"Sola Scriptura" Before There Was a New Testament "Scriptura"

[RedFan]

First, that you use “C.E”, rather than the correct, “A.D.” shows where you stand.

That you infer anything at all from my use of either one shows poor reasoning skills.

Second, if I believed the Catholic lies about the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, then I suppose I would find this a huge blow to my belief in that Biblical praxis.

Not being Catholic, I don’t know or care what those “Catholic lies” might be, but I do know that “the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura” is an artificial construct. The concept is not found in the Bible, nor is it a praxis as opposed to a theory.

First, the words of the Apostles are considered inspired, just as scripture, and are even referred to as scripture.

Got a cite for me?

Second, why do Catholics always ignore the Old Testament when they make this argument?

Do they? I woudn’t know. Anyway, I wasn’t making any argument that the first followers of Christ spread their story without reference to the OT (although I doubt the tactic would have much efficacy with Gentiles).

Actually, they had the Old Testament books. The Gospel is very plainly presented in Isaiah.

If the Gospel of Jesus Christ were “plain” in Isaiah there wouldn’t be any non-Christian Jews on the planet.

First, and most obviously, there are no more apostles.

So, you must believe that apostolic authority cannot be transferred – making Timothy, for example, unauthoritative. Paul wasted his time writing to Timothy? OK,thanks for your point of view.

Second, because revelation ended with the closing of the canon.

So what? How does the closing of revelation diminish apostolic authority?

 

[Benadam]

Jesus Himself teaches that a written tradition of the Word of God requires that it be passed down to successors.

Matthew 23

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it;

 

[RedFan]

I’d go further than that, Benadam, and say that this verse is not necessarily limited to “written” tradition.

 

[Benadam]

I certainly agree. The seat of Moses is that three legged model of Authority that the Church claims. Jesus is submitting to the equivalent of the Magisterium in that passage.

 

[Benadam]

I certainly agree. The seat of Moses is that three legged model of Authority that the Church claims. Jesus is submitting to the equivalent of the Magisterium in that passage.

RedFan, I should have, to be more precise, said Catholic Church.

 

[RedFan]

I kinda liked your first formulation, but OK, I get it.

 

[adf417]

Doesn’t the fact that we dont have original manuscripts and many of the manuscripts we do have show to have clarifications and written notes in them prove the need for succession - to a bible only Christian? What am i missing here?

Peace!!!

 

[RedFan]

How does that prove the need for succession? Only an eyewitness can correct an altered manuscript.

 

[adf417]

How does that prove the need for succession? Only an eyewitness can correct an altered manuscript.

A non-Catholic source…

The changes are called “variants.”

http://www.nola.com/religion/index....re_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

 

[RedFan]

What I mean is, How does the corruption of lost original manuscripts prove the need for succession? Only an eyewitness can correct an altered manuscript.

 

[Benadam]

I kinda liked your first formulation, but OK, I get it.

You did? I thought you might not like the first one, I thought I was being rude…oy vey

 

[adf417]

What I mean is, How does the corruption of lost original manuscripts prove the need for succession? Only an eyewitness can correct an altered manuscript.

And that would be the point of the importance of succession, unless you can prove there were in fact no variants made.

Peace!!!

 

[RedFan]

So, let;s play this out. Has any apostolic successor ever once weighed in to correct a corrupted manuscript?

 

[adf417]

Don’t know.

Peace!!!

 

[RedFan]

If not, then how is one a check against the other?

 

[adf417]

If not, then how is one a check against the other?

I didn’t say not i said i didn’t know.

But still, I don’t follow.

Peace!!!

 

[RedFan]

Simple. The issue is, do corruptions of the original NT manuscripts prove the need for Apostolic succession. You say Yes, I say No. And here is why:

The only relation between the corruption of scripture and the apostolic succession is if those successors were able to correct the corruptions.

As you concede, we have no evidence that any successor of any apostle has ever once weighed in to correct any corruption of scripture. (Nor would a successor necessarily have been an eyewitness to any gospel story, so this is hardly surprising – but I digress.) Ergo, your argument that variants in copies of NT books “would be the point of the importance of succession” actually holds no water. Of all the salutary benefits of apostolic succession, correction of corrupted scriptures IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

 

[adf417]

Simple. The issue is, do corruptions of the original NT manuscripts prove the need for Apostolic succession. You say Yes, I say No. And here is why:

The only relation between the corruption of scripture and the apostolic succession is if those successors were able to correct the corruptions.

As you concede, we have no evidence that any successor of any apostle has ever once weighed in to correct any corruption of scripture. (Nor would a successor necessarily have been an eyewitness to any gospel story, so this is hardly surprising – but I digress.) Ergo, your argument that variants in copies of NT books “would be the point of the importance of succession” actually holds no water. Of all the salutary benefits of apostolic succession, correction of corrupted scriptures IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Greetings RedFan,

1st - The term “corruptions” implies “adverse meaning”. To that i say No. The term “variant” was used to show that there is a difference in some respect without corrupting the intended message. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

2nd - There is another option. A successor could have simply given authority to and/or approval of the outcome of the variant.

3rd - I did not concede we have no evidence that any successor of an apostle has weighed in on any “variance”. I said I didn’t know. Big difference.

Finally - I used the phrase “intended message” above as a point of reference as to the purpose of many of the variants, not all. The editor, or the one giving authority to edit, as a rule, must understand the intended message to properly edit, correct? If not, you give approval to such distortions of God’s word like the NWT that JWs use which i know you wouldn’t do. So whatever weight you apply to the credentials of the original writers, including inspiration, by extension you must give equal weight to the editors or those who approved the editor’s work. This paradigm is the root of oral [T]ridition our Christian faith has survived with even in a time period when the NT scriptures were being disputed.

Peace!!!

 

[RedFan]

A successor could have simply given authority to and/or approval of the outcome of the variant.

But we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

I did not concede we have no evidence that any successor of an apostle has weighed in on any “variance”. I said I didn’t know. Big difference.

But we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

The editor, or the one giving authority to edit, as a rule, must understand the intended message to properly edit, correct?

The editor who has two or more variants of the same passage in front of him should always seek to recover the original manuscript, i.e., edit “out” any changes form the original, for otherwise he wouldn’t be properly editing. He would be editorializing. Thank God that we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

A successor could have simply given authority to and/or approval of the outcome of the variant.

But we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

I did not concede we have no evidence that any successor of an apostle has weighed in on any “variance”. I said I didn’t know. Big difference.

But we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

The editor, or the one giving authority to edit, as a rule, must understand the intended message to properly edit, correct?

The editor who has two or more variants of the same passage in front of him should always seek to recover the original manuscript, i.e., edit “out” any changes form the original, for otherwise he wouldn’t be properly editing. He would be editorializing. Thank God that we (you and I) have zero evidence of that ever happening.

Correct, you and I do not, but that doesn’t necessarly mean the evedience doesn’t exist which is why we give so much weight to [T]ridition and thank God for the visible church in which anyone can find this proper [T]ridition. Otherwise the Jws are equally correct in their variants.

Peace!!!