. I looked elsewhere…
Does it mean oral tradition in the early Church?

Kerygma simply means: the teachings of Christ. The good news. The gospel.

 

[Faith1960]

Kerygma simply means: the teachings of Christ. The good news. The gospel.

Ok. Thanks!

And the Bible can be trusted to contain the truth even though the teachings were passed through oral tradition?

 

[Hatikvah]

Yes.

Let’s review how this conversation ensued:

I said:

You responded with:

And since you referenced Luther’s view, I asked what that was.

If you had to say, in a sentence of 2, “This is Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura”, what would it be?

I’ll summarize in some key points as shortly as I can (three sentences):

Luther’s view of sola scriptura appears to include traditional ideas about Scripture (inerrancy, inspiration, and authority, namely). Scripture refers to the written Bible, but
the Word of God is not limited to written revelation but is centered around the communication of Christ Himself. Although Scripture has the final word on all matters, it is accompanied by a Tradition of orthodox understanding and interpretation that should be used for interpretation of Scripture.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ll summarize in some key points as shortly as I can (three sentences):

Luther’s view of sola scriptura appears to include traditional ideas about Scripture (inerrancy, inspiration, and authority, namely). Scripture refers to the written Bible, but
the Word of God is not limited to written revelation but is centered around the communication of Christ Himself. Although Scripture has the final word on all matters, it is accompanied by a Tradition of orthodox understanding and interpretation that should be used for interpretation of Scripture.

Apart from “the communication of Christ,” in Judaism it is exactly the same: the codified Oral Tradition (Talmud) informs Hebrew Scripture (Torah) in matters of understanding and interpretation although Scripture has the final word.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. Thanks!

And the Bible can be trusted to contain the truth even though the teachings were passed through oral tradition?

I’m not understanding the “even though” part of your question?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll summarize in some key points as shortly as I can (three sentences):

Luther’s view of sola scriptura appears to include traditional ideas about Scripture (inerrancy, inspiration, and authority, namely). Scripture refers to the written Bible, but
the Word of God is not limited to written revelation but is centered around the communication of Christ Himself. Although Scripture has the final word on all matters, it is accompanied by a Tradition of orthodox understanding and interpretation that should be used for interpretation of Scripture.

How is this different from the Catholic view?

 

[Faith1960]

I’m not understanding the “even though” part of your question?

Originally, the Scriptures were passed on orally, right? So we can trust that the Bible is truth despite not being put down on papyrus, right? I mean we can trust that the people kept to the truth despite passing on the Scriptures orally instead of permanently writing it down?

 

[PRmerger]

Originally, the Scriptures were passed on orally, right?

Originally the Good News was passed on orally.

So we can trust that the Bible is truth despite not being put down on papyrus, right?

We can trust it’s true because it’s theopneustos–God breathed.

And we know it’s God-breathed because we look at the text from a historical perspective and know that a man named Jesus lived, he started a Church, and this Church says that these 27 books that are in the NT are inspired.

I mean we can trust that the people kept to the truth despite passing on the Scriptures orally instead of permanently writing it down?

We trust the Church.

No one who believes that the 27 books of the NT are inspired does so without giving their implicit trust in the Catholic Church.

 

[Faith1960]

Originally the Good News was passed on orally.

We can trust it’s true because it’s theopneustos–God breathed.

And we know it’s God-breathed because we look at the text from a historical perspective and know that a man named Jesus lived, he started a Church, and this Church says that these 27 books that are in the NT are inspired.

We trust the Church.

No one who believes that the 27 books of the NT are inspired does so without giving their implicit trust in the Catholic Church.

Ok, thanks again!

 

[Hatikvah]

How is this different from the Catholic view?

I’ll admit, Luther’s own view isn’t all too different when we break it down.

Keep in mind that this is not Calvin’s view of sola scriptura (which Baptists, Calvinists and many Evangelical and Fundamentalist-ish groups have inherited). Luther did not apply “living” Church authority to theology, only the first seven ecumenical councils, so no active magisterium.

Scripture is not equal to Tradition but part of it (considered the Word of God, sentences 2-3), and the Holy Spirit is the divine Protector of it. For example, the Trinity would not be understood well without it.

I compare it to John Wesley’s prima scriptura where Scripture is only part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Doctrine is developed using four bases in this method: Scripture, Tradition, reason and experience, though Luther only uses the first two and others come later.

Luther’s view is not in line with Catholic Answers’ sweeping use of the term:

[The Protestant view is that] anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God. (Source)

 

[Faith1960]

Originally, the Scriptures were passed on orally, right? So we can trust that the Bible is truth despite not being put down on papyrus, right?

But we can trust that the Bible is truth despite not being written down and was passed on orally?