those pesky bereans!

[jblake]

ralphinal;:

Seat of Moses. That means, naturally, that what he pronounced was to be taken as the correct teaching.

It is a far more complicated than that. Each and every aspect of each and every position has to be completely examined, prior to the teaching being considered “authoritative”. Even then, the pronouncements are only guidelines. It usually takes a century or two for a consensus to emerge.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

ralphinal;:

It may or may not be the only interpretation. I feel that it is not, but that is me.

You have to look at that verse in light of:

• The rest of the passage itis in;
• What the other passages that deal with both Scriptura Sola and Scriptura Prima say;

Now, can you formulate a longer proof, incorporating other verses, that says that both tradition and scripture are important, but in the end scripture is the main difference maker without getting too Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)?

Are you suggesting something on the order of:

THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT
Scripture verse

• Organization A says it supports “theological statement” by this path of reasoning;
• Organization B says it does not support “theological statement” by this path of reasoning;
• Organization C cites this verse to also refute “theological statement”, by using this path of reasoning;
• Organization D cites this verse to add support to “theological statement”, using this path of reasoning;

Then an analysis of each of the arguments that is made, both to support, and refute the validity of “theological statement”.

However, be careful that you did not study with an agenda or with a preconceived notion. It is too easy, WAY TOO EASY, to make the Bible say what it does not say.

a) One reason why I like reading the translation of the Bible in toki pona, is that it throws out a lot of preconcieved notions that one may have.

b) This is where the use of a number of commentaries that are written from radically different POVs are useful. (Especially if one uses either, or both a Muslim and Jewish commentary to the Bible.)

xan

jonathon

 

[ralphinal]

You have to look at that verse in light of:

• The rest of the passage itis in;
• What the other passages that deal with both Scriptura Sola and Scriptura Prima say;

I agree that you ahve to take the verses in context. I also think that you have to use multiple verses. A Lutherin minister told me once that if it is in the Bible only once then you do not have to accept it. If you are a sola scriptura or even prima, that is not a bad rule of thumb.

As far as the theological statement goes, I was thinking more along the lines of a thesis or scholarly paper. What you proposed is a great way to examine such a statement.

Multiple Bible translations and p.o.v. are good, but at some point how do you determine reality? Who is correct?

Thanks for the clarification of the Seat of Moses. Iw as not aware that it was a longer process.

 

[jblake]

ralphinal;:

As far as the theological statement goes, I was thinking more along the lines of a thesis or scholarly paper. What you proposed is a great way to examine such a statement.

Basically, that is what I am doing, in going through the theology, doctrine, and practices of Christianity.

Multiple Bible translations and p.o.v. are good, but at some point how do you determine reality? Who is correct?

The general consensus _should_point towards reality.
EG: Ten authors who state that Jesus was crucified on a Cross, versus one author who says that it was a torture stake. Toss out the guy who says “torture stake”, but look at the reasons why he says “torture stake”. OK, that was an easy example.

Scriptural support for, say, paedocommunion is much harder. I don’t remember all of the arguments for either side of that issue. Surprisingly, both opponents and advocates do show a consensus. (The only issue is whether or not the child understands the Sacrament. The non-peadocommunion side claims “no”. The Peadocommunion claims “yes”. Both sides acknowledge that it is different for each child.)

xan

jonathon

 

[ralphinal]

Basically, that is what I am doing, in going through the theology, doctrine, and practices of Christianity.

The general consensus _should_point towards reality.
EG: Ten authors who state that Jesus was crucified on a Cross, versus one author who says that it was a torture stake. Toss out the guy who says “torture stake”, but look at the reasons why he says “torture stake”. OK, that was an easy example.

Scriptural support for, say, paedocommunion is much harder. I don’t remember all of the arguments for either side of that issue. Surprisingly, both opponents and advocates do show a consensus. (The only issue is whether or not the child understands the Sacrament. The non-peadocommunion side claims “no”. The Peadocommunion claims “yes”. Both sides acknowledge that it is different for each child.)

xan

jonathon

Ok. Now I see your point. The only issue I would ahve is to choose wisely. If you are looking at the Resurection, for example, and end up with a Jewish, a Muslim, and a couple of “Jesus Seminar” folks, you could end up with no resurection

 

[Isa_Almisry]

does this verse not point to the primacy of scripture? i have said many times in these forums that i am not sola scriptura (scripture as the only authority), i am prima scriptura (scripture as the primary authority under which all other authorities are subject). Paul, an apostle, is teaching and the bereans checked scripture to make sure what he was saying was true. and it was thought well of them for doing it. they weren’t being insolent or anti-authority, they were simply testing one authority against the highest authority. the apostles’ teachings have been preserved for us in the new testament and are now considered scripture. i do believe in an authoritative source for interpretation, but that source is also subject to scripture. that source as well as it’s interpretations cannot go against scripture… hence prima scriptura.

Only if you are outside the Church, but believe in the Old Testament.

This no more prove prima scriptura than St. Paul’s reference to an unknown God proves idolatry. He is using what his target audience already believes.

 

[jblake]

ralphinal;:

If you are looking at the Resurrection, for example, and end up with a Jewish, a Muslim, and a couple of “Jesus Seminar” folks, you could end up with no resurection

I have a secondary Jewish source that quotes a primary Rabbinical Jewish source affirming that the resurrection did take place. Unfortunately, my secondary source didn’t provide an exact primary source citation. Merely the name of the source. [As an aside, the same secondary source also quotes that primary source as stating that the Rabbis violated Jewish law, to get Jesus executed. I haven’t found either of those specific passages in that primary source. ]

The work done by the “Jesus Seminar” folks can be discounted, simply by applying the same rules to their sources, as they apply to the Bible as a source.

Muslim sources get extremely interesting. I’ve seen references to an Islamic source that confirms the resurrection. I don’t have a time line for the Q’ran. Nor do I read Arabic. My impression is that the primary source that the Muslim sources I’ve read are using, is the Q’ran prior to its second major redaction. IOW, all that is being quoted are fragments of text from a manuscript that no longer exists. (To put that into perspective, it is akin to reconstructing the New testament, based entirely on the content of The Early Christian Fathers.)

xan

jonathon