Sola scriptura

[sculleywr]

It doesn't shackle you down -- you willingly refuse to obey God for whatever reason you have. You have chosen that your 'church' is more important that God's TRUTH and God's WORD and JESUS (JOHN 17).
So , no one who tells you the truth, can help you. You refuse to listen.

You're one step from the block train, because I have no time for slanderers.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You're one step from the block train, because I have no time for slanderers.

You have no time for those who would help you.
THat's what's sad.

 

[sculleywr]

You have no time for those who would help you.
THat's what's sad.

You're not trying to help. You slander the Orthodox Church. You slander me. You slander anyone who doesn't tow the exact same line as you.

And yet you act like you are oh so holy.

Sorry, but I don't buy into hateful rhetoric. I don't buy slander. Either return to the original topic, or just leave the thread.

 

[W2L]

You replace the command of God with something that can be destroyed by man, very easily.

You call me following God's command directly out of Scripture as it was intended by the writers legalistic?

I have 5 acres of beachfront property to sell you in Tennessee if that is true. It's situated on the Indian Ocean, too!

The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Why should i need to defend myself against every charge you throw at me? Why would you be so merciless and judgmental? Yes, I fear God very much, yet Grace has taught me well, that perfect love casts out fear. Its sad that you would rather condemn a person instead of trying to lift them up. Its also sad you would rather argue than bring God glory. What if God decided to show me mercy rather than judgment? What if he sustains me? Is that a bad thing? Who are you to judge? Are you God? Who are you, to judge anyone? If you cannot close your lips long enough to let God be God, then you only blind yourself further.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You're not trying to help. You slander the Orthodox Church. You slander me. You slander anyone who doesn't tow the exact same line as you.

And yet you act like you are oh so holy.

Sorry, but I don't buy into hateful rhetoric. I don't buy slander. Either return to the original topic, or just leave the thread.

Scripture? That's what "we" have been trying to get you to understand.

But you refused so far.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And yet you act like you are oh so holy.

Are you holy, or not ? You think the ones you decided to trust instead of God are holy , or not ?

 

[W2L]

You're not trying to help. You slander the Orthodox Church. You slander me. You slander anyone who doesn't tow the exact same line as you.

And yet you act like you are oh so holy.

Sorry, but I don't buy into hateful rhetoric. I don't buy slander. Either return to the original topic, or just leave the thread.

Pot calls the kettle black

 

[sculleywr]

Pot calls the kettle black

I haven't been saying that those who are part of other churches are intentionally refusing to follow God. I will point out specific sins a person commits in cases where there isn't room for fancy interpretation (such as the clear command of God to assemble). But I don't go around accusing people of direct disobedience lightly. When it is direct and obvious, and is harmful to spiritual growth, I will point it out. Such is the case with you. You have been deluded into thinking that Paul meant you can replace what he was doing with the internet where the man you're talking to could be a girl, the girl you're talking to could be a man, and the person could be lying about literally every single thing from his height and weight to how many kittens he has tortured. Obviously, I would hope nobody here actually tortured kittens, but there's no way that I could know that anyone here wasn't doing that. Sure, lying happens in real life relationships, but everything you do could be a lie. On gaming servers, since I don't use a microphone, I usually pose as a female character for roleplaying purposes to both create anonymity and challenge me to write from a perspective I wouldn't normally, since I am a writer.

The purpose of the assembling of the brethren is not foremost for fellowship. It is to worship God together in unity through hymns, the reading of God's Scripture, the sermon, and the reception of the Sacraments. Worship is not a spectator sport. Not even community worship is spectator sport. To truly assemble, you MUST have all of these in the assembling. Without them, your assembly is no assembly at all

Now, can we get back to the original topic? Or is this the only topic you ever talk about?

 

[sculleywr]

Why should i need to defend myself against every charge you throw at me? Why would you be so merciless and judgmental? Yes, I fear God very much, yet Grace has taught me well, that perfect love casts out fear. Its sad that you would rather condemn a person instead of trying to lift them up. Its also sad you would rather argue than bring God glory. What if God decided to show me mercy rather than judgment? What if he sustains me? Is that a bad thing? Who are you to judge? Are you God? Who are you, to judge anyone? If you cannot close your lips long enough to let God be God, then you only blind yourself further.

It's not a charge. It's a fact. God say He will sustain those who obey Him. You do not obey Him, yet you claim His sustenance? You are he who comes in over the fence and not by the door. God may show you mercy, but that does not change the disobedience. There will still be discipline. It is better, though, that the discipline occur while you can still repent, rather than when the chance for repentance has passed. It is not I who condemns. He who disobeys God intentionally and knowingly is condemned already. My pointing out the ink stain on your white robes doesn't mean I put it there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="W2L, post: 70015528, member: 388513"]Why should i need to defend myself against every charge you throw at me? Why would you be so merciless and judgmental? Yes, I fear God very much, yet Grace has taught me well, that perfect love casts out fear. Its sad that you would rather condemn a person instead of trying to lift them up. Its also sad you would rather argue than bring God glory. What if God decided to show me mercy rather than judgment? What if he sustains me? Is that a bad thing? Who are you to judge? Are you God? Who are you, to judge anyone? If you cannot close your lips long enough to let God be God, then you only blind yourself further.QUOTE
W2L, you have done and testified well, of Jesus Himself.
that other one keeps doing what his church requires of him. instead of what Jesus wants.
as long as anyone, not just him, thinks man can tell them what to do better than GOd can, there's nothing anyone can do for them (Jesus could not even help those kind Himself in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) (the scribes and pharisees and religious teachers who rejected Him for man's traditions)

 

[W2L]

It's not a charge. It's a fact. God say He will sustain those who obey Him. You do not obey Him, yet you claim His sustenance? You are he who comes in over the fence and not by the door. God may show you mercy, but that does not change the disobedience. There will still be discipline. It is better, though, that the discipline occur while you can still repent, rather than when the chance for repentance has passed. It is not I who condemns. He who disobeys God intentionally and knowingly is condemned already. My pointing out the ink stain on your white robes doesn't mean I put it there.

God chastens every son he calls. God bless you brother, have a good night.

 

[Propianotuner]

And this makes it Sola Scriptura how?

Well, friend, for starters you can take a gander here to see what I've already presented on the sufficiency of scripture. And to be clear, I never have explicitly stated that I was arguing for Sola Scriptura. The "five solas" are a hyperbole when you look at how the Reformation actually occurred. Primarily it was considered a revival of Augustinian theology.

They didn't assert something that was already assumed by the very existence of the Council.

This is an example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. That the council was assuming ecumenical authority does nothing to detract from their own clear language expressing that the recognition of Holy Scripture had been with us since the Apostles' immediate descendants.

Shoot, even Paul didn't assert his own authority in several of his books.

Paul's own authority was not what made several of his epistles theopnustos/God-breathed. The author of Hebrews surely didn't have Paul's ecumenical status as an Apostle, as it is actually impossible to attribute the epistle to any Apostle given that it was written in an Alexandrian dialect of Koine Greek. Does that mean that when we read Hebrews we are not hearkening to the very voice of the Lord?

Besides that, the Old Testament currently used in the majority of the Protestant world was not formed in that way, either. It was formed by the Jews long after Christ.

This is an unfortunately common presumption, based on the as of yet imaginary Judaic Council of Jamnia. I think you may find over time that simply because I have a Reformation background, it doesn't mean that I fit into this neat little box of presuppositions you have.

 

[W2L]

QUOTE="W2L, post: 70015528, member: 388513"]Why should i need to defend myself against every charge you throw at me? Why would you be so merciless and judgmental? Yes, I fear God very much, yet Grace has taught me well, that perfect love casts out fear. Its sad that you would rather condemn a person instead of trying to lift them up. Its also sad you would rather argue than bring God glory. What if God decided to show me mercy rather than judgment? What if he sustains me? Is that a bad thing? Who are you to judge? Are you God? Who are you, to judge anyone? If you cannot close your lips long enough to let God be God, then you only blind yourself further.QUOTE
W2L, you have done and testified well, of Jesus Himself.
that other one keeps doing what his church requires of him. instead of what Jesus wants.
as long as anyone, not just him, thinks man can tell them what to do better than GOd can, there's nothing anyone can do for them (Jesus could not even help those kind Himself in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) (the scribes and pharisees and religious teachers who rejected Him for man's traditions)

Our faith in the Lord teaches us to love each other. Even though I disagree with our brother, I still love him. God is gracious to me, and teaches me this. Praise the Lord.

 

[Lulav]

​

 

[sculleywr]

Well, friend, for starters you can take a gander here to see what I've already presented on the sufficiency of scripture. And to be clear, I never have explicitly stated that I was arguing for Sola Scriptura. The "five solas" are a hyperbole when you look at how the Reformation actually occurred. Primarily it was considered a revival of Augustinian theology.



This is an example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. That the council was assuming ecumenical authority does nothing to detract from their own clear language expressing that the recognition of Holy Scripture had been with us since the Apostles' immediate descendants.



Paul's own authority was not what made several of his epistles theopnustos/God-breathed. The author of Hebrews surely didn't have Paul's ecumenical status as an Apostle, as it is actually impossible to attribute the epistle to any Apostle given that it was written in an Alexandrian dialect of Koine Greek. Does that mean that when we read Hebrews we are not hearkening to the very voice of the Lord?



This is an unfortunately common presumption, based on the as of yet imaginary Judaic Council of Jamnia. I think you may find over time that simply because I have a Reformation background, it doesn't mean that I fit into this neat little box of presuppositions you have.

Except for one problem: the first four centuries of Councils preceded the formation of the Canons. They assumed the same authority as the Council of Jerusalem shown in Acts. The fact is that until the Canon, it wasn't even practical to assume the sufficiency of Scripture, because there was not yet an answer to "what is the Scripture?"
We can't say that they "recognized Scripture" if they didn't have an answer to what Scripture was.


I'm not speaking to the Council or school of Jamnia. I'm referring to a real group of people called the Masoretes. They lived mostly based around the city of Jerusalem and the town of Tiberias, as well as where modern Iraq would be. The Masoretes are the group of Jewish scribes for whom the Masoretic Text is named. It is they who introduced the canon used by the modern Protestant Bible for the Old Testament. So it isn't a presumption. You would probably have known I wasn't speaking of the fictitious school of Jamnia if you had seen my previous posts. The school of Jamnia didn't exist, but the Masoretes most certainly did. The problem is that their canon was never used by Christians until after the Reformation. The early Christians, for the most part, used the Septuagint, and even Athanasius confirmed it as Scripture, with many references to the books missing from modern Bibles found within his seminal works of "On the Incarnation" and "Against the Arians".

In the end, however, since God does not declare a specific Canon to be True, we can't help but put it on Tradition

 

[Truefreedom56]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Is this a Catholic site?

 

[Propianotuner]

Terra tremuit et quievit, Dum resurgeret in judicio Deus, alleluia!

Thank you for expressing yourself with some more clarity, brother. I sincerely hope we can continue to conduct this discussion in an amicable spirit, for the glory of God.

Except for one problem: the first four centuries of Councils preceded the formation of the Canons.

Here's where we diverge in our understanding of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter that lists the scriptures, and various contemporary epistles describing the council: the formation of the canon affirmed an already existing authority. Bishops who could trace their ordination back to the Apostles, and held sees that were original recipients of NT epistles (e.g. Corinth and Philippi were represented), were able not only to demonstrate this significant ecumenical link but demonstrated through their own epistles how even the manner of their language about God resembled particular Apostles. There was a continuity of thought. It was these bishops who were asked what had always been accepted, and used for teaching and refuting incipient heresies.

They assumed the same authority as the Council of Jerusalem shown in Acts. The fact is that until the Canon, it wasn't even practical to assume the sufficiency of Scripture, because there was not yet an answer to "what is the Scripture?"

The only bishops who hadn't had answers to that question up to that point were bishops who were not in a position to be a pillar of orthodoxy through a patriarchal see and extensive exposure to epistles which had been kept and compared, all the way back to figures like Ignatius and Polycarp.

If Scripture weren't sufficient, then how could Irenaeus refute Gnosticism so resoundingly with hardly any reference to tradition at all? If it didn't play the premier role, then how could a bishop all the way over in Lyons, Spain, remember an enormous chunk of the Bible so long before whole collections even existed, and it would be practically an eternity before anyone separated it into verses? He was mentally saturated in the scriptures. The same is true of the great apologist who preceded him and he partially modeled his work after: Justin Martyr.

I'm not speaking to the Council or school of Jamnia. I'm referring to a real group of people called the Masoretes.

The existence of a school of halakha at Jamnia isn't fiction. The Talmud does relate that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was relocated there in the first century before the destruction of the Second Temple, in order to receive permission from the Romans to form a school of halakha.

What is fictional about it is the tenuous assumption that the Jewish scriptural canon had to have been formed there before an already supposedly existing canon (take this part with a grain of salt) was debated in the 2nd century compilation of the Mishnah (e.g. Yaddaim 3:5).

And of course you're referring to the Masoretic scribes. I had expected you would want to get into this same tired issue of the Septuagint vs the Masoretic text. While I'm no instructor over you, I'm not your mentor and I'm not trying to proselytize you, I do hope I can lend you some perspective on how Reformed biblicists and theologians don't have nearly as much of a tradition of glorifying the Masoretic text as you've surely been taught to expect, and it isn't at all the sole factor (it's not even a prioritized factor by a long shot at this point, if you run in academic Reformed circles) in why we consider some texts in the Septuagint apocryphal.

Another aside at this point for perspective: modern translations tend to use the Eclectic Method, which prioritizes the study of different forms of scribal errors and the study of each passage's provenance and antiquity far over old methods so academically crude as "Masoretic text vs Septuagint" and "Alexandrian vs Byzantine text type". We're far beyond a past of gushing over this or that manuscript tradition as if it's superior and others are of hardly any value. Even versions in a whole host of other languages, like the Peshitta and Diatessaron, and also especially the Armenian translations, are prized for their contributions to our study of the manuscript traditions.

We're debating the merits of Sola Scriptura here, so it's not my intention to try and present anything near exhaustive arguments for why I prefer the Reformed canon. However it will be helpful at this juncture to demonstrate the context of our thought, and our respective views on ecclesiastical authority and how the formation occurred (regardless of who was right) are pertinent to the issue at hand. I have approached your theology on it's own terms, and have even relished in reading Orthodox literature, although the majority of it has by no means been modern, so I would appreciate it if you gave us some brotherly clemency and take an honest look at how we actually reason about our theology, not how Orthodox Christians reason about our theology.

Finally, before moving on I would like to explain that my understanding of Sola Scriptura is not nearly as hard-nosed or anachronistic as is the case with many Reformed folks today, especially amongst the laity. Heck, I even probably listen to more Christian music in older tongues within a liturgical setting that is alien to my own denomination than I do my own association's worship music! There are many things that I love about the practice of liturgy, and your worship music makes me beet red with jealousy from time to time. So suffice it to say that I believe in Reformed theology as a Freewill Baptist, but our discussions will be irrespective of what you've probably grown accustomed to from my crowd.

The Masoretes are the group of Jewish scribes for whom the Masoretic Text is named. It is they who introduced the canon used by the modern Protestant Bible for the Old Testament.

The canon amongst Reformed and Anabaptist groups, as opposed to the Lutherans and Anglicans, wasn't necessarily derived from a preference for the Masoretic text at all, depending on who you're looking at. This is true with Arminius, for example. Regardless, modern Reformed scholars don't think of the scriptural canon issue hardly at all on the simple terms of pitting the Septuagint against the Masoretic text.

Where did the idea of there being apocryphal texts in the Septuagint start? Well, to start with, bishops from various sees who started providing lists after Athanasius did were not consistent with one another. Only a handful said Revelation and Jude were possibly not fit for teaching and liturgy, and some others agreed that those books were fit but found Revelation difficult. This is amongst a whole host of epistles, so we're talking about near unanimity with texts that the Reformed consider canon. Where was the most disagreement? Over texts after Malachi and Esther in the OT, Bel and the Dragon in Daniel, etc. It wasn't even close to unanimous.

So moving on to when Jerome took the Old Vulgate and revised the translation into what became the standard text for most of Catholic history, he specifically noted in prefaces to each of the texts considered apocryphal that they were indeed apocryphal. Why all of this disagreement culminating in Jerome saying that? Because way, way before the Reformation, Christians looked at those texts and said things along these lines: they appear historically dubious; I find their theology incongruous with passages on similar topics in the NT; NT authors typically only allude to them as if they were just contemporary literature, never once addressing any of them as if they were theopnustos; people early in the NT had the perception that God had been silent for a long time, as if taking a long breath before the Christ event.

The problem is that their canon was never used by Christians until after the Reformation. The early Christians, for the most part, used the Septuagint, and even Athanasius confirmed it as Scripture, with many references to the books missing from modern Bibles found within his seminal works of "On the Incarnation" and "Against the Arians".

Appealing to a single figure amidst such controversy isn't helpful to your case, because if Sola Ekklesia were true then we should be able to see much more unanimity considering that there "must have been" a strong oral tradition, and surely the bishops who maintained Orthodox Nicene theology against all the heresies must have been soundly apostolic. Not to mention that several of the texts Jerome labelled apocryphal weren't even canonized until the Council of Florence.

 

[amariselle]

You're not trying to help. You slander the Orthodox Church. You slander me. You slander anyone who doesn't tow the exact same line as you.

And you don't? What do you think you have been doing throughout this thread?

The Canon is a manmade tradition that is over Scripture, and every single church in the world places manmade traditions over Scripture. Every Christian does. The difference between traditional churches and Protestants is that the former are honest with themselves about it while the latter lie to themselves about it.

The Protestant is his own authority, though in practice many protestants just go along with whatever pastor Bob says and pew surf their whole lives (don't worry, it's also an issue over on this side of the world, too). He has a whole buffet of doctrines that are somehow backed by this, that, or the other interpretation of Scripture. And as far as they are concerned, each and every one of them, no matter how contradictory, is equally valid.

Actually, it's the very reason I'm against SS, because with SS, you are your own Pope. The highest authority in your life is in the mirror. It isn't Scripture, because you choose what you take from it and how you choose to use it. Scripture doesn't control you. You use Confirmation Bias to focus only on the portions that are in line with your own pre-set ideals.

You CLAIM to be led by the Spirit. So does Joseph Smith. What makes you more right than Joseph Smith? Nothing.

The fact is that you are led by your personal PERCEPTION of what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be the Spirit. For all I know, the spirit you follow could as easily be Satan himself. I have no way to know that. Or you might be lying both to me and yourself about what you follow, which is pretty much taking us back to the original statement. Because not even YOU can know for certain that you are following the Spirit, since you are not wiser than the demons that would want to trick you into thinking exactly that, the reality is that it is your personal perception that rules. I follow the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. I stand upon that. The Church was established as that and never fell. You stand on a perception.

And no, even if Satan himself were personally deceiving you into believing you follow the Spirit, it does not mean I am saying you follow Satan intentionally. It means you follow a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Returning to my metaphor of the Body, the Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church. Without the Body, the Heart cannot function, and without the heart, the body cannot function. Protestants have a bodiless heart. Their heart has no oxygen from the Lungs of Tradition. It has no nutrients from the stomach of Tradition. It has no electrical impulses from the Brain of Tradition (the Brain being Christ Himself). They try to put it into a new body, but the bodies they try to put it in will, in the end, reject the heart transplant.

You have repeatedly judged and condemned all Protestants because they believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is to be held in higher authority than church teachings or traditions and because they are not Orthodox, as you are.

Based on what you have said throughout this thread, you do not believe Christians should gather together regardless of denomination. In fact, you have absolutely condemned all Protestant denominations and churches as a "bodiless heart." Apparently we are all lost if we are not Orthodox, and it is the Orthodox Church only that you believe we should all belong to if we desire the complete truth.

You speak against division in the church, but you have been one of the most divisive people on this thread.

It's a shame really. We should never lose sight of what matters most, Jesus and the gift of forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation that He offers to ALL who would repent and call upon His name to be saved. Traditions will not save us, only Jesus saves. Jesus and our salvation are not confined to any one denomination or church organization. There are true Christians in all denominations and in all countries and in all walks of life.

And yet you act like you are oh so holy.

Sorry, but I don't buy into hateful rhetoric. I don't buy slander. Either return to the original topic, or just leave the thread.

I humbly suggest you carefully re-read what you have written throughout this thread. Why do you think it's okay to slander others, when you rightly recognize that others should not slander you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How did I guess that the KJV Onlyist would join this battle. Not only do you have a manmade tradition, but you have the most flawed manmade tradition in the books.

Well, I am technically not a KJV-onlyist because I do use other translations. As I said before, I look at Modern Translations as a way of sifting thru the dirt so as to get to the gold that is in the KJV and the original languages (i.e. the Hebrew and the Greek). I also believe the Word of God was preserved thru out time in other languages besides the KJV. So that technically does not make me a KJV-onlyist.

I was actually giving the wrong passage, because my head has been killing me the last few days. It is I Corinthians 11:2, which the ESV properly translates, that the KJV improperly translates.

You mean you simply do not like the word "ordinances" because it does not agree with your personal belief system. Again, you can't build a doctrine out of a few words when it can also be easily read as being intrepreted as being a new teaching, too (Especially when the context is heavily in support towards favoring that fact). In fact, are not the New Testament teachings new? Are not traditions old? Whereby do you think that the New Testament teachings are traditions that were carried about from long ago? Is not "tradition" something that has been long passed down by word of mouth? Was not the spoken Word of God confirmed by the Written Word of God? (See Acts 17:11).

The fact is that God did preserve His Word. His Word is Christ. He did not promise to preserve every single bit of Scripture in any language, much less a language that hadn't been born. Most Christians that have ever lived in the history of the Church didn't have the KJV, and many of them never had a written language or the ability to read the language they spoke. God's word isn't limited to your translation of the Bible. And the moment you raise a flawed translation to the level of perfection, you create an idol. You no longer worship God alone. You worship a manmade thing alongside God, which is a violation of the first two commandments. There shall be no thing or person next to or equal to God. Nothing is as perfect as God. And that means nothing.

I remember a while ago you appeared to have gotten upset because you misunderstood what I said and threatened to contact the moderators because you think I was making an accusation against you. Now you are doing that very thing which you despise. You are attacking me personally and suggesting that I am not a real believer by the fact that I am an idolater.

Idolatry is defined for us in Exodus 20. It says not to create any image in Heaven above and or on the Earth whereby somebody would bow down to them or worship them. Today, in many religions, folks falsely bow down and kiss religious statues and paintings and have a heavy focus on religious artwork in their worship. This would be idolatry. A later translation of God's Word is simply God's Word in another language. If the evidence shows that it is indeed the Word of God compared to other translations and by the fruit that it brings, then it is indeed the true words of God. Also, if there is a translation that truly is God's Word, then how can it be an idol? Does not logic dictate that one must completey reject all translations of the Bible because none of them are perfect? For who determines which words are true or not whereby corruption from men cannot creep in? In other words, how does your belief protect against human error or corruption in God's Word?

Also, I do not worship the Bible by bowing down to it or in thinking it has any power in and of itself alone. They are merely the words of God. For example: If I sent a love letter to my wife at her work so as to show that she is extra special to me, it is very possible that she could cherish those words within that letter. She may even save the letter and read it at another time and feel touched by the words again. However, if she thought the letter was a representation of me and or that she took the letter out on romantic dinner dates (talking to the letter as if it was me) and or she tried to talk to me (in showing her love) by treating the letter as some kind of religious worship like communication device (sort of like an idol), then that would be idolatry. But merely cherishing the words of a letter (that makes you think about that person) does not mean it is idolatry, though. There is a difference.

By the way, only one error is needed to prove the KJV is not perfect, and that error would be the idea that Herod would wait for a holiday that wasn't even invented for another 200-300 years to bring out Peter, or that Luke would dare to sacrilegiously refer to a pagan holiday using the name for the most holy day of the Jewish liturgical calendar. One error proves the inerrancy argument of the KJV false,

As for the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 within the KJV:

Well, it's not a mistranslation. Easter means Passover. The word "easter" can also mean "dawn", too. The sun rises in the East. Hence, the word "East-er" for the passover celebration.

Easter (Noun):
Old English Easterdæg, from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from Proto-Germanic *austron-, "dawn

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=easter​

The following passages compare Christ to the sun rising from darkness:

• "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." (Isaiah 60:1-3)

• "But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;" (Malachi 4:2)

• "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:76-79)

• "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (2 Peter 1:19)

• "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16)

Some Christians try to avoid anything that has to do with sunrise imagery, presuming that it is pagan. Yet God in his Holy word compares Christ to the rising sun. The word, "Easter" (austra in Proto-Germanic and aster in Old Frisian; see above), with its connotation of a sunrise, pays tribute to this biblical imagery of Christ as the "Sun of righteousness". The word translated "dayspring" at Luke 1:78 is "ανατολη", which means "1) a rising (of the sun and stars); 2) the east (the direction of the sun’s rising)" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon). The Old West-Saxon version of the Gospel of Luke translates the word as "eastdæle", which is the Saxon word for "east/sunrise". Luke 1:78 in West-Saxon reads, "þurh innoþas ures godes mildheortnesse. on þam he us geneosode of eastdæle up springende;" This is another proof that the word "Easter" came from the biblical language of the Saxons.

Easter" is etymologically related to "east" (the direction) and refers to the "rising" of our Lord. This connection between the eastern direction and the resurrection makes some Christians nervous about a possible pagan influence. However, there is no reason for such concern because this connection between the eastern direction and the verb "to rise" is even found in the language in which the New Testament was written. The Greek verb "ανατελλω (anatello)" means "to rise" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon) and it is the word translated as "arise" in the above passage in 2 Peter 1:19 about Christ rising in our hearts. It is also the word used in Hebrews 7:14 which says that our Lord "sprang out of Juda". And "ανατελλω" is related to the word, "ανατολη (anatole)", which means, "the east (the direction of the sun’s rising)" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon). So there is a connection between the eastern direction and the verb "to rise" even in the language of the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament did not avoid using the verb "ανατελλω" (to rise) despite its derivation from the Greek word for "east".

The funny thing is that many Christians who oppose the use of the word "Easter" still celebrate Good Friday. Yet the word "Friday" is based on the name of a pagan goddess. The word "Friday" means "Day of Frige" - Frige being the name of a Norse goddess. "Good Friday" literally means "Good day of Frige (the goddess)". Some Christians say that Christ died on Wednesday or Thursday and rose on Saturday. Yet "Wednesday", "Thursday," and "Saturday" are also derived from the names of the pagan gods Woden, Thor and Saturnus, respectively. If one would actually like to avoid a "pagan connection", he would be wiser to avoid using the words "Friday", "Thursday", "Wednesday" and "Saturday" rather than the Christian word "Easter". Avoiding all of these words, of course, is an impossibility if we wish to communicate with others regarding the days of the week. We just have to admit that the English language is the language of a people who were once pagan and that there are many vestiges of pagan etymology in English. Also to be noted is the irony that this word "Ishtar" which some Christians wish to avoid appears to be related to "Esther", which is the name of an entire book of our Holy Bible. Esther lived in a pagan culture and was given a pagan name as with Mordecai (which is related to the pagan god Marduk). While it has been demonstrated that Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar, the Bible itself shows that God can redeem a name even if it is in fact related to Ishtar.

The following paragraphs above that are indented are taken from the following article:
​

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

but just for good measure, there's the missing 13th verse in Psalm 145, the use of Latin over a thousand years before Latin was invented to apply a name that was a known and common title for the Babylonian emperor to Satan, and many many others besides.

So I'm sorry, but you have more than one manmade tradition that stand equal to or above the Scripture.

Is there really a missing line within this verse? I don't see that at all. First, I don't see the big deal of the first part of the supposed missing line within this verse as effecting the truth of God's Word because it is expressed elsewhere in Scripture (See Psalms 33:4).

Second, the other half of the line that is supposedly missing conveys a truth that is not expressed elswhere in Scripture. For it would not be true that God is kind in all His works. Why do I say that? Because some of God's works involve Judgment, too. Jesus will return and destroy those nations that come up against Him. This will not be kind works done towards them. It will be utter destruction. The wicked will not receive a kind work or action from God in the end. So I believe this addition from Scripture is added wrongfully so as to add disinformation. For there are Christians today who think parts of the Old Testament is not what really happened because they cannot see God as executing Judgment or Wrath upon the wicked.


...

 

[sculleywr]

Terra tremuit et quievit, Dum resurgeret in judicio Deus, alleluia!

Thank you for expressing yourself with some more clarity, brother. I sincerely hope we can continue to conduct this discussion in an amicable spirit, for the glory of God.



Here's where we diverge in our understanding of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter that lists the scriptures, and various contemporary epistles describing the council: the formation of the canon affirmed an already existing authority. Bishops who could trace their ordination back to the Apostles, and held sees that were original recipients of NT epistles (e.g. Corinth and Philippi were represented), were able not only to demonstrate this significant ecumenical link but demonstrated through their own epistles how even the manner of their language about God resembled particular Apostles. There was a continuity of thought. It was these bishops who were asked what had always been accepted, and used for teaching and refuting incipient heresies.



The only bishops who hadn't had answers to that question up to that point were bishops who were not in a position to be a pillar of orthodoxy through a patriarchal see and extensive exposure to epistles which had been kept and compared, all the way back to figures like Ignatius and Polycarp.

If Scripture weren't sufficient, then how could Irenaeus refute Gnosticism so resoundingly with hardly any reference to tradition at all? If it didn't play the premier role, then how could a bishop all the way over in Lyons, Spain, remember an enormous chunk of the Bible so long before whole collections even existed, and it would be practically an eternity before anyone separated it into verses? He was mentally saturated in the scriptures. The same is true of the great apologist who preceded him and he partially modeled his work after: Justin Martyr.



The existence of a school of halakha at Jamnia isn't fiction. The Talmud does relate that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was relocated there in the first century before the destruction of the Second Temple, in order to receive permission from the Romans to form a school of halakha.

What is fictional about it is the tenuous assumption that the Jewish scriptural canon had to have been formed there before an already supposedly existing canon (take this part with a grain of salt) was debated in the 2nd century compilation of the Mishnah (e.g. Yaddaim 3:5).

And of course you're referring to the Masoretic scribes. I had expected you would want to get into this same tired issue of the Septuagint vs the Masoretic text. While I'm no instructor over you, I'm not your mentor and I'm not trying to proselytize you, I do hope I can lend you some perspective on how Reformed biblicists and theologians don't have nearly as much of a tradition of glorifying the Masoretic text as you've surely been taught to expect, and it isn't at all the sole factor (it's not even a prioritized factor by a long shot at this point, if you run in academic Reformed circles) in why we consider some texts in the Septuagint apocryphal.

Another aside at this point for perspective: modern translations tend to use the Eclectic Method, which prioritizes the study of different forms of scribal errors and the study of each passage's provenance and antiquity far over old methods so academically crude as "Masoretic text vs Septuagint" and "Alexandrian vs Byzantine text type". We're far beyond a past of gushing over this or that manuscript tradition as if it's superior and others are of hardly any value. Even versions in a whole host of other languages, like the Peshitta and Diatessaron, and also especially the Armenian translations, are prized for their contributions to our study of the manuscript traditions.

We're debating the merits of Sola Scriptura here, so it's not my intention to try and present anything near exhaustive arguments for why I prefer the Reformed canon. However it will be helpful at this juncture to demonstrate the context of our thought, and our respective views on ecclesiastical authority and how the formation occurred (regardless of who was right) are pertinent to the issue at hand. I have approached your theology on it's own terms, and have even relished in reading Orthodox literature, although the majority of it has by no means been modern, so I would appreciate it if you gave us some brotherly clemency and take an honest look at how we actually reason about our theology, not how Orthodox Christians reason about our theology.

Finally, before moving on I would like to explain that my understanding of Sola Scriptura is not nearly as hard-nosed or anachronistic as is the case with many Reformed folks today, especially amongst the laity. Heck, I even probably listen to more Christian music in older tongues within a liturgical setting that is alien to my own denomination than I do my own association's worship music! There are many things that I love about the practice of liturgy, and your worship music makes me beet red with jealousy from time to time. So suffice it to say that I believe in Reformed theology as a Freewill Baptist, but our discussions will be irrespective of what you've probably grown accustomed to from my crowd.



The canon amongst Reformed and Anabaptist groups, as opposed to the Lutherans and Anglicans, wasn't necessarily derived from a preference for the Masoretic text at all, depending on who you're looking at. This is true with Arminius, for example. Regardless, modern Reformed scholars don't think of the scriptural canon issue hardly at all on the simple terms of pitting the Septuagint against the Masoretic text.

Where did the idea of there being apocryphal texts in the Septuagint start? Well, to start with, bishops from various sees who started providing lists after Athanasius did were not consistent with one another. Only a handful said Revelation and Jude were possibly not fit for teaching and liturgy, and some others agreed that those books were fit but found Revelation difficult. This is amongst a whole host of epistles, so we're talking about near unanimity with texts that the Reformed consider canon. Where was the most disagreement? Over texts after Malachi and Esther in the OT, Bel and the Dragon in Daniel, etc. It wasn't even close to unanimous.

So moving on to when Jerome took the Old Vulgate and revised the translation into what became the standard text for most of Catholic history, he specifically noted in prefaces to each of the texts considered apocryphal that they were indeed apocryphal. Why all of this disagreement culminating in Jerome saying that? Because way, way before the Reformation, Christians looked at those texts and said things along these lines: they appear historically dubious; I find their theology incongruous with passages on similar topics in the NT; NT authors typically only allude to them as if they were just contemporary literature, never once addressing any of them as if they were theopnustos; people early in the NT had the perception that God had been silent for a long time, as if taking a long breath before the Christ event.



Appealing to a single figure amidst such controversy isn't helpful to your case, because if Sola Ekklesia were true then we should be able to see much more unanimity considering that there "must have been" a strong oral tradition, and surely the bishops who maintained Orthodox Nicene theology against all the heresies must have been soundly apostolic. Not to mention that several of the texts Jerome labelled apocryphal weren't even canonized until the Council of Florence.

You apparently missed Irenaeus's explanation of how the barbarians in Gaul held up against the heresies he described. Continuity of thought is something that the Councils had, but that doesn't mean that there weren't multiple canons around. There was also the Syriac Canon floating around, and many bishops did use it. Athanasius's canon is what we use, based on the council of Carthage that ratified its use, but saying it was what was used before Athanasius wrote it down is an assumption that isn't based in evidence. Remember that despite the acceptance of this Canon, Revelation and the letter of Peter both took a longer time to be accepted, with Revelations not being accepted in the East until well after the Schism, which is why it isn't seen in the liturgical reading cycle.

You also seem to think that I am saying the Church alone, without the Tradition it was built on, is sufficient. The Church is sufficient because of the Tradition, so Sola Ekklessia would not be what I am purporting to believe. The Church is only sufficient if it lives up to the prophecies and definition of Scripture, which is why there can only be one fully recognized Church. But it is not alone, because of its Head.