Sola Scriptura is True

  • Thread starter Thread starter DD2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dj dave;5615840 said:
**Luke is not a prophet or apostle. He may have been with the apostles, but he was not an apostle. So Luke’s Gosple and Acts are his and not an apostles. **
END QUOTE

The Greek word a·po′sto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stel′lo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).”

So everyone who is “sent off” is an apostle?

If we have a vision of Christ like St. Paul did, then can we write sacred scripture and call ourselves apostles?

If there is a limit on scripture writings, then who determines that limit? On whoes authority? Please prove it “literally.”

None of the Gosple writers pinned their names, so where does that come from? How do we know where they come from and who wrote them?

How do we know the books in the bible are truly canon? Where is the canon, book by book, listed “literally” in the bible?

Who drew up the canon of sacred scripture other than God? Who were the humans that were inspired that compiled the “bible?”

Thats what I am waiting for DD to tell us!😃
 
What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect** for his name **and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.
While a lot of this is good, in the absence of Church authority one is left to create a subjective list of criteria in determining canonicity. And “evidence of inspiration” is hard to differentiate objectively from “agrees with my theology.” So we are left with a circular argument: These books are inspired because they support my theology, and my theology is based on my understanding of these books. That won’t impress an honest skeptic.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E., in his work Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]), refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today*
But Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, not to Joesphus or the Scribes and Pharisees. And the apostles used the Septuagint, which included those 7 books in the Catholic (but not Protestant) canon.
This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation.
What is your evidence for this?
It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God.
(Rom. 15:9)

IIRC, esther neither mentions the divine name nor is quoted in the NT. So shouldn’t it be rejected?
Jesus, in speaking of the complete inspired Scriptures written up till the time of his ministry, referred to the things recorded in “the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” (Luke 24:44) Here “Psalms,” as the first book of the Hagiographa, is used to refer to this whole section. The last historical book to be included in the Hebrew canon was that of Nehemiah.
Begs the question. If the Apocrypha is included, Maccabees is later.

And a lot of this type of argument is circumstantial and based on possible interpretations of this or that verse. Nothing that gives certainty. Without the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, we really just have conjecture and possiblities.
 
As stated above, sin is the reason there is more than one denomination, not the scriptures or the Holy Spirit.
So for about 1500 years we had NO sin and I was thinking all have sin but you are telling me we had no sin,I may join your church after all,no sin.
 
So for about 1500 years we had NO sin and I was thinking all have sin but you are telling me we had no sin,I may join your church after all,no sin.
I believe that you know what you know… so that would be a sin:rolleyes:
 
SyCarl,

I’ve seen other protestant brethren make similar statements and I must admit I get a little confused by them. On the one hand, your position is that the Fathers would not agree with many Catholic teachings of today, but on the other it seems you are saying they were much more “tolerant” (for lack of a better word) of varying opinions. If true, then why wouldn’t they be more open to the teachings of today than, say, Catholics are of protestants or protestants are of Catholic teachings?
I’m not quite sure what you mean. But you are overgeneralizing about Protestants. Many Protestants–particularly those who care about patristic authority such as Anglicans–are very tolerant of Catholic teaching precisely for this reason. You see the leaven begin to work in the Reformation itself. The more the Reformers seriously looked at the Fathers instead of just using them as polemical weapons, the more they had to acknowledge that certain Catholic teachings they disliked could not just be condemned outright (prayer for the dead, for instance, or a certain degree of veneration of the saints).

You don’t see this when you look broadly at Protestantism, because ever more radical groups split away from the original Protestant traditions in the name of following Scripture more strictly.

Edwin
 
No we have more than one denomination because people disobey God and sin.
While I agree with this, it does nothing to tell us who is right. Anyone and everyone can sit there and think, “If everyone would just lay aside their own sinful, prideful agendas and listen to the Holy Spirit like me, we would all agree.” That’s nothing but arrogant presumption and a refusal to acknowledge the epistemological difficulties with sola scriptura. And it does indeed explain the great multitude of Protestant denominations.

On different occasions I’ve been told I’m rebellious, worldly and a traitor to the faith for failing to see in the Bible things that people were sure were there, from a 6000 year old universe to the wrongness of Christian rock music to Mormonism. While the people who told me those things might have been making themselves feel better --faulting others is easier than examining one’s own assumptions-- it also blinded them from recognizing that they were mistaken.

But if we recognize the error of that approach, we have to return to the problem of whose among the myriad of competing Bible interpretations is right. The Catholic Church has never had that problem, but Protestants are forced to designate themselves or their favorite pastor, teacher, author or denomination as a *de facto *pope or else spiral into latitudinarianism and relativism.
 
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E., in his work Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]), refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today

We today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures; the traditional Jewish canon, while including these same books, counts them as*24. Some authorities, by putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22, though still holding to exactly the same canonical writings. This made the number of inspired books equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The following is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon:

This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God.* (Rom. 15:9)
.

I’m sure this is what the folks back in Brooklyn want you to believe, I read each issue of Wachtower and Awake, as my neighbor gives copies of them for her son to give me, after her Overseer told her to not speak to me, when I discussed with them some of the glaring historical errors in one of the issues. That is a subject for another thread.

With regard to Flavius Josephus, or Yosef Ben Matityahu, as he is known among some Jewish communities is but one side of the story. He is not trustworthy among some Jewish and Gentile Scholars for his assimilation into Roman Culture and Socitey, after the Wars with Rome, some Jews even feel he was a traitor for choosing to live as a Roman, rather than to die for the sanctification of the Name of the Holy One, and cannot be trusted . He does reflect one aspect of Judaism, among the priesthood, of which he was a member. However there was more than one opinon among Jews of the day, and different canons of Scripture that were accepted among each. At that time the Canon had not been settled, so much like the early Christian communities did not have a single canon of old or new testament writings until the Catholic Church decided on the contents in Council, guided by the Holy Ghost. So while his writings can help us to understand some parts of Jewish Culture and practice at the time, they do not give us a fully fleshed out look into the times. There are other writers, Jewish and Gentile, as well as Early Church Fathers, who can give us a more rounded understanding of the times.

The OT Texts in the Greek NT are taken from the LXX, which gives us a clue that the Early Church, Apostles and Jesus were familiar with and probably accepted the Full OT as maintained by the Catholic Church. If they had accepted another Canon, why use the LXX when referring to the OT? That Maccabees is not quoted in the NT canon, is not, in my opinion any proof that it was not accepted by the Early Church. That some of the Fathers included it in the Canon is sufficient.

As an aside, the Falasha make Aliyah, (return to Israel, according to the law or Return) they are required to convert, sit in a mikvah, and to accept the current Canon. Let alone the issues with the Samaritans who still have a different Canon and offer sacrifices on Mount Gerizim. So even today, some sects that have Jewish Origins, and practice in the manner prior to the Exile do not accept the Modern Jewish Canon. The question of what is the Jewish Canon, or what it was before around 600 AD is a very complex matter.
 
Contarini,

Don’t you have work to do? Or are you going to quit your job like the rest of us and join DD out on the street corners?:clapping: :amen:

I don’t know why you have to be so rigorous all of the time. This isn’t Berkeley you know. 🤓

I should have been more clear. I’d seen a few of the more free-type Protestants make similar statements to SyCarl’s is all— that the ECF’s were more broad in their thinking of what constitutes Orthodoxy, while simultaneously we are told that the CC at present is just too broad in it’s doctrines. Sounds to me like the Protestants that say this are either being vague (something I know a little something about) or want their cake and still eat it.

What constitutes broad, though? Marian dogmas are not allowed, but snake-handling is okie-dokie? I’m being facetious, but honestly, it sounds a little like Chesterton’s description of the critics of Orthodoxy—its not that just anything can beat the Church; it’s more that any stick is good enough to whack it with.

Now, either get back to work or grab your sign and get into your sackcloth(I’ve got ashes for everyone). :cool:

All my best
 
[H]er Overseer told her to not speak to me, when I discussed with them some of the glaring historical errors in one of the issues.
You’re distorting the picture with facts. That’s not allowed! 😃
 
I’m sure this is what the folks back in Brooklyn want you to believe, I read each issue of Wachtower and Awake, as my neighbor gives copies of them for her son to give me, after her Overseer told her to not speak to me, when I discussed with them some of the glaring historical errors in one of the issues. That is a subject for another thread.

With regard to Flavius Josephus, or Yosef Ben Matityahu, as he is known among some Jewish communities is but one side of the story. He is not trustworthy among some Jewish and Gentile Scholars for his assimilation into Roman Culture and Socitey, after the Wars with Rome, some Jews even feel he was a traitor for choosing to live as a Roman, rather than to die for the sanctification of the Name of the Holy One, and cannot be trusted . He does reflect one aspect of Judaism, among the priesthood, of which he was a member. However there was more than one opinon among Jews of the day, and different canons of Scripture that were accepted among each. At that time the Canon had not been settled, so much like the early Christian communities did not have a single canon of old or new testament writings until the Catholic Church decided on the contents in Council, guided by the Holy Ghost. So while his writings can help us to understand some parts of Jewish Culture and practice at the time, they do not give us a fully fleshed out look into the times. There are other writers, Jewish and Gentile, as well as Early Church Fathers, who can give us a more rounded understanding of the times.

The OT Texts in the Greek NT are taken from the LXX, which gives us a clue that the Early Church, Apostles and Jesus were familiar with and probably accepted the Full OT as maintained by the Catholic Church. If they had accepted another Canon, why use the LXX when referring to the OT? That Maccabees is not quoted in the NT canon, is not, in my opinion any proof that it was not accepted by the Early Church. That some of the Fathers included it in the Canon is sufficient.

As an aside, the Falasha make Aliyah, (return to Israel, according to the law or Return) they are required to convert, sit in a mikvah, and to accept the current Canon. Let alone the issues with the Samaritans who still have a different Canon and offer sacrifices on Mount Gerizim. So even today, some sects that have Jewish Origins, and practice in the manner prior to the Exile do not accept the Modern Jewish Canon. The question of what is the Jewish Canon, or what it was before around 600 AD is a very complex matter.
Can any Christian accept canon from anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as the one true messiah? Does authority over scripture lie with the Jews, or has authority been given to another by Christ?
 
Can any Christian accept canon from anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as the one true messiah? Does authority over scripture lie with the Jews,
This was disturbing to me as a Protestant. To put it in even harsher terms, those at the Council of Jamnia would have been the sons and grandsons of those religious leaders who rejected Christ and rejected the appeals of His apostles. Yet their decision on the canon was infallible?! I had no answer until…
or has authority been given to another by Christ?
Yes, to the twelve apostles, to speak and act in His name. And the consistent understanding of the early church is that they (with Christ’s authority therefore) passed their authority by succession to the Catholic bishops. Some really disturbing problems get resolved when we realize that.
 
This was disturbing to me as a Protestant. To put it in even harsher terms, those at the Council of Jamnia would have been the sons and grandsons of those religious leaders who rejected Christ and rejected the appeals of His apostles. Yet their decision on the canon was infallible?! I had no answer until…

Yes, to the twelve apostles, to speak and act in His name. And the consistent understanding of the early church is that they (with Christ’s authority therefore) passed their authority by succession to the Catholic bishops. Some really disturbing problems get resolved when we realize that.
HUGS for you. :hug1:
 
Filioque I read each issue of Wachtower and Awake said:
Biblical scholar Jerome, who completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible about 405 C.E., was quite definite in his position on the Apocryphal books. After listing the inspired books, using the same counting as Josephus, numbering the 39 inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures as 22, he writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings in the Vulgate: “Thus there are twenty-two books … This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L.A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. The Muratorian Fragment, which is in Latin, dates to the latter part of the second century C.E. It is a most interesting document, as the following partial translation shows: “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name …

The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. . And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all [of them] under the one guiding Spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in the humiliation arising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of kingly power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it, then, if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.’ For thus he professes to be not only an eyewitness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke [so] comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus … Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand.

First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians [against] circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them—each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But though he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown ?i.e., by this sevenfold writing]; and John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But [he wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy; [and these] are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church. … Further, an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted … We receive the apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of us do not wish to be read in church.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1956, Vol.VIII, page 56.

It is noted that toward the end of the Muratorian Fragment, mention is made of just two epistles of John. However, on this point the above-mentioned encyclopedia, page*55, notes that these two epistles of John “can only be the second and third, whose writer calls himself merely ‘the elder.’ Having already treated the first, though only incidentally, in connection with the Fourth Gospel, and there declared his unquestioning belief in its Johannine origin, the author felt able here to confine himself to the two smaller letters.” As to the apparent absence of any mention of Peter’s first epistle, this source continues: “The most probable hypothesis is that of the loss of a few words, perhaps a line, in which I Peter and the Apocalypse of John were named as received.” Therefore, from the standpoint of the Muratorian Fragment, this encyclopedia, on page 56, concludes: “The New Testament is regarded as definitely made up of the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse of John, probably three epistles of his, Jude, and probably I Peter, while the opposition to another of Peter’s writings was not yet silenced.”

JUST AN EXTRA THOUGHT
 
Speaking of the Jews. I love this one the Jews didn’t believe in sola scriptura either.

If you read in acts 17. Now what was going on here is Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul quoted scripture from the O.T. Now when he quoted the O.T you can read how the Jews would open up their scriptures to verity what Paul was saying. Now they would SEARCH to find the verses Paul was quoting. Sound like SS to you. Kinda strange isn’t it.

Now Paul was TEACHING them scriptures. Because it is obvious they did not umderstand the true meaning until Paul explained it to them. Now Sola Scripture says the HS will teach you. Then why was Paul doing it. Kinda blows SS out for the Jews too.

Because why did Paul have to teach them. Kinda sounds like some Catholic teaching there don’t it. Sounds like authoritative Scripture and authoritative Tradition.

Yeah that’s what Im talking about!
 
Can any Christian accept canon from anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as the one true messiah? Does authority over scripture lie with the Jews, or has authority been given to another by Christ?
As a Catholic my answer is obviously that the Church founded by Jesus (Catholic Church) and given authority over such matters has the Authority to pronounce on the Canon. My point however was to a portion of our friend dj Dave, as exemplified by the history manufactured by his Watchtower friends… The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.* is patently false. It was as honest historians know a Council of the Catholic Church, that settled the matter which had been in dispute in the Early Church to settle the matter. One of the false assertions of the various Protestant sects, and the Arians of Brooklyn is to assert that the Jewish canon was the same as the KJV OT, (Second Edition, as the first edition did have the same Canon as the Catholic Church holds.) False in two ways. First there was not one canon of Jewish Scripture at the time. Secondly the Authority to determine the Canon resides in the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.
 
Biblical scholar Jerome, who completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible about 405 C.E., was quite definite in his position on the Apocryphal books. After listing the inspired books, using the same counting as Josephus, numbering the 39 inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures as 22, he writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings in the Vulgate: “Thus there are twenty-two books … This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

JUST AN EXTRA THOUGHT
If Jerome considered them non-canon then why are they in the vulgate bible at all? Was he under some authority to put them in the bible despite his objection?

That’s all for now.
 
As a Catholic my answer is obviously that the Church founded by Jesus (Catholic Church) and given authority over such matters has the Authority to pronounce on the Canon. My point however was to a portion of our friend dj Dave, as exemplified by the history manufactured by his Watchtower friends… The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.* is patently false. It was as honest historians know a Council of the Catholic Church, that settled the matter which had been in dispute in the Early Church to settle the matter. One of the false assertions of the various Protestant sects, and the Arians of Brooklyn is to assert that the Jewish canon was the same as the KJV OT, (Second Edition, as the first edition did have the same Canon as the Catholic Church holds.) False in two ways. First there was not one canon of Jewish Scripture at the time. Secondly the Authority to determine the Canon resides in the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.
Thank you for this true and accurate teaching. And thank-you for your continued study of our faith to be able to defend it again not only accurate but quickly also. May the Grace of our Dear Lord continue to use you to defend his Church.👍
 
No we have more than one denomination because people disobey God and sin.
So do you have a church that does not have sinner,You are just likt the people Martin Luther talk about The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the “founder” of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible. Luther opened a “Pandora’s Box” when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 32,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals’ “different” interpretations of the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top