sola scriptura

[SumTinWong]

There are a great many people in the world that feel that they are sola scriptura Christians.

If you are one of them why?

 

[jcright]

There are a great many people in the world that feel that they are sola scriptura Christians.

If you are one of them why?

Who else are we to trust in? Man?

I think 2Tim3:16 is a good starting point. The bible holds everything we need to know. Where does it say that we should trust the teaching of man? There are several passages that warn us about trusting man because he may be a false prophet. There are passages that tell us the Holy Spirit will be our teacher...John 14:26 is an excellent verse for this. If we are to trust in man for our teachings, then why doesn't the bible say so?

 

[ZiSunka]

Why would the Bible need to be improved on by adding human traditions, writings or rituals? The Bible constantly refers back to itself, never to human teachings or writings. Jesus never quoted Hillel, Gameliel, or any other human thinker, only from the Bible itself. If the Bible is a good enough reference book for Jesus, then it is all I need, too.

Whenever Jesus wanted to support his message, he always quoted the Bible, only, as the sole and final source.

 

[SumTinWong]

What would one say to a person that says that scripture in Timothy was written before the rest of the New Testament was finished? Paul was killed in 68AD, and there is some evidence that rest of the NT was written after that. So by scriptures did he mean his letters, or the OT?

The Bible that Jesus read was the OT. Now we as Baptists, tend to leave out or omit books from the original texts. But what if the Bible that Jesus read, did have these books in it?

 

[eutychus]

It's good to test these other books, such as those in the apocrypha and the other gospels and epistles that were weeded out in forming the New Testament canon.

As far as the Biblical canon, I believe that it is all true and cannot be added to because it is complete and consistent. I also think that its preservation says something. That may be ignorant of me, but to trace the forming of the Bible is amazing, and one can only acknowledge that God was behind the whole process.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am a scriptura Christian.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

The Bible that Jesus read was the OT. Now we as Baptists, tend to leave out or omit books from the original texts. But what if the Bible that Jesus read, did have these books in it?

We leave out texts?

As far as that person doubting scripture, I think they need to ask the Lord to reveal himself to them and then ask if they have been born again.
GEL

 

[aReformedPatriot]

We leave out texts?

As far as that person doubting scripture, I think they need to ask the Lord to reveal himself to them and then ask if they have been born again.
GEL

He's reffering to the Greek OT if I am not mistaken, the Septugiant. The Septuagint included the apocryphal books and just so happens to date back before the time of Jesus. So Jesus had these texts.

Im wondering what the exact use of the Septuagint was in Jesus' time.

 

[SumTinWong]

I am a scriptura Christian.

Clever lad.

 

[SumTinWong]

Im wondering what the exact use of the Septuagint was in Jesus' time.

Thanks LE you are right that is what I meant. We know from some evidence that perhaps Paul used the LXX but what I would love to know is if the LXX was used in the Jewish temples. Considering they have nothing to do with these books now, I tend to think not. On the other hand people will say that they choose not to use them because they point towards Jesus, or that they left them out to spite the Christians. I consider that hogwash.

Anyway there is some evidence that the apocryha was used during that time. Now I personally do not think that they are inspired on the same level as that of the rest of the canon. I have read through them and have found quite a few mistakes, and things that just don't fit.

So my question was a what if. What have we done to find out about the Bible that Jesus read?

 

[ZiSunka]

What would one say to a person that says that scripture in Timothy was written before the rest of the New Testament was finished? Paul was killed in 68AD, and there is some evidence that rest of the NT was written after that. So by scriptures did he mean his letters, or the OT?

The Bible that Jesus read was the OT. Now we as Baptists, tend to leave out or omit books from the original texts. But what if the Bible that Jesus read, did have these books in it?

What books do you think were missing? Not the Apochrypha, I hope, because Jews do not and never have included them in their Bible.

 

[Lynn73]

I'm sola scriptura also. There has to be an immovable standard by which we can measure things. God has given it to us and it's the Bible. The words of men aren't the standard. We take their words and compare them with the Bible and if they don't match up, we need to reject the words of men.

 

[rural_preacher]

I'm sola scriptura also. There has to be an immovable standard by which we can measure things. God has given it to us and it's the Bible. The words of men aren't the standard. We take their words and compare them with the Bible and if they don't match up, we need to reject the words of men.

AMEN!

 

[ZiSunka]

He's reffering to the Greek OT if I am not mistaken, the Septugiant. The Septuagint included the apocryphal books and just so happens to date back before the time of Jesus. So Jesus had these texts.

Im wondering what the exact use of the Septuagint was in Jesus' time.

But Spetuagint was not used by Jews, they were translations of some Jewish texts and some other texts included with them. It's like today, you can get OT Bibles with the "missing books of the Bible" inserted before or after the NT. These missing books have fanciful claims about Christ, that he preached that salvation comes through eating uncooked vegetables and taking enemas, to Jesus only pretending to die to outwit the Jews and Romans so he could continue his ministry in India, to Jesus being a space alien who, like the folks from Third Rock from the Sun, came to observe Earth and its beings as a scientific experience and ended up teaching us the ways of the planet where he came from. No kidding, look on Ebay, these Bibles are available. So, does the Septuagint = the Jewish Bible? Jewish people all deny it, and few of the added texts add any real knowledge or doctrine about God. Jesus would have known about these "other texts," yet he never quoted from them or used examples from them. Thus, since they don't add anything of importance to the Bible, and Jesus never mentions them as being valuable, I agree with the folks who say they don't belong in the Bible. They were not part of the Hebrew texts during his life, and I believe if he wanted them to be added, he would have said so.

 

[jcright]

What would one say to a person that says that scripture in Timothy was written before the rest of the New Testament was finished? Paul was killed in 68AD, and there is some evidence that rest of the NT was written after that. So by scriptures did he mean his letters, or the OT?

The Bible that Jesus read was the OT. Now we as Baptists, tend to leave out or omit books from the original texts. But what if the Bible that Jesus read, did have these books in it?

You raise a valid point. The fact that it was written before the rest of the books doesn't daunt me. I believe that it still holds true for the entire bible. It's my thought that Timothy is speaking about all of the books that are inspired by God...not just his writings or the OT. It's at this point where we would have to investigate the reasoning for each book being or not being included in the bible. However, I don't think that means that we should pick and choose what we will believe from the bible.

I still have to come back to the question of what other source is there? If there are other books, then why aren't they added? If we are to listen to man, then why aren't man's words (if we are to assume that the words are really from the Holy Spirit) written down and appended to the bible as additional inspired works? Why should we believe that the bible isn't complete?

 

[SumTinWong]

But Spetuagint was not used by Jews, they were translations of some Jewish texts and some other texts included with them.

Honestly LL do we know this is true? There is evidence that Paul used them.

It's like today, you can get OT Bibles with the "missing books of the Bible" inserted before or after the NT. These missing books have fanciful claims about Christ, that he preached that salvation comes through eating uncooked vegetables and taking enemas, to Jesus only pretending to die to outwit the Jews and Romans so he could continue his ministry in India, to Jesus being a space alien who, like the folks from Third Rock from the Sun, came to observe Earth and its beings as a scientific experience and ended up teaching us the ways of the planet where he came from. No kidding, look on Ebay, these Bibles are available.

I know of the books you speak of I have one behind me on a shelf. I have yet to read it all the way through, but it is quite clear that they are not legit.

So, does the Septuagint = the Jewish Bible?

From what I understand the Greeks wanted a translation of the Jewish books and the LXX was what it came to be known as. And yes these books were included.

Jewish people all deny it, and few of the added texts add any real knowledge or doctrine about God. Jesus would have known about these "other texts," yet he never quoted from them or used examples from them. Thus, since they don't add anything of importance to the Bible, and Jesus never mentions them as being valuable, I agree with the folks who say they don't belong in the Bible. They were not part of the Hebrew texts during his life, and I believe if he wanted them to be added, he would have said so.

Not all Jewish people deny it, but the majority do. Then again the majority of the Jews are still waiting for the messiah. Jesus does not mention Esther, does that make it uninspired? Did Jesus quote from every book in the OT? Jesus actually never mentioned any of the books that should be put in or taken out, so how does that prove that because he did not mention the apocrypha that they should not be included?

Here is a great article on the apocrypha, which gives descriptions and so forth. I do not agree with his assumption that the Apostles cast aide the OT completely, but that is another conversation.

 

[SumTinWong]

You raise a valid point. The fact that it was written before the rest of the books doesn't daunt me. I believe that it still holds true for the entire bible. It's my thought that Timothy is speaking about all of the books that are inspired by God...not just his writings or the OT. It's at this point where we would have to investigate the reasoning for each book being or not being included in the bible. However, I don't think that means that we should pick and choose what we will believe from the bible.

I agree with you, but where is our barometer, or measuring stick for what we have left in and what we left out? What I am getting at really is yes, the apocrypha in some way supports ideas perpetuated by the Catholic church, but does that that mean that they are to be forgotten? I am still trying to figure that out.

I still have to come back to the question of what other source is there? If there are other books, then why aren't they added? If we are to listen to man, then why aren't man's words (if we are to assume that the words are really from the Holy Spirit) written down and appended to the bible as additional inspired works? Why should we believe that the bible isn't complete?

Oh I am not saying we should add any new books, by any means. I am asking why our "protestant" Bibles are now devoid of the texts that were in the LXX nad were available around the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[SumTinWong]

I'm sola scriptura also. There has to be an immovable standard by which we can measure things. God has given it to us and it's the Bible. The words of men aren't the standard. We take their words and compare them with the Bible and if they don't match up, we need to reject the words of men.

Okay, so the Bible covers all subjects and is not confusing in anyway right? I mean we don't have any divisions within churches, and everyone is on the same page, and because the Holy Spirit has guided us all into truth, we are devoid of any controversies int eh church. Right?

The Bible never says it is a measuring stick, and we have no written record that God said it was our measuring stick, so how did we come by the idea that it was? Comparing the words of men to the Bible are fine, and we should all do that but what about when there was no Bible? How did Christians survive? What was their measuring stick then?

 

[ZiSunka]

Honestly LL do we know this is true? There is evidence that Paul used them.

What evidence do you have? It's not from Catholic sources, is it, because they have a vested interest in Paul using the books, so their sources may not be the most reliable.

I know of the books you speak of I have one behind me on a shelf. I have yet to read it all the way through, but it is quite clear that they are not legit.

To us who know Him, yes, but to those who are perishing and yet not wanting to submit to the Gospel, they offer hope of salvation by other means.

From what I understand the Greeks wanted a translation of the Jewish books and the LXX was what it came to be known as. And yes these books were included.

Yes, by the Greeks, not the Jews. I dare you to find any Jewish Bible with the apochrypha included. None do.

Not all Jewish people deny it, but the majority do. Then again the majority of the Jews are still waiting for the messiah.

That's not true. You must not know many Jewish people. I know many, and they ALL say they believe Jesus really was the messiah but they refuse to become Christians because of the usual objections and because they would never be able to give up the traditions of Judaism to pick up the traditions of Christianity.

Jesus does not mention Esther, does that make it uninspired? Did Jesus quote from every book in the OT? Jesus actually never mentioned any of the books that should be put in or taken out, so how does that prove that because he did not mention the apocrypha that they should not be included?

But those apochryphal books were not part of the Jewish Bibles back then, according to the Rabbis I know. They were added by the Greeks, not the Jews, because the Greeks felt that more needed to be added to the story to make it interesting. They weren't satisfied with an Esther story that didn't mention God's direct intervention, so they augmented the story and added it to the apochrypha. Why would Jews have to Esther stories in the same Bible? It wouldn't make sense. The greeks hated an incomplete story, and they viewed the Jewish texts as stories, not as scritpure. They were a collection of morality plays to the Greeks, not a sacred book about the one true God. Adding a few more morality plays rounded the texts out nicely to them. Read the Book of Judith and tell me if you really think it is of God.

But back to your question, no, I don't believe that Jesus had to mention every book of the Bible in order for it to be a valid part of the canon. The Jewish canon was established by the time of Christ's birth. No writings have been added to it since then. Jews themselves call the apochrypha and all other additions "the spurious books." They don't believe that anything is missing from or needs to be added to the basic Bible. If they hold that belief now, what evidence do you have that they ever believed any other way. Again, without using Catholic sources, since they have a great stake in claiming the apochrypha ARE part of the canon.

 

[jcright]

I agree with you, but where is our barometer, or measuring stick for what we have left in and what we left out? What I am getting at really is yes, the apocrypha in some way supports ideas perpetuated by the Catholic church, but does that that mean that they are to be forgotten? I am still trying to figure that out.

Oh I am not saying we should add any new books, by any means. I am asking why our "protestant" Bibles are now devoid of the texts that were in the LXX nad were available around the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

UB, I think we're straying from the subject. The question is: Why am I sola scriptora? The answer is: 2Tim3:16. For those that would still question, I would have to ask this: Where else am I to learn what God would have me know? Why would you think the bible isn't complete? If it isn't complete, what other sources are to be considered and why? If there are other sources, then why haven't they been appended to the bible? How does the bible back up your opinion? Of course, I will be looking for scriptural evidence that the bible isn't complete and that other sources should be considered and added to the bible.

To be sure, your statements about the barometer are important, just a different topic . I think we should start a new thread that discusses the aprocrypha. I'd be very interested to see what others have to say. As for me, Jesus never refers to any of the books in the apocrypha, it's never mentioned in any of the new testament books, the Jews don't have it in their bible...there is one more reason, but I can never remember it. Perhaps I'll edit this post later after I dig up my notes.

The apocrypha aside, what other books are omitted? I'll have to do research on those books.

UB, thanks for this post. I don't know about anyone else, but it's helping me to build a better defense for my opinions.