Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[2ndGen]

You realize of course the reformers weren’t the first to reject the inspiration of the deutero’s don’t you?

Even at Trent we find only 44% of the bishops/cardinals who were tasked with deciding the canon voting to affirm the canonocity of the apocrypha, 27% voted to the negative and 29% abstaining.

So, it’s not like the reformers were alone in believing the deutero’s weren’t worthy of being included in the canon.

The Church, guided by The Holy Spirit decided to include them regardless of whoever rejected the guidance of The Holy Spirit.

For all the things that didn’t happen in history, we should focus on what “did” actually happen historically.

The Christian Bible was created with The Full Canon of 73 books.

Plus, Jesus quoted from The Septugaint.

If it was good enough for Jesus and The Primitive Church, it should be good enough for Chrisitans.

Pop Quiz:
Who accepted The Septugain?

Answer:
The Universal Christian Church (for over 1400 years) and Jesus Christ and The Apostles.

Pop Quiz:
Who rejected The Septugaint?

Answer:
The Pharisees (the "proto-protesters to Christ’s Chuch) and The Prostestants.

 

[2ndGen]

But then again, Christians really should try to force the followers of “men” what they should believe.

If they want to belong to churches founded by men and subject themselves to the teachings and doctrines of men, so be it.

Christians follow Christ and those Christ appointed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Church, guided by The Holy Spirit decided to include them regardless of whoever rejected the guidance of The Holy Spirit.

For all the things that didn’t happen in history, we should focus on what “did” actually happen historically.

The Christian Bible was created with The Full Canon of 73 books.

Plus, Jesus quoted from The Septugaint.

If it was good enough for Jesus and The Primitive Church, it should be good enough for Chrisitans.

But not a single books from the deutero’s was quoted in a way that would signify that Jesus or the apostles thought they were inspired…something along the lines of “thus sayeth the Lord” or “it is written”.

It is my contention that no one has anyway of knowing what books were in the septuagint that was used during the first century.

Maybe you can tell me:
a.) What manuscripts are extant from the septuagint used during the first century?
b.) What books did that septuagint cotain?

Pop Quiz:
Who accepted The Septugain?

Answer:
The Universal Christian Church (for over 1400 years) and Jesus Christ and The Apostles.

Pop Quiz:
Who rejected The Septugaint?

Answer:
The Pharisees (the "proto-protesters to Christ’s Chuch) and The Prostestants.

Couple of things. You misuse the term “septuagint”, the septuagint is not synonymous with “deuterocanonical”.

You have yet to demonstrate any evidence to support your claim that the septuagint of the first century contained the deutero’s.

Additonally, there were many others in the church who rejected the idea of the canonocity of the duetero’s so it wasn’t just the pharisees and the reformers who did so.

BTW, is there any evidence that the deutero’s were stored in the temple according to Jewish records?

 

[Pwrlftr]

But then again, Christians really should try to force the followers of “men” what they should believe.

If they want to belong to churches founded by men and subject themselves to the teachings and doctrines of men, so be it.

Christians follow Christ and those Christ appointed.

You didn’t learn much in your brief suspended time did you?

 

[2ndGen]

You didn’t learn much in your brief suspended time did you?

Nah…when you’re a devout Catholic,
you pretty much have the benefit of having access to 2,000 years of Christian theology and to the greatest Christian minds of all time.

The hard work has already been done for us.
We just get to reap the benefits.

The Church came into existance to serve us.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Nah…when you’re a devout Catholic,
you pretty much have the benefit of having access to 2,000 years of Christian theology and to the greatest Christian minds of all time.

The hard work has already been done for us.
We just get to reap the benefits.

The Church came into existance to serve us.

Do you hold the exact same faith (, doctrines, dogmas, and all) that the apostles did?

 

[2ndGen]

Do you hold the exact same faith (, doctrines, dogmas, and all) that the apostles did?

Of course not.

Mine has the benefits of having evolved with hindsight as a great tool.

The Apostle are the foundation of The Church, but “not” whole Church themselves.

We may not know everything they knew, but we know what they wrote and what The Church (that continued to grow “after” them) has been revealed.

 

[jcrichton]

You realize of course the reformers weren’t the first to reject the inspiration of the deutero’s don’t you?

Even at Trent we find only 44% of the bishops/cardinals who were tasked with deciding the canon voting to affirm the canonocity of the apocrypha, 27% voted to the negative and 29% abstaining.

So, it’s not like the reformers were alone in believing the deutero’s weren’t worthy of being included in the canon.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…I am not aware of a breakdown of the various Councils (3), but can you tell me:
a) what was the total number of Bishops,
b) the actual reason/s other then your “weren’t worthy,”
c) the reason for the abstention,
d) the number of Bishops who were with the reformers,
e) their reason for rejecting the 7 books (plus others which were also tagged for removal)–other than “because it was done before,” and
f) why did some of the original Protestant Bibles included all 73 books?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

But not a single books from the deutero’s was quoted in a way that would signify that Jesus or the apostles thought they were inspired…something along the lines of “thus sayeth the Lord” or “it is written”.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…so are you saying that Jesus quoted from all of the books from the Old Testament–with the exception of the 7 books which the Protestants reject?

BTW, is there any evidence that the deutero’s were stored in the temple according to Jewish records?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hi, Pwrlftr!

…so are you saying that Jesus quoted from all of the books from the Old Testament–with the exception of the 7 books which the Protestants reject?

Nope. I don’t think I said that. I did say that simple quotation does not ipso facto mean canonocity though.

…but don’t you have that backwards… should it not be you who must demonstrate that the 7 Books that Protestants reject were not found among the other Sacred Writings that the Jewish kept in the temple/religious storage/synagogues?

Maran atha!

I asked first.

 

[Pwrlftr]

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…I am not aware of a breakdown of the various Councils (3), but can you tell me:
a) what was the total number of Bishops,
b) the actual reason/s other then your “weren’t worthy,”
c) the reason for the abstention,
d) the number of Bishops who were with the reformers,
e) their reason for rejecting the 7 books (plus others which were also tagged for removal)–other than “because it was done before,” and
f) why did some of the original Protestant Bibles included all 73 books?

Maran atha!

Angel***

a.) I assume you are asking about the voters and not total bishops attending the council of Trent. If so: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain.

b.) I can give you some information on the bishops present at Trent who were unfavorable of viewing the deuteros as canonical but I’m not sure if we have a record of who voted which way.

c.) I don’t think I have any information on this other than of course the number itself which comes from Metzger.

d.) The number of bishops that were with the reformers on what issue?

e.) I guess I don’t understand this one 'cuz it seems like it’s identical to your question (b.).

f.) Yes, the Geneva Bible did include the deutero’s (for example) but if you search most of the historic protestant creeds you will find the deutero’s weren’t included in the list of inspired books. I actually don’t know of any creed such as the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession that which calls the deutero’s inspired. If you know of one I would be very interestd in seeing it.

Anyway, many of if not all of the reformers thought the books (deutero’s) to be of some value. Being of some value of worthy of study for various reasons does not mean the books were thought of as being inspired. Much like Jerome including the deutero’s in the vulgate but rejecting their inspiration.

I gave you an answer but I’m not sure this is what you were after when you asked about the books being in the various protestant bibles. Hopefully it helped though.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Of course not.

Mine has the benefits of having evolved with hindsight as a great tool.

The Apostle are the foundation of The Church, but “not” whole Church themselves.

We may not know everything they knew, but we know what they wrote and what The Church (that continued to grow “after” them) has been revealed.

BTW, we may not agree on some theological issues but I have to tell you, your Knights Templar “icon” rocks.

Good choice.

 

[jcrichton]

I asked first.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…true you did ask… but the burden of proof is on you since it is you who demand proof on something that has been held as part of the Bible since it compilation, on the 4th century AD. In order to refute the already established list, a challenger cannot simply say “show me.” If you do have evidence to counter what has been established from of old, then it falls to reason that you present authentic manuscripts/scrolls that demonstrate that an error has been committed.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

BTW, we may not agree on some theological issues but I have to tell you, your Knights Templar “icon” rocks.

Good choice.

Thanks!

Gotta love a guy with a sword AND a cross!

 

[Pwrlftr]

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

… In order to refute the already established list…
Angel***

Angel (I didn’t realize you were female, funny how cyberspace forms opinions),

You shouldn’t think I am trying to refute the canon your church uses. That would be a rather huge undertaking that is way beyond my interest.

Earlier I simply pointed out what I thought were a few problems with either your post or 2nd G’s post. That’s it.

 

[jcrichton]

a.) I assume you are asking about the voters and not total bishops attending the council of Trent. If so: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain.

b.) I can give you some information on the bishops present at Trent who were unfavorable of viewing the deuteros as canonical but I’m not sure if we have a record of who voted which way.

c.) I don’t think I have any information on this other than of course the number itself which comes from Metzger.

d.) The number of bishops that were with the reformers on what issue?

e.) I guess I don’t understand this one 'cuz it seems like it’s identical to your question (b.).

f.) Yes, the Geneva Bible did include the deutero’s (for example) but if you search most of the historic protestant creeds you will find the deutero’s weren’t included in the list of inspired books. I actually don’t know of any creed such as the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession that which calls the deutero’s inspired. If you know of one I would be very interestd in seeing it.

Anyway, many of if not all of the reformers thought the books (deutero’s) to be of some value. Being of some value of worthy of study for various reasons does not mean the books were thought of as being inspired. Much like Jerome including the deutero’s in the vulgate but rejecting their inspiration.

I gave you an answer but I’m not sure this is what you were after when you asked about the books being in the various protestant bibles. Hopefully it helped though.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

The breakdown I was asking was two parted: original canonization of the Books of the Bible and the protestan reformers that decided to revisit the issue (not to say recanonized the Bible).

My query was to both gain the experience and counter the two bodies who worked on the Bible content.

The reason for the individual breakdown according to the vote is because it is important to me to understand why the original Bishops voted against canonizing those 7 books and why others abstained–I would then be able to better guage the validity of their choices.

The duplicate breakdown is for the same reason–having both sets of data I can better understand the protestant mind viewed in the light of the original Bishops’ Councils.

The query about the reformers who opted to keep the 7 rejected books is also to guage their position since I understand that there were even more books targeted for removal from the Bible–if they simply surmised that since some of the Bishops from the 4th century Councils rejected them then I would like to view this response with the reason why some other books were also deemed “not worthy.”

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Angel (I didn’t realize you were female, funny how cyberspace forms opinions),

You shouldn’t think I am trying to refute the canon your church uses. That would be a rather huge undertaking that is way beyond my interest.

Earlier I simply pointed out what I thought were a few problems with either your post or 2nd G’s post. That’s it.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…you had it right the first time (jcrichton is my screen name taken from a SciFi character (j = john); I’m from Latin origin, Angel is a male name (Angela, Angelica, Angelita… female).

…understood! It is just that I catch something in a post and my fallible human intellect notes it, red flags it, and groups it with previous congruous data…

Mara atha!

Angel

---

 

[Pwrlftr]

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

…you had it right the first time (jcrichton is my screen name taken from a SciFi character (j = john); I’m from Latin origin, Angel is a male name (Angela, Angelica, Angelita… female).

…understood! It is just that I catch something in a post and my fallible human intellect notes it, red flags it, and groups it with previous congruous data…

Mara atha!

Angel

---

sorry about that.

 

[jcrichton]

sorry about that.

***Hi, Pwrlftr!

… no prob!
…you think that’s something… I was in high school before I realized that there could be another guy name Angel in the US!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[Catherine_S]

Think kindly of the Reformists, and their attempt with Sola Scriptura to steer the Church back on track. They may not have got it completely right, but they were fighting a difficult fight.
Had the Reformation not occurred, would Rome have put itself right? Jesus declared that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it”, maybe, just maybe, He had a hand in the Reformation at a time when Rome had strayed.
I know such thoughts would send shudders through some, but ask yourself, in the light of history, where was Rome going, and where would it be today if it had continued on the same path without a reformation of some kind?
Often, the most loyal followers are those who are prepared to question.

Maybe just maybe God is using another tool today and this one to teach the reformers and all christains where it may all end if we continue on the same path without a reformation of some kind!
.
The prospect of modifying Islam’s doctrine regarding violence is problematic. Although some Muslims in history have tried to “spiritualize” the Quran’s declarations regarding violence,there is always a countervailing fundamentalist push to return to the sources of Islam and* take them literally. ***

Indeed, this reaction is what characterizes the Wahhabite movement that dominates Saudia Arabia and inspired Osama bin Laden’s ideology. Philosopher Roger Scruton notes that in the Wahhabite view, *"whoever can read the Quran can judge for himself in matters of doctrine." *

This attitude, which is tantamountto an Islamic version of** sola scriptura**, is likely to prove as durable in Muslim circles as it has been in Protestant Fundamentalist circles. As long as that is the case, there will be fresh waves of Muslim “martyrs” willing to take the Quran’s statements on killing literally, apply them to today, and then hurl themselves into combat with whomever they perceive as “the Great Satan.”
Taken from** Endless Jihad** article found at Catholic Answers
.