Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Erik Nelson]

But only in the sense that the church prays that God would be merciful to the faithful departed. The idea that by prayer we can change the eternal destiny of a particular individual after death is certainly not Scriptural. The passage you cited is most often use to try to prove Purgatory and the practices that relate to it.

you would agree, that prayer for the living can (in theory) elicit God's greater mercies upon that person ?

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, the Jews did. This is the Old Testament after all.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Rom 3:1-2 ESV

written about 55 AD, 40 years before the Rabbinical school at Jamnia began debating (and ultimately redefining) their accepted canon of those oracles

i.e. written one Biblical generation before the modern Masoretic text was conceived

 

[Erik Nelson]

Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word.

Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it is clarified in several other places in scripture.

The point is ..... the differences are minor, extremely minor.

Sola Scriptura

God Bless.

not true

you are a gentile Christian because of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD (= Acts 15)

you are a gentile Christian because Saint James ruled in your (then hotly disputed) favor, by quoting Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX

Every Jewish Rabbi knows that Christianity cannot be supported by their Masoretic text, and has for the better part of 2000 years -- James couldn't have quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the M text...

whereas Simon bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva, who declared him the Messiah, surely did

BTW, I didn't write human history on Earth... supposedly, God in heaven has more influence over it than me (!)

But that's the way it all went down, way back when

 

[Athanasius377]

And what we've called Rome for centuries. They are also heretics.

Some of the strongest condemnations I have heard came not from the Reformation but from the Churches of the East.

 

[Athanasius377]

What do you mean when you say Church here? Do you mean Protestant Church, in which case I agree with you, the Protestant Churches didn't accept these books.

I mean the Church Catholic, not Roman since the term Roman Catholic is a contradiction. If you read any of my previous posts you will discover that I shy away from the term because like you I do not believe that Rome has a right to call themselves catholic.

I have no problem recognizing the the disputed nature of these books, i also have no problem recognizing they are of a lesser status than those books we all agree upon, yet I also recognize that as time went on, long before the reformation they also became accepted by the Church only really being challenged in one part of Christendom.

If you read Beckwith's work I referenced earlier you will realize that statement is not entirely true. Essentially the more a church father knew about Jewish language and culture the more that father was likely to reject part or all of the apocrypha. For example Augustine thought the books were scripture but his contemporary Jerome did not. Jerome learned Hebrew from his time in the Levant and realized they were never considered scripture. Did they become over time accepted into the longer canon, well yes of course I recognize that. Of course those that do are simply wrong.

So why isn't it an obvious question to ask that as the longer canons became gradually accepted this wasn't his people recognizing his words? Is it only Protestants who have this privilege?

I have quoted the troublesome areas of the apocrypha earlier. I don't know how anyone who was read these books can ever equate them with scripture. I would ask if they are really hearing His words. Unless God the Holy Spirit has a bad case of ADHD forgets basic facts like who was ruler of whom. For example from Judith chapter 1:

In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana. . .

Engelbrecht, E. A. (Ed.). (2012). The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition: Text (Jdt 1:1). Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

 

[Albion]

you would agree, that prayer for the living can (in theory) elicit God's greater mercies upon that person ?

You're not going to give me that "Saints are not dead but are alive just like your neighbor on Earth" approach, are you?

 

[eleos1954]

not true

you are a gentile Christian because of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD (= Acts 15)

you are a gentile Christian because Saint James ruled in your (then hotly disputed) favor, by quoting Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX

View attachment 244657

Every Jewish Rabbi knows that Christianity cannot be supported by their Masoretic text, and has for the better part of 2000 years -- James couldn't have quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the M text...

whereas Simon bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva, who declared him the Messiah, surely did

BTW, I didn't write human history on Earth... supposedly, God in heaven has more influence over it than me (!)

But that's the way it all went down, way back when

"supposedly, God in heaven has more influence over it than me (!)" :o)

well, there is a lot of interesting and debatable info on this subject and people can do their own research if they are interested and decide for themselves if the info is credible or not.

Personally, I'm sticking with the Holy Bible.

God Bless.

God Bless.

 

[PaulCyp1]

The false belief of Sola Scriptura has resulted in the abandonment of many of the beliefs and practices of original and complete Christianity, and the fragmentation of those who accept the idea, into thousands of unauthorized manmade denominations teaching thousands of conflicting and therefore false beliefs, in just a few hundred years. The plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE". Jesus insisted on this because He knew that truth can exist only in unity. Which is why the ONE Church He founded, which He said was to remain ONE, to which He promised the fullness of truth, remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

 

[Mountainmike]

Indeed sola scriptura is a Reformation nonsense.

The early church certainly was not, and the separate channels of tradition ( faith handed down) and authority ( power to bind and loose) were clearly needed for correct interpretation of scripture and were the faith until the reformation.

First century Judaism clearly did practice prayers for the dead, that their sons "might be forgiven" ( so future tense , not have been... past) never contested by Jesus, and not only did the Septuagint ( quoted by Jesus) contain maccebees, but the New Testament refers to " feast of remembrance" i.e. Hanukkah which was the memory of the events in Maccabees. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not change it.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the . " sola sriptura " advocates first tried to mess with the contents table, and Luther even tried to amend the content of scripture for which they had no authority At all!

Since only the pure can enter heaven, I can only ask those who think no theosis or purgation is needed, by what presumption do they consider themselves pure? It seems the height of temerity and arrogance to me!

I urge all to read Akins book " salvation controversy" that explored different views , but determines that from scripture salvation has past, present AND future aspects, and both temporal and permanent asspects

If you hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, meaning scripture alone as the source of all doctrines, when did it begin?

In 700 AD all Christians used the longer canon, meaning that the bible had in it what protestants call the apocrypha. In 700 AD a Christian would have prayed for the dead and given alms for the dead based on II Maccabees 12:42-44.

When did sola scriptura end that practice?

 

[FireDragon76]

We actually read from 2nd Esdras ( Bible Gateway passage: 2 Esdras 2:42-48 - Revised Standard Version ) on All Saints Day. So it's definitely not true that Lutherans necessarily have removed it from the Bible. It just doesn't have a place as a source of dogma in our religion.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Some of the strongest condemnations I have heard came not from the Reformation but from the Churches of the East.

We had to watch our church split apart by the latins, and then watch as they further destroyed the reputation of Christendom for the next 1000 years. Add that two persecution by them and constant land grabbing at the expense of Orthodox lives and yea.

You're not going to give me that "Saints are not dead but are alive just like your neighbor on Earth" approach, are you?

I thought the Anglican Church believed in all this stuff.

 

[eleos1954]

The false belief of Sola Scriptura has resulted in the abandonment of many of the beliefs and practices of original and complete Christianity, and the fragmentation of those who accept the idea, into thousands of unauthorized manmade denominations teaching thousands of conflicting and therefore false beliefs, in just a few hundred years. The plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE". Jesus insisted on this because He knew that truth can exist only in unity. Which is why the ONE Church He founded, which He said was to remain ONE, to which He promised the fullness of truth, remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

The unity and oneness are the believers in Jesus Christ (those are His church) and transcends any particular earthly religious organization. The believers (His church) are all over the world.

John 3

16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Colossians 2

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ. 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. 10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

Proverbs 21:2

Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts.

Romans 14:12

So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

It's about ones personal relationship with the Lord. Condition of the heart.

Amen and God Bless.

 

[Albion]

We had to watch our church split apart by the latins, and then watch as they further destroyed the reputation of Christendom for the next 1000 years. Add that two persecution by them and constant land grabbing at the expense of Orthodox lives and yea.


I thought the Anglican Church believed in all this stuff.

What stuff?

 

[redleghunter]

Also there were more than one "Pope" in the pre schism church. Pope means father, and Patriarch the same.

That’s true as by the second century as the church moved from a Presbyterian form of church government the local and regional bishops maintained more central power. We see this with Cyprian in North Africa.

And of course we know Athanasius was also referred to by some as a “pope.”

 

[Barney2.0]

Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10 - 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate, even most of the Apostles were probably illiterate and had the New Testament written by their literate students.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10 - 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate, even most of the Apostles were probably illiterate and had the New Testament written by their literate students.

Sola Scriptura isn't dependent on laity being able to read or even have access to a Bible themselves. Sola Scriptura states the ultimate norm for faith is the Scriptures themselves.

 

[Barney2.0]

Sola Scriptura isn't dependent on laity being able to read or even have access to a Bible themselves. Sola Scriptura states the ultimate norm for faith is the Scriptures themselves.

There was no New Testament in the early years of Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

There was no New Testament in the early years of Christianity.

That's correct but it still doesn't invalidate sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is more like a working principle of how the modern church should operate. It's an alternative to the idea that one man alone determines the deposit of faith.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10- 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate....

By that reasoning none of Scripture should be considered authoritative, revelatory, or God's word given to mankind.

 

[Athanasius377]

My question would be, why is what your doing considered recognition and what the historic Church is doing is deciding? You have an argument with regards to the canon that you find persuasive and presumably decided upon that as satisfactory to the question of canon. So your characterization of the Church just deciding to add these books, seems hypocritical. Ultimately we both have made our decisions based on various factors but we would both claim we are both recognizing God's canon. My previous question still stands unanswered. The Church before Luther, whether we're talking eastern or western Church gradually came to include more books than in the Protestant canon.

Why did this happen if God wasn't in the Church helping his people hear his voice?

Good question. The fact is the church there were two schools of thought regarding the inspiration (or canonicity to be consistent from me previous posts but I am using the words interchangeably) of these books. Perhaps the best argument can be made from the fact the Jews never considered these writings as inspired. I realize there are some who argue that Alexandrian Jews accepted a longer canon but evidence is rather sparse. What we do find is that the Jews of the 1st century already possessed a closed canon as evidenced by the writings of Josephus and even the Apocrypha itself as I have written in previous posts. Recall that during this time there were not even fresh copies of the existing Scriptures being laid up in the Temple let alone copies of new books. Nor were these books ever considered to make someone ceremonially unclean.

So then, what does one make of these books. To paraphrase the Anglican 39 artilces of religion and the Lutheran position is that the books are to be read and appreciated for example of life and instruction of manners. Perhaps to discern intertestamental Judaism in its approach to the world at its time but nothing more.