Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

I am just going to categorically reject all 21 points on the basis of your own position of Sola Scriptura.

You have free will and can reject anything you like - but you can't call it mine.

I point out that there is no historic reason to accept the Apocrypha as even the Jews reject it and internal the writers themselves tell us nobody is writing under inspiration.

It does not get any easier than that.

As I said you are free to choose as you wish - but you can't call your decisions mine in any way.

proves my point that Sola Scriptura does not work, because the metadata provided by Tradition is required to differentiate between authentic Scripture and apocrypha.

Sola scriptura works even in this example because even the RCC and the Orthodox already agree to the 66 books - that they are scripture. The use of the 66 to judge doctrine and tradition is not a different "66" between those who accept and reject sola scriptura. They are the same 66.

The point remains.

As for showing that some things in the Apocrypha do not line up with 66 books - that list all shows that.

In any case - this thread is not about refuting the Apocrypha it is about the Bible doctrine of testing all tradition and scripture "sola scriptura" as we see being done in Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11. None of which are apocryphal texts.

The introduction of the apocrypha into the thread is simply a red herring and is easily refuted as pointed out in my prior post.

 

[Wgw]

Point 13, too, what "Council of Jamnia"?

Here you raise a valid counterpoint. There are numerous errors in the 21 Points, the first two of which are shocking:

1. Erroneous, because the Orthodox always used these books, and have never formally bothered to declare them canonica at an Ecumenica council. We were in communion with Rome until 451-1054, or really in the case of th Antochians, 1078, for example (the Roman excommunication of the Ecumenical Patriarch was not immediately reciprocated by the other autocephalous churches). The canon can be verified by examining the lectionaries of both the Roman and Eastern rites, which incude the deuterocanon.
2. This, in tandem with earlier remarks, suggests the author is simply unaware of the Aramaic language. Hebrew can certainly not be the only language of holy writ in the OT, as Aramaic appears in the following "protocanonical" scriptures (thank you Wikipedia for this helpful list):
   • Genesis 31:47 – translation of a Hebrew place-name.
   • Jeremiah 10:11 – a single sentence denouncing idolatry occurs in the middle of a Hebrew text.
   • Daniel 2:4b–7:28 – five stories about Daniel and his colleagues, and an apocalyptic vision.
   • Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26 – quotations of documents from the 5th century BCE concerning the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You have free will and can reject anything you like - but you can't call it mine.

I point out that there is no historic reason to accept the Apocrypha as even the Jews reject it and internal the writers themselves tell us nobody is writing under inspiration.

It does not get any easier than that.

As I said you are free to choose as you wish - but you can't call your decisions mine in any way.



Sola scriptura works even in this example because even the RCC and the Orthodox already agree to the 66 books - that they are scripture. The use of the 66 to judge doctrine and tradition is not a different "66" between those who accept and reject sola scriptura. They are the same 66.

The point remains.

As for showing that some things in the Apocrypha do not line up with 66 books - that list all shows that.

In any case - this thread is not about refuting the Apocrypha it is about the Bible doctrine of testing all tradition and scripture "sola scriptura" as we see being done in Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11. None of which are apocryphal texts.

The introduction of the apocrypha into the thread is simply a red herring and is easily refuted as pointed out in my prior post.

Well, that's not really what it's about, Bob. It's proving Sola Scriptura to be wrong. But to get to your point about "even the RCC and the Orthodox already agree to the 66 books", you agree with us, because you agree with the doctrine contained in them. You disagree with the Deuterocanon because you reject the doctrines contained in them. One thing you cannot refute is that Jesus, when he celebrates Hannukah, is celebrating a festival that's discussed nowhere in your OT. It is, in ours.

I'm still waiting for someone to show how their canon of Scripture was determined...is it because of NT attribution? What makes your canon Canonical?

 

[Wgw]

I point out that there is no historic reason to accept the Apocrypha as even the Jews reject it and internal the writers themselves tell us nobody is writing under inspiration.

Other than the fact that the early Christians accepted these books while the early Rabinnical and Karaite Jews made a point of rejecting them on the grounds of their use by Christians.

As for showing that some things in the Apocrypha do not line up with 66 books - that list all shows that.

I'm afraid it rather doesnt, old chap. On the contrary, it relies entirely on a selective reading of tradition and on misleading or in some cases entirely inaccurate statements of ecclesiastical history.

 

[BobRyan]

That is where you are wrong - that list does show it -- as we saw

==================================================rom http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead who in rebellion against God die in idolatry
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

 

[BobRyan]

Well, that's not really what it's about, Bob. It's proving Sola Scriptura to be wrong.

Yes it would be interesting if you could do that.

In the Mean time - Christ shows how to use sola scriptura to hammer the traditions of the magisterium in Mark 7:6-13 and we see Apostolic teaching - tested by it - in Acts 17:11

But to get to your point about "even the RCC and the Orthodox already agree to the 66 books",

Indeed - the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 proof of sola scriptura has nothing at all to do with the RCC trying to insert non-canonical books into the Bible.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes it would be interesting if you could do that.

In the Mean time - Christ shows how to use sola scriptura to hammer the traditions of the magisterium in Mark 7:6-13 and we see Apostolic teaching - tested by it - in Acts 17:11



Indeed - the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 proof of sola scriptura has nothing at all to do with the RCC trying to insert non-canonical books into the Bible.


in Christ,

Bob

So you're saying that Paul was teaching error...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes it would be interesting if you could do that.

In the Mean time - Christ shows how to use sola scriptura to hammer the traditions of the magisterium in Mark 7:6-13 and we see Apostolic teaching - tested by it - in Acts 17:11



Indeed - the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 proof of sola scriptura has nothing at all to do with the RCC trying to insert non-canonical books into the Bible.


in Christ,

Bob

The RCC and O didn't insert anything. The P excised the Deuterocanon with no good reason, other than the inconvenient doctrines contained therein.

 

[thecolorsblend]

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

To be fair, I'm not sure I've ever seen an argument that the Deuterocanon is inspired. Maybe I have and I just missed it. But even when I was an evangelical, I assumed the Catholics gravitated toward those texts for reasons other than their divine inspiration. I welcome correction (from Catholics) about this.

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

So you're saying those doctrines existed prior to Trent? Interesting...

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Even the NT fails that test. Interesting...

Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

Does that mean Song of Songs and the Book of Esther aren't long for your Bible? God isn't mentioned at all in those books and I don't remember either of them claiming to be divinely inspired.

These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church,

Jewish Church?

and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

Hmm, so your argument then is the Church has the authority to decide what is and what is not canon? Interesting...

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

Specifics please.

The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

This entire council was a reaction to the fall of Temple... assuming it even occurred, that is. And there's a widespread belief that there was no "council" at Jamnia.

Notwithstanding though, there was an effort on the part of jews after 70AD to nail down the specifics of their canon. One obvious reason being is because their religion needed a new focal point. Prior to 70AD, the Temple served as the centerpiece of the jewish religion. After the destruction of the Temple the jews would've needed something to replace the Temple and quite clearly they settled on Sacred Scripture (as Josephus alludes to in Against Apion).

This would tend to explain why the Sadducees, Pharisees and the rest had differing canon from one another and yet it wasn't really a major problem because they all agreed the Temple was the most important element of their religion. Once the Temple is gone though, something has to fill the void.

The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

Hm, so I guess the Council of Trent has nothing to do with it after all. Interesting...

 

[Wgw]

That is where you are wrong - that list does show it -- as we saw

==================================================rom http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead who in rebellion against God die in idolatry
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Please address post 1422 - you have not addressed my concerns regarding the first two points being essentially untrue.

 

[BobRyan]

Please address post 1422 - you have not addressed my concerns regarding the first two points being essentially untrue.

Post 1422 is focused on the subject "what about the Apocrypha"

This post is on the subject "what about sola scriptura" showing that scripture was already known to the NT saints long before any Catholic council Sunday at 10:30 AM #1400

Please address post Sunday at 10:30 AM #1400
That proves scriptures were already well known to the NT writers long before a single Catholic council ever met.

 

[BobRyan]

Here you raise a valid counterpoint. There are numerous errors in the 21 Points, the first two of which are shocking:

1. Erroneous, because the Orthodox always used these books, and have never formally bothered to declare them canonica at an Ecumenica council. We were in communion with Rome until 451-1054, or really in the case of th Antochians, 1078, for example (the Roman excommunication of the Ecumenical Patriarch was not immediately reciprocated by the other autocephalous churches). The canon can be verified by examining the lectionaries of both the Roman and Eastern rites, which incude the deuterocanon.
2. This, in tandem with earlier remarks, suggests the author is simply unaware of the Aramaic language. Hebrew can certainly not be the only language of holy writ in the OT, as Aramaic appears in the following "protocanonical" scriptures (thank you Wikipedia for this helpful list):
   • Genesis 31:47 – translation of a Hebrew place-name.
   • Jeremiah 10:11 – a single sentence denouncing idolatry occurs in the middle of a Hebrew text.
   • Daniel 2:4b–7:28 – five stories about Daniel and his colleagues, and an apocalyptic vision.
   • Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26 – quotations of documents from the 5th century BCE concerning the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.

"Some of the OT" canon known to Christ and those Jews of his day - is written in Aramaic - a very small portion. They accepted it - but even the Apocrypha admits there were no inspired prophets at the time it was being written - a point in the 21 that you are carefully ignoring to bring in issues that do not sustain the apocrypha at all against the historic facts.

And this thread is not titled 'what about the Apocrypha" it is about the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 Bible teaching on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

"Scripture" already defined at the time of Christ -- Sunday at 10:30 AM #1400

 

[BobRyan]

Well, that's not really what it's about, Bob. It's proving Sola Scriptura to be wrong.

Yes it would be interesting if you could do that.

In the Mean time - Christ shows how to use sola scriptura to hammer the traditions of the magisterium in Mark 7:6-13 and we see Apostolic teaching - tested by it - in Acts 17:11

But to get to your point about "even the RCC and the Orthodox already agree to the 66 books",

Indeed - the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 proof of sola scriptura has nothing at all to do with the RCC trying to insert non-canonical books into the Bible.

So you're saying that Paul was teaching error...

You are "quoting you" again to make a statement about my post. That is not logical.

Paul says in Gal 1:6-9 that anyone who brings in a single doctrine contrary to what they from scripture should be "accursed".

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes it would be interesting if you could do that.

In the Mean time - Christ shows how to use sola scriptura to hammer the traditions of the magisterium in Mark 7:6-13 and we see Apostolic teaching - tested by it - in Acts 17:11



Indeed - the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 proof of sola scriptura has nothing at all to do with the RCC trying to insert non-canonical books into the Bible.



You are "quoting you" again to make a statement about my post. That is not logical.

Paul says in Gal 1:6-9 that anyone who brings in a single doctrine contrary to what they from scripture should be "accursed".

2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has [also] called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

What gospel is Paul talking about? Oral. What tradition is Paul talking about? Oral. Only his written letters are actually written.

 

[Wgw]

"Some of the OT" canon known to Christ and those Jews of his day - is written in Aramaic - a very small portion. They accepted it - but even the Apocrypha admits there were no inspired prophets at the time it was being written - a point in the 21 that you are carefully ignoring to bring in issues that do not sustain the apocrypha at all against the historic facts.

And this thread is not titled 'what about the Apocrypha" it is about the Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 Bible teaching on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

"Scripture" already defined at the time of Christ -- Sunday at 10:30 AM #1400

On the contrary, the Aramaic portions are rather vital. It is uncontroversial that Aramaic was he vernacular language of the Jews throughout most of the Second Temple period. This is als why Imperia Aramaic "square letters" are used to write down Hebrew, as opposed to ancient paleo-Hebrew letters (the Samaritan script retains vestigal influence from these).

Your eiegesis of Mark ch. 7 has already been refuted. Acts 17:11 refers to piety; a pious Orthodox Christian will read the Bible fpr guidance, if they have one, but not in a manner that contradicts the church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It is uncontroversial that Aramaic was he vernacular language of the Jews throughout the Second Temple period.

Don't be too sure. There's an entire subculture of Christians who, for various reasons, have some strange, compulsive need to believe that the jews all spoke Hebrew back in Our Lord's day. The fact that it's absurdly easy to disprove shakes these people not at all. I know a Messianic Jew woman who will fight you to the death over this. "The first century jews spoke Hebrew; not Aramaic, not Greek, not Latin, not anything else." It's just bizarre. Then again, one reason I was always turned off by the entire MJ movement is how prone to weird conspiracy theories and strange brew doctrines they all seem to be. I've met quite a few of them in person and they all tend to be sort of weirdos in one way or another. I'm not quite prepared to think of them the same way I do Jehovah's Witnesses but they're getting there.

 

[Wgw]

The RCC and O didn't insert anything. The P excised the Deuterocanon with no good reason, other than the inconvenient doctrines contained therein.

Actually the Anglicans did not excise it; the fact they were able to retain and use it indicates just how silly the aversion some people have to it. In reality there is nothing in the Apocrypha offensive to Protestant piety; thise Protestants who scorn it simply render their support of Sola Scriptura untenable to the point where they have to rely on the opinions of the Jewish communities that rejected Christ in order to justify it. The Masoretes were scrupulous and decent chaps, whose opinions regarding Christian scripture are as relevant as those of the Dalai Lama.

 

[Wgw]

Don't be too sure. There's an entire subculture of Christians who, for various reasons, have some strange, compulsive need to believe that the jews all spoke Hebrew back in Our Lord's day. The fact that it's absurdly easy to disprove shakes these people not at all. I know a Messianic Jew woman who will fight you to the death over this. "The first century jews spoke Hebrew; not Aramaic, not Greek, not Latin, not anything else." It's just bizarre. Then again, one reason I was always turned off by the entire MJ movement is how prone to weird conspiracy theories and strange brew doctrines they all seem to be. I've met quite a few of them in person and they all tend to be sort of weirdos in one way or another. I'm not quite prepared to think of them the same way I do Jehovah's Witnesses but they're getting there.

Well when I use the word "uncontroversial" I am pf course referring to serious scholarship and theology. There are so many weird sects out there; I have seen people who have even managed to revive the fourth century heresy of Alogianism (rejecting the Johannine corpus).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually the Anglicans did not excise it; the fact they were able to retain and use it indicates just how silly the aversion some people have to it. In reality there is nothing in the Apocrypha offensive to Protestant piety; thise Protestants who scorn it simply render their support of Sola Scriptura untenable to the point where they have to rely on the opinions of the Jewish communities that rejected Christ in order to justify it. The Masoretes were scrupulous and decent chaps, whose opinions regarding Christian scripture are as relevant as those of the Dalai Lama.

You might add to that Lutherans. Luther did not reject the deutercanonical books, as many Roman Catholics are taught. What he, as well as the vast majority of Protestants, did was to agree with Jerome's assessment that these books are not in the same category as those protocanonical books. I think everyone agrees on this point, although the Council of Trent really tried its best to blend them together.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You might add to that Lutherans. Luther did not reject the deutercanonical books, as many Roman Catholics are taught. What he, as well as the vast majority of Protestants, did was to agree with Jerome's assessment that these books are not in the same category as those protocanonical books. I think everyone agrees on this point, although the Council of Trent really tried its best to blend them together.

Luther didn't, true. And honestly, I don't teach, as a teacher, anything at all about Luther, unless I'm teaching a history class. As for Jerome, he was an orthodox Catholic and obeyed those he was supposed to obey, whether he agreed with them or not. We call the Deuterocanon that for a reason...