Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But how can one claim to be accountable to Scripture and not use the Scripture referenced by one who wrote Scripture

I can understand your dismay because NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. None now, none ever. I understand why this disturbs you so. My counsel to you, my full, unseparated brother, is to start a thread "Why None Agrees with My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture" and we can discuss this. Brother, it's not as terrible as you seem to think. I've read Psalm 151. It's just not the HUGE issue you are trying to make it - espeically in regard to confirming disputed dogmas among us. You really need not be so concerned.


What is and is not Scripture is an interesting point. Also what is and is not the law in all the various legal jurisdictions of the planet. I agree. It's just not THIS point.


And again, my brother, if you want to regard Psalm 151 as Scripture and submit all the dogmas of your denomination to accountability according to Scripture (including Psalm 151) I HONESTLY don't have any huge problem with that. In fact, when I'm discussing with Catholics and they quote some DEUTERO book, I permit that - and don't dispute it (makes no difference anyway, to be perfectly honest). And I only recall two instances of that in my life. They seem amazingly unaware and disinterested in these DEUTERO books. How often do the books the EOC and the RCC disagree on come up in heated debate?


Friend, those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming do NOT do so because they agree with none but self on what is and is not Scripture. They reject it because they reject norming - by any rule. In the singular, exclusive, sole, unique, particular case of the dogmas of self.






.

 

[Thekla]

We read in scripture that God laughs. Jesus being the Human image of the Father must laugh too. I would think. We know He weeps.. Anguishes deepley. We know that He is moved by faith. Not tradition. He is the living breathing and most Powerful God. His word the scripture is His letter to us His children. He is forever faithful.

Maybe you could help me on this one; the Gospels do not describe Jesus laughing. In the OT the only laughing of God I can recall is an expression of scorn. Are there other passages I'm forgetting, where laughter is an expression of humor ?

 

[Thekla]

I can understand your dismay because NONE agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. None now, none ever. I understand why this disturbs you so. My counsel to you, my full, unseparated brother, is to start a thread "Why None Agrees with My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture" and we can discuss this. Brother, it's not as terrible as you seem to think. I've read Psalm 151. It's just not the HUGE issue you are trying to make it - espeically in regard to confirming disputed dogmas among us. You really need not be so concerned.


What is and is not Scripture is an interesting point. Also what is and is not the law in all the various legal jurisdictions of the planet. I agree. It's just not THIS point.


And again, my brother, if you want to regard Psalm 151 as Scripture and submit all the dogmas of your denomination to accountability according to Scripture (including Psalm 151) I HONESTLY don't have any huge problem with that. In fact, when I'm discussing with Catholics and they quote some DEUTERO book, I permit that - and don't dispute it (makes no difference anyway, to be perfectly honest). And I only recall two instances of that in my 24 years of life. They seem amazingly unaware and disinterested in these DEUTERO books.

This is clearly aside my question; the Scripture in use in what is now northern Greece and Macedonia, and in the diaspora in general, was the LXX with Deuterocanon (there are references from the Deuterocanon in the NT).

Paul refers to the Scripture Timothy knows, the LXX.

If you claim to be accountable to Scripture, why do you deny the Scripture held by one who wrote the Scripture you are accountable to ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you claim to be accountable to Scripture, why do you deny the Scripture held by one who wrote the Scripture you are accountable to ?

Which is it?

You said that Scripture doesn't say what is and is not Scripture, now you are saying that it does. Which is it?

I don't know the verse, where does Paul mention the LXX? I don't recall that verse.

But better, if you want to talk about the distress you feel because no denomination agrees with yours on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that. I'll post it in. HONESTLY, it's not as grave and terrible as you seem to think. But let's discuss the practice of Sola Scriptura here. Make sense?


Blessings to you, my esteemed brother...


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

Which is it?

You said that Scripture doesn't say what is and is not Scripture, now you are saying that it does. Which is it?

I don't know the verse, where does Paul mention the LXX? I don't recall that verse.

But better, if you want to talk about the distress you feel because no denomination agrees with yours on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that. I'll post it in. HONESTLY, it's not as grave and terrible as you seem to think. But let's discuss the practice of Sola Scriptura here. Make sense?


Blessings to you, my esteemed brother...


Pax


- Josiah

Can you quote where I said that ? I don't recall saying it ...

The LXX was used in the diaspora, among Greek speaking Jews (as by then most did not know Hebrew). History and archeology support this (in fact the LXX was in use in the Jewish community in Egypt at least until about 1,000 years ago).

The NT quotes the LXX more often than the Masoretic, and references to the Deuterocanon are found in the NT as well.

Given this, how do Sola Scripturists claim adherence to Scripture, yet do not use the Scripture that the Scripture writers use ?

(Yes, Paul quotes the LXX, and Hebrews - for example - references Maccabees ... in fact, the NT agrees with the LXX more often than the Masoretic.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Can you quote where I said that ? I don't recall saying it ...

The LXX was used in the diaspora, among Greek speaking Jews (as by then most did not know Hebrew). History and archeology support this (in fact the LXX was in use in the Jewish community in Egypt at least until about 1,000 years ago).

The NT quotes the LXX more often than the Masoretic, and references to the Deuterocanon are found in the NT as well.

Given this, how do Sola Scripturists claim adherence to Scripture, yet do not use the Scripture that the Scripture writers use ?

(Yes, Paul quotes the LXX, and Hebrews - for example - references Maccabees ... in fact, the NT agrees with the LXX more often than the Masoretic.)

Perhaps I'm not following you... Let me ask the following:

Where does the NT mention the LXX? s
Where does the NT mention the Book of Maccabees and do so calling such "Scripture?"
Are you saying that Scripture DOES tell us what books are and are not Scripture, or are you saying that Scripture does NOT tell us that?


To your other point, the practice is typically referred to as "The Rule of SCRIPTURE" or "Sola Scriptura" (as Luther and Calvin at times called the practice) because it embraces SCRIPTURE. It's not limited to the Scripture that Moses may have seen as such (or The Rule of Scripture would be called The Rule of the Two Tablets). Yes, I think most know that when Jesus mentioned "Scripture" (which He did some 30 times, IF I recall correctly) He probably was not thinking of Second Timothy or First John (He might, of course) - but again, it's not called "The Rule of the Old Testament" but rather "The Rule of Scripture." When Thomas Jefferson referred to the Rule of Law, he probably wasn't thinking about the driving laws of the State of California, but still... Yes, we all know, 4 main denominations agree only with itself on what is and is not Scripture.... I realize this bothers you a lot, and I understand and can appreicate that. I really don't know what more to say HERE about that, start a thread on why none agree with your denomination on this and I can - and WILL - address this further. Your dismay is not justified, Psalm 151 just doesn't make THAT much difference in the disputed dogmas among us. Or between even your denomination and the RCC. Yes, 4 denominations agree with none on the topic of the canon, but that's another issue for another day and thread - and frankly, your denomination's disagreement with everyone just isn't THAT big of a deal, IMO. And it has nothing to do with this thread, as you know.


Blessings to you, my friend.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That is EXACTLY the reasoning that is circular argument which I addressed. I didn't ignore it at all. All you've done to address this is to re-state your position which is itself sounding like a circular approach. I ask for discussion and you simply re-state your position, because, apparently it just 'is'.

You know Paul wrote it because it says so, therefore you know it's Paul's writing.

IF you believe that it is circular reasoning TO SAY that "Paul wrote Galatians because he says he wrote Galatian" then please be aware that it was YOU who made that claim. If you actual read my post of which I replied to you, you would notice that, my claim was not your argument.

AS FOR what I wrote ABOUT Paul's writings being 100%--"100% because Paul wrote it and not because the church said he wrote it--, that reply had to do with something you said before you edited your post. And I read your unedited post and then when I quoted it, you had already edited the post.

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps I'm not following you... Let me ask the following:

Where does the NT mention the LXX?
Where does the NT mention the Book of Maccabees and do so calling such "Scripture?"
Are you saying that Scripture DOES tell us what books are and are not Scripture, or are you saying that Scripture does NOT tell us that?


To your

New Testament writers quote the LXX more often than they quote the Masoretic.

New Testament writers reference Deuterocanonical writings.

Do Sola Scriptura adherents adhere to what is demonstrated as Scripture, the LXX with Deuterocanon, by the writers of the Scripture they claim as the "Norma Normans" ?

Or is that the part of Scripture, the use of the LXX and Deuterocanon, that Sola Scriptura adherents find invalid ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yet it is Church authority that compiled and canonized Scripture

So why does none but it itself alone agree with it on what is and is not Scripture? How does the fact that it has a following of none in this matter indicate that it has some "authority"? Is inerrant authority the result of having no following?



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

New Testament writers quote the LXX more often than they quote the Masoretic.

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

New Testament writers reference Deuterocanonical writings.

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



I DO understand your mismay over none agreeing with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. I do. I think it doesn't merit your dismay but yeah, I know. But the practice is not called "The Rule of the Old Testament." It's not called "The Rule of the Deuteros" It's not called "the Rule of the Ten Commandments." It's called the Rule of Scripture.

Again, if you want to try to find some comfort in your dismay, start a thread, "Why does no denomination agree with mine on what is and is not Scripture?" I promise I will post in it and try to extend to you some comfort. Let's not try to address that HERE. Make sense?





.

 

[Thekla]

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

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

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

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

How often are the Scripture quotes used in the New Testament referenced to the particular books they appear in ?
Does this mean that Jeremiah is not Scripture because the location of the quote of Rachel's weeping is not sourced ?

I DO understand your mismay over none agreeing with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. I do. I think it doesn't merit your dismay but yeah, I know. But the practice is not called "The Rule of the Old Testament." It's not called "The Rule of the Deuteros" It's not called "the Rule of the Ten Commandments." It's called the Rule of Scripture.

I'm not dismayed

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.

Ie, you norm to what you please, not what the NT writers used.

Again, if you want to try to find some comfort in your dismay, start a thread, "Why does no denomination agree with mine on what is and is not Scripture?" I promise I will post in it and try to extend to you some comfort. Let's not try to address that HERE. Make sense?

The topic of the thread is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura adherents claim that Scripture is their norm.

But decide that the Scripture the NT Scripture writers used is not the right Scripture.

Ie, SS adherents do not adhere to Scripture, but their opinion of what Scripture is even though this is not in agreement with Scripture, and the writers of Scripture.

That's grossly inconsistent with the claim of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Montalban]

So why does none but it itself alone agree with it on what is and is not Scripture? How does the fact that it has a following of none in this matter indicate that it has some "authority"? Is inerrant authority the result of having no following?



.

That's illogical. Even if one single person was right and 100 people wrong, the fact that he is the only person who believes something wouldn't make his assertion any less right.

 

[Montalban]

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

There's a list here

 

[steve_bakr]

So why does none but it itself alone agree with it on what is and is not Scripture? How does the fact that it has a following of none in this matter indicate that it has some "authority"? Is inerrant authority the result of having no following?

.

As far as I am aware, the canons of the NT are the same across denominations.

 

[Montalban]

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

There's many: Here's one...

Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

In the Hebrew it said "young woman" as opposed to "virgin" (which is in both the Greek version of the OT and the NT)
The Septuagint in the New Testament

 

[Thekla]

From a non-EO site:

3. Hitherto no account has been taken of the relation which the N. T. quotations bear to the Alexandrian version, although for the sake of convenience the references to the O. T. have been given according to the order and numeration of the Greek Bible. We may now address ourselves to this further question; and it may at once be said that every part of the N. T. affords evidence of a knowledge of the LXX., and that a great majority of the passages cited from the O. T. are in general agreement with the Greek version. It is calculated by one writer on the subject that, while the N. T. differs from the Massoretic text in 212 citations, it departs from the LXX. in 185 [817] ; and by another that "not more than fifty" of the citations "materially differ from the LXX. [818] " On either estimate the LXX. is the principal source from which the writers of the N. T. derived their O. T. quotations. Quotations from the Lxx. In the New Testament.

How many Sola Scriptura adherents use the LXX ? Which includes the Deuterocanonicals ...


 

[Montalban]

The Galatian church seem to understand that the letter were from Paul.

Absolutely. That is tradition! The Galatian churches (Galatia is not a town) bore witness to the veracity of the book's authorship.

The book itself didn't!

 

[Thekla]

Please be advised that Paul says
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.........THAT the man of God MAY BE COMPLETE thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK.

Scripture is given to us so that WE maybe be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

As for saying that he "commended an OT that includes books your church doesn't, I'm confused, does he make a list somewhere in Scripture that I don't know about?

Scripture/graphe refers to anything written, and when specific, to the portion known as "the Writings" (distinct from the Law and the Prophets).

The OT used by the Jews of the diaspora and Greek speaking Jews (Timothy was a Greek speaker - Paul wrote to him in Greek) was the Septuagint and included the Deuterocanon.

Throughout the NT, the writers quote the Septuagint more than the Masoretic (most modern Bibles use the Masoretic OT).

 

[Standing Up]

As far as I am aware, the canons of the NT are the same across denominations.

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

 

[Standing Up]

You completely didn't read a single thing I wrote, so therefore this particular conversation is done if you're going to continue like that. I most definitely gave you a reason apart from "Paul's name is on the Epistle so therefore he wrote it" WHICH by the way was YOUR reasoning, I didn't say anything to that effect.

What I said about Paul's writing is that it was 100% because he wrote it and NOT because the church said he wrote it, but I did not give that as a reason of knowing that it was Paul's writings. I also said that I don't understand why I can't trust that Paul wrote it when he claimed he has but yet can believe Paul wrote it because other people said he has.

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. Other false apostles introduced schisms.

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.