Is knock - out of ' Sola Scriptura' possible by the help of archiology?

[Athanasiy]

I am taking part in the different Protestant forums.
I have noticed that it does not help to prove finally and strikingly the fact of impossibility of ’ Sola Scriptura’ in practice.

I highly estimate the Word of God and the God’s revelation which he send to us through the Church.
But I know also that the discussions with the Evangelicals can go by the circle.
You can not really prove finally , strikingly and by convincing knock -out that they are wrong.
I was exploring this topic and have read many threads on this forum about this topic , therefore I do have the main and basic material of anti - Sola Scriptura arguments.

In this thread I would like to ask the different data’s , testimonies and proves , I mean the archeology discoveries .

There is the statement in Shakespeare that ’ the desperate diseases are cured by the desperate means or not at all…
Therefore I would like to ask ;

What are the examples of the archeology testimonies which pretend to be anti- Biblical ?

I mean the discoveries which has to do with the texts , rolls of writings , explorations of the authenticities of the texts ?
Thank you.

 

[brycelaliberte]

There were different canons going around that were vying to be the Bible, until the canon we now have (as in the true Bible, not the Protestant Bible) was ratified by the, you guessed it, Catholic Church in the Council of Carthage of 367. The first canon, though, that was passed around was by Marcion in 140, who was anti-Semitic, so his Bible included only 2/3 of Luke to dissolute and erase Jesus’ Jewishness, and ten letters of Paul.

Obviously, the Bible did not ratify itself, but needed the Church’s Authority to be made infallible as it is.

There were many heretical books going around passing themselves off as inspired, yet it took a council to decide infallibly what was inspired and what was not.

It could also be made as an argument for the necessity of the Authority of the Church.

 

[Athanasiy]

Does any one has the detailed explanation , why in some New Testaments, some verses are marked with explanation that in the ancient texts those verses are not found ?

In my opinion its a hint to the honest and objective approach to the texts.

I was surprised ones reading the Protestant Bible , and seeing that some verses at the Gospel marked by the bracket , and the commentary says that those verses were not found in the earliest manuscripts.

 

[Harmony1988]

Sola Scriptura is circular reasoning.

 

[inthecloud]

Bible is sacred because is the Bible and the Bible said so. Typical fundie argument.

 

[Athanasiy]

I am sure if we would find today the Epistle to the Laodicean Christistians we must confess the Epistle as authoritative , if of course it will be proved that it is real and valid.

But I would also ask ;

• What are the main proves the the Scripture was not ‘’ mediated ‘’ through the human beings ?

 

[quasimodo]

There were different canons going around that were vying to be the Bible, until the canon we now have (as in the true Bible, not the Protestant Bible) was ratified by the, you guessed it, Catholic Church in the Council of Carthage of 367. The first canon, though, that was passed around was by Marcion in 140, who was anti-Semitic, so his Bible included only 2/3 of Luke to dissolute and erase Jesus’ Jewishness, and ten letters of Paul.

Obviously, the Bible did not ratify itself, but needed the Church’s Authority to be made infallible as it is.

There were many heretical books going around passing themselves off as inspired, yet it took a council to decide infallibly what was inspired and what was not.

It could also be made as an argument for the necessity of the Authority of the Church.

The “councils” of Carthage and Hippo were not councils and as such could not speak with authority for the whole church (they were synods) … so the canon could not have been definitely ratified by them. They did have the authority to determine the canon for their respective dioceses however - given that the Church had not spoken on the subject. The pope had no objections to their list of books. This list fairly quickly became the most common canon and was widely used. The debate over the canon continued for a very long time after that, but it was mostly a very low level debate . The canon chosen at Carthage and Hippo was the de facto standard in the Church until it was ratified in a full council of the Church. Which council you pick as having the definitive word varies by which historian you read. Trent certainly ended the discussion among the Faithful.

 

[Athanasiy]

The Epistle of James was very doubtful for the Latin Christians .

Until the Saint Jerome’s time the Latin Church did not see Divine inspiration in the Epistle to Hebrews .

The Greek Church until the times of Jerome did not see Revelation as Revelation .

There were debates and doubts and eventually , there was decision and recognision of the canon as - inspired by God writings.
But I am thinking about the definition of undoubtfulness of the canon as a Divine inspiration without the reality of ‘mediation’.
If we would attempt to think that the Scripture was mediated through the authors , then the truth of ‘infallible Scriptures’ becomes impossible.
Then the Scripture in one way or the other would become fallible .

What are the main arguments about the assurance that the Scripture was not mediated through the authors ?

 

[GreenLantern]

Sola Scriptura is circular reasoning.

]
Bible is sacred because is the Bible and the Bible said so. Typical fundie argument.

Not even that.
To be circular reasoning the Bible would have to say something in support of Sola Scriptura and it doesn’t. It’s some other logical fallacy that I haven’t heard of.

 

[brycelaliberte]

The “councils” of Carthage and Hippo were not councils and as such could not speak with authority for the whole church (they were synods) … so the canon could not have been definitely ratified by them. They did have the authority to determine the canon for their respective dioceses however - given that the Church had not spoken on the subject. The pope had no objections to their list of books. This list fairly quickly became the most common canon and was widely used. The debate over the canon continued for a very long time after that, but it was mostly a very low level debate . The canon chosen at Carthage and Hippo was the de facto standard in the Church until it was ratified in a full council of the Church. Which council you pick as having the definitive word varies by which historian you read. Trent certainly ended the discussion among the Faithful.

Right, I meant synod. Don’t mind that lapse of semantics… But they were the first ‘official’ declaration of some sort on the canon. Argh, I think I’ll just go look up the history again, confusing myself trying to remember exactly what I was trying to say then.:coffeeread: