Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[Cool_Hand_Luck]

Matthew 28:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing non-infants in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 writing the new testament, and teaching them from Scriptures alone to interpret, as they wish, all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you, and any version of a church you wish to invent, always, to the close of the age."

The rest of the detail is included in Matthew, Chapter 29, including the instructions to make the literal into the symbolic, the abrogation of the Church heirarchy, and the disolution of the ministerial priesthood.

Oh yeah, and to avoid anything in the future that is labeled Catholic.

.

Just to avoid any confusion, although I appreciate your satire and confident that most people realize that it is just that, verse 20 reads as follows:
“Teaching them to observe all things whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until completion of the age. Amen.”
That is the Greek/Hebrew interlinear bible. The Catholic and King James are both similar, I can post both if any one wants but I don’t think that would be necessary. I just didn’t any one to loose this joke is all.
Oh, and for any one who cares, there is no Chapter 29 in either Catholic, or Protestant bibles. Again, didn’t want the satire lost on any one. Keep on keeping on.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sola scriptura is the doctrine that says that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.

The Catholics will tell you that we believe it means that the Bible is the only source of authority, but this is not true.

We also accept the authority of the church (just not their particular branch of the church), the creeds and confessions of Christianity, and tradition, among other things.

We believe that each of these is a valid source of doctrine and pratice. We just believe that they are to defer to the authority of God’s word and are valid only inasmuch as they are in agreement with God’s word.

So I take it now that the founder of Sola Scriptura theology is dead, any one can change from what it originally taught. So now Sola Scriptura is not what it claims from its beginning? You can add the authority of the Church? I can see Martin Luther from his grave really giving you a dirty look for changing his theology of Sola Scriptura, to accepting the authority of the Church. Authority of the Church is why Sola Scriptura got invented in the first place, to get away from church authority.

I think you are mistaken about Catholics misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means, because now you just added tradition and doctrine never mind the Sola fe that comes after Sola Scriptura. For one the Catholic church does not have a misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura She was their when it got invented by one of her own excommunicated priest. What you are failing to inform us, is that Sola Scriptura is no longer defined the same way the founder originally invented it. So when were you going to let everyone else know you changed the meaning of Sola Scriptura, to now accepting Church authority, doctrine, tradition… Maybe you should not call it Sola Scriptura no more now that non catholics or protestants are giving it a new meaning. Drop the Sola because it aint happening when you just added church authority alone to it.

If you ask my opinion, it sounds like your on your way home, now that you added church authority, tradition,doctrine to Sola Scriptura. I dont see Catholics misinforming anyone about Sola Scriptura, I see non Catholics changing the theology of Sola Scriptura by adding to it. Just say you are changing theology again, dont blame Catholics for your new interpretations of Sola Scriptura, now that time is proving Sola Scriptura by itself is a man made theology that does not hold up to Scripture teaching. You have to change its meaning by adding to Sola Scriptura?

So now what happened to Sola fe? has anyone added to this man made theology also. If so let us know so that Catholics can catch up to the fast changes in non catholic theologies. Just remember Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever more.

 

[Cinette]

*I have been reading this thread with much interest. I have learned much and questions which have posed have led me to do some research and I have also presented some facts and opinions.

Many who have responded to questions have taken care to respond exhaustively, proving facts, interpretations, references and have done so amiably, graciously and with a good deal of patience. They have presented both explicit and implicit truths and the responses have been:

“yes but…” “yes but…” “yes but…” “yes but…”.

Nothing they have said has yielded any acknowledgement, positive responses or conclusions. This leads me to believe that there are those who come on these threads simply to irritate, argue and waste time. What else can it be?

:whacky: :banghead:

 

[PerryJ]

*I have been reading this thread with much interest. I have learned much and questions which have posed have led me to do some research and I have also presented some facts and opinions.

Many who have responded to questions have taken care to respond exhaustively, proving facts, interpretations, references and have done so amiably, graciously and with a good deal of patience. They have presented both explicit and implicit truths and the responses have been:

“yes but…” “yes but…” “yes but…” “yes but…”.

Nothing they have said has yielded any acknowledgement, positive responses or conclusions. This leads me to believe that there are those who come on these threads simply to irritate, argue and waste time. What else can it be?

:whacky: :banghead:

I am baffled that one has to deny that Christ used the DCs, the teachings of Clement that was taught by Peter, many many early Church Father’s, many councils, artifacts, Luther’s own writings to believe that the DCs should not be in the Bible. All of this can be verified by secular historians; yet, people refute all of this info. Why? Because they want to create their own religion. Not to submit to the authority of Christ. I understand Protestants that do not have access to this information. They are doing the best they can and as such I am sure they are blessed. For Protestants that have been supplied all of this information just to ignore it or not verify it surprises me.

Stating the first time the DCs comes up is the Council of Trent is a blatant attempt to ignore the facts. This would mean Luther added the books prior to the Catholic Church. Then Luther turns around after we added them and tells us we are wrong for adding them. Does this make sense to any rational person? The extant people will go to avoid the truth is amazing me!

 

[justasking4]

What you are forgetting about the council of Trent, is why they counciled for the books in question, because the protestants removed 7 of them prior, and were upsetting many Catholic Bishops for and or against the already canonized books from arguments from St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others like Martin Luther. The outcome was either accept these canonized books from the apostolic Tradition and canons, or be Excommunicated. Trent stated there will be no more discussion about these disputed books from Catholic Bishops for all ages to come.

Trent confirmed again the already canon from the 4th century Catholic church. Now that you know the Truth now read the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia it makes more sense when you have all the truth. You forget just because Catholic Bishops or Catholic saints argued for or against the books throughout the ages never changed the Canon of Scripture from the 4th century.

P.S the Catholic encyclopedia comment confirms that Trent looked at an already Canon of the Catholic church, reread it more carefully.

What am i to make of this comment in the New American Bible on the DC’s–?
"the Apocrypha are “Religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “. . . were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books” (nab, 413).
.

 

[PerryJ]

What am i to make of this comment in the New American Bible on the DC’s–?
"the Apocrypha are “Religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “. . . were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books” (nab, 413).
.

Here is a statement from the Usccb: Catholic bishops. You can find it on there website.

How many versions of the New American Bible are there?
The original version of the New American Bible (NAB) was published in 1970. The New Testament was revised and published in 1986. The Book of Psalms (the Psalter) was revised in 1991. A revision of the Old Testament, excluding the Psalter, is currently underway and should be published in late 2006.

Therefore, the most recent editions of the NAB include the 1970 Old Testament, 1991 Psalter, and 1986 New Testament, though some older editions are still in print.

Besides the various versions of the Scriptural text, many different publishers have produced editions of the NAB. Each publisher has added other material, such as photographs, maps, devotions and prayers, and reference matter, to the basic text.

Does this help. Publisher are adding material to the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

Here is a statement from the Usccb: Catholic bishops. You can find it on there website.

How many versions of the New American Bible are there?
The original version of the New American Bible (NAB) was published in 1970. The New Testament was revised and published in 1986. The Book of Psalms (the Psalter) was revised in 1991. A revision of the Old Testament, excluding the Psalter, is currently underway and should be published in late 2006.

Therefore, the most recent editions of the NAB include the 1970 Old Testament, 1991 Psalter, and 1986 New Testament, though some older editions are still in print.

Besides the various versions of the Scriptural text, many different publishers have produced editions of the NAB. Each publisher has added other material, such as photographs, maps, devotions and prayers, and reference matter, to the basic text.

Does this help. Publisher are adding material to the Bible.

I can understand publisher doing this to help the readers to to have a greater understanding of the texts. However they are not adding new Scripture.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What am i to make of this comment in the New American Bible on the DC’s–?
"the Apocrypha are “Religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “. . . were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books” (nab, 413).
.

Can I have a more specific location regarding this quote, please? Is it in the introduction to a deuterocanonical book or section? Page 413 in my Bible is 2 Chronicles 5. Thanks.

 

[justasking4]

Can I have a more specific location regarding this quote, please? Is it in the introduction to a deuterocanonical book or section? Page 413 in my Bible is 2 Chronicles 5. Thanks.

This is all i have. Perhaps its in an earlier edition of the NAB.

 

[Cinette]

What about the meticulously answered postings by Guanophore?? The poster might as well be talking to the wall!:ehh:

 

[justasking4]

What about the meticulously answered postings by Guanophore?? The poster might as well be talking to the wall!:ehh:

Sometimes he makes good points sometimes not–View attachment 4152

 

[Pixie_Dust]

This is all i have. Perhaps its in an earlier edition of the NAB.

So you don’t actually own the NAB from which the quote is pulled?

On Edit: I did some Googling and found the source for your quote. The ellipses and the “Instead” sent up some red flags in my head. There are books that are called “apocryphal” by the Church and they are not the same as the deuterocanon, as your quote leads us to believe. The canon was set in the late 4th century. While individuals may have had their doubts about certain books, official councils always agreed on the same canon of 73 books. What Trent did was basically say, “All right, for the last time, THIS is the canon of Scripture.” The deuterocanonical books (both OT and NT) were already in use by the Church and considered inspired Scripture before Trent, otherwise Luther wouldn’t have had anything to remove when he made up his own Bible, prior to Trent.

 

[PerryJ]

It appears that the US Bishops were attempting to use inclusive language for other faiths. The thought was that this would assist in unifying the faiths. Rome disagreed with the Bible being printed in this format and request them to be changed. It appears that the US bishops made an error and Rome set them straight.

Shortly after the publication of the complete NAB Bible, the American bishops decided that the 1970 NAB New Testament was too paraphrastic for general use, (1) and so the New Testament was “revised” (translated anew, really, on different principles, from the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland) and published in 1986. This new translation of the New Testament was for the most part more literal, but it employed “dynamic equivalence” in places for the sake of gender-neutral language. The Book of Psalms was similarly “revised” in 1991. Therefore, the most recent editions of the NAB include the 1970 Old Testament, 1991 Psalter, and 1986 New Testament, though some older editions are still in print.

Pope John Paul II and other Vatican officials were not happy with this version, mainly because of the inclusive language, which was mandated by liturgical guidelines issued by a committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference in 1990 (2) but specifically disallowed by the provisional norms for translation of biblical texts sent by Vatican officials to American Bishops in June of 1997, (3) and also disallowed by the translation guidelines formally promulgated in an Instruction published by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in March 2001. (4) And so, although the NAB is the “official” translation of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, it became necessary for the Scripture portions included in the liturgy of the English Mass to be revised
The bishops had the NAB updated to the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), but Rome had objections to that and hurriedly appointed a committee to fix it up into what might be called the Amended Revised New American Bible (ARNAB), which is mandatory in lectionary use.

Any remaining expectations that the Vatican would eventually approve the use of artificial “inclusive language” were finally put to rest when in March 2001 the Vatican issued the comprehensive Instruction on translation known as Liturgiam Authenticam, “the Authentic Liturgy.” This document elaborated upon the 1997 guidelines, and is broadly opposed to paraphrastic renderings of all kinds. In April of 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI.

literature
• James Barr, “After five years: a retrospect on two major translations of the Bible,” in Heythrop Journal 15 (October 1974), 381-405.
• Edward P. Arbez, “The New Catholic Translation of the Old Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14 (July 1952): 237-54.
• T.H. Stahel, “A Conversation with Scripture Scholar Myles M. Bourke.” America. 168/13 (1993), 4-9.
• Claude J. Peifer, review in Worship 45 (February 1971), 102-13.
• Gerard S. Sloyan, review in Living Light 7 (Fall 1970), 87-104.
• L. Sabourin, review in Biblical Theology Bulletin 2 (July 1972), 206-8.
• Keith R. Crim, review in Interpretation 26 (January 1972), 77-80.
• Robert L. Alden, review in Westminster Theological Journal 34 (May 1972), 217.
• Bruce M. Metzger, review in The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 64 (March 1971), 90-99.
• Frederick W. Danker, review in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (July 1971), 405-9.
• John Reumann, review in Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (July 1973), 275-78.
• Frank Stagg, review in Review and Expositor 68 (Summer 1971), 400-2.

 

[justasking4]

So you don’t actually own the NAB from which the quote is pulled?

On Edit: I did some Googling and found the source for your quote. The ellipses and the “Instead” sent up some red flags in my head. There are books that are called “apocryphal” by the Church and they are not the same as the deuterocanon, as your quote leads us to believe. The canon was set in the late 4th century. While individuals may have had their doubts about certain books, official councils always agreed on the same canon of 73 books. What Trent did was basically say, “All right, for the last time, THIS is the canon of Scripture.” The deuterocanonical books (both OT and NT) were already in use by the Church and considered inspired Scripture before Trent, otherwise Luther wouldn’t have had anything to remove when he made up his own Bible, prior to Trent.

What does deutro canonical mean? Why were these 7? books in this category over the centuries?

 

[PerryJ]

Sometimes he makes good points sometimes not–View attachment 4152

Okay now that NAB has been cleared up as Rome not only not approving the NAB it it condemned it for being wrong for using inclusive language, let us go back to Jerome.

Jerome used the phrase “full of grace”.

You quote Jerome for not using the DCs. Are you going to use Jerome for the transaltion of “Full of Grace” and accept that the Bible should use the term :Full of Grace"? You can not have it both ways. Are you accepting “Full of Grace” based upon Jerome?

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4211606]Okay now that NAB has been cleared up as Rome not only not approving the NAB it it condemned it for being wrong for using inclusive language,

Wait a minute. Are you saying the NAB is not approved by the Catholic church to be used by catholics?

let us go back to Jerome.

Jerome used the phrase “full of grace”.

You quote Jerome for not using the DCs. Are you going to use Jerome for the transaltion of “Full of Grace” and accept that the Bible should use the term :Full of Grace"? You can not have it both ways. Are you accepting “Full of Grace” based upon Jerome?

No. The term “full of grace” is not a literal translation of the Greek texts as many modern translation point out. Most use “favored one”. If i’m not mistaken Jerome was translating this phrase from a latin text and not the Greek text in which the NT was written.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wait a minute. Are you saying the NAB is not approved by the Catholic church to be used by catholics?

NAB is use primarily for the Liturgy. However, many Catholic educators in religious study prefer using the St. Ignatius Bible RSV Catholic edition.

No. The term “full of grace” is not a literal translation of the Greek texts as many modern translation point out. Most use “favored one”. If i’m not mistaken Jerome was translating this phrase from a latin text and not the Greek text in which the NT was written.

No. Jerome translated this text from Greek to Latin. Remember he wrote the Latin Vulgate.

Pope Benedict XVI then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his Book: (Mary: The Church at the Source) the following:

Mary is called “full of grace”. The Greek word for grace (charis) derives from the same root as the words joy and rejoice (chara, chairein). Thus, we see once more in a different form the same context to which we were led by our earlier comparison with the Old Testament. Joy comes from grace. One who is in the state of grace can rejoice with deep-going, constant joy. By the same token, grace is joy.

What is grace? This question thrusts itself upon our text. Our religious mentality has reified this concept much too much; it regards grace as a supernatural something we carry about in our soul. And since we perceive very little of it, or nothing at all, it has gradually become irrelevant to us, an empty word belonging to Christian jargon, which seems to have lost any relationship to the lived reality of our everyday life. In reality, grace is a relational term: it does not predicate something about an I, but something about a connection between I and Thou, between God and man. “Full of grace” could therefore also be translated as: “You are full of the Holy Spirit; your life is intimately connected with God.” Peter Lombard, the author of what was the universal theological manual for approximately three centuries during the Middle Ages, propounded the thesis that grace and love are identical but that love “is the Holy Spirit”.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What does deutro canonical mean? Why were these 7? books in this category over the centuries?

At the time, there were no known Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts of those books, only the Greek which appeared in the Septuagint (the Bible Jesus and His Apostles used). The discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest.

It was not only those 7 complete books, but portions of Esther and Daniel, that were in some Jewish Bibles and not in others; and as I’ve explained to you before, certain NT books also are considered deuterocanonical - Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation were, for a very long time, not accepted as Scripture by some people. Martin Luther even questioned the Divine inspiration of James, calling it “an epistle of straw.” It was only by the urging of his companions that he didn’t leave James out of his German translation altogether.

I’ll ask again, why do you agree that the books which make up the NT deuterocanon are inspired Scripture, and then turn around and reject the OT deuterocanon, found in the Bible Jesus read?

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4211798]At the time, there were no known Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts of those books, only the Greek which appeared in the Septuagint (the Bible Jesus and His Apostles used). The discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest.

How so? How does it follow that “the discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest”?
Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.

It was not only those 7 complete books, but portions of Esther and Daniel, that were in some Jewish Bibles and not in others; and as I’ve explained to you before, certain NT books also are considered deuterocanonical - Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation were, for a very long time, not accepted as Scripture by some people.

This is true about the NT. However the matter is now settled in that they are accepted as Scripture.

Martin Luther even questioned the Divine inspiration of James, calling it “an epistle of straw.” It was only by the urging of his companions that he didn’t leave James out of his German translation altogether.

True. St Luther was mistaken.

I’ll ask again, why do you agree that the books which make up the NT deuterocanon are inspired Scripture, and then turn around and reject the OT deuterocanon, found in the Bible Jesus read?

2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees. Secondly, the DC’s have errors in them. For example:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Keep in mind we do not have a complete copy of the Sept at the time of Christ. We don’t know with certainty if they contained the DC’s.

 

[PerryJ]

How so? How does it follow that “the discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest”?
Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.
This is true about the NT. However the matter is now settled in that they are accepted as Scripture.
True. St Luther was mistaken.
2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees. Secondly, the DC’s have errors in them. For example:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Keep in mind we do not have a complete copy of the Sept at the time of Christ. We don’t know with certainty if they contained the DC’s.

You have been repeatedly shown the information you need to make an informed judgment. All of your refutations have been proved to be in error. (Even though you wait a day or two and bring them up again.) I hope you decide to take the time and seriously research your errors and come to the fullness of the truth.