H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
The NT books weren’t written yet.
The OT books were the ones present in the Septuagint.
- Status
The OT books were the ones present in the Septuagint.
N
Nicea325
Guest
On the contrary, I just debunked your false premise of SS being used.
No. You made it clear: scripture is the rule and norm for doctrines. Hence, therefore without written scripture no doctrine can be defended or supported. Then tell me how Peter defended ANY orthodox doctrine without scripture?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! So how could SS be in effect,if the NT books were not written? So SS excludes the current NT canon?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
As the NT was composed it was added to scripture.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
He had the OT scriptures, and the knowledge he had from Christ. As he wrote his books were added yo scripture.
N
Nicea325
Guest
He had the OT which were not canonized,thus SS is bogus. SS is based on canonized text. Peter did not own his own personal Bible to practice the 16th century practice called SS. He HEARD the OT read to people. Peter did not NEED any written proof to defend any orthodox doctrines. What matters is what he was taught and heard from God. So it is absolutely bogus to believe SS was used. It was not nor was it ever taught in the early church.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
That’s silly. The apostles at the Jerusalem council quoted from the OT to defend their teaching. Using scripture to norm their doctrine, that’s sola Scriptura.
Also the Jews had the canon of scripture. It’s not like they were fumbling around without any clue what was scripture.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
This is getting really annoying. Would you please stop saying this. I responded to your claim in Post #106.
They appealed to Scriptures in order to set modified requirements of the law. It was precisely the opposite of what you claim - the Judaizers wanted to use Scriptures and put the yoke of the law on the Gentiles. At the Council a new arbitration was reached, apart from Scriptures. Hardly SS. So please just stop this silly claim.
Also, please feel free to argue Sola Scriptura in its own thread found here.
Source for the Jewish Canon of Scripture, please.
The Jews did not have one single canon of Scriptures, they had sects that used only the Torah, sects that used the Tanakh, and other sects use the Oral Torah: Talmud.
And that’s not including the Septuagint which was circulating at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and which also had different variations.
So to put this to rest. Jesus, the Apostles, and their disciples were not Sola Scriptura. The Historical Church through their Councils and Bishops have been the final arbiter.
Even in the 16th century-forward. Sola Scriptura is not the final arbiter - it is the individual or the denomination that is the final arbiter - interpreting Scriptures on their own and making final determinations.
Back to topic now please.
J
joe371
Guest
So, at this particular juncture (1st century AD) you do believe that the church leaders taught via apostolic tradition?
J
joe371
Guest
Why didn’t saint Paul simply use the existing scriptures to norm their teachings and settle the dispute - was a question I could not answer as a former SS advocate?
J
joe371
Guest
When we look at the historicity of the church it is clear that sola scriptura (the OT at this moment in history) could not be used as the norm to do anything, for the simple fact that very few people owned copies of the various OT scrolls at the time. If you lived in the first century, how would you ( everyone) get your hands on the requisite scrolls needed to practice SS? Surely you must agree? Today, it as least possible in view of the fact that just about anyone can get a bible…
J
joe371
Guest
Apostolic tradition…Those who insist that they, in the first century, were not to go beyond what was written, would be contradicting what is written: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 clearly disproves what some say 1 Corinthians 4:6 means.
%between%
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Paul didn’t say anything in the council. But they used scripture to norm their doctrine, that is the book of Amos, IIRC.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
The OT books were widely circulated. There was even a sect of Jews dedicated to the task called the scribes.
After the NT books were written they were widely circulated throughout the churches as well.
If a person couldn’t read there would definitely have been a person at the church who could, otherwise why bother writing letters to the churches at all?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
No. They simply taught what Jesus taught them. That doesn’t mean they were free of error. We can see they were as Peter had to be corrected by Paul.
J
joe371
Guest
I forgot you believe that errors crept in even during the apostolic age. Therefore there is really nothing more to say. This means that john 16:13, even for the apostles, is a lie: But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
Even back then, they only possessed partial truth, and you gave Peter and Paul as an example.
That means only Jesus taught infallibly, passed it on to the apostles, who immediately failed to follow in Jesus’ footsteps via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I guess our discussion is over.
J
joe371
Guest
Yes. The NT was widely circulated throughout the churches, and the synagogues regarding the OT. People on the other hand did not possess these thing in their respective homes - right? So how did they go to the scriptures, while they were in their homes and learn from it? In order for SS to work every SS advocate needs their final authority, which is scripture - right?
J
joe371
Guest
Why didn’t saint Paul, when he was in Antioch, simply use the existing scriptures he had, to norm their teachings and settle the dispute in Antioch?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I am not sure he didn’t. We only have 2 verses in Galatians detailing the event.
Even so, Peter was going against Jesus teachings, which we have recorded. And they both knew well. So they could just norm their dispute with Jesus teachings that they already knew, since the NT hadn’t been written down yet.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
No, because sola Scriptura is a practice of the church, not of individuals. The churches would have had the letters circulating. You could go to the church in someone’s home, read the letters of the NT in circulation.
- Status