You can't have it both ways.

[1234]

The NT especially, but the Jews did not have a closed canon at the time of Jesus. It was the Aposltes, who used the Alexandrian Septuagint, that led the Church to choose this collection of works to bind together with the 27 books of the NT, forming the Bible. At that point, the Church took over the responsbility of preserving and promulgating the text. As Jesus said, “salvation is of the Jews!”

It doesn’t matter exactly *what *is in the OT. It’s written by Jews in Hebrew. The Jews do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah–he didn’t fit the criteria, for one thing. The reason the NT is written in Greek and not Hebrew, Jesus’ written language, is that it was written by Greeks, for non-Jews or Gentiles, either Greeks or other Greek-speaking non-Jews.

If Catholics try to take ownership of the OT, they’re going to get into big arguments from the Jews, not that these haven’t been raging for centuries. Fortunately, the Catholics can’t burn the Jews anymore.

 

[nickybr38]

It doesn’t matter exactly *what *is in the OT. It’s written by Jews in Hebrew. The Jews do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah–he didn’t fit the criteria, for one thing. The reason the NT is written in Greek and not Hebrew, Jesus’ written language, is that it was written by Greeks, for non-Jews or Gentiles, either Greeks or other Greek-speaking non-Jews.

If Catholics try to take ownership of the OT, they’re going to get into big arguments from the Jews, not that these haven’t been raging for centuries. Fortunately, the Catholics can’t burn the Jews anymore.

Um, actually He DID fit the criteria. It does matter what is in the OT because the New Covenant would not exist without the Old. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, He came to fulfill it.

But that’s an entirely different topic. I suggest you start it. You can explain why you feel Jesus didn’t fit the criteria of Messiah (which, btw, means anointed one, but I’m sure you know that) and then we can all get into a discussion about why He DID fit the criteria.

The OT belongs to the Jews, this is true. The Christian faith would not exist without the Jewish faith. They are our parent religion, in a way. The NT belongs to Catholic’s. But it’s only when you put the two together that the puzzle pieces slide into place.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Joe
They are good questions but probably another thread possibly?

As far as the OP, once again different beliefs regarding the Truth of Sola Scriptura does not negate the Truth. If so, the existence of different Christian groups would negate the Truth of Christianity. Even from your perspective different groups adhering to Scripture/tradition would negate tradition. If that makes sense and I can expound if it does not.

 

[joe370]

Joe
They are good questions but probably another thread possibly?

As far as the OP, once again different beliefs regarding the Truth of Sola Scriptura does not negate the Truth. If so, the existence of different Christian groups would negate the Truth of Christianity. Even from your perspective different groups adhering to Scripture/tradition would negate tradition. If that makes sense and I can expound if it does not.

Hey Rightly, I was thinking maybe, that those questions would be appropriate for this thread for the simple fact that I, as a former SS advocate, could not see how I could have it both ways regarding those questions. Those questions, which I could not answer, changed my life…But I do understand if others do not find them as important as I did, once upon a time.

If any SS advocates here at this thread, find these questions germane to the thread then I would love to hear your response?

Thanks much…

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

I guess you do not have the faith in GOD that HE would not allow HIS Word to be corrupted. We have the Bible GOD wanted us to have.

Actually, quite the contrary. I have faith that GOD would/will not allow HIS Word to be corrupted, for one reason and one reason only: He left us with His church in His stead, forever guided by the HS, (the spirit of truth) - into all truth, until the end of time. If not for that promise made to His established church, and the faith required to believe His promise, no doubt I would not possess the necessary faith to believe that the bible was/is in fact the inerrant, inspired word of God. But that’s just me…

 

[Dokimas]

It is a true statement, Doki. The Reformers utterly rejected the corrupted Catholic leadership of the day, and wanted a “pure” source of authority over the church.

You will not be accepted into the Catholic Church until you are willing to relinquish such heresies as Sola Scriptura.

I hope I’d reject the corruption of the leaders too.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly, you said to Cranmer2010:

Rightly, if the CC (Trent) - set the canon for the Anglican church, who set the canon for you or the rest of the PC’s? Please don’t say God, for this is a given and an argument that Cranmer could posit.

I am not sure I can answer this question because it appears to have presuppositions I do not share. Can we simplify it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, did the Holy spirit guide Jesus’ church to infallibly define the canon of sacred scripture ? If so then which church, considering the fact that you said:

“The Oriental Orthodox have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a different canon ( I have one right next to me)** and we have a different one.” **

Simple question deserving a simple answer.

No they did not. The church did not define the canon. They recognized it. They came to understand it. Even Catholicism states in Vatican I that scripture is scripture because it has God as its author and councils are subsequent to that.
The fact and it is undeniable is that prior to the Reformation different groups recognized different canons. The Oriental Orthodox did recognize a different canon. So did the Eastern Orthodox.
After the Reformation, although there is some evidence the Waldensians and other groups did not recognize the Deuterocanonical books prior to it, the church recognized a 66 book canon.
We also believe that those in the early church shared our canon.
I have written at length about prior to 400 AD the majority of the writings of the early church recognize our OT canon with some exceptions obviously. I tell you what. Read Catholic apologist Gary Machuta (sp?) and his book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger. Just focus on how many different ways he explains why those who did were wrong or inconsistent. You see, there is a flip side to all of his arguments. Any of the debates on the canon will highlight those.
To specifically answer your question, Christ’s church compromises all of those who are saved (Acts 2)

And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

In order to be part of the church, you have to be saved. You may attend church but it does not make you part of the church unless you are saved.
It is true that people who are saved can be found in different churches. It is also true that these churches do not agree.
I believe, for many reasons, that God has shown his church what canon is correct. As an outsider looking in, people should evaluate the fruits of the different churches as well as examine the doctrines to see how the line up with “God breathed” scripture.
I understand that you believe that your churches infallible declaration should probably be followed by all of the other churches. But do recognize that a long time before there were a lot of “Protestants”, the church was divided about the canon. We did not start the fire as Billy Joel would say.

 

[joe370]

Rightly, let me re-phrase the question:

Did the Holy spirit guide Jesus’ church to infallibly recognize the canon of sacred scripture? If so then which church, considering the fact that you said:

“The Oriental Orthodox have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a different canon ( I have one right next to me) and we have a different one.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly, let me re-phrase the question:

Did the Holy spirit guide Jesus’ church to infallibly recognize the canon of sacred scripture? If so then which church, considering the fact that you said:

“The Oriental Orthodox have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a different canon ( I have one right next to me) and we have a different one.”

Does post 289 answer your question?
All churches that use the correct 66 book canon have recognized an infallible canon.
Other churches have recognized an incorrect canon based upon numerous doctrinal, historical, and other reasons.
I am trying to be very careful obviously with how I answer things for obvious reasons.

 

[joe370]

Does post 289 answer your question?
All churches that use the correct 66 book canon have recognized an infallible canon.
Other churches have recognized an incorrect canon based upon numerous doctrinal, historical, and other reasons.
I am trying to be very careful obviously with how I answer things for obvious reasons.

Sorry, but not at all. LOL…If the Holy spirit guided Jesus’ church to infallibly recognize the one fixed canon of sacred scripture, then one of these churches was/is wrong regarding the infallible recognition of the fixed canon, logically speaking. I am just hoping you would identify that church? No big deal though…

If it doesn’t matter then the holy spirit did not guide any particular church to infallibly recognize the one fixed canon. See my dilemma?

“The Oriental Orthodox have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a different canon ( I have one right next to me) and we have a different one.”

I must run but hope to talk to you later. Peace brother…

 

[Rightlydivide]

You do not have a dilemma at all in my estimation and neither do I.
This is my summary of it:
There are at least four different canons that groups recognize. I bet there is more but those are the ones I know about.
Three of those groups were around prior to any substantial Protestant group.
Thus Protestants did not start this whole people who have different canons business.
Any group’s contention that their canon is infallible is not convincing to any of the other groups.
Someone is right and the other groups are wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I Fortunately, the Catholics can’t burn the Jews anymore.

I am not sure what you are referencing here, but this is a false statement. Any person, whether baptized or not, can fall from grace, and choose to engage in heinous sins, such as persecuting God’s chosen people. Persons who do such things, whether they are Catholic or not, do so to their own peril. I understand Hitler was baptized Catholic, and stored up for himself sin upon sin, persecuting not only God’s chosen people, the Jews, but lots of other people as well. I am sure that even you could find a way to “burn the Jews” if you wish to store up the measure of your sins.

 

[guanophore]

I hope I’d reject the corruption of the leaders too.

Yes, corruption and heresies need to be rejected. The problem was that they thought the doctrines ought to be reformed, as well as the people. People are always in need of reform, but the doctrine that was given to the Apostles by Christ did not need any reforming. The changes that were made have splintered the Body

 

[Jimmy_B]

…The Jews do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah–he didn’t fit the criteria, for one thing…

Really, not even the Jews who were Apostles, all twelve of them. Simeon from the Jewish temple where Jesus was presented as a baby. Jesus’ parents, Mary and Joseph and other Jews in the New Testament that followed Christ and so on…Or, all of the rest of the Jews that converted to Christianity in the first three centuries and beyond??? You know that Jesus was a Jew, right? Why do you think He constantly cited Jewish Scripture? Why were the words, “King of The Jews” placed at the top of His cross? Please, read the Bible and think before you post, thank you.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Who came first, Queen Mary or King Henry VIII? Answer, King Henry VIII. *
*Was Queen Mary the head if the Catholic Church? Answer, no. *
*Was King Henry VIII the head of the Anglican Church of England? Answer, yes. *
*Was Thomas Cranmer an Anglican Bishop when Henry VIII was King? Answer, Yes. *
*Is the Protestant Bible named after a former King of England? Answer, yes, King James. *

Perhaps you need a bit of a refresher on Anglican History Jimmy. After King Henry VIII died, England was ruled by Bloody Mary who WAS Catholic and ordered the burning at the stake of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley.

Did you ever even read my post… You have repeated most of what I have already stated… I don’t understand your response here. Please explain yourself.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Really, not even the Jews who were Apostles, all twelve of them. Simeon from the Jewish temple where Jesus was presented as a baby. Jesus’ parents, Mary and Joseph and other Jews in the New Testament that followed Christ and so on…Or, all of the rest of the Jews that converted to Christianity in the first three centuries and beyond??? You know that Jesus was a Jew, right? Why do you think He constantly cited Jewish Scripture? Why were the words, “King of The Jews” placed at the top of His cross? Please, read the Bible and think before you post, thank you.

To add to this, this month’s edition of Christianity Today has a big article on the growth of the Messianic Jew ministries (ie Jews who believe in Jesus).
Not that I actually read Christianity Today of course, its FAR too liberal for someone like me…

 

[schaick]

:

Isn’t GOD awesome!!

I have realized there is only one interpretation of the Holy Bible but there are these fuller bits of information we can glean from Scripture to use in our everyday lives,

For me it was talking with Muslims- they said that in the entire Bible there was not an indication as to what the appropriate age was for marrying- they had to follow Mohammad’s example and they kept talking about a Jewish scripture that says a man can marry a young girl of 3 years old.

I found Ezekiel 16, basically iit is talking about the relationship between GOD and Israel but in it we see the age GOD believes is appropriate for marriage/love:

Ezekiel 16
7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

8 " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

After puberty!!!
Your breasts were formed and your hair grew…saw that you were old enough for love,

With that said: Schaick, why, in your opinion, do sola scriptura advocates write so many books on doctrine and the Christian life in general, if indeed all that is necessary is the Bible alone? I am sure they are helpful; no doubt about that, but why go beyond the word of God by reading pedagogical material, when the word of God is reputedly, **all sufficient? **

Maybe it is because people don’t know HOW to use scripture in everyday life? I believe that the answer to everything is in the Bible- use of contraceptives?, ordaining homosexual preachers?,

Is sola scriptura a doctrine? Or is it a practice that we follow. We know that Jesus was always mentioning scripture.

WWJD- HE would look to scripture.

LOL!! This might be circular reasoning but we kniow that Scripture is inspired. Do we have anything that says tradition is inspired?

If the Bible by itself is the self-contained and all sufficient word of God and all that is needed for one to understand it, then why don’t SS advocates simply hand out Bibles in lieu of extraneous non-biblical sources? And if the bible alone is all sufficient, then why does it not produce consistent results, i.e. - why do SS advocates not all believe the same thing? Certainly that would be the true test of its authenticity? This was a question that I could not reconcile with sound reasoning as a former SS advocate. I use to justify it by saying: well, it’s not God’s word that is lacking but the interpretation of Gods word, which helped me realize why the bible admonishes the reader to not rely on private interpretation of the bible alone for the simple fact that there is the potential for people to misinterpret to their own destruction:

We do! There are many great programs that distribute Bible- even some underground ones in Muslim countries and China.

There was a Bible society that approached a people who did not have a written language- they figuerd out how to write it and wrote the Bible in their language.

There is only one interpretation. When people come up contradicting interpetations they are not allowing the Bible to interprete the Bible - the context of the verse to the other verses immediate to that verse, the chapter, the Book and finally the whole Bible.

*“that no prophecy of the Scripture is made by private interpretation,”*and we all know that the spirit of prophecy is tetemony of Jesus, *“For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” *

This is saying prophecy- not Scripture. Almost all the prophecies of the Bible have happened, all except those in Revelations.

*"…there are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their destruction." *

It occurred to me, as a SS advocate, that the scriptures, by themselves, can be used to our destruction, and who was I that I should think myself learned or stable enough to interpret what was entrusted to the shepherds of Jesus’ church?

• "Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”

That is what Jesus’ Church is for teaching that one interpretation- not adding to it or subtracting from it.

As a former SS advocate, I was inundated with extra-biblical studies, and I began to ask myself: what is the purpose of these many Protestant study bibles if all that is needed is the Bible by itself?

As a SS pastor, wouldn’t it be more prudent as a SS advocate, to simply read the bible to his flock, if the bible alone is the Christians sole rule of faith and the final authority? I mean, why, as a SS advocate, would I need the pastors personal spin on anything regarding the word of God, when I have the very word of God at my disposal?

Schaick,** thanks again for the heads up my friend**.

Our Pastor does- we have multiple Bible Studies going on at any one time- 3 for adults on Sunday mornings - more on Wednesdays. of course Sunday School. At our grade school the children learn Bible stories- no doctrine is taught until confirmation in 7th and 8th grade.

I really enjoy our Pastor’s sermons- scripture is read and brought forward to today and how we can use it in our life.

 

[Jimmy_B]

What about Christmas?

Where is the December 25th, holiday of Christmas celebrated in the Bible? Christmas was a Catholic tradition, well before any Protestants celebrated it. What about all of the traditions surrounding Christmas? And, why is it that when it comes to a “Catholic” tradition, Sola scriptura-Protestants are opposed to it but those same people will celebrate secular holidays, or traditions, like Thanksgiving. If there were not any Christian traditions from the early Church, there wouldn’t be any to celebrate today. In other words, the fact that traditions have been passed down over the years and that we still have those traditions today, is proof that we had them yesterday and that they were and are indeed a part of Christianity.

Your Thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

What about Christmas?

Where is the December 25th, holiday of Christmas celebrated in the Bible? Christmas was a Catholic tradition, well before any Protestants celebrated it. What about all of the traditions surrounding Christmas? And, why is it that when it comes to a “Catholic” tradition, Sola scriptura-Protestants are opposed to it but those same people will celebrate secular holidays, or traditions, like Thanksgiving. If there were not any Christian traditions from the early Church, there wouldn’t be any to celebrate today. In other words, the fact that traditions have been passed down over the years and that we still have those traditions today, is proof that we had them yesterday and that they were and are indeed a part of Christianity.

Your Thoughts?

I see that no one wants to take on the “Christmas tradition” question. So, maybe the “traditions of man”, when it comes to Christian traditions, aren’t so bad if they are rooted in Christian history and there is some Biblical bases for it. I thought for sure that I’d get a response from a Born-again or Evangelical, Bible-alone Christian, who view Sola scriptura in the strictest sense. I know that the early Protestant Churches have a different view of Sola scriptura, or “Bible alone”.
Your Thoughts?