That kind of answer has a name: intellectual contorsionism. The art of distort anything to avoid losing the dialectic battle. When there isn’t any battle. When someone need red herrings (to bring up “non-Messianic Jews are apostate” is an evident one, indeed risible) to argue then he/she knows the truth is not on his/her side.
This is the point which brings such great cognitive dissonance for Catholics.
You’re still not getting what I’m talking about or what sola scriptura pertains to. “Scripture only” pertains to traditions & beliefs that are supported by the Word of God - such as the concept of the Trinity & the Deity of Christ - even though those specific words aren’t used in Scripture, the concept of them are taught. The “belief” or “tradition” taught in some churches that Jesus is not God, or that the Trinity is One God, One “Person” (Oneness Pentecostalism), or that Lucifer was a “spirit brother” of Jesus (Mormonism) are not supported by Scripture alone. Those traditions either “exceed” Scripture, or outright contradicts it. The godly attributes of the 66 books OT canon in Protestant Bibles hasn’t anything to do with sola scriptura, because the determination of the canon isn’t based on “tradition,” nor “Scripture only,” but on the fact that every single book & epistle in that 66 book canon is without error & doesn’t contradict itself, as well as other godly attributes that make it “God-breathed.” So, saying that the 66 book canon is based on “tradition” is a strawman argument, because - again - it has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura, but about godly attributes. You are taking a Scripturally supported belief (“sola scriptura”) & misapplying it to “why” the 66 book canon is recognized by Protestants.
Again, this godly criteria needed to be established because of all these other non-inspired gnostic, pseudoepigraphical, & other writings began to surface - many of them contradicted each other, as well as the “actual” Inspired Scripture recognized as such since the first century (like Paul’s epistles & the Gospel of Luke, etc). And it’s because they didn’t have the NT Scriptures under one cover like we do today, that it took so long to “formally” establish a canon. I say “formally,” because “informally,” the 27 books were already recognized by the second century by many Christians, because they have the EXACT SAME godly attributes that you find in the 39 book Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures of the OT canon recognized in the Protestant OT, that aren’t found in the 7 Apocrypha books, which were recognized in Jesus’ day by the Pharisees (who ADDED their extra-biblical “traditions” TO them), which Jesus rebuked using THEIR own THREE-fold division Scriptures (Luke 24:44-45), which later Jews & Protestants ALSO recognized.
The Scriptures can be read to say most anything someone such as yourself asserts. You are one person making assertions.
This is just a baseless circular private assertion.
The OT, which states that the coming promised Jewish Messiah would be God in the flesh, which Jesus fulfilled & declared about Himself, which the Jews rejected. That is what makes them apostate, based on the OT Scriptures.
First, if you read that passage in John’s Gospel about Jesus being on the portico of Solomon, it doesn’t actually state that Jesus was “celebrating” Hanukkah. It merely states He was “walking in the Temple” (John 20:22-23). But even if we “assume” that Jesus was celebrating Hanukkah (which He wouldn’t have been bound to follow, since there is no OT Law from God commanding Jews to celebrate it), it would be no different than a Christian American celebrating Independence Day, Thanksgiving, or Christmas on December 25th or Easter on a specified date on a calendar. The purpose of those national holidays is for celebration of what went on those days (or, in the case of Christmas, what the day “represents” what actually happened). But celebrating something that didn’t actually happened - but rather “believed” to have happened - like the bodily “assumption” of Mary, which is based on extra-biblical “tradition” & nothing more, including not from Scripture - violates sola scriptura. IOW, this is why Jesus “could” celebrate Hanukkah (“assuming” He did), but not Mary’s “assumption” - even “if” Jesus would have outlived her. Also, just because Hanukkah is mentioned in the books of Maccabees, & Jews celebrated it, that doesn’t make Maccabees Inspired, because BOTH books don’t have the godly attributes that qualify them as being God-breathed (inerrant, lack of contradictions, etc). The 66 OT canon & 27 NT canon found in Protestant Bibles do.
When you say “godly attributes” you are assuming the premise. How do you define “godly attributes”? Why do protestants accept Esther, but reject Sirach?
As “PR” says…egg-ZACT-ly.
This should be self-evident & obvious, but to quote Moses: “‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20,22)
That’s why sola scriptura is necessary, because it prevents “assertions.” I find it ironic that Christians who reject sola scriptura & impute their “beliefs” & “traditions” into Scripture that isn’t there, are the same people who accuse Christians, who believe in sola scriptura, of imputing extra-biblical traditions into Scripture. That’s the same as saying, “I don’t believe you shouldn’t add anything to Scripture like you do, & because you believe you shouldn’t then YOU are the one adding to Scripture.” Because that is what you’re doing, which you are contradicting yourself & refuting opposite beliefs, much like the Pharisees who condemned John the Baptist for not drinking wine, while at the same time condemning Jesus because He did drink wine. You’re doing the same thing with believers in sola scriptura. You are either for it or against it, but you can’t be both.
Really??? God-breathed Scripture “contradicts themselves all over the place???” Since Scripture is GOD-breathed, that’s like saying GOD “contradicts HIMSELF all over the place.” Are you sure you want to make that kind of assertion? Because not even the Catholic church teaches that. I’m afraid you’re on your own on this one.
No, actually it was written by Paul TO Timothy. So, you are wrong here. The other godly attributes include fulfilled prophecies, written by a prophet of God or disciple of Christ (or their contemporaries: Luke → Paul; Mark → Peter), as well as read & circulated in the churches. And although this last attribute alone doesn’t make non-inspired writings like 1 Clement god-breathed, the point is that along with the other godly attributes mentioned (inerrancy, lack of contradictions) that is what makes the 27 NT book canon Inspired, but not 1 Clement, because it lacks the TOTALITY of the godly attributes to qualify as God-breathed Scripture.
Because Esther doesn’t contradict previous or later Scripture, but Sirach does. As previously mentioned, a contradiction disqualifies a piece of writing as being God-breathed, because God is incapable of contradiction - and so is His written Inspired Word. Maybe that’s why so many Catholics I’ve talked to believe there are “full of contradictions” in the Bible, because there are contradictions in the 7 Apocrypha book - just not in the 39 book OT canon in Protestant Bibles, nor the 27 book canon in Catholic & Protestant Bibles.
By all means, please point out where Sirach contradicts scripture.
You have yourself as a context for scripture, but there is also a Church with Christ as it’s head and Apostolic Tradition to transmit and interpret it, without which you would not have one word of the thing to go on about. (or did it drop into your lap yesterday with interpretation notes written just for you?)
After reading earlier posts, I’ve noticed that because there are truths mentioned in the 7 Apocrypha books in Catholic Bibles, it’s “assumed” that they are Inspired because there are truths in them. However, that “assumption” fails to take into account that just because a piece of writings contains truths, & even agrees with previous & later Scripture, if these same piece of writings declare false statements, then they aren’t from God (Deuteronomy 18:20,22), which is what you find in the 7 Apocrypha books in Catholic OT’s, but not in the 39 OT Protestant canon, nor in the 27 NT book canon. This is a Christian source that is NOT “anti-catholic” in any way shape or form, nor attempts to “proselytize” Catholics at all, but rather is solely used for the purpose of answering specific questions asked from Catholics here who have specifically asked for these errors & contradictions in them. You can view the study notes in the upper right-hand corner for free:
vernisage.us/SteveChristie/22/index.html
The celebration of Purim (Esther 9:26), that both OT Jews & NT Jews celebrated - many of which continue to celebrate it even today. Plus, Esther is part of the OT Inspired Scripture as belonging to The ‘Five Rolls’ (‘Megilloth’) in the “Writings” of the THREE-fold division of the OT that Jesus recognized as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), which Paul recognized Luke’s Gospel as Inspired Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), which Peter recognized Paul’s epistles as Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So, Esther being Inspired Scripture is recognized by Jesus, Paul, & Peter. So, your question is a moot point.
Saying that you “believe” your particular “church” can interpret Scripture based on “it’s tradition” is just circular reasoning & subjective. That’s like saying, “I believe my church’s tradition is right, as well as it’s interpretation of Scripture, because it ‘says’ it’s interpreting it right, & because it ‘says’ it’s ‘tradition’ is ‘apostolic.’” If you can’t quote the actual apostle that this “alleged apostolic tradition” comes from, then you are merely trusting in the “tradition” of “men” - not the actual apostles themselves.
That’s not even an issue. I believe that as well, but not because somebody “told me,” & simply because I “believe” them, but because I READ & studied them MYSELF. And unlike every other piece of religious & secular writing (including the 7 Apocrypha books), the 39 book OT canon & 27 book NT canon in Protestant Bibles are the only piece of writings that contain the godly attributes that qualify as being God-breathed (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc).
Again, Timothy did not WRITE 1 & 2 Timothy. Paul did, who WROTE them TO Timothy. And God not “forcing” Paul & the other writers of Inspired Scripture to “write the words in a trance,” have nothing to do with what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is “how” a person can discern between a piece of Inspired Scripture vs. one that isn’t. And if we simply trust in a “church” that declares that “their” writings are “Inspired” without looking into it ourselves, then we run into the danger of simply “accepting” & “believing” in the “beliefs” & “assertions” of human beings, no different that Mormons do with the book of Mormon, which is subjective & simply accepting the “traditions” of “men,” & not God.
Thank you for putting in print what’s obvious to everyone else.
Those “study notes” are a complete joke.
Well, that’s your definition of “Scripture only”.
