Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.iv.i.html

That's the idea. A succession (lineage) of prophets when written. This is to what Paul writes in Romans 3:2--entrusted with oracles of God. Christ--Law and prophets. And 1 Macc saying there were no prophets at the time of its writing (c125bc).

Whose idea? That wasn't the criteria used by the Catholic Church to define the Canon of Scripture. The criteria were 1. used in liturgy, 2. consistent with doctrine, and 3. tradition that it had been used by the Church since first century.

 

[Meowzltov]

Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.

Where does it say there must be a prophet during the time a book is written?

The Septuagint, which was used by the Early Church as their Holy Scriptures, contains the Maccabees.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where does it say there must be a prophet during the time a book is written?

The Septuagint, which was used by the Early Church as their Holy Scriptures, contains the Maccabees.

There were actually a number of non-canonical books in use by various churches in the early centuries of Christianity. As a result, various canons of scripture have resulted ranging up to the very large canon used by the Coptic Church. The fact that the early Church used books which were subsequently excluded from the canon of scripture has no validity in verifying their canonicity today.

 

[Standing Up]

Whose idea? That wasn't the criteria used by the Catholic Church to define the Canon of Scripture. The criteria were 1. used in liturgy, 2. consistent with doctrine, and 3. tradition that it had been used by the Church since first century.

That's nice. For the rest of us, we prefer like Paul said, built on foundation of prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20) or like Peter said (2 Peter 3:2).

 

[Standing Up]

Where does it say there must be a prophet during the time a book is written?.

1 Maccabees, Paul, Peter, Christ, Josephus all say the same thing in different ways. These things have already been quoted over the last couple of pages.

 

[Meowzltov]

1 Maccabees, Paul, Peter, Christ, Josephus all say the same thing in different ways. These things have already been quoted over the last couple of pages.

Please quote the BIBLE where it specifically says that a book cannot be scripture unless it is written during the time of a prophet.

 

[Standing Up]

Please quote the BIBLE where it specifically says that a book cannot be scripture unless it is written during the time of a prophet.

Please define Scripture. Is it something we (people) define or is it something that God defines via His mouthpiece; that is, His called prophets and apostles).

IOW, one person said, RC defines scripture for itself. Okay, but that's not how anyone else recognizes scripture per se, regardless of your religion. LDS believe their prophet's writings are by God. Are they? How do we know they aren't? Because RC says so or is there something much more than mere men making opinion as to what they agree or disagree with?

For Paul, Peter, Christ, Josephus, even 1 Maccabees, they all at least imply and outline the same metric (prophets and apostles). What you need to do is to reject that continuity of witness for the authority of RC and go forth to establish RC opinion as divine. Good luck.

 

[thecolorsblend]

IOW, one person said, RC defines scripture for itself. Okay, but that's not how anyone else recognizes scripture per se, regardless of your religion.

Sure it is. Protestants just pretend the Catholic Church didn't define the canon. They sort of have to because otherwise they have no choice but to acknowledge that they redefined the canon to fit with man-made Protestant teachings. So I completely understand their reluctance to dig too far back in history when it comes to this. Or anything, really.

 

[Rick Otto]

LOL,... an authority problem.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sure it is. Protestants just pretend the Catholic Church didn't define the canon. They sort of have to because otherwise they have no choice but to acknowledge that they redefined the canon to fit with man-made Protestant teachings. So I completely understand their reluctance to dig too far back in history when it comes to this. Or anything, really.

Nope, it ain't. Catholics just like to pretend they own and define reality for the same motive you project on Prots. So I completely understand the need to deny Josephus is appropriate history, even tho it is obvious ridiculous to deny such a universaly accepted historian, simply because he exposes Catholic error.
Catholics are indoctrinated to equate error with the gates of hell prevailing, one of their hundreds of man made, man centered traditions.

 

[Rick Otto]

Please define Scripture. Is it something we (people) define or is it something that God defines via His mouthpiece; that is, His called prophets and apostles).

IOW, one person said, RC defines scripture for itself. Okay, but that's not how anyone else recognizes scripture per se, regardless of your religion. LDS believe their prophet's writings are by God. Are they? How do we know they aren't? Because RC says so or is there something much more than mere men making opinion as to what they agree or disagree with?

For Paul, Peter, Christ, Josephus, even 1 Maccabees, they all at least imply and outline the same metric (prophets and apostles). What you need to do is to reject that continuity of witness for the authority of RC and go forth to establish RC opinion as divine. Good luck.

Wouldn't that necessarily include some kind of proof that they themselves are inspired?
I know they claim they are, using an authority based on pedigree rather than content.

 

[Standing Up]

Wouldn't that necessarily include some kind of proof that they themselves are inspired?
I know they claim they are, using an authority based on pedigree rather than content.

Pedigree was the old system brought forward into the new by some. But Peter said God is no respecter of persons.

 

[Wgw]

The significant difference between Esther and Maccabees is that the writer of Maccabees stated clearly that there was no prophet in Israel at that time. Hence, he did not think he was a prophet (i.e. that his writing was inspired by God). The writer of Esther makes no such statement.

This distinction I do not find compelling, in that Esther is, without the so called Addition, which adds a theological component to what is otherwise a work of secular history, neither specifically related to nor relatable to a living prophet.

Also note that some Patristic figures did not regard it as canonical (taking a stricter view than Josephus).

Furthermore several deuterocanonical works are identified or relate to a specific prophet, for example, the Wisdom of Solomon, which also in Chapter 2 contains a compelling Christological prophecy.

 

[Wgw]

Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.

As to Esther, traditional dating puts its writing in the time of Xerxes or Ezra/Nehemiah.

Josephus defines Esther as part of Hebrew Scripture (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xii.vi.html (about Esther) with: 2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks2828 That is, all the Gentiles, both Greeks and Romans. worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.i.html

Why should we care what Josephus, a non-Christian, has to say about the Christian Bible?

 

[Standing Up]

Why should we care what Josephus, a non-Christian, has to say about the Christian Bible?

Because he provides the same historic context as Peter, Paul, Christ, and 1 Maccabees do in terms of helping us understand what they and us consider divine (God breathed). For the OT, it was the prophet (valid prophetic lineage). For the NT, it was the apostles (or associates). None of them considered information as divine apart from those two contexts. So, 1 Macc or Didache may be of interest, no one should build a doctrine on uninspired information, else you open the door to LDS, JW, Magisterium's etc.

Why do you suppose Christ renamed James and John son of Thunder? (Hint: it had nothing to do with their temperament.)

 

[Wgw]

Because he provides the same historic context as Peter, Paul, Christ, and 1 Maccabees do in terms of helping us understand what they and us consider divine (God breathed). For the OT, it was the prophet (valid prophetic lineage). For the NT, it was the apostles (or associates). None of them considered information as divine apart from those two contexts. So, 1 Macc or Didache may be of interest, no one should build a doctrine on uninspired information, else you open the door to LDS, JW, Magisterium's etc.

Why do you suppose Christ renamed James and John son of Thunder? (Hint: it had nothing to do with their temperament.)

How can you possibly liken Josephus to Ss. Peter and Paul or our Lord? Josephus was never accepted as an authority by early Christians; as far as we know he was not a Christian but rather rejected Christ. His opinions are entirely irrelevant with regards to Christian affairs.

Furthermore your own standard of prophetic identity requires the inclusion of several deuterocanonical books, and there remains under your approach no valid reason to include Esther.

 

[Standing Up]

How can you possibly liken Josephus to Ss. Peter and Paul or our Lord? Josephus was never accepted as an authority by early Christians; as far as we know he was not a Christian but rather rejected Christ. His opinions are entirely irrelevant with regards to Christian affairs.

Furthermore your own standard of prophetic identity requires the inclusion of several deuterocanonical books, and there remains under your approach no valid reason to include Esther.

Josephus relates the same standard that 1 Macc does; in the height of irony which you accept as inspired, when it says it is not inspired.

Paul, Peter, Christ outline what is considered divine for Christians based on the standards of prophets and apostles.

Don't you find it odd that various religions have all sorts of "inspired" books, but how do you know one is and one isn't? What standard does OO have?

 

[Rick Otto]

Why should we care what Josephus, a non-Christian, has to say about the Christian Bible?

Because professing Christianity doesn't necessarily make one smarter, or correct.
The very question portrays arrogance in ignorance.
That is why Sola Scripture doesn't respect persons & their pedigree above truth itself.
Apostolic succession is supposed to be the succession of truth, not a franchise on truth.

 

[Wgw]

Josephus relates the same standard that 1 Macc does; in the height of irony which you accept as inspired, when it says it is not inspired.

Paul, Peter, Christ outline what is considered divine for Christians based on the standards of prophets and apostles.

Don't you find it odd that various religions have all sorts of "inspired" books, but how do you know one is and one isn't? What standard does OO have?

1 Maccabees does not say it is uninspired except by the erroneous standard of Josephus, so your point is self-referential. However this work is not the main item from the so called deuterocanon I am interested in defending; rather I am more concerned with the sections of Esther and Daniel deleted from various Hebrew Bibles, which have the effect of redeeming the former (what would otherwise be an account of only national historical interest), and adding a sense of piety to the latter. I am still more concerned with The Wisdom of Solomon, with its extrmely specific Christological prophecy, which cannot be assailed according to the non-Christian Judaic standard.

 

[Wgw]

Because professing Christianity doesn't necessarily make one smarter, or correct.
The very question portrays arrogance in ignorance.
That is why Sola Scripture doesn't respect persons & their pedigree above truth itself.
Apostolic succession is supposed to be the succession of truth, not a franchise on truth.

Actually I think we can very definitely say that Christianity makes people more intelligent and more virtuous. Within a century of the Roman Empire adopting Christianity, the modern hospital had been introduced in Caesarea in Cappadocia by St. Basil the Great, expanded to Constantinople by St. John Chrysostom; concurrently bloodsport was being banned. Superstitions, like those which Josephus adhered to, have the effect of making one a slave to the passions, and intellectually burdened with pointless ritual (in the case of Josephus, excessive ritual scruple regarding the Torah).

So frankly what Josephus says is entirely irrelevant.

What really bothers me about your perspectove however is the fact that you prioritize Josephus, who rejected Christ, over the vast majority of pious Christians of the past and present. Josephus should be regarded with the same trust we might grant to Caiaphas; frankly the opinions of a Christian heresiarch like Arius or Nestorius would be more palettable.