Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Rick Otto]

Naw, we actually aren't. The mindsets are totally different, you see, and what we see is that the Protestants share the Western mindset from the RCC. They, in fact, adopted much from the RCC because that's where they broke off from. Not from the EOC, hence much of how we Orthodox talk and practice seems quite foreign to those of the Western mindset. The Western mindset is abundant with rationalism, legalism, and analytical thinking, if you will. It is not so in the EOC, generally speaking, esp. legalistically.

HEY!!! "Naw" is my word! I claimed Hillbilly Highground with it first.
Ok, Ok,... I see I'm going to have to make a little space for Eastern Truth here.
Yes, the mindset differs in that we are more egocentric to put it in it's worst light, but the butter side of that that slice of bread is that we maximize both freedom & responsibility of the individual, which in turn makes for a stronger consensus, consensus being the "Pearl of the Eastern mindset", so to speak.

Are we cool?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Part 1: So...I am reading the Gospel of Peter and I tried to match the facts with what was provided in the Gospels. These are some of the things that are red flagged in my head and I'm breaking this up into more than one post so that it's not so much to read.

Red flag

The Gospel of Peter (GOP) 3-5
[3] But Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, had been standing there; and knowing they were about to crucify him, he came before Pilate and requested the body of the Lord for burial. [4] And Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body. [5] And Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning. For in the Law it has been written: The sun is not to set on one put to death.'​

Matthew 27:57-58
57 Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him.​

Mark 15:42-47
42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate marveled that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. 45 So when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observed where He was laid.​

Luke 23:50-55
50 Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man. 51 He had not consented to their decision and deed. He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. 54 That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near.
55 And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid.​

Scriptures does not indicate that Pilate send a request to Herod, Christ's body was in Pilates possession. Also, something else to note, that Joseph requested Jesus' body AFTER Jesus died...however if you read the GoP, it would seem that Joseph requested Jesus' body BEFORE Jesus' died because it indicated that Joseph knew before hand that Jesus was going to be crucified in GOP verse 3. And I am wondering why would Herod call Pilate "brother". Saying "Brother Pilate" sounds like something a Christian would say.

Red flag

GOP verse 5
And he gave him over to the people before the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread.​

So, what exactly is the problem?
The Feast of Unleaven Bread was celebrated on the 14th day of the 1st month... it was also Passover (Lev. 23:4-8).
So, why is that significant??? Right before Jesus betrayal, what was He and His disciples doing? Celebrating Passover and that was the night He instituted the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:17-30). So, there would be no way that Herod "gave him over to the people BEFORE the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread".
EDIT: I think I'm wrong on this one. The Passover was on the 14th day of the 1 month. The Feast of the Unleavened Bread was on the 15th. But Jesus was taken at night on the Passover but wasn't killed until the 1st day of the Unleavened Bread because His trial was held at night (Passover) and continued throughout through the next day (which would have been the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. So, in that sense, he was given over to the people before the first day of the Feast. But He didn't die until the 1st day of the Feast. If you continue reading GOP 3-9 it makes it sound like Jesus died before the Feast begun.
EDIT AGAIN: I think even my explanation in the 1st edit part is wrong.


Red flag

GOP verse 11
And when they had set the cross upright, they inscribed that THIS IS THE KING OF ISRAEL.​

The bible tell us that it was Pilate, not "they"--the soldiers that were mocking Jesus, who wrote the inscription "

John 19:19
Luke 23:38 and Mark 15:26 says "An inscription also was written..." It does not attribute it to anyone here.
Matthew 27:35 and if anyone have a problem...please see that it says that the soldiers "put up over His head..." it does not say that "they inscribed that..."

AS well as all the Gospel's agreed that the written portion had at least said
KING OF THE JEWS
Luke 23:38
John 19:19
Mark 15:26
Matthew 27:35
Now, I don't know how much that MIGHT attribute to the way it was translated.

Red flag

GOP verse 15
it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said​

I can't find that verse under the old law. Now, this is probably my fault because I don't know how it is actually worded but I can't find a verse that is refering so the sunset

Red flag

GOP verse 18, 19
[18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.​

I don't even know what verse 18 is supposed to mean and for verse 19, the thing that threw me off is "My power, O Power". Christ never refers to His Father in such a way.

Red flag

GOP verse 20-24
[20] And at the same hour the veil of the Jerusalem sanctuary was torn into two. [21] And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth; and all the earth was shaken, and a great fear came about. [22] Then the sun shone, and it was found to be the ninth hour. [23] And the Jews rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he was one who had seen the many good things he did. [24] And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph​

Now, the thing that really caught me was when it said the "sun shone"...I'm pretty sure the scripture tell us that the sun was darkened when Christ died. And the the fact that they said the Jews "rejoiced" is contradicting to what Luke said.

Luke 23:44-48
44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last.
47 So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, “Certainly this was a righteous Man!”
48 And the whole crowd who came together to that sight, seeing what had been done, beat their breasts and returned. 49 But all His acquaintances, and the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.​

No other scripture indicated that the Jews rejoiced after Christ's death right before they realized that they crucified the Son of God. In fact, it said those signs made them aware of what they did, it doesn't tell us that they rejoiced though.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I suppose you are serious, right? If so, the mystery was the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one Body of Christ. It was hinted at in the OT and fulfilled/explained in the NT.

I'd suggest that the church lost lots of its root understandings long ago to its detriment.

Again, my point is that if the apostles had relied solely on the OT text (or the first 5 books, like the sadducees did) they would have condemned Jesus to death as the sadducees did, as they were blind to new revelation. It was only because they were open to hearing new words (outside of the written word) and willing to interpret the written word in a new light of the new oral tradition which Jesus had given them, which is why they were receptive to the Messiah.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

CJ, your posts are really starting to borderline on spam.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

No, I disagree. I think his posts are awesome and very well written. Keep up the good work CJ!

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Part 2

Red flag

GOP verse 28-34
[28] But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, having gathered together with one another, having heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying that 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,' [29] feared (especially the elders) and came before Pilate, begging him and saying, [30] 'Give over soldiers to us in order that we may safeguard his burial place for three days, lest, having come, his disciples steal him, and the people accept that he is risen from the death, and they do us wrong.' [31] But Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher. And with these the elders and scribes came to the burial place. [32] And having rolled a large stone, all who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, placed it against the door of the burial place. [33] And they marked it with seven wax seals; and having pitched a tent there, they safeguarded it. [34] But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.​

Scripture indicates that it was Joseph who rolled the rock in front of the tomb but GOP suggested that it was the soldiers who did so.

Matthew 27:60
and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed.​

Mark 15"46-47
46 Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observed where He was laid.​

However scripture do say that the soldiers THEN came, next day, and sealed it...but this was after Joseph have already rolled the stone in front of the tomb.

Matthew 27:62-66
62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”
65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.​

Red flag

Gop verses 35-42
[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'​

The description of the 2 males supporting the one on the cross, is not really indicated any where else in scripture. And while I can't say that means this verse is wrong, but the verse is just weird. We are not told of 3 men, all the other gospels only speaks of 2 and one of them is Jesus.

Red flag

GOP verse 46
[46] In answer Pilate said: 'I am clean of the blood of the Son of God, but it was to you that this seemed [the thing to do].'​

Pilate said this before they crucified Christ.

Matthew 27:23-25
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”​

Red flag

GOP verses 47-48
[47] Then all, having come forward, were begging and exhorting him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say to no one what they had seen.

[48] 'For,' they said, 'it is better for us to owe the debt of the greatest sin in the sight of God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned.' [49] And so Pilate ordered the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.​

All indication was that Pilate was not involved. It was not Pilate who ordered teh centurion and the soldiers to say nothing...those soldiers were bribed by the Chief Priest to say nothing to the governors ears.

Matthew 28:11-15
11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. 12 When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.​

Pilate was the governor. It doesn't make sense that the Chief priests would bribe the soldiers and tell them to say such a thing and that they would back up their story to the governor's if they were asked and then say that it was Pilate who ordered the centurion and the solders to say nothing.


There were a lot of things I missed and probably misunderstood but what I meant by doing this is that I can understand why it wasn't included in the Scriptures. It contradict some of the things that they have already known. But feel free to correct me. I'm always open to hearing what the word of God truly says.

 

[Thekla]

.

Where did you see any definition of the Rule of Scripture being about God ministering to our whole ___________?

This is precisely how your definition/explanation of Sola Scriptura treats Scripture as not "about God". God has always interacted with man. To make Scripture not "about" God's method (interaction), not about praxis, not about interpretation (which man always does), is to wrest Scripture away from God and His gift of Scripture.

I hope it is okay, I snipped away the rest of your post as I have read it before, and it does not respond to the issue I raised; ie it is a sort of non-sequitur. And this, again, is what your definition Sola Scriptura does to Scripture; it makes it a non-sequitur.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=ortho_cat;Again, my point is that if the apostles had relied solely on the OT text (or the first 5 books, like the sadducees did) they would have condemned Jesus to death as the sadducees did, as they were blind to new revelation.

There were believers among the leaders. They did not uniformly condemn Jesus. There would be no problem relying on the prophecies, types & shadows of the OT for apostles or anyone for that matter, if they did it like the Bereans & didn't let other traditions lead them astray. NT scripture is the "sequel" to the OT. It fulfills it, it doesn't contradict it unless you add in other traditions.

It was only because they were open to hearing new words (outside of the written word) and willing to interpret the written word in a new light of the new oral tradition which Jesus had given them, which is why they were receptive to the Messiah.

It was only because the new words correlated by fulfillment with the old words that the "new oral tradition" got written down.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-



Red flag

GOP verse 15
it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said
​

I can't find that verse under the old law. Now, this is probably my fault because I don't know how it is actually worded but I can't find a verse that is refering so the sunset
-snip-

Wow, you've really spent some time and thought on this . I've snipped a bit and will comment on the highlighted one. The reason you can't find it is because IT IS NOT THERE.

It is, however, a powerful comparison, a powerful tell, if we were playing poker between the truth and tradition. Wow. The GoP is an allusion, an alteration, a gentile interpolation of Deut. 21:23 " His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance. "

That is a very incredible comparison between the 4 scripture gospel and GoP's clear, later interpolation of the twisting of what happened in order to fit not apostolic teaching, but a man-made formed custom.

What is incredible, however, is folks still believe not the 4 gospel, but the GoP. Wow. Everyone has been taught that Jesus was buried before the sun set on Friday. That's not the case, but that is what the GoP is saying. The 4 gospels say something different.

I can obviously speak it out, and have, but it needs a little developing. Thanks for that. Wow.

Sola scriptura.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There were believers among the leaders. They did not uniformly condemn Jesus. There would be no problem relying on the prophecies, types & shadows of the OT for apostles or anyone for that matter, if they did it like the Bereans & didn't let other traditions lead them astray. NT scripture is the "sequel" to the OT. It fulfills it, it doesn't contradict it unless you add in other traditions.


It was only because the new words correlated by fulfillment with the old words that the "new oral tradition" got written down.

hmm this is starting to get confusing...

 

[Standing Up]

Part 2
-snip-
Red flag

Gop verses 35-42
[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'
​

The description of the 2 males supporting the one on the cross, is not really indicated any where else in scripture. And while I can't say that means this verse is wrong, but the verse is just weird. We are not told of 3 men, all the other gospels only speaks of 2 and one of them is Jesus.
-snip-

That too is the later, non-scriptural tradition of the formed custom.

Lord's day is assumed to be sunday.
Resurrection assumed to be at night (pre sunrise).

Great comparison.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, better stop celebrating Easter and Christmas, because they are non-scriptural traditions...best to go back to celebrating passover methinks....

 

[Standing Up]

Well, better stop celebrating Easter and Christmas, because they are non-scriptural traditions...best to go back to celebrating passover methinks....

Just found this out.

The Gospel of Peter, although not used in today's teachings in the churches, was known and used as Scripture in many parts of the Christian Churches during the second century
Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But God is great. Awesome. To preserve His word. That we might know the truth as it is written. The GoP was not preserved, even if men maintained its tradition.

1 Jn. 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

3 Jn. 1:12 Demetrius hath good report of all [men], and of the truth itself: yea, and we [also] bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Well, better stop celebrating Easter and Christmas, because they are non-scriptural traditions...best to go back to celebrating passover methinks....

Well... We celebrate the death of Christ ever time we partake of the communion.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.​

And as for Christmas, it is not in scripture, but we are to celebrate Christ with our lives, everyday.

Easter and Christmas are both man made, whether people celebrate it or not, is their choosing but they must remember that they cannot bind that on people because God have not bound that on to us.

 

[Standing Up]

Prov. 3:3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, better stop celebrating Easter and Christmas, because they are non-scriptural traditions...best to go back to celebrating passover methinks....

I agree. We should forsake the impulse toward "heaping stones" as it were, for listening to Jesus.
Except for Judas, Peter was also pre-immenant for goofing up, it seems.
Not to say it made him less lovable or effective, God providing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is precisely how your definition/explanation of Sola Scriptura treats Scripture as not "about God". God has always interacted with man. To make Scripture not "about" God's method (interaction), not about praxis, not about interpretation (which man always does), is to wrest Scripture away from God and His gift of Scripture.

Non-sequitur.


The issue here is truth. Do you think that truth is unrelated to God and that God is careless about truth and desires us to be? As the EO ever declared anything or anyone to be wrong?


IF truth matters at all to you (and that is the issue with the RCC, maybe it is with the EO too), then accountability matters, and you have embraced norming (the evaluation of the truthfulness/validity/correctness) of views. You know, like the Ecumenical Councils (I seem to recall the EO being involved in most of those). But, I agree with you - if truth is moot, if one is an absolute relativist, if one actually embraces the sarcasism of Pontius Pilate "what is truth?", then you're inner feeling is sound - the Rule of Scripture is moot. Norming is moot. Accountability is moot. Truth is moot. If the Hindu feels God - that's awesome and every bit the Orthodox feeling God.


Got it. I disagree, but then if correctness is moot, that's moot, isn't it?






.

 

[sbvd]

quoted from Is Sola Scriptura Anglican? Is Sola Scriptura Anglican?

"
In other words, sola scriptura does not assert that the scriptures are the only source of revelation. It does assert that the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation. Therefore, because it is the only infallible source of revelation, the bible is the sole norm by which all other authoritative norms are normed. Another way to say this is to say that because the bible is the lone infallible source, tradition and reason must be judged in light of the scriptures. "

 

[Standing Up]

quoted from Is Sola Scriptura Anglican? Is Sola Scriptura Anglican?

"
In other words, sola scriptura does not assert that the scriptures are the only source of revelation. It does assert that the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation. Therefore, because it is the only infallible source of revelation, the bible is the sole norm by which all other authoritative norms are normed. Another way to say this is to say that because the bible is the lone infallible source, tradition and reason must be judged in light of the scriptures. "

FWIW, other groups use Ecuemenical Councils or Pope as infallible sources.

 

[Thekla]

Non-sequitur.

Why ?

The issue here is truth. Do you think that truth is unrelated to God and that God is careless about truth and desires us to be? As the EO ever declared anything or anyone to be wrong?


IF truth matters at all to you (and that is the issue with the RCC, maybe it is with the EO too), then accountability matters, and you have embraced norming (the evaluation of the truthfulness/validity/correctness) of views. You know, like the Ecumenical Councils (I seem to recall the EO being involved in most of those). But, I agree with you - if truth is moot, if one is an absolute relativist, if one actually embraces the sarcasism of Pontius Pilate "what is truth?", then you're inner feeling is sound - the Rule of Scripture is moot. Norming is moot. Accountability is moot. Truth is moot. If the Hindu feels God - that's awesome and every bit the Orthodox feeling God.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the EO position; per my experience in discussions with you (over 2 or 3 years), a misrepresentation is made coupled with a stilted either/or inflammatory conclusion based on the misrepresentation.

Couched in an appeal to emotionalism, this style encourages a like heightened emotional statement from the respondent; ie, any actual dialogue is eschewed.

Further, this form attempts to leverage any potential response into a tightly fenced conceptual field created by the misrepresentation plus stilted either/or conclusion, where the only possible responses actually leverage the response into the field of "play" defined by the conclusions.

In the case of your posts of this nature, form = content. Just as your definition of Sola Scriptura alienates Scripture away from both God and man (as Scripture is used by man and given by God Who acts by interacting with man) the posts limit actual interaction to such an extent that no actual interaction occurs (ie, one party is in reality completely left out
of the discussion).

Got it. I disagree, but then if correctness is moot, that's moot, isn't it?

Whatever that means ...