The practice of sola scriptura from the 1st century to the 4th century...?

[joe370]

Hello joe, Let me say this people don’t want answer posts

I think it’s rather obvious why non-Catholics are not responding. It’s the same reason why I avoided the topic as a former non-Catholic.

By the way, even if the Jews (regarding the written torah) - viewed it exclusively with a sola scriptura lens, (avoiding any and all oral torah) - the Jews still embraced a teaching office, as opposed to individual interpretation, when it came to interpreting and discerning the law, which is not the case with the protestant practice of SS, with the exception of the JonNC’s out there that do in fact defer to a church teaching office - correct?

If not please elaborate?

 

[jericho777]

First, please point out the differences in faith because if we could see these differences we probably wouldn’t be Catholic (even though the scripture writers and the people who compiled scripture were the people who founded the Catholic Church).

And the Bible indicates that it is not the only mode of instruction. The writings or the Gospels were never meant to be the only trustable thing. The Bible also states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Besides only the Church could read the Bible until recently because no one had the money or time to learn to read and for a family to buy a Bible up until the time of the printing press would have bankrupted anyone besides the rich. To say that the Bible is the only form of instruction would be foolish considering the majority of humanity wasn’t able to read until recently.

I’ll mention just a couple. Holy water, a sin not to attend Mass and sign of the cross are not in scripture.

You haven’t demonstrated to me the reliability of your other sources.
Not totally true Jesus was poor yet could read, His deity aside He was given the scroll to read during service indicating there was literacy even in Galilee. At Bar/Bat Mitzvah the 12 year old is expected to read from the Torah so Jews were certainly literate. The Bereans were literate and scripturally astute also. The church certainly could have taught people to read as the Jews did but chose not to. It was a crime punishable by death to poses scriptures. Scriptures were not even in a language people could understand only Latin. William Tyndale was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned for trying to publish the bible into English by the church.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll mention just a couple. Holy water, a sin not to attend Mass and sign of the cross are not in scripture.

You haven’t demonstrated to me the reliability of your other sources.
Not totally true Jesus was poor yet could read, His deity aside He was given the scroll to read during service indicating there was literacy even in Galilee. At Bar/Bat Mitzvah the 12 year old is expected to read from the Torah so Jews were certainly literate. The Bereans were literate and scripturally astute also. The church certainly could have taught people to read as the Jews did but chose not to. It was a crime punishable by death to poses scriptures. Scriptures were not even in a language people could understand only Latin. William Tyndale was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned for trying to publish the bible into English by the church.

U-huh and the Bible also does not say anything about taking a OT/NT Bible to Sunday Services-does it? The Bible also says nothing about men wearing suits or the preacher wearing a suit-does it? Starting one’s own church is also not mentioned in the Bible. Circular arguments.

 

[jericho777]

Hey Jericho, I will digress for a moment to address your statements. Your thoughts regarding the following:

As I am sure you know, in addition to the written torah there was the oral torah, which was the means for explaining what the written torah meant and how to interpret it and apply its laws. Orthodox Jews believe that God taught the oral torah to Moses, and he then taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the second century B.C,. at which point the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah, at which point the Jews continued to rely equally on the oral law, which was the traditional accompaniment to the written law. The written torah was not a detailed set of instructions or directions for the Jews which necessitated the need for essential oral commentary and this commentary was where oral tradition, aka oral torah, came in to play. Examples where the written laws of the torah are completely incomprehensible without oral tradition:

The bible says: take together four species on the first day of Succos. Which four species are meant, and what are we supposed to do with them?

The prohibition of Chelev leaves one uninformed as to which fat is included in the category of Chelev, and which are Shumin (fat) and therefore permitted.

Regarding Lev. 7, which blood is forbidden and how do we purge the meat of it?

Regarding Exodus 13, what are Totaphot? How are they made, and how are they “bound as a sign upon your hand?”

Finally, which work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and which is permitted?

The NT writers occasionally quote other NT writers, but primarily they quote the OT. That doesn’t address my question though.

The NT writers occasionally quoting other NT writers is your answer to the OP?





Passage that reveals the Bereans disregarding Paul’s command regarding apostolic tradition, in favor of the following, or at least similar language:

We, as Bereans, rely on nothing other than scripture to vet Paul’s teachings?

Yes that’s what Judaism HAS become but not what it was. When you read the biblical narration in its historical context you will see central role of torah alone as the basis for Israel’s relationship with YHWH.

As to your second point I would respond by saying the concept is fully there but to us a detail is missing. I would say it was already common knowledge to those people at that time. There are things in scripture we have to put in its historical and cultural context to properly understand the meaning. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch had no cultural reference to Isaiah and needed Phillip to explain who was being spoken about. It would be like me going to another country and read a book in their language and get their cultural concepts. What is common knowledge to them is not so to me.

In law you work off established precedence’s. I’m demonstrating how Judaism was established on the torah and prophets. NT authors built their principals on the foundation of the OT there by validating their positions.

You surmising these traditions were never recorded in scripture. I say they are there. Who gave the Bereans the authority to see if Paul was in fact teaching the truth?

 

[jericho777]

I think it’s rather obvious why non-Catholics are not responding. It’s the same reason why I avoided the topic as a former non-Catholic.

By the way, even if the Jews (regarding the written torah) - viewed it exclusively with a sola scriptura lens, (avoiding any and all oral torah) - the Jews still embraced a teaching office, as opposed to individual interpretation, when it came to interpreting and discerning the law, which is not the case with the protestant practice of SS, with the exception of the JonNC’s out there that do in fact defer to a church teaching office - correct?

If not please elaborate?

I aint avoiding it.

The Holy Sprit has established teachers to teach the truth. If you are teaching the truth there is no problem.

 

[jericho777]

U-huh and the Bible also does not say anything about taking a OT/NT Bible to Sunday Services-does it? The Bible also says nothing about men wearing suits or the preacher wearing a suit-does it? Starting one’s own church is also not mentioned in the Bible. Circular arguments.

You are too funny. It wasn’t too long ago the mass and the bible were only in latin and no one could understand it. What good was that. The church killed people for having translated a bible into their native tongue. They thought Latin was the only language the bible should be in. Kinda sounds like King James only to me.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8498233]

I aint avoiding it.

A little bit I think. Just joking around brother.

The Holy Sprit has established teachers to teach the truth. If you are teaching the truth there is no problem.

So, you admit that Jews (regarding the written torah) - embraced a teaching office, as opposed to individual interpretation/judgment when it came to interpreting and discerning the law, which is of course is not the case with the protestant practice of SS for most SS proponents?

By the way, saying,* “Holy Spirit has established teachers to teach the truth. If you are teaching the truth there is no problem.”* - is an example of SS via individual interpretation/judgment, unless of course you can identify a specific teaching office regarding said “established teachers” just as I can regarding the specific teaching office of the OT/NT Jews, regarding the Torah. Correct?

 

[Nicea325]

You are too funny. It wasn’t too long ago the mass and the bible were only in latin and no one could understand it. What good was that. The church killed people for having translated a bible into their native tongue. They thought Latin was the only language the bible should be in. Kinda sounds like King James only to me.

And the fact remains what I stated is true or do you prefer to turn the blind eye? I beg your pardon? It was long the Bible was only in Latin? The Bible was written in many other languages by the CC. No offense, but try reading history sometime instead of going off what you merely hear or assume. What good was that? It has nothing to do with what is good or bad,but it has to do with the fact things change in life. At one time Greek was the language spoken,then Latin in the West and so it goes on through history.

They thought Latin was the only language the bible should be in

Again,no offense but the above comment is based on pure ignorance. Who is they? Got names?

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8498218]Yes that’s what Judaism HAS become but not what it was. When you read the biblical narration in its historical context you will see central role of torah alone as the basis for Israel’s relationship with YHWH.

So, the Torah alone, kind of like scripture alone? No oral tradition?

You surmising these traditions were never recorded in scripture. I say they are there.

Where?

Who gave the Bereans the authority to see if Paul was in fact teaching the truth?

Yes, they searched the scriptures, i.e. the OT, to see whether these thing were so…to see whether the promises and types corresponded with the alleged fulfillment in the person, works, and sufferings of Jesus Christ.

What do you think Paul would have done if they told him that his interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 was wrong?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
jericho777;8498218]Yes that’s what Judaism HAS become but not what it was. When you read the biblical narration in its historical context you will see central role of **torah alone **as the basis for Israel’s relationship with YHWH.

Torah alone? Got a verse where Abraham quotes the Torah? What Bible did Abraham use?

 

[Heuchler]

I’ll mention just a couple. Holy water, a sin not to attend Mass and sign of the cross are not in scripture.

You haven’t demonstrated to me the reliability of your other sources.
Not totally true Jesus was poor yet could read, His deity aside He was given the scroll to read during service indicating there was literacy even in Galilee. At Bar/Bat Mitzvah the 12 year old is expected to read from the Torah so Jews were certainly literate. The Bereans were literate and scripturally astute also. The church certainly could have taught people to read as the Jews did but chose not to. It was a crime punishable by death to poses scriptures. Scriptures were not even in a language people could understand only Latin. William Tyndale was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned for trying to publish the bible into English by the church.

There is a reference in numbers to using Holy Water in a cleansing right. There is also the verse to hold fast to the traditions that you receive either from word or letter.
The Ten Commandments say to keep the Sabbath holy. As the ressurection takes precedence over the Sabbath, this now applies to the Sabbath meaning you are to dedicate that day to God and at least go to Church. The sign of the cross is a reminder that helps us to remember Christ’s redeeming death on a cross and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And in each of these examples I see nothing heretical that would bring one away from God and only things that seem to edify and help people focus on God. Crossing oneself reminds one of the trinity and of Christ’s sacrifice, what is wrong with that. Holy Water reminds you of your baptism and God washing away your sins, what is wrong with that. We are meant to go to church and it is wrong to purposefully skip it.

And yes, the Jewish people could read up the Hebrew but after the fall of Rome the majority of literacy died out in the poor and at all points until the printing press, paper was extremely costly making it unaffordable for the average person to buy a 1000 page book which would have had to have been handwritten.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are too funny. It wasn’t too long ago the mass and the bible were only in latin and no one could understand it. What good was that. The church killed people for having translated a bible into their native tongue. They thought Latin was the only language the bible should be in. Kinda sounds like King James only to me.

The Christian world spoke Greek and the Bible was in Greek. The Christian world spoke Latin and the Bible was in Latin.

The language of the mass does not change the mass. The latin Mass was in Latin however there were books to be read alongside that were in English and Latin. What good was that. Well as you know there are more Catholic Christians in the World than there are any other that call themselves Christian. When you combine Orthodox and Catholic and just for the number include Muslims…that is 1/2 the world population. Did something I would say.

What good has the Protestant preaching in English done? According to a recent look the once Protestant majority in the USA is becoming the minority

 

[CopticChristian]

There is a reference in numbers to using Holy Water in a cleansing right. There is also the verse to hold fast to the traditions that you receive either from word or letter.
The Ten Commandments say to keep the Sabbath holy. As the ressurection takes precedence over the Sabbath, this now applies to the Sabbath meaning you are to dedicate that day to God and at least go to Church. The sign of the cross is a reminder that helps us to remember Christ’s redeeming death on a cross and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And in each of these examples I see nothing heretical that would bring one away from God and only things that seem to edify and help people focus on God. Crossing oneself reminds one of the trinity and of Christ’s sacrifice, what is wrong with that. Holy Water reminds you of your baptism and God washing away your sins, what is wrong with that. We are meant to go to church and it is wrong to purposefully skip it.

And yes, the Jewish people could read up the Hebrew but after the fall of Rome the majority of literacy died out in the poor and at all points until the printing press, paper was extremely costly making it unaffordable for the average person to buy a 1000 page book which would have had to have been handwritten.

And thus you define the Protestant Authority that took the deuterocanonicals out of the Bible,the Bible Societies that printed them cheaper because including the deuterocanonical were too expensive and used more paper…The printing press of the Bible society is the mystery hidden for all ages, the reason for which the deuterocanonicals were dropped.

 

[jericho777]

A little bit I think. Just joking around brother.

So, you admit that Jews (regarding the written torah) - embraced a teaching office, as opposed to individual interpretation/judgment when it came to interpreting and discerning the law, which is of course is not the case with the protestant practice of SS for most SS proponents?

By the way, saying,* “Holy Spirit has established teachers to teach the truth. If you are teaching the truth there is no problem.”* - is an example of SS via individual interpretation/judgment, unless of course you can identify a specific teaching office regarding said “established teachers” just as I can regarding the specific teaching office of the OT/NT Jews, regarding the Torah. Correct?

Brother joe, Judaism is not monolithic in its theology during the time of Jesus there were many sects. They had differing doctrines and their only commonality was temple worship. As with any thing the more time goes by the more potential there is to deviate from the original intent. Just read the OT and you will see many times Israel wandered away from God’s truth.

I don’t see an office per se more like a position just as with the other the Holy Spirit has called one into. Where was the central teaching office in Israel that allowed the multitude of sects?

 

[jericho777]

And the fact remains what I stated is true or do you prefer to turn the blind eye? I beg your pardon? It was long the Bible was only in Latin? The Bible was written in many other languages by the CC. No offense, but try reading history sometime instead of going off what you merely hear or assume. What good was that? It has nothing to do with what is good or bad,but it has to do with the fact things change in life. At one time Greek was the language spoken,then Latin in the West and so it goes on through history.

Again,no offense but the above comment is based on pure ignorance. Who is they? Got names?

What was the reason for keeping the mass in Latin only and not in a language native people’s could understand and comprehend until recent times?

Why was William Tyndale murdered by the cc for translating the bible into English?

True the NT was originally written in Greek then translated into Latin.

 

[jericho777]

So, the Torah alone, kind of like scripture alone? No oral tradition?

Where?

Yes, they searched the scriptures, i.e. the OT, to see whether these thing were so…to see whether the promises and types corresponded with the alleged fulfillment in the person, works, and sufferings of Jesus Christ.

What do you think Paul would have done if they told him that his interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 was wrong?

Look how Judaism drifted from what was clearly instructed in the bible and added things that were manmade rules. Mark 7:7-9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” 9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

I have heard people here say ST is the things that were not recorded in scripture. They quote 2 Thes 2:15.

The point is they were rightly dividing the word and Paul commended them for it.

 

[CopticChristian]

What was the reason for keeping the mass in Latin only and not in a language native people’s could understand and comprehend until recent times?

Why was William Tyndale murdered by the cc for translating the bible into English?

True the NT was originally written in Greek then translated into Latin.

Good questions. You may not know this however English is the language of all Air Traffic Controllers even if your from China, Italy, etc. It is a uniform language that is spoken by all pilots.

Latin was the universal language of the Church. It is my understanding that there were other languages being used other than latin authorized prior to Trent. Why? I suppose someone has a better answer. It was the language of the Church and the Church moves slowly to change anything.

William Tyndale. He went to Antwerp where he conducted his share of the classic controversy with Sir Thomas More. After Henry VIII’s change of attitude towards Rome, Stephen Vaughan, the English envoy to the Netherlands, suggested Tyndale’s return, but the reformer feared ecclesiastical hostility and declined. Henry then demanded his surrender from the emperor as one who was spreading sedition in England, and Tyndale left Antwerp for two years, returning in 1533 and busying himself with revising his translations. In May 1535 he was betrayed by Henry Phillips, to whom he had shown much kindness, as a professing student of the new faith. The imperial officers imprisoned him at Vilvorde Castle, the state prison, 6 miles from Brussels, he was tried for heresy and condemned. On the 6th of October 1536 he was strangled at the stake and his body afterwards burnt.

This was a travesty. A priest was murdered.

Calvin too committed murder. These are sins that are not sanctioned for the propagation of any Faith.

 

[jericho777]

Torah alone? Got a verse where Abraham quotes the Torah? What Bible did Abraham use?

You really are too funny. God directly spoke to Abraham so he didn’t need a bible did he.

 

[jericho777]

There is a reference in numbers to using Holy Water in a cleansing right. There is also the verse to hold fast to the traditions that you receive either from word or letter.
The Ten Commandments say to keep the Sabbath holy. As the ressurection takes precedence over the Sabbath, this now applies to the Sabbath meaning you are to dedicate that day to God and at least go to Church. The sign of the cross is a reminder that helps us to remember Christ’s redeeming death on a cross and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And in each of these examples I see nothing heretical that would bring one away from God and only things that seem to edify and help people focus on God. Crossing oneself reminds one of the trinity and of Christ’s sacrifice, what is wrong with that. Holy Water reminds you of your baptism and God washing away your sins, what is wrong with that. We are meant to go to church and it is wrong to purposefully skip it.

And yes, the Jewish people could read up the Hebrew but after the fall of Rome the majority of literacy died out in the poor and at all points until the printing press, paper was extremely costly making it unaffordable for the average person to buy a 1000 page book which would have had to have been handwritten.

Heuchler, the ceremonial law from the OT has passed away. The NT is totally different in focus and practice. Christ is the center of the Christian’s life there is no need for the external rituals to bring one into relationship i.e. we are circumcised in our hearts not our flesh. Heb 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

The only command not mentioned in the NT is to keep holy the Sabbath. We are not bound to any particular day. Rom 14:5-6 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Col 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

These types of external things tend to become central obscuring what really is essential for faith.

There were no printing presses in OT Israel yet there was literacy. Why, because the Jews made reading the Torah an important issue for all.

 

[jericho777]

The Christian world spoke Greek and the Bible was in Greek. The Christian world spoke Latin and the Bible was in Latin.

The language of the mass does not change the mass. The latin Mass was in Latin however there were books to be read alongside that were in English and Latin. What good was that. Well as you know there are more Catholic Christians in the World than there are any other that call themselves Christian. When you combine Orthodox and Catholic and just for the number include Muslims…that is 1/2 the world population. Did something I would say.

What good has the Protestant preaching in English done? According to a recent look the once Protestant majority in the USA is becoming the minority

If people cannot understand the words being spoken at mass they will not understand what is going on. I think it’s only been within the last 50 years that one could hear the mass in one’s own language.

God is not looking for numbers only for a faithful remnant. Remember Gideon?