Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

The problem is, Roman Catholicism, takes some statements in John 6, and literalizes it/them [along with Mt 26:16; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cr 11:24], which is exactly the problem the pharisees/scribes were continually doing to Jesus' words [not only in the Gospel of John, but in the others also], and misunderstanding them, thus abusing them to their own destruction. Many examples of this can be shown in demonstration, even in which John 6 is encompassed.

Those disciples who fell away [John 6:66] did not do so, because they were refusing what Roman Catholicism perceives as the precursor to its blasphemous transubstantiation mystagogy, but because they refused to accept, by faith, Jesus as the Messiah/Christ sent of God, who has the words/way of eternal Life brought down from the Father. They wanted a sign in demonstration, not faith in His word.

They fell away because they understood what Jesus was saying, and how it conflicted with their beliefs. When Jesus did nothing to ease their concern, rather he deepened what he said, they went away.
Catholicism takes the Bible literally-meaning that we look for the meaning that the author of any given Scripture passage meant to convey, we don’t just look at the words on the page and take them at face value.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How true. Hence, my understanding of God's church being composed of those who, by grace, are His own - known to Him but not necessarily identified as being a particular denomination.

Denominations are anti-biblical. But that's exactly how the Catholic Church believes.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Really? How do you say it is determined, please explain, and then demonstrate why that decision/process was valid, and by what standard of measurement it is validated by?

Those successors of the apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gathered together, and determined it. This can be validated by Jesus' own statement that he must go so that the Paraclete could come, which the Paraclete did at Pentecost.

John 9:27 KJB - He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear [it] again? will ye also be his disciples?

You have told me nothing.

Did you even read the material presented in the links provided?

Why yes, yes, I did.

Do you accept this as scripture [barring for the moment, how we each arrived at that conclusion]?:

Luke 24:44 KJB - And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.​

I accept the Scripture as Scripture. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with your attached meaning, which I don't think you've divulged yet.

Like a mindless mantra, you say, but have no demonstration in fact, and cannot, as it has never been done, and will never be done. Bold statement, but easily refuted by simply producing the evidence, and the validation for that evidence, and the standard of measurement for that evidence. I [we all] await it. Since you made the statement, stating as 'fact', the burden is upon you.

We have two Councils, where the books of the Bible were determined. The Councils of Rome and Hippo.

Again, the same repeated vain claptrap, all without substance and teeth. Sounding brass, tinkling cymbal. Vain jangling. Verily as rattling bones that turn over in the grave, falling over in decay, though having no life, move in crumbling in their return to their dust.

Alright, Mr. Know it All, what was the Hebrew canon of Scripture? Name all the books...

Jesus Christ, and Paul, Apollos, Peter, John, James, Jude, Luke, etc all quoted from the scriptures, according to the NT Koine Greek texts [which you yourself/ves accept as 'true' and 'canon']. The Jews, like Zacharias & Elisabeth, John the Baptist's father and his mother, quoted and read from the OT scriptures. Do you think that for a single moment that the faithful priests of the Temple and true prophets of God did not know what OT canon was and accepted as such by faith in their own times/days? Do you think for a single moment in the OT, that Gabriel himself did not know what the true canon was at the time of Daniel, when He spoke of the scriptures of truth? Do you think for a single moment that none of the prophets all the way back just before Moses, had no idea what was scripture from not scripture? That they all somehow wandered aimlessly, merely hoping to have quoted from something that could have been scripture, but never could be sure of it? Do you think that the people in the time of Moses, could not have had the scripture, or understand the difference between scripture as Moses, that Holy man of God wrote, and his daily writing of inventory in his own household?

If so, the Bible only has one word to identify such a person. It is a universal word, having only four letters.

So what we know is that, for the most part, when the OT was quoted, it was quoted from the LXX, which includes 7 books not in your Bible.
Secondly, the priests had one Canon, the Pharisees had one Canon, and the Saducees had a different Canon. Then there's the Essenes...
Thirdly, the people in the time of Moses had 5 books. The people in the time of Daniel had other books. Do you know how they determined what was Scripture? No, you don't. Because they never set a Canon until after Christianity did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

 

[BobRyan]

So what we know is that, for the most part, when the OT was quoted, it was quoted from the LXX, which includes 7 books not in your Bible.

If you have a NT quote of the apocrypha in the LXX --- please show it. Otherwise it is "instructive" that they never quote it.

 

[BobRyan]

Secondly, the priests had one Canon, the Pharisees had one Canon, and the Saducees had a different Canon. Then there's the Essenes...
Thirdly, the people in the time of Moses had 5 books. The people in the time of Daniel had other books. Do you know how they determined what was Scripture? No, you don't. Because they never set a Canon until after Christianity did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

Not true.

Their own historian - Josephus declares that their canon was fixed for 400 years prior to his time and had not changed.


The clearest testimony of the extent of the Hebrew canon comes from the first century writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). He said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament). He wrote:

"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men" (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

 

[BobRyan]

Denominations are anti-biblical. But that's exactly how the Catholic Church believes.

Interesting since they are one of them

 

[BobRyan]

I want to know what criteria we can test Scripture with. Not looking for peanut gallery remarks. If you've nothing to contribute, then don't contribute.

We have the criteria for testing Catholic tradition and doctrine - it is the Bible.

Even before the time of the catholic church -- in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:6-13 that same method was used to test all doctrine and tradition.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If you have a NT quote of the apocrypha in the LXX --- please show it. Otherwise it is "instructive" that they never quote it.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Not one of them given as a quote of the apocrypha. RATHER it is a case where both the NT and the Apocrypha quote the OT!!

example

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Numbers 27:17
Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd.

1 Kings 22:17
And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.

2 Chronicles 18:16
Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you have a NT quote of the apocrypha in the LXX --- please show it. Otherwise it is "instructive" that they never quote it.

Oh, so quotation makes it Scriptural? So let's throw out Ecclesiastes, why not? It's not quoted in the NT...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not true.

Their own historian - Josephus declares that their canon was fixed for 400 years prior to his time and had not changed.


The clearest testimony of the extent of the Hebrew canon comes from the first century writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). He said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament). He wrote:

"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men" (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

And he declares which books to be in it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Interesting since they are one of them

Not so. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Very interesting!

 

[Root of Jesse]

We have the criteria for testing Catholic tradition and doctrine - it is the Bible.

Even before the time of the catholic church -- in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:6-13 that same method was used to test all doctrine and tradition.

Then you're doing things the same way as the Catholic Church. But where is the doctrine of the Trinity, in the Bible? Where is the Table of Contents? The Pharisees had one list of books, Sadduccees had another, and Essenes another. And then there's the Dead Sea Scrolls which align very closely with the LXX...

 

[thecolorsblend]

And he declares which books to be in it?

If he was using a Septuagint, Bob is going to be in a very uncomfortable situation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

By the by, there are quite a lot of non-Scriptural texts referenced in Sacred Scripture as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

Yes indeed. It sure is a good thing it took over 1800 years for the Adventists to come along and finally get the Bible right, eh? Eh, Acts24Fourteen? Eh?

That is an irresponsible statement in the light of historical documentation. There have always been "adventists" from the time of Adam, who expected the "coming of the LORD", even to "execute judgment" [which means they believed that an investigation of Judgment took place before this moment], even as Enoch, the 7th from Adam, did:

Jude 1:14 KJB - And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Jude 1:15 KJB - To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.​

They have always kept the 7th Day the Sabbath, even as the 7th Day the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, was "made" for "the man" [Adam, thus all in him], and now we also have the "second Adam", the "last" Adam, the Head of Man, Jesus Christ.

These persons throughout time, from the beginning, have held fast to the Faith, once delivered to the saints from Genesis 3:15, "calling upon the name of the LORD". Scripture foretold of the great apostasy [falling away] that would come after Jesus, and therein is the origins of the Roman Catholic church, as all those who protested [and even some Catholics] once knew and proclaimed.

The true [7th Day Adventist] Church [Revelation 12] fled into the wilderness for 1,260 years... and was among the valleys, mountains, plains as the vaudois, valdenses, hugenots, passagini, paulicians, and a thousand other localized 'names', given them by others, persecuted, hunted, proscribed unto death. Meanwhile, that other woman [Revelation 17] that unsatiated harlot, spread out her wares to all the kings of the earth, conquering, dominating, plotting, always in the Kings palace, ever seeking to take by plot or force.

Truth Triumphant, a historical work, by Benjamin G Wilkinson:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XUTHBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can also read detailed documentation here from an historian Heidi Heiks - http://www.thesourcehh.org/index.htm

We, of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, are merely the remnant, gathered from the scattering, of those gone before, prophesying again, of that which was given before, going into all the world, preaching Revelation 14:6-12.

Really? Because the text and the people both say they departed because of their literal understanding of Our Lord's teaching and their inability to accept it.

I will begin a new thread, and quote the texts for you on this gross error.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

By the by, there are quite a lot of non-Scriptural texts referenced in Sacred Scripture as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Yes, and notice they are designated as "non-Scriptural" by yourself, and "non-canonical" on wiki. They already knew this well before "Rome" came along. Just because something is 'referenced' in Scripture, does not make 'the work' cited from scripture. For instance, Paul quoted several philosophers. Though what Paul wrote is scripture, it does not make the entire work/person he cited from scripture. Paul himself already knew that.

 

[BobRyan]

Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and notice they are designated as "non-Scriptural" by yourself, and "non-canonical" on wiki. They already knew this well before "Rome" came along. Just because something is 'referenced' in Scripture, does not make 'the work' cited from scripture. For instance, Paul quoted several philosophers. Though what Paul wrote is scripture, it does not make the entire work/person he cited from scripture. Paul himself already knew that.

And Jerome refuted them in his Latin Vulgate with his prologue to each non-canonical (outside the Bible) book that he was arm-twisted into including.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

If he was using a Septuagint, Bob is going to be in a very uncomfortable situation.

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf​

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_Lq6h8A9RvfwC#page/n15/mode/2up​

Other sources, identifying the same - http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.

One may also seek to read further research in,

[1] The New Age Versions, by Gail Riplinger.
[2] Forever Settled, A Survey Of The Documents And History Of The Bible, by Jack Moorman.
[3] The Answer Book [see Pages 45-48, specifically], by Sam Gipp
[4] The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, The Mythological LXX, by Peter S. Ruckman
etc, etc.
​

Do Roman Catholic councils contradict each other? - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/canon-brain-teaser.html