Rediculous supports for sola scriptura

[RocketScientist]

This guy’s idea that the Old Testament supports Sola Scriptura is all wet. Jewish law consisted of both written and oral parts, and depended heavily on teachers to interpret both parts for the people.

gracenotes.info/topics/talmud_origins.html

The name ‘written law’ was given to the Old Testament, and ‘oral law’ refers to all the teachings of the ‘sages’ consisting of comments on the text of the Bible. It has always been the teacher’s duty to explain and comment on the laws and ordinances until the people understood them thoroughly and knew them by heart. The descendants of Aaron, the priesthood, was commissioned to teach the Bible to the people. Although there are very few historical records to show us how this was accomplished from the days of Moses until the time of the Kingdom, it is apparent that the teaching ministry was unbroken during all those centuries.

Figurative interpretation of the Bible began in the days when the Great Assembly resolved to keep themselves distinct from the Samaritans, who adhered to the literal interpretation of the text. This study began to make progress from approximately the time of the Greek conquest of Judea, when the term ?Great Assembly? was changed to the Greek ?Sanhedrin.? In spread into every college where prominent teachers were charged with leading congregations in instruction of the Law, of ordinances relating to things clean and unclean, to rights of property, and to crime.

Reading the writings of the early Fathers of the Church is enough to convince me that Sola Scriptura would have been utter nonsense to them. Likewise the idea that we don’t need priests and especially bishops to help us properly understand the Faith.

 

[TheGarg]

Valtiel:

This again is seriosuly starting to test my faith…

As Satan will do, but you must be strong and persevere.

 

[Schabel]

RocketScientist:

This guy’s idea that the Old Testament supports Sola Scriptura is all wet. Jewish law consisted of both written and oral parts, and depended heavily on teachers to interpret both parts for the people.

gracenotes.info/topics/talmud_origins.html

Reading the writings of the early Fathers of the Church is enough to convince me that Sola Scriptura would have been utter nonsense to them. Likewise the idea that we don’t need priests and especially bishops to help us properly understand the Faith.

You’re absolutely right! THIS is historical revisionism.

Even the authors of the NT, and Jesus Himself included as authoritative references to prophesies and traditions that are nowhere found in canonical OT scripture, or in some cases, in any extant writings at all (outside of the NT references themselves).

For instance, just where in scripture do you find the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarine”? And how about the “seat of Moses” reference? I could find a more extensive list, if you’re interested.

It was suggested above that you stop reading protestant websites. I disagree (iron sharpens iron), but I think that you should read MORE Catholic literature to round out your formation. I’d suggest starting with the Beginning Apologetics series by Fr Chacon and Jim Burnham, and Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, and Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray. Also, Suprized by Truth has a lot of good information. Check out Steve Ray’s catholic-convert.com website, and Dave Armstrong’s ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM website, too. There you will find some transcripts of many debates and conversations. None of these arguments are new; you can find many of them going back to the times of the ECF.

Here’s a good link for exactly the info you need: web.archive.org/web/20010806183835/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ237.HTM

 

[Valtiel]

bump…

 

[RobNY]

Valtiel:

bump…

What about the conflicting ways that various Scirpture Alone believers interpret the Bible?

They claim that the Holy Spirit inspires them to understanding, yet Lutherans believe in some sort of Real Presence, while I think Calvinists reject the Real Presence altogether, and yet both claim Scripture Alone. And, of course, both look honestly for the meaning of Scripture, yet they come to different conclusions. Yet, this makes it impossible to claim Scripture Alone, because to do so is to claim the Holy Spirit is the author of contradiction, which is nonsensical. The Sprit does not specifically guide all individuals to understanding of Scripture. The Spirit guides all of us to truth through the Church.

In any case, read Acts 8:27-32

27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” 30 9 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. 32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.