Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter dancny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dancny

Guest
Does Our Lord quote any extra bibical sources? I know that Jude does and I understand that Paul does. It woudl really help my argument if He did.
 
Let me cvlarify before my point is misconstrued. I am preparing to engage a person on teh Sola Scriptura argument. I am looking for ammo. I can point to at least one case where Jude quotes Enoch and someone told me Something Paul did. However, if Jesus also quoted an extra bibical source that would hep a lot.
 
the only thing i can think of the top of my head right now is the golden rule which is well known outside the bible in other cultures, philosophers etc
 
Jesus refers to Jewish tradition when he says listen to the Pharisees b/c they sit on the seat on Moses. The seat of Moses is not mentioned in the OT but was part of the Jewish tradition of which the Pharisees were descendants. It would be like saying today, listen to the Pope and Bishops b/c they sit in the seat of Peter.
 
Avoid discussing the explicit biblical basis of purgatory and worship to Mary in babbling prayers. When its not in the bible tell your foe its about Tradition.
 
dancny said:
Does Our Lord quote any extra bibical sources? I know that Jude does and I understand that Paul does. It woudl really help my argument if He did.
Click to expand...
Although it would be more useful to demonstrate the canonicity of the seven Old Testament books denied by your Protestant friend, this very recent CAF thread is worth a look.
 
dancny said:
…and someone told me Something Paul did.
Click to expand...
It’s a quote from St. Paul found in the Book of Acts:

“In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35, RSV)

This is the only place in the Bible that this teaching of Jesus is found. Therefore, Paul was quoting an extra-biblical source of authentic Christian teachings. Note that Luke chose to include this statement when writing the Book of Acts, but did not choose to include it in his own gospel. Obviously, Luke saw no problem in this. Luke’s actions, as well as Paul’s specific phrasing (“remembering the words…”) imply that this extra-biblical teaching was well known from Apostolic Tradition prior to Paul’s ministry and the writing of Acts.
 
dancny said:
Does Our Lord quote any extra bibical sources? I know that Jude does and I understand that Paul does. It woudl really help my argument if He did.
Click to expand...
Number I below is from a discussion I once had. Perhaps it may be of help.

I
OBJECTION: Neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Though Jesus and the Apostles cite the OT nearly 300 times in the pages of the NT, they never quote any of the apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

RESPONSE: What is your argument?
Premise 1: Only OT books quoted in the NT should be in the OT canon.
Premise 2: The deuterocanonicals are not quoted in the NT.
Conclusion: THEREFORE, the deuterocanonicals are not in the OT canon.

You’ve got problems here:
(A) Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the NT. Some authors include Judges and Ruth in that group. Yet they are accepted in the Protestant canon.
(B) Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 and uses 9:1-11.
(C) Even if Ezra, etc. were quoted, how do you arrive at “Premise 1” above? Is that proposition in the NT? or whole Bible? I don’t recall reading it anywhere. Nor do I recall reading a listing of the OT canon in the NT. I have never seen a rationale given for “Premise 1.”

II
I’ve also found this site interesting.
 
First and foremost in the category of things not in the Bible is the table of contents – the canon – the God-given list of books that comprize the Bible. Non-Catholics have no way of knowing what the Bible is, without accepting the canon of the Bible that came from Catholic Tradition. There is no “inspired” table of contents telling us which books belong.

The New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings – written by her members, selected and canonized by her bishops at the end of the fourth century and added to 46 books of the Septuagint that were inherited from Jesus and the Apostles to form the Bible. The Catholic Church is nearly four centuries older than the Bible, which she compiled.

Oral tradition in the NT:

Matthew 2:23 – "He shall be called a ‘Nazarene.’ " There is no place in the OT where this prophecy, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” is recorded. It was handed down in the form of oral tradition by the teachers and priests of the OT.

Matthew 23:2 - the “Chair of Moses” – invoked by Jesus as authoritative and binding – is not found in the written words of the OT. It’s from unwritten oral tradition.

1 Corinthians 10:4 – The ‘Rock’ that followed the Israelites – is an unwritten Old Testament oral tradition.

2 Timothy 3:8 – Pharaoh’s Court Magicians – Janes and Jambrees - where did St. Paul get this information? Not from Scripture!

Jude 9 - The encounter between St. Michael the Archangel and Satan is not mentioned in the OT.

Catholic Traditions and customs:

Observing the Sabbath on Sunday.

The Trinity: One God in Three Coequal, Consubstantial Persons.

Praying for the repose of the souls of the faithful departed.

Honoring Mary and the Saints.

Infant baptism.

The Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Do you want the sources for this last part of the list (Church Fathers)?

Oral tradtion in the NT and the list of Catholic Traditions are from Why is That in Tradition? by Patrick Madrid.
 
Thank you all for your responses. I will try the Moses seat and the do unto others.

tradition rules. saying that anything comes down to tradition would have the opposite affect that I want. She rejects all tradition as a work of man. Mary, purgatatory and the babbling prayers are not on the table either. We are simply going to discuss source.

Part of my intent is to start out with, What bible do you use? If you use a King James you don’t have a complete Bible." and go from there. So the apocraphy will definately be there along with the books of Kings and Chronicles refering us to the book of Jubilles and such, Jude quoting Enoch.

again, thank you for your help.
 
dancny said:
Thank you all for your responses. I will try the Moses seat and the do unto others.

tradition rules. saying that anything comes down to tradition would have the opposite affect that I want. She rejects all tradition as a work of man. Mary, purgatatory and the babbling prayers are not on the table either. We are simply going to discuss source.

Part of my intent is to start out with, What bible do you use? If you use a King James you don’t have a complete Bible." and go from there. So the apocraphy will definately be there along with the books of Kings and Chronicles refering us to the book of Jubilles and such, Jude quoting Enoch.

again, thank you for your help.
Click to expand...
The first tjhing you should do is ask her to show you where in the scripture it says that everything has to be in scripture. Scripture never says this therefore this idea of hers is a mamn made tradition. Now if she quotes you the passage in 2Timothy 3:16-17 that says:

“16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Tell her that you agree that Scripture is profitable for this but where does it say scripture is complete? [It doesn’t] Also tell her that this verse says scripture makes man complete for every good work. Then ask her why it does not say that scripture saves a man but only is profitable for good works. Then ask her if she believes that the good works save a man because that is what she is saying.
 
wiggbuggie said:
the only thing i can think of the top of my head right now is the golden rule which is well known outside the bible in other cultures, philosophers etc
Click to expand...
The Golden Rule is form the Book Of Tobit

God Bless
 
In one of St. Paul’s letters he says to remember the SCRIPTURE and TRADITION he has taught. In the 0050’s and 0060’s of Paul there was no New Testament -the scripture was the Old Testament that showed how the Savior would be a suffering Savior father than a military hero.How he would spend three days in Gehena (Jonah) and rise again.
 
First of all, sola scriptura (as opposed to Scripture AND Tradition) and the content of the canon are two different questions. (The content of the canon, of course, is itself a truth of tradition.)

But to the original question, Jesus quotes a playground rhyme when referring to John the Baptist. (Luke 7:32), and Paul quoted pagan philosophers when it suited his message. So what you prove by those quotes is not that the books we call deuterocanon and the Protestants call apocrypha are inspired, you prove that quoting or not quoting something in the NT does not make the source inspired. Which I assume the OP understands, since he used the term “extra-biblical” in his request.

(There is a separate discussion, in which some shorter-canon defenders claim that the deuterocanonical books are not biblical because they’re not quoted in the NT - this is the one in which the fact that many of the protocanonical OT books are also not quoted in the NT, while books which are not in either version of the OT are quoted, may be pertinent.)

I would encourage all of us to think about finding different imagery for our apologetics efforts, by the way. Arrogant or self-righteous though they may be, those who deny truth are not enemies to be destroyed with “ammo” but misguided brothers and sisters who need to be led, carefully and patiently, to understanding. Instructing the ignorant is a work of mercy, not an act of war - and ultimately persuasion is not our job, but the Holy Spirit’s (Prov. 1:7, 2:6, 21:30)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top