Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Rick Otto · Oct 15, 2015

TheDag said:
Well I have made points and counter arguments in the discussion. You provided a smart alec comment.

You flatter yourself at my expense.
Hang around.
You'll learn.

Acts24Fourteen · Oct 15, 2015

thecolorsblend said:
... 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.

Thread now created - http://www.christianforums.com/threads/transubstantiation-unsubstantiated-substantially-p.7912778/

thecolorsblend · Oct 15, 2015

tl;dr

Root of Jesse · Oct 15, 2015

Acts24Fourteen said:
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.

Actually, Rome was the one who determined the non-canonical nature of those.
FWIW, Ecclesiastes is nowhere quoted in the NT. Why not drop it completely?

Root of Jesse · Oct 15, 2015

Acts24Fourteen said:
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

question is, why do we need to follow what the Hebrews thought was Canonical?

Standing Up · Oct 15, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
question is, why do we need to follow what the Hebrews thought was Canonical?

Paul says to:
Rom. 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Root of Jesse · Oct 15, 2015

Standing Up said:
Paul says to:
Rom. 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

That doesn't say we must adhere to whatever the Jews say. It's more about how Christians should treat Jews after the crucifixion...

Standing Up · Oct 15, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
That doesn't say we must adhere to whatever the Jews say. It's more about how Christians should treat Jews after the crucifixion...

No, it says unto them was committed the oracles of God (the prophetic utterances written down in times of prophets). We are built on the foundation of prophets (OT) and apostles (NT). So when Josephus outlines 22 books, those were to what Paul would be referring.

Root of Jesse · Oct 15, 2015

Standing Up said:
No, it says unto them was committed the oracles of God (the prophetic utterances written down in times of prophets). We are built on the foundation of prophets (OT) and apostles (NT). So when Josephus outlines 22 books, those were to what Paul would be referring.

If Josephus outlines 22 books, how come ya'll have 17 more???
But Paul was answering the question the Romans put to him in 3:1.

Acts24Fourteen · Oct 16, 2015

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

Here is a quote of two of the supposed uses of the Apocrypha in the Bible taken from the site:

"Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9."

Isn't 2 Kings far older than Sirach? Since that is so, it would reveal that Sirach got it from 2 Kings. Another:

"Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries, follows Wisdom 2:18."

This 'citation' is also far older than the Apocrypha, as it comes from Psalms 22:8!

And on and on it goes...

See:

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm

See also The arguments of Romanists from the infallibility of the church and the Testimony of the Fathers in Behalf of the Apocrypha, Discussed and Refuted; by James Henley Thornwell, especially see Letter X; page 162 onward:

https://books.google.com/books?id=c0QOAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Acts24Fourteen · Oct 16, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
If Josephus outlines 22 books, how come ya'll have 17 more??? ...

Same reason why we have Chapters/Verses/Punctuation/Upper-lowercase letters and spacing, it would be classified under - "rightly dividing the word of truth" [2 Timothy 2:15]. Just differing divisions of the same material, being the Law of Moses, Prophets and Psalms [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.]... of which the so-called LXX [and its inclusive apocrypha, some of which Rome does not have as "canon"], are not in that order as given [being law, psalms, prophets] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Table_of_books].

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
If Josephus outlines 22 books, how come ya'll have 17 more???
But Paul was answering the question the Romans put to him in 3:1.

Same content - different book arrangement and grouping. Even the Jews admit to this.

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2015

Standing Up said: ↑
Paul says to:
Rom. 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Root of Jesse said:
That doesn't say we must adhere to whatever the Jews say. It's more about how Christians should treat Jews after the crucifixion...

On the contrary it tells us that they owned scripture as it was given at that time in the canon. The unchanged canon according to Josephus.

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
question is, why do we need to follow what the Hebrews thought was Canonical?

The OT was written by pre-cross Jews - not post-cross Christians

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2015

thecolorsblend said:
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

That is true - and the NT writers "could have " quoted the non-scriptural apocryphal texts in the same way - but they did not.

Standing Up · Oct 16, 2015

Standing Up said:
Paul says to:
Rom. 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

This is another reason some of us are scripture alone. Like the written prophetic word was secured, we agree the written apostolic word was preserved.

Rick Otto · Oct 16, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
If Josephus outlines 22 books, how come ya'll have 17 more???
But Paul was answering the question the Romans put to him in 3:1.

And in so doing, he referenced that authoritatively.
Re: the number (fromWiki)

"Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) doctrine, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and division of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, andChronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also considers Ezra and Nehemiah asingle book. Also, the Bible for Judaism is specifically the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible often include other texts, such as the Septuagint. There is also a dispute as to whether the Canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo.[3]"

Root of Jesse · Oct 16, 2015

BobRyan said:
The OT was written by pre-cross Jews - not post-cross Christians

Regardless of who the authors were, the Sanhedrin had the authority to choose its canon, yet never set it in stone until Christianity did. The Pope and the Councils, likewise had the authority to choose the Church's canon.

Root of Jesse · Oct 16, 2015

BobRyan said:
On the contrary it tells us that they owned scripture as it was given at that time in the canon. The unchanged canon according to Josephus.

And Josephus is authoritative...how?

Root of Jesse · Oct 16, 2015

Rick Otto said:
And in so doing, he referenced that authoritatively.
Re: the number (fromWiki)

"Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) doctrine, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and division of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, andChronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also considers Ezra and Nehemiah asingle book. Also, the Bible for Judaism is specifically the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible often include other texts, such as the Septuagint. There is also a dispute as to whether the Canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo.[3]"

And yet, even Jerome didn't have the authority to change the Canon that had already been set at Carthage, Hippo and Rome. Yes, there will always be disputes, but the Church's Canon of Scripture has not changed in 1800 years, and will not.

Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

Yes

No

Unsure

Other

The Dude Abides

Newbie

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

On and on

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

On and on

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Newbie

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

On and on

The Dude Abides

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Similar threads