Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

Morning is not just after Shabbat ends. All for gospels say that it was early in the morning. Matthew 1:2-4 follow up the women coming to the tomb with an account of the resurrection, meaning that Christ rose as the women were coming to the tomb.

I can see where it can be taken that Christ didn't rise at dawn. I don't agree, because the three days thing would be out of kilter. It already is, by our reckoning. I do think that this is reading something into Scripture, much like what many Protestants accuse Catholics of doing. We interpret Scripture based on what was taught from the beginning, when the Church has definitively stated such.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Pentecost is always on a Sunday. Pascha was a floating observance.

Making the 50 days not 50, after all? Pentecost is always on a Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday, therefore 50 days later, by Jewish reckoning.

 

[Standing Up]

Much of Sacred Tradition predates the canon.

Wouldn't all Tradition predate the NT? Although, now that you mention it, the Catechism does allow for Tradition based simply on Holy Spirit prompting (post 1044). IOW, you're right; Tradition can arise after the canon.

 

[Standing Up]

Making the 50 days not 50, after all? Pentecost is always on a Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday, therefore 50 days later, by Jewish reckoning.

Getting off topic. The count of 50 was from the weekly Sabbath from the first fruit (the day after the first day of unleavened bread). Seven weeks of Sabbaths and then the day after (always Sunday). See Lev. 23:11-15.

 

[SAAN]

Morning is not just after Shabbat ends. All for gospels say that it was early in the morning. Matthew 1:2-4 follow up the women coming to the tomb with an account of the resurrection, meaning that Christ rose as the women were coming to the tomb.

I know it hurts

Who really cares what translation you are using.

Translation doesnt matter, but like I listed, all 4 gospels shows he was ALREADY GONE at dawn, so a sunrise resurrection is FALSE and the gospels all prove it. Sunrise resurrection is a teaching of the church who says since Mary arrived at dawn and the tomb was empty, he arose at dawn, but the bible speaks for itself and proves other wise. I know its hard to grasp since it is along time teaching of the RCC passed down, but its false that he rose at sunrise.

-Matthew 28 shows after the sabbath was over the angel from heaven came and removed the stone, at this point the guards collapsed.

Matthew 28
New King James Version (NKJV)
He Is Risen
28 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

-Luke 24 shows when they got there early at sunrise in the morning the tomb was already empty, so he rose before sunrise, so there goes the whole he rose at sunrise theory.

Luke 24
New King James Version (NKJV)
He Is Risen
24 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them,[a] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it happened, as they were greatly[b] perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”

-Mark 16 shows when they got there at sunrise in the morning the tomb was already empty, so he rose before sunrise, so once again, there goes the whole he rose at sunrise theory.

Mark 16
New King James Version (NKJV)
He Is Risen
16 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.



-John 20 shows it was dark when they got to the tomb on Sunday and the tomb was empty, so yet another gospel shows he did not rise at sunrise and was already gone

John 20
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Empty Tomb
20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

-All 4 gospels shows the Sabbath was over and it was now the 1rst day of the week and he had already risen from the grave before the sun rose. Mathew 28 is the only one that gives an account of when the angel came and it was after the Sabbath or while the Sabbath was ending going on to the 1rst day of the week, so the "he rose at sunrise" is false and "he rose on the Sabbath is also False".

 

[SAAN]

But back on topic....

The bible alone IS sufficient enough, if all Jesus and the disciples had was the Torah and the prophets and they reached people, that shows what we call the OT now was good enough for Jesus and his followers, so the OT and the NT is way more than enough to be sufficient source of the Gospel and the basic principle to Love God and Love One another.

 

[Meowzltov]

all 4 gospels shows he was ALREADY GONE at dawn

No, Matthew shows that he rose while the women were coming to the tomb.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The bible alone IS sufficient enough, if all Jesus and the disciples had was the Torah and the prophets and they reached people, that shows what we call the OT now was good enough for Jesus and his followers, so the OT and the NT is way more than enough to be sufficient source of the Gospel and the basic principle to Love God and Love One another.

Um, that's not all they had. As an example, part of St. Matthew's gospel is predicated on the star of Bethlehem, which God expected the people to recognize. And yet I've never been able to find a clear, unambiguous reference to it anywhere in the Old Testament. So the very first visible sign of Our Lord's birth sure looks to have been predicated on a sign that wasn't explicitly prophesied in writing... but was still prophesied. That's just one part of jewish oral tradition.

 

[Wgw]

Who really cares what translation you are using.

Well I mean it would be good to know if he were using some deranged mistranslation like the New World edition by the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the gender bending TNIV.

 

[Wgw]

Pentecost is always on a Sunday. Pascha was a floating observance.

Only in certain provincial churches like Smyrna. The Roman praxis can be regarded as correct, authoritative and apostolic since that church was founded by Ss. Peter and Paul and after the destruction of Jerusalem became the most prominent until attention shifted to Alexandria in the third century. After which time the Roman Church became somewhat ultra-traditional until Leo I. It was in fact quite popular among pilgrims from the Eastern Empire who would visit from Antioch or Alexandria for this reason.

We're getting off topic. Suffice to say this. Compare the guards' reaction and the women's reaction at the tomb.

Its not off topic to object if your reading of scripture is manifestly wrong.

 

[Wgw]

But back on topic....

The bible alone IS sufficient enough, if all Jesus and the disciples had was the Torah and the prophets and they reached people, that shows what we call the OT now was good enough for Jesus and his followers, so the OT and the NT is way more than enough to be sufficient source of the Gospel and the basic principle to Love God and Love One another.

Except its not, as is demonstrated by these bizarre sodetracks into heterodoxy promoted by peculiar interpretations we keep seeing in this thread.

Orthodoxy requires the Bible to be read in accordance with the traditions of the early Church. Its laughable to rely on the canon of St. Athanasius while disregarding On the Incarnation, for example.

 

[BobRyan]

Wgw said: ↑
and in modern times, the SDA. 2 Thess 2:3 refers to the anti-Christ which some radical Protestants ascribe to the Pope;.

Since you bring the subject up -

Some "historic facts" to go with countering a few misstatements made recently -

==============================
from - http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/antichrist/aih02.htm

Identification of the Papacy as the antichrist became the constant theme of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther believed that the Papacy, not an individual pope, was the antichrist. These sentiments were shared by Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers. The following are the comments of just a few of the Reformers. The agreement of their views is striking.


1. Martin Luther:
There sits the man, of whom the apostle wrote [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4], that will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God. That man of sin to be revealed, the son of perdition . . . He suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, p. 281)

We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real antichrist. (Ibid., p. 256)


2. John Calvin:
I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)


3. John Knox:
That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, the very antichrist and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks. (The Zurich Letters, p. 199)


4. Philipp Melanchthon:
It is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very antichrist. . . . Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly says the man of sin will rule in the church by exalting himself above the worship of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 296–9)


5. Sir Isaac Newton:
But it [the Papacy] was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms [referred to in Daniel 7:7, 8]. . . . And such a seer, prophet, and king is the Church of Rome [referring to the little horn of Daniel 7]. (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on the Prophecies, p. 75)


6. John Wesley:
Romish Papacy, he is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin. (John Wesley, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, p. 110.)


7. Samuel Lee (a seventeenth-century Rhode Island minister):
It is agreed among all main lines of the English Church that the Roman pontiff is the antichrist. (Samuel Lee, The Cutting Off of Antichrist, p. 1)

The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)

A statement that is also found in the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

You are the one who brought up the subject of the Papacy and the antichrist - and you suggested that this was not a teaching in mainline protestantism - I was simply asking if you had somehow come to the decision that Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Huss, Jerome etc did not fit the description "Mainline protestant".


Ok - but I did not accuse you of believing that nor did I accuse the Orthodox churches of teaching it. I am just curious that you would claim that the views of these protestant reformers are not actually protestant.

BTW - I am not at all drawn in by your name-calling gambit ... you will need facts.

St. Jerome was obviously not a mainline Protestant but was rather a fourth century hermit, translator and opponent of Origenism; there was some what of a bitter row between Orogen and the unfortunately named Lucifer of Cagliari, the bishop of Sardinia.

You are apparently not up on the incidents of Christian being burned alive during the dark ages -... more than "one Jerome" in Christian history.

• Jerome of Prague, Hus's friend and devoted follower shared his fate and on 30 May 1416 was also burned at Konstanz

 

[BobRyan]

In the dark ages - the resort to name-calling was supposedly the solution to everything.

The noun heresiarch (also hæresiarch, according to the Oxford English Dictionary; from Greek: αἱρεσιάρχης, hairesiárkhēs via the late Latin haeresiarcha[1]) is used to refer both to the originator of heretical doctrine, and to the founder of a sect that sustains such a doctrine.[1] For example, according to Catholic doctrine, the founders of Protestantism, such as Martin Luther[2] and John Calvin, were classed as heresiarchs as well as schismatics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresiarch

I think everyone is getting past that now - giving how that solution failed so spectacularly.

The Orthodox Church continues to regard as heresiarchs those condemned as such, and will most likely anathematize more heresiarchs in the future. At present though there is such a proliferation of heretical sects that anathematizing by name the huge number of extant and recently departed heresiarchs would take considerable time.

If you are trying to make the point that I "spoke too soon" in declaring the end of the dark-ages model of name-calling. I grant you the point given your example as you have stated it. Some indeed appear to be lagging.

 

[BobRyan]

If Sola Scriptura was true, you'd expect it to be mentioned explicitly somewhere in Sacred Scripture;

You would expect it to be clearly demonstrated.

As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Like this


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



And like this

Acts 17:11 "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

 

[civilwarbuff]

Orthodoxy requires the Bible to be read in accordance with the traditions of the early Church.

So, are you saying that the tradition of men outweigh Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

So, are you saying that the tradition of men outweigh Scripture?

Mark 7:6-13 - the Jews certainly thought so.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Orthodox Church continues to regard as heresiarchs those condemned as such,

Care to name names....? No?

and will most likely anathematize more heresiarchs in the future.

Essentially anyone who does not agree with OO....right?

At present though there is such a proliferation of heretical sects

Should we read Protestant in place of "heretical sects"...? If not, please specify.

that anathematizing by name the huge number of extant and recently departed heresiarchs would take considerable time.

I will take that as you just being to lazy or afraid to justify your own "claims". Want to prove me wrong?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Mark 7:6-13 - the Jews certainly thought so.

But we are not Jewish...nor are we Pharisees.

 

[Standing Up]

Only in certain provincial churches like Smyrna. The Roman praxis can be regarded as correct, authoritative and apostolic since that church was founded by Ss. Peter and Paul

LOL. You're thinking Christ and the apostles followed Rome's fixed Easter Sunday after the equinox after the first full moon.

As I said earlier, you're losing credibility and nigh have lost it completely now. But, let's give you one more benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity. Please show us where Christ and Peter and Paul followed Rome's Easter praxis. If you can't, then perhaps you might listen and learn something.

 

[Wgw]

You are apparently not up on the incidents of Christian being burned alive during the dark ages -... more than "one Jerome" in Christian history.

• Jerome of Prague, Hus's friend and devoted follower shared his fate and on 30 May 1416 was also burned at Konstanz

The 15th century is generally regarded as the early Renaissance (before anyone dares to claim the Renaissance began with the Reformation, it should be noted that the Roman renaissance is considered to have ended when Rome was sacked by the forces of Charles V in 1527).