Sola Scripture isn't rational

thereselittleflower · May 19, 2004

I've decided to remove the link as it is too anti-catholic and I don't find that as we get to later centuries it is very trustworthy in some of its 'facts'.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv6.htm

1. EARLY VERSIONS

Ungers Bible Dictionary says, "There were portions of the Bible, and possibly the entire work, rendered into the English vernacular very early in the history of the language. Gildas states that 'When the English martyrs gave up their lives in the 4th century, all the copies of the Holy Scriptures which could be found were burned in the street."

Happy reading!

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower · May 19, 2004

edit for double post!

Peace in Him!

theseed · May 19, 2004

We must also keep in mind that modern English period does not start until the 1600's, so older English versions would be in Middle English or Old English

thereselittleflower · May 19, 2004

twosid . . I forgot to memtion . . the last link I gave you is from a very pro-protestant, very anti-catholic view point . . so, please take the anti-catholic remarks and sentiments in it with a grain of salt. (and no one here in this forum can fault me with only providing Catholic links . . )

I just wanted to show that even an anti-Catholic site at least recognizes that possibly the entire bible was translated into Old English . . by the Catholics no less.

Peace in Him!

II Paradox II · May 19, 2004

twosid . . I forgot to memtion . . the last link I gave you is from a very pro-protestant, very anti-catholic view point . . so, please take the anti-catholic remarks and sentiments in it with a grain of salt. (and no one here in this forum can fault me with only providing Catholic links . . )

heh... I actually used to know several people who go to the church that made that website. I learned some of my first bits of theology by hanging out with a guy who argued with them for almost 3 years over calvinism and KJV-onlyism. The guys I knew were pretty nice but they definitely had it in for Calvin and the rest of of the reformed (they didn't particularly like Lutherans, Catholics, non-seperated baptists or many others either!)

I just wanted to show that even an anti-Catholic site at least recognizes that possibly the entire bible was translated into Old English . . by the Catholics no less.

It seems to me that much of the confusion is over the fact that many laymen don't distinguish between the first full translation we know of and partial translations we know of. I saw that particular mistake several times. Unfortunately, there are also a number of times when polemic considerations probably came into view as well... oh well...

ken

bleechers · May 19, 2004

The scriptures are able to make even a child "wise unto salvation." (2 Tim 3:15)
They are what even the Apsotle Paul was checked against (Acts 17:11).
They are sufficient for correction and for a man to be perfect. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
They are able to keep a young man pure. (Ps 119)
They are able to sanctify. (John 17:17)
They bring people to saving faith. (Rom 10:17)
They testify of Him (John 5:39)
They are superior to tradition (Matt 15:13)
They are the test of all doctrine. (Acts 17:11)
They contain the final gospel, never to be added to. (Gal 1:6-12)
They are superior to Peter, Paul and even angels. (Gal 1:6-12)
They are consistent from Genesis to Revelation. (2 Peter 1:20)
They are powerful, able to expose the soul. (Hebrews 4:12)
They are the sword of the Spirit. (Eph 6:17)
They cannot be bound. (2 Tim 2:9)
They can make one born-again. (1 Peter 1:23)
They must be fulfilled (Mark 14:49)

They all we need for life and godliness. We live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God!

Adam, Abel, Noah, Job, Jonah and Daniel are all real people... they lived when and as long as the Bible says they did... Matthew wrote Matthew... it contains no error, scientific, historical or otherwise... no matter what any commission says... they are sufficient to counsel... no matter what Jim Dobson says...

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

FreeinChrist · May 19, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
I think we need to clarify what sola scriptura really means. When we claim that scripture is our only guide to faith and practice (a common Free Church Protestant formula) I don't think most of us really mean we disregard everything else, but that we compare everything to scripture, and let scripture prevail in every conflict.

We have many traditions. Sola Scriptura is itself a tradition. We also rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, working in us and in our brothers and sisters. (At least the Anabaptists and Quakers teach this.) But anything anyone claims to have received from the Holy Spirit is tested, and rejected if it goes against scripture.

This is the principle of sola scriptura in the Reformation. We do not have to reject all traditions. We reject only those that go against scripture, and we moderate others to bring them into conformity with scriptures.

I believe this nicely describes the view of Sola Scriptura in the churches I have attended.

ZeroTX · May 19, 2004

twosid said:
Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior?

This is a ridiculous and untrue claim made by certain uninformed Catholics, usually on very poorly argued apologetics websites.

The Canon of the Bible didn't include the Apocryphal books UNTIL the Reformation. Before this, the Bible that we Protestants use, was indeed the Canon.

The Catholics themselves refer to the Apocryphal books as the Deuterocanonicals, which means SECOND Canon.

Do a little reading outside Catholic websites.

Here's some information on reasons why the Apocrypha is not considered canonical:

http://nc.essortment.com/whatapocrypha_rgcf.htm

-Michael

isshinwhat · May 20, 2004

The Canon of the Bible didn't include the Apocryphal books UNTIL the Reformation.

Please do not take this as argumentative, but the following are the relevant portions of the Synods which are looked to as proclaiming the Canonicity of the Bible, deuterocanon included, and which date from 382 A.D. at the earliest.

God Bless,

Neal

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

FreeinChrist · May 20, 2004

The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concludes his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel: Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come... (Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17). The implication of Malachis prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John. This excludes the apocryphal writings.

Josephus did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical.

Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?

Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.

And check this:
Wisdom of Soloman 8:
19 As a child I was naturally gifted,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
20 or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.

Preexistence of the soul?

seebs · May 20, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
To me its totally rational, the bible is either your final authority or it is not.

Well, yeah. Likewise, either your cat is your final authority or it is not; the language allows us to bifurcate truth values that way.

For me, God is the final authority. Therefore, nothing other than God can be the final authority, and that includes the Bible, which is at most a penultimate authority.

Of course, one can say "well, since the Bible is what God said to us, it's the same as God", but it isn't quite that simple. If two people disagree on what the Bible says, how shall I determine which one I trust? Both may be able to argue persuasively from the Bible... I end up needing some other source of information to interpret the Bible. That's where it gets fun!

JeffreyLloyd · May 20, 2004

So by your logic does this mean the book of Jonah is not true because it tells of an absurd story of a guy living in a whale for a few days?

Just wondering?

FreeinChrist said:
The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concludes his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel: Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come... (Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17). The implication of Malachis prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John. This excludes the apocryphal writings.

Josephus did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical.

Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?

Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.

And check this:
Wisdom of Soloman 8:
19 As a child I was naturally gifted,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
20 or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.

Preexistence of the soul?

bleechers · May 20, 2004

So by your logic does this mean the book of Jonah is not true because it tells of an absurd story of a guy living in a whale for a few days?

A. Are you debating? See Rules.

B. Jesus validates the authenticity of Jonah. Period.

C. A certain Commission does not validate the literal interpretation of Jonah.

D. I'll go with Jesus.

E. See Rules.

eldermike · May 20, 2004

The bible tells us that God gives some the gift of teaching. He also holds them to a higher standard. The fact that there are false teachers is also promised and it's simply part of this fallen world.

The idea that biblical clarity is in the hands of man is as far from biblical as one can get. Teachers are to be tested with scripture itself. You are to show YOURSELF approved by YOUR study of scripture. If you hear something that sounds wrong to you, doesn't measure up to your study of scripture, then you may be hearing a false teacher. But, there is only one defense from false teaching, and it's not a man made defense, it's YOU and your relationship with Christ and your close and constant prayer life, and personal study of the bible. If you hand over this important issue of your Spiritual life to an organization you are trusting in yours and other's intellect in a fallen world.

There is good reason for trusting the bible. It's actually the same reason others trust institution's. We can't be trusted to ascend to the truth, so it was given to us. (This simple truth is revealed by several posters in this thread, all coming from different directions, but identifying the same issue.)
To give this away is giving up. To make arguments that are essentially "I don't get it, so it must be that you also don't get it" is proof that our pride and trust in our personal abilities and intellect has been placed above trust in God. The fact is.....some DO get it!!!! Your not hearing them is your problem, it's not evidence of a religious process problem, it's evidence of pride and the cries of those in bondage. It's the same response as the slaves in John 8 who claimed Abraham, but did not know they were trying to teach God Himself about religion.

Eldermike

Servant of the Kingdom · May 20, 2004

bleechers said:
A. Are you debating? See Rules.

B. Jesus validates the authenticity of Jonah. Period.

bleechers, Jesus used parables so often that the very 12 had trouble understanding him quite often. I find both the sapiential and historical interpration compatible with Jesus words. I will find truth in heaven, I guess
.

eldermike · May 20, 2004

bleechers, Jesus used parables so often that the very 12 had trouble understanding him quite often. I find both the sapiential and historical interpration compatible with Jesus words. I will find truth in heaven, I guess

.

When Jesus said "It is like" we know it's a parable. Beyond that we have only our reasons for thinking such. It can even sound reasonable but the questions is: If Jesus told us He was using a parable, every time He did so, why did He leave that part out when He told us about Jonah?

Mike

Crazy Liz · May 20, 2004

FreeinChrist said:
The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.

I have never before heard this argument that Jesus defined the canon in Matthew 23:35. You might be able to defend your argument if you can show that any of the books in dispute record the murder of a prophet by his/her own people.

The canon of the Tanach was settled after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There is plenty of evidence (particularly the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) that before that there was considerable diversity in OT manuscripts. Without the Temple to unite Jews, attention was paid to uniting them around a standardized canon of scripture. Of course, by this time the Pharisaical rabbis already had an interest in seeing to it that their own canon did not support the rival Christian movement.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

We can see by the diversity of the early lists that the issue was not settled at this time.

The Eastern Orthodox have for a very long time considered these books valuable, and suitable for reading in church on some occasions, but not as high as the OT and the NT. They also, like many Christians, hold the four gospels in special respect within all of scripture.

Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?

This argument is dangerous, as it also undermines the NT:

Matthew 27:3-8 said:
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:15-19 said:
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall and his intestines spill out? Did Judas buy the Field of Blood, or did the priests?

Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.

So Tobit isn't excluded by your earlier argument that only writings from before the time of Malachi (or Zachariah) can be OT scripture.

An extreme view of sola scriptura and an extreme view of biblical inerrancy are very difficult to defend. The arguments used to discredit other books can be used to discredit scriptures, as well. (People who live in glass houses, yo know... ) You yourself rely on extrabiblical tradition to decide which books are and which are not canonical. The Bible is not self-proving.

This does not mean that we should not hold scripture in highest respect and use it as a measure for anything and everything else claimed to have been revealed by God or claimed to be a godly or ungodly practice. Christians have always done this. This practice is strongly supported by both scripture and tradition.

Unfortunately, the kinds of arguments you are making hurt the church in its defense of scripture, since they are so easy to debunk. Keep doing your research and come up with some better ones.

JeffreyLloyd · May 20, 2004

eldermike said:
When Jesus said "It is like" we know it's a parable. Beyond that we have only our reasons for thinking such. It can even sound reasonable but the questions is: If Jesus told us He was using a parable, every time He did so, why did He leave that part out when He told us about Jonah?

Mike

Based on that, how would you interpret John 6: 53-55 ?

eldermike · May 20, 2004

Based on that, how would you interpret John 6: 53-55 ?

By reading on to 63. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

bleechers · May 20, 2004

For my Baptist friends:

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

People are not metaphors. When Jesus said "I am the door" He no more meant He was a piece if wood than He meant He was flour and water when when He said "I am the bread of Life."

John 6:66-69
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Note: not "Lord give us this flesh and blood now! How long do we have to wait around?" No. he knew that Jesus had the "words" of eternal life. For, as eldermike alread noted, Jesus said "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

v58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Also, if He meant that by doing this ONCE that one had eternal life, it is consistent with salvation by faith as taught everywhere else by Christ and most certainly by Paul. "Eternal life" is not an incremental idea.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

These are real people. Jesus is greater than "the prophet". It would not make sense to say He was greater than "the imaginary figure".

Sola Scripture isn't rational

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Oracle of the Obvious

Christ Our Passover!

CF Advisory team

Active Member

Pro Deo et Patria

CF Advisory team

God Made Me A Skeptic

Ave Maria, Gratia plena!

Christ Our Passover!

Pray

Here to serve God and you

Pray

Well-Known Member

Ave Maria, Gratia plena!

Pray

Christ Our Passover!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency