Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

Could you please provide me with the Scriptures were LXX is mentioned? And where such is called "Scripture?" thanks.

Which books are mentioned? Is the quote referenced as "scripture?"


.

Still not answered. But it's a good question. Which compilation is considered Scripture by everyone? The 66 books.

 

[Thekla]

John of Damascus who the EO says represents EO had a different NT canon than the rest of the Church.

The writings used varied by community.
Perhaps you know when the NT canon was "closed" per the adherents of Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps you know with factual certainty when the Jews closed their canon (and why it differs from the canon of the Ethiopian Jews).

Most Sola Scriptura adherents don't use the OT used most frequently by the writers of the NT - which seems odd, as Scripture is supposed to be the "rule", except not on the point of what the NT writers acknowledged as Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

Still not answered. But it's a good question. Which compilation is considered Scripture by everyone? The 66 books.

The answer is in the writing of the NT, which quotes the Septuagint more than the Masoretic.

Or were the writers of the NT wrong ?

 

[steve_bakr]

The apostles spoke and then they wrote it down and they instructed the church to pass around the letters. Genuine apostlic letters.

At one point, false apostles tried to introduce a letter purporting to be from Paul. Paul reminded them about his seal.

Bottom line is that the letters were passed around as genuine. Perhaps by the time of John's death there was a canon of letters handed down as from aposstolic times.

There will always be individuals who try to introduce myth and fable and tradition as on par with God-breathed scripture.

If there was a canon of apostolic letters by the time of John's death, then you just invoked tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

The answer is in the writing of the NT, which quotes the Septuagint more than the Masoretic.

Or were the writers of the NT wrong ?

Feel free to actually prove it. Everyone I've spoken with about it says none of the apocrapha (supposedly "part" of LXX) were quoted.

So, still not answered.

 

[Standing Up]

If there was a canon of apostolic letters by the time of John's death, then you just invoked tradition.

I've already said many times I don't have a problem with very early tradition. It's all those later Traditions where schisms occured.

 

[Thekla]

Feel free to actually prove it. Everyone I've spoken with about it says none of the apocrapha (supposedly "part" of LXX) were quoted.

So, still not answered.

I provided a comparative (from a non-EO site) on the previous page.

Many OT books are not quoted in the NT - do Sola Scriptura adherents accept books not quoted in the NT as Scripture ?

 

[Standing Up]

Folks, I agree it's a good question. If one is sola scriptura, which scriptura are we talking about?

The easy answer is the one everyone agrees upon---the 66 books.

 

[Standing Up]

I provided a comparative (from a non-EO site) on the previous page.

Many OT books are not quoted in the NT - do Sola Scriptura adherents accept books not quoted in the NT as Scripture ?

I agree the LXX is quoted. I don't think and everyone I've talked to about it says none of the apocrapha is quoted.

Matter of fact the LXX beautifully clarifies the day of Christ's resurrection. and the wood on bread metaphor.

 

[Thekla]

Folks, I agree it's a good question. If one is sola scriptura, which scriptura are we talking about?

The easy answer is the one everyone agrees upon---the 66 books.

The New Testament writers do not quite agree with you on the matter.

How can one claim to be a Sola Scriptura adherent ... except on Scripture ?

 

[Thekla]

I agree the LXX is quoted. I don't think and everyone I've talked to about it says none of the apocrapha is quoted.

Matter of fact the LXX beautifully clarifies the day of Christ's resurrection. and the wood on bread metaphor.

There are references - if you're interested, you can research it.

And the point is, they used the LXX which included the Deuterocanon.

(The term "apocrypha" post-dates the LXX and iirc is an opinion of Jerome.)

Since not all the Masoretic OT books are quoted in the NT, are those books considered "apocrypha" by Sola Scriptura adherents ?

 

[Montalban]

Not everyone agrees on the 66 books.

It also begs the question then, is this an admission that the 66 books don't authorise themselves?

 

[Thekla]

Not everyone agrees on the 66 books.

It also begs the question then, is this an admission that the 66 books don't authorise themselves?

And a further observation: apparently per SS adherent's reasoning, though the majority of Ethiopian Jews converted to Christianity their OT canon is less trustworthy than the canon of those Jews who did not convert to Christianity.

 

[Montalban]

I provided a comparative (from a non-EO site) on the previous page.

Many OT books are not quoted in the NT - do Sola Scriptura adherents accept books not quoted in the NT as Scripture ?

I also provided two sites in post #817 and post #819
(neither of which are EO, as far as I'm aware)

It's funny how one is asked for proof after providing it.

 

[Standing Up]

Not everyone agrees on the 66 books.

It also begs the question then, is this an admission that the 66 books don't authorise themselves?

Who doesn't agree on the 66 books? Is there a group who thinks scripture is 55 books?

 

[Standing Up]

There are references - if you're interested, you can research it.

And the point is, they used the LXX which included the Deuterocanon.

(The term "apocrypha" post-dates the LXX and iirc is an opinion of Jerome.)

Since not all the Masoretic OT books are quoted in the NT, are those books considered "apocrypha" by Sola Scriptura adherents ?

Did the NT quote any of the Deuterocannon? Not that I'm aware of.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Could you please provide me with the Scriptures were LXX is mentioned? And where such is called "Scripture?" thanks.

There's a list here

I looked through the list. There's not even one case.




.

 

[Thekla]

Did the NT quote any of the Deuterocannon? Not that I'm aware of.

Per what research ?

Direct quotes or reference (not to mention the development of ideas like logos, sophia, etc.) ?

Do Sola Scriptura adherents require direct quotation in the NT to accept books from the OT ?

 

[Thekla]

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is used more often in the NT than the Masoretic.

So the writers of the NT must have been wrong per the standard SS adherents are demonstrating here.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The writers of NT Scripture quote the LXX more often than the Masoretic.

So what?

(As if it mattered - AT ALL) Is there even one example of some DEUTERO book being specifically quoted from and referenced specifically as "Scripture?"

Where does the NT mention the Masoretic text ? Where is the Masoretic called Scripture ?

Again, I DO appreciate your dismay over the reality that NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. But again, I honestly don't think it should cause you such great concern (I've read Psalm 151). But take your grave concern over this to a thread about that. Start a thread "Why Does None Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture" I will post in it, I promise. And perhaps give you some comfort on that point, you should not be so concerned. This thread is not about your concern over that.

I'm confused that Sola Scriptura adherents claim adherence to Scripture as norm, yet do not use the Scripture that the NT Scripture writers used.

It's not called "Sola LXX"
It's not called "Solum Novum Testimentum."
It's not called "The Rule of the Old Testament."
It's not called "The Rule of the Two Tablets of Moses."
It's called "The Rule of SCRIPTURE" (aka Sola SCRIPTURA)


Frankly, I don't know how it's even possible to know what books Abraham or Moses of Josiah or Micah or John the Baptist or Jesus or Paul or Pope Clement considered to be Scripture. And since this is the 21st century, I can't for the life of me image why it matters.


I get your point. Moses probably didn't think of Second Timothy as Scripture and probably would not have quoted from it. But what I don't understand is why does THAT reality mean that ergo it's not Scripture and thus isn't included when we speak of the rule of SCRIPTURE?


Yes, I know your denomination thinks of Psalm 151 as Scripture. I know your denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture (and never has) and that this is a deep, grave concern to you. But while your denomination disagrees with ALL on what is and is not Scripture, that is a disagreement on the content of Scripture, not on the practice of embracing Scripture. When Moses used those Scriptures in 1400 BC normatively, he was practicing Sola Scriptura - even though his corpus of Scriptures was a lot smaller than yours. SAME practice, different canon. What in this so entirely confuses you, I just don't know.


But here's what puzzled me. This is 2012. It's not 1400 BC. Sola Scriptura is the practice of using Scripture normatively as WE (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC) evaluate the disputed dogmas among US (um, people living in 2012 - not 5234 BC). Why do you keep bringing up ancient history when none of us were even alive? Is your point whether Abraham used Sola Scripture? No one claimed that he did. Or is your point that Moses only used those two tablets ergo only that is Scripture? We're not Moses, this isn't 1400 BC. It's 2012.

The topic of the thread is Sola Scriptura.

NOT "Weep, weep, why do none agree with my denomination on what is and is not Scripture!"

NOT "What was the most sound norma normans for Abraham to use in 1800 BC as he evaluated disputed dogmas in his day?"

The Deuterocanon is part of the Septuagint.

Which canon of DEUTERO books? The various OOC ones? The current EOC ones? The post Trent RCC ones?

Could you provide quotes in the NT from DEUTERO books where such is specifically referred to as "Scripture?"

It's 2012.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.