- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That's how some Catholics apply Holy Scriptures on this site. State a doctrine and then find a verse.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's how some Catholics apply Holy Scriptures on this site. State a doctrine and then find a verse.Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.
By presenting the full council of God in His revelation to us.---Holy Scriptures.Others interpret the Bible differently, as you know. How do we guard against erroneous interpretations?
What you clipped from me was to establish to a Catholic poster the CCC confirms the reliability and inspiration of Sacred Scriptures. They were taking a point we could not trust Scriptures due to not having the original autographs. Which is not a Catholic belief and thus what I quoted.The Catechism, like Scripture, shouldn't be read in isolated portions, but in its whole context. Better to read the entire thing, in fact, as I have. Anyway the Church understands the place and role of Scripture, Tradition, and the need to understand it in light of historical understanding:
Yes Holy Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit does provide for a teaching office (which Sola Scriptura and the WCF do not deny) but does not provide for an infallible magisterium. Why? Because we have the infallible words of God through the prophets and apostles.It's kind of like Philip and the Eunuch. Philip, a member of that body of believers originally discipled by Christ, understood Scripture (the OT) as it pertained to and spoke of Christ, while Philip, on his own, could not.
Actually he doesn't need to establish his claim based on your narrow set conditions. All he has to do is show how his proposition is practiced and applied in Holy Scriptures by prophets, Jesus and the apostles.I am not only appearing to say that you need to discover the canon defined in some passage or set of passages - not a vague reference to psalms, prophets, and law but detailed explicit designation of each book that is to be included in scripture - and then you need to find passages that teach that the 66 books and only those book are the "only infallible rule of faith and practice" and if you cannot manage that then you have failed to prove sola scriptura from the scriptures as you defined it. You're welcome to believe the doctrine that you defined but you will be believing a tradition invented by men and your academic paper will need to state clearly and honestly that sola scriptura is a tradition of men.
Ok? I'm not really sure what a teaching office might be good for then. Does the WCF allow that their teachings may well be as fallible as someone they disagree with?What you clipped from me was to establish to a Catholic poster the CCC confirms the reliability and inspiration of Sacred Scriptures. They were taking a point we could not trust Scriptures due to not having the original autographs. Which is not a Catholic belief and thus what I quoted.
Yes Holy Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit does provide for a teaching office (which Sola Scriptura and the WCF do not deny) but does not provide for an infallible magisterium. Why? Because we have the infallible words of God through the prophets and apostles.
I believe this is within the scope. The OP is stating Scripture alone is where we find the rule of faith. Sure we can hear the gospel preached and just believe the preacher. Then we would have the possibility of thousands of different gospels preached. However, we know where we can find the true Gospel. In the inspired Holy Scriptures and in those upholding this truth.Oh, that's a whole different topic isn't it. How about you start a thread about that topic and let this one be about the question asked in the original post of this thread? That is what sticking to the topic is about. It can be enlightening to stick to the topic and see how your arguments stack up when you do.
You may want to lower the bar but doing that will not convince anybody but those already committed to "sola scriptura". The rest, including myself, look on and see only a desperate attempt to make a tradition of men into divine revelation.Actually he doesn't need to establish his claim based on your narrow set conditions. All he has to do is show how his proposition is practiced and applied in Holy Scriptures by prophets, Jesus and the apostles.
Which is quite a simple task as the entire NT is witness to God's inspired words being used to reprove, correct, teach and test.
Have you ever had a teacher teach you by demonstration?What passage demonstrates what truth? Did you take the time to read the passage?
I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"
But the passage below says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look
1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura.
I have concluded by your statements you do not believe the Bible today is reliable to establish doctrines because we don't have the autographs.Deception need not be involved. There are things called mistakes. Now regarding your question, I already provided an answer to that in my prior posts. You may go back and read them again if you like.
Your post says "Scripture alone is where we find the rule of faith" but you need a definition of what is and what is not scripture. Within Christianity there are several lists of books that are to be included in scripture and the lists differ one from another. So show us the definition of scripture that is itself scriptural. If you cannot or if all you can muster is a vague reference to "psalms, law, and prophets" then you have already failed to deal with the first objection to the original posts definition; namely, that scripture does not teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." because to conform to that definition it is necessary first to establish what the "bible" is and second to establish that the "bible" alone is the word of God and is the only infallible rule of faith and practise. Failing at the first challenge is sufficient to show that the doctrine in the definition is not biblical. It is a tradition of men and nothing more.I believe this is within the scope. The OP is staring Scripture alone is where we find the rule of faith. Sure we can hear the gospel preached and just believe the preacher. Then we would have the possibility of thousands of different gospels preached. However, we know where we can find the true Gospel. In the inspired Holy Scriptures and in those upholding this truth.
Your reply is irrelevant. Please address the passage that was under discussion. As a reminder I repeat it here.Have you ever had a teacher teach you by demonstration?
Teaching by demonstration is exactly what Jesus did for His disciples.
What you have concluded is irrelevant. I stated no such thing.I have concluded by your statements you do not believe the Bible today is reliable to establish doctrines because we don't have the autographs.
I stated no such thing. My position is that Protestants have elements of the truth, but that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth.That the only way we can find out Truth is for us to be told so by a self assured infallible magisterium.
Textual criticism is incapable of proving that Sacred Scripture is a pious forgery, because we do not possess the original manuscripts. And if we find the original manuscripts, then forgery is no longer a concern.Which means even if the textual criticism showed the Bible was a pious forgery, you would believe it if the self assured infallible magisterial authority said it was 100% sure based on their declaration.
Since you just reposted the same refuted positions I'll just reply this:Entire verses have been removed.
But you have no originals. That is your problem. Even if all of your copies agree, that is no guarantee that they match the originals. And your copies do not even agree in the first place.
No, please go back and re-read what I posted. For example, I posted the following:
New Testament Patriarchal Text (ANTONIADIS TEXT) 1904 - Logos Bible Software
The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr) was published by the Patriarchal Press of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on February 22, 1904. It was published as: The New Testament, Approved by the Great Church of Christ, with the intention of being the most authoritative text of the Greek New Testament available. As more critical or eclectic editions of the NT became the norm by the nineteenth century (replacing the Byzantine Text), the Patriarchate of Constantinople assembled a committee of scholars for the purposes of studying various manuscripts of the NT at both Constantinople and Mount Athos. Their goal was to provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople” (from the preface to the 1904 text). The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church). After the Patriarchal Greek New Testament’s initial publication in 1904, Professor Vasileios Antoniades of the Theological School of Chalki made some minor corrections to the text in 1912.
So your claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church has used always used the same Greek text is proven false. The current Greek text in use was compiled from manuscripts between 1904 and 1912. If they had always used the same Greek text there would be no need to compile a text in 1904. They simply would have continued to use the same text that they used prior to that time.
No, I did not assume that.
No, the Vulgate was not based on the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It is not as if St. Jerome had St. Paul's original handwritten letters on hand when he made his translation. St. Jerome based his translations on copies of the originals, as well.
I have already stated below that I believe that our modern translations are very reliable. But you need to prove that they are 100% accurate, because you practice Sola Scriptura. That is your problem.
I have never made an argument that they are not reliable. This is simply a straw man. I have wrote that you are unable to prove that the current texts that we have today perfectly match the original texts. And if you think that "the scholars" believe that our current texts 100% perfectly match the original texts, why don't you provide some evidence of that? Why is it that your very own Bible contains footnotes that indicate that certain verses are in dispute?
I gave you 2 Maccabees.
You do not know with 100% certainty what they say. That is exactly why the footnotes in your Bible indicate that certain verses are in dispute, and why Bibles are re-edited year after year, removing and making changes to the text. If you knew what the original said with perfect certainty, there would be no need for revisions of the Greek base text on which translations are made.
I completely agree. But "the best" does not mean "perfect". That is your problem.
No, I have never asked for perfection in every manuscript. I have asked for only one compilation (Nestle-Aland, for example) that perfectly matches the originals, and you have not been able to provide even one.
No. This is simply ad-hominem. And the Christian position is not that the original inspired writings have been perfectly 100% transmitted. There is no major church body that takes this position.
This is simply more ad-hominem. You are addressing those making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And neither have I made the argument that the Bible we have today is unreliable. My argument is that our current texts do not perfectly 100% match the originals, and as such Sola Scriptura has no firm ground on which to stand.
Perhaps you should keep your opinions and your ad hominem to yourself and stick to discussing the issues.
No, it is not only spelling errors. Entire verses have been removed.
Plenty of people are 100% confident about things and 100% wrong about them. Your Bible removes entire books of Sacred Scripture, so obviously you have gotten things very wrong.
Nestle-Aland is not Protestant. There are Catholics on the editorial board.
You have, with no authority, removed 7 books of the Word that they preserved. So you do them a disservice, regardless of whether or not you bless them.
No, this is simply false.
The Protestant version of Esther has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, and does not even mention God one single time. So your argument attempting to ignore 2 Maccabees fails. Your Bible removed those verses, and “yeah, it matters”, which is why you are attempting to avoid addressing them altogether.
We can address the other verses after you have properly addressed 2 Maccabees.
I did not state that a perfect match of every manuscript or even one is a requirement for textual criticism. If it is your claim that the original texts have been perfectly 100% transmitted, then you should be able to provide at least one text (compilation or otherwise) that matches, or even claims to match, the original. You cannot identify any such text, thus your claim that the original texts have been perfectly 100% transmitted is proven false.
This is simply a red-herring. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Nestle-Aland is not Protestant. There are Catholics on the editorial board.
No, the Catechism does not teach that the current texts are 100% perfect copies of the original inspired writings. And I would appreciate it if you could kindly refrain from snide "the confessional is open" type of comments. You are better than that.
Asked and answered.
Asked and answered.
You do the same thing that you do with respect to Scripture and your belief that they have been preserved. You pray to God with an open heart, ask him to show you the truth, and go where he takes you. I do not make the claim that one can prove as a matter of logic, history, or reason, that the Magisterium is true, or that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth as She claims. There are certainly very good logical and historical arguments to support these claims, but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that calls men into the Catholic Church.
Except for the significant variances that you continue to ignore.
Please stop with the ad-hominem. You are better than that. You can argue a point without continually trying to attack the character of a person by associating him with atheists.
And as noted above, the Catechism does not teach that the original inspired writings have been transmitted with 100% accuracy. So I am not in conflict with the Catechism.
And I can say that Sacred Scripture is infallible. Let me show you: "Sacred Scripture is infallible." So you can stop with that as well. Saying that the original inspired writings are infallible is entirely different than saying that the original inspired writings have been transmitted with 100% accuracy, so your attempt to trap me in an either/or and slander me with ad-hominem fails. I have asserted only that the original inspired writings have not been transmitted 100% perfectly. Perhaps at some point in the future that will occur, but it has not occurred yet.
Asked and answered.
There is no major church body in the world that takes the position that the texts that we have today are a 100% accurate copy of the original inspired writings. Nor do any of “the scholars”. If that were the case they would have all agreed on the language of the original text and retired to a new profession years ago, instead of updating their analysis every few years.
If the Nestle-Aland compilation is the perfectly transmitted base text, why has it been revised 28 times, and why will it be revised another 28 times? If you think that Sacred Scripture has been perfectly transmitted then you need to specify a base text that perfectly matches the original text. You have not done that, so you cannot claim that the original inspired writings have been 100% perfectly transmitted.
And “the scholars” have recently removed entire Bible verses, not just individual words. And in the case of 2 Maccabees, in particular, your incorrect omission of Scripture verses leads you to reject true and proper doctrine. You can continue to ignore 2 Maccabees all you like, but the fact of the matter that remains is that your Bible is incomplete. It removes verses that teach Christian doctrine. So your claim that you have the Bible, and that your Bible is accurate, is obviously false.
I have. I mentioned already the evidence of the Greek NT with no break and the Latin Vulgate.
A false generalization as I pointed out the various variants were misspelled words and word order. The scholars rightly do not toss these out based on copying errors.
And as already pointed out we have thousands of copies to compare to ensure accuracy in transmission.
You quoted from the English translation. I specifically stated their has been no break in the Greek NT. There has not.
You assume, for some reason, the NT Scriptures were lost along the way and not until Hort and Nestle-Aland we could not determine what the Bible really contained. This is false as we do have the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century which incorporated the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Which was extensively used along with the Greek patriarchal Byzantine text to compare with the Critical text. A most resounding result confirming the accuracy of the Scriptures. According to textual critics.
You are making an untenable argument. Textual criticism actually confirms the reliability of the Bibles we hold today.
Or do you have evidences of textual critics who do not have confidence in the accuracy of vast amounts of manuscripts accurately communicating the autographs?
I have not seen any NT scholars argue what you are arguing. I pointed out in my previous post:
Which you did not address.
No one made that claim. However they have been transmitted faithfully. In addition, we have such a vast sample we know what they say. No other documents from antiquity comes close to the accuracy and reliability of the NT manuscripts.
Asking for perfection in every manuscript shows me you don't fathom the depths of textual criticism. No NT scholar would agree with you. Agnostic and atheists there are a few for obvious reasons.
Skeptics are relevant as you are arguing the non Christian positions on textual perfection.
If so why argue the point of non Christian skeptics who are usually not NT scholars?
Textual critics don't even argue for having the original autographs. The entire endeavor of textual criticism is to compare the various, and in this case abundant, manuscripts to determine variants. I pointed out already no textual critic makes the argument the Bible we have today is unreliable.
Perhaps you should explore the actual definition of inerrancy and infallible.
Absolutely when the 10 percent is due to a spelling error or differing sentence structure. Or in the case of the DSS a different dialect. There were some significant differences in 2nd century BC Hebrew penmanship and dialect to the 2nd century AD Hebrew. However, we have scholars who can determine these differences and then compare to the Greek Septuagint. The result? Nothing in the text changed what is being communicated by God.
Yes I am 100% confident what the Holy Spirit inspired in the autographs is 100% communicated in the vast amounts of manuscripts we had in 4th AD Vulgate and in the manuscripts today. I don't base this on textual criticism. I base this on God's Divine purpose that His words will never return to Him empty. I can read the Bible and see God's Divine attributes and inspiration. The scholarship just confirms what is already evident (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)
Well your Catholic NABRE NT is based on the Protestant Nestle-Aland critical text (NU).:
scripture
God Bless those Monks. We would know nothing of ancient secular history as well without them. There would have been no Reformation without their dedication in preserving the written Word.
Sola Scriptura was indeed employed by the early fathers and early councils. How do you think they argued their points?
Just looked at the NIV. Mark 16 in total is there with a footnote and brackets. Yet even without Mark 16:9-20 what Christian doctrine is changed?
Considering the Maccabees has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, I leave that one.
Already addressed Mark 16 above.
Did you mean 1 John 5:7-8?
If so, it only appears in the text of four late medieval manuscripts in Latin. 25,000 vs 4. Not hard to pick out.
When has a perfect match of every manuscript or even one been a requirement for textual criticism? We would actually need the autographs to meet your standard. Not even your own church makes such a demand.
The vast amounts of manuscripts testify that what we have today is a faithful and accurate witness.
Where is the perfect teachings recorded by the apostles for Sola Ecclesia? That isn't even written anywhere.
Well next time you pick up the NABRE thank the Protestants Nestle-Aland......they gave you your Bible.
You doubt the Bibles today do not contain the inspired words of God? If so you are at odds with your own catechism and the confessional is open early on Saturday.
Your argument is the Scriptures are unreliable and therefore Sola Scriptura is not feasible. To get to this argument you even employed an erroneous understanding of textual criticism and unorthodox historic position. Add to that that humans cannot identify the Divine attributes of God's words and inspiration. Sure glad the folks at Pentecost did not believe this.
I would refer you to your own catechism for correction.
Or is your point we cannot know Truth without an infallible magisterium telling us? Which is Sola Ecclesia. And where exactly do we go to confirm said magisterium is truly infallible other than saying so?
Even the Vulgate revision had nothing to do with doctrine but the same insignificant variances mentioned twice in blue above quoted.
You can't say now the Sacred Scriptures are infallible after making the argument we need the autographs to be sure of perfect transmission. Either the Scriptures are infallible or they are not. You either make the argument from your own Church catechism which affirms the OP statement or you argue from the atheist untenable argument. You can't have both.
As your own catechism affirms Sacred Scriptures are directly from God, infallible and inspired that means the OP @Tree of Life has a valid argument for Sola Scriptua even from a Catholic perspective.
In other words, you have no substantive response and concede the argument. Thank you.Since you just reposted the same refuted positions I'll just reply this:
Which is your straw man of what you think textual criticism is. Textual criticism does not state we need the autographs to determine reliability. If they did then no manuscript evidence would be considered.I have never made an argument that they are not reliable. This is simply a straw man. I have wrote that you are unable to prove that the current texts that we have today perfectly match the original texts.
I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"
Mystical Life in Communion with God, by the Spirit of God. It cannot be communicated through words, or anything else, alone, because it is known only by direct experience of God in the Holy Spirit of God. The doctrines and other expressions of Orthodox faith merely point to it, because they flow out of it. Scripture points to it in a most powerful way, but it is not Scripture, it is Life in Communion with God. It is a Living thing: a Living, Holy, blessed experience of God that must be personally experienced to be truly known, as God must be personally experienced in order to be truly known.Unwritten traditions?
No, I never stated that the science of textual criticism states that we state we need the autographs to determine reliability. I have asserted that without the original manuscripts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine the language of the original documents with 100% accuracy. If you disagree, please provide statements by reputable textual scholars who states that it is possible to reconstruct the Bible with 100% accuracy, without the original manuscripts. My position is the same as most textual scholars, which is that it is possible to reconstruct the texts with a very high degree of accuracy and reliability. But not 100%.Which is your straw man of what you think textual criticism is. Textual criticism does not state we need the autographs to determine reliability. If they did then no manuscript evidence would be considered.
No, I never stated that the OP cannot rely on the manuscripts that we have today. He can rely on them, and you and I can rely upon them as well. I have stated numerous times that the texts we have are reliable, so I do not not know why you keep repeating the same falsehood.And thus by stating what you do, you are in fact saying the OP can't rely on Scriptures because we don't know what the actual autographs say. Which is an absurd position as textual criticism is about taking multiple manuscripts and determining the reliability of texts.
It never fails, once the fallacy runs it's course the retorts become increasingly pedantic, doesn't seem to matter what the subject matter is. The Christian faith isn't a mystery religion that requires initiation into some enlightened state, unknowable to the uninitiated. There are two kinds of revelation, there is the natural revelation that all who come into the world are aware of, but men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. There is the reflection of the divine attributes and eternal nature of God in the things that are made, and the witness of conscience:Yes, I remember that kind of reply from my childhood when somebody had "secret knowledge" that turned out to be nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?