Sola Scripture isn't rational

[theseed]

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

You mean you don't think Jonah is literal? But you believe that Mary remained a virgin

 

[Servant of the Kingdom]

theseed, do you have inside info on Mary?

 

[twosid]

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

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you explain this to me and how it answers Jeffrey's question?

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

later you wrote:

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

That Jesus mentions Zechariah last gives support to the ordering of OT scripture in the day of Jesus Christ, for the prophet Urijah was killed by king Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20-23) more than a century after the martyrdom of Zechariah. King Jehoiakim was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.

But your reasoning above is not making sense to me, for I and 2 Macabees, Tobit, Judith and more were written between what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament. Judith was completed about 100 BC. Tobit was written about 280-300 BC.

The addition to Daniel, referred to as 'Bel and the Dragon', was written about 2nd century BC, while the rest of Daniel was written centuries earlier.

But I see what you are saying about the prophets....and will check on that.



Now I wrote:
So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?:
And you wrote:

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

? That doesn't make sense to me either. Tobit has antiochus dying 2 different ways in the very same book. Different locations.

The differences in the account of how Judas died can be explained. This site does it well:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm

How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down?​

Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19

• By hanging(Matthew 27:3-8) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
• By falling(Acts 1:16-19) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"

There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

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.

Seems that your main complaint is that you beleive the OT canon was in question. But the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the OT was available in Jesus' day.

This article does a good job of examining the inspiration of the Apocrypha:

http://www.probe.org/docs/apocrypha.html

And this site is good too:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers.htm

Unfortunately, the kinds of arguments you are making hurt the church in its defense of scripture, since they are so easy to debunk..

I don't believe they are easy to debunk, and you haven't debunked them at all.

I'll point one more inconsistency between the apocrypha and the OT.
Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 For thy all-powerful hand,
which created the world out of formless matter,
did not lack the means to send upon them a
multitude of bears, or bold lions,

formless matter???? Compare that to:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.Psa 33:7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses.Psa 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.Psa 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
Hbr 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

 

[twosid]

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

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you explain this to me and how it answers Jeffrey's question?

Are you planning on responding to this? If not can you say so please?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

Yes. Jesus did.


Paul said in Galatians that the gospel had been preached and delivered and could not be changed.

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[theseed]

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Which we have in Paul's letters. So its not just any traditions here, but the traditions they had been taught.

 

[theseed]

theseed, do you have inside info on Mary?

What does Mary have to do with sola scriptura

 

[FreeinChrist]

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

The context that verse is given is very important.
Someone claiming to have a message or letter from Paul had told the Thessalonians that they were alredy in the Day of the lord and distressed them.
2Th 2:2

that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

It is because of this false message that Paul concluded the letter with this:
2Th 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.
So when Paul wrote:
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.
He was referring to what he, himself, wrote to them or said when he was there with them.

Now the Pharisees had their traditions that they handed down that went beyond the Law. Jesus had this to say about their traditions:
Mat 15:5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to {his} father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given {to God,}"Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And {by this} you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.Mat 15:7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.Mat 15:9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "

 

[Rising_Suns]

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.

He was referring to what he, himself, wrote to them or said when he was there with them

Right; what he wrote down (recorded in the Bible), and what he said (not recorded in the Bible).

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

Right; what he wrote down (recorded in the Bible), and what he said (not recorded in the Bible).

Yes...but it is not a support for the way tradition is viewed by some today.

As the Pharisees added to teaching, so can NT Christians. The fake message from paul was one way that false tradition can be added.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Yes...but it is not a support for the way tradition is viewed by some today.

As the Pharisees added to teaching, so can NT Christians. The fake message from paul was one way that false tradition can be added.

Right, but the point was that not every tradition Paul taught was written down in his letters.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I believe Paul covered everything that was essential. The writer of hebrews added more. As did the other writers.

 

[II Paradox II]

Right, but the point was that not every tradition Paul taught was written down in his letters.

a few points here:

1) The argument we have with many such "apostolic traditions" that have been passed down is that we don't think they really have been passed down! For example, we recognize that the apostles probably taught that at least a few of the books of scripture were canonical, and that this teaching is extra-scriptural (because they didn't write it down in the bible itself except in one or two locations). However, when one advances a notion that for instance, the Imacculate Conception was a tradition handed down by the apostles in the same sense, we doubt the legitimacy of that claim on historical grounds because it has far less evidence for it that the canon does.

2) The notion that the scriptures are "materially sufficient", or that they contain all Christian doctrine within their pages (or at least all essential doctrine), is a common thought among the fathers of the church while the opposite view is less dominant.

3) In light of that, it isn't enough to say that Paul had other traditions outside of scripture because this material insufficiency view has problems on historical grounds as well as it doesn't establish the validity of individual traditions which still need to be vetted for legitimacy.

ken

 

[Rising_Suns]

2) The notion that the scriptures are "materially sufficient", or that they contain all Christian doctrine within their pages (or at least all essential doctrine), is a common thought among the fathers of the church while the opposite view is less dominant.

Yes, but now you are going beyond the scope of Scripture to prove your point, which is not Sola Scriptura. If you take into account the writings of the early Church fathers on Scriptural sufficiency, then you must also take into account their other writings such as their belief in Apostolic Succession, Confession, ordination, the Real Presence, Apsotolic Tradition, etc.

This topic is about the authority of the Bible alone, and my point was simply, that the Bible itself indicates that there were teachings and traditions passed down that were not recorded in writing, which suggests their could be an extra-Biblical presence of authroity. It is also worthy to note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the eclusive authority of God's word.

EDIT: I just realized what forum I was in. I apologize for debating here. sorry!

 

[II Paradox II]

Yes, but now you are going beyond the scope of Scripture to prove your point, which is not Sola Scriptura.

Sure it is. Sola scriptura as the refomers defined it (and I am confessionally reformed) did not say that their was no authority outside of scripture, just that the scriptures are the sole infallible authority for doctrine. It is a reaction to those who appealed to the custom and traditions of their churches to establish doctrine and bind the hearts of believers.

If you take into account the writings of the early Church fathers on Scriptural sufficiency, then you must also take into account their other writings such as their belief in Apostolic Succession, Confession, ordination, the Real Presence, Apsotolic Tradition, etc.

a few thoughts here:

1) I do take those into account. I spend a lot of time reading them and trying to figure out how Church history fits together.

2) The establishment of your religious authority (church, tradition, reason, scripture, etc...) is not identical to beliefs on such things as baptism and real presence. What you see as your authorities will determine how you view these other issues because it establishes where you getyour imformation about those beliefs. Ergo - this issue in particular is of paramount importance and relevence above the others you listed.

3) I would add that the equation goes both ways. I critique your view of scripture and tradition because I think it is a foreign to the dominant patristic view, and you may in turn critique my other views as being foreign to them as well.

4) I should add as well that depending on how you view the fathers views of scripture could radically affect how much their own teachings will affect your views. To the extent that you see them as authorities in their own right will determine how you interact with their views.

This topic is about the authority of the Bible alone, and my point was simply, that the Bible itself indicates that there were teachings and traditions passed down that were not recorded in writing, which suggests their could be an extra-Biblical presence of authroity.

Most Christians I think would agree with this to some degree if they thought about it (i.e... my example of the canon, or the fact that Jesus spoke other words not recorded in scripture). If that's all you claim, I don't really have a big problem with it.

Where the issue becomes contentious is when claims are made that specific teachings are apostolic traditions (such as the IC, or papal infallibility). The issue is, as always, whether supposed oral traditions from the apostles or Jesus really are such or whether they are illegitimate accretions to the faith.

ken

 

[Rising_Suns]

Most Christians I think would agree with this to some degree if they thought about it (i.e... my example of the canon, or the fact that Jesus spoke other words not recorded in scripture). If that's all you claim, I don't really have a big problem with it.

I see. So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence. In that sense, I take it you would agree with me that people should not simply point to the Bible for an answer to every question without taking into account the history, context it was written, and other forms of evidence by the Church fathers that can provide insight as to how the Bible was interpretted by the first Christians.

I just want to make sure that you agree with me that history is an important consideration when seeking to understand the true interpretation of the Bible.

Beyond this, I cannot comment, as I do not want to get into a debate. Just clarifying what you blieve.

 

[II Paradox II]

I see. So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence.

I am Reformed and act within the general bounds of that confessional tradition. To borrow a statement I made on the soteriology forum:

"The reformers were for the most part Humanists. A humanist at that time was someone who advocated the study of original documents to critique modern views. This was in distinction to the reigning method of theologizing during the day, scholasticism. The scholastic method consisted primarily of building knowledge slowly by appealing to authority then adding your own insights. You can see this by looking at the use of textbooks such as Peter Abelard's "Sentences". The scholastics would take a book such as this, which was already a commentary on the scriptures and the fathers, and add their own commentary on the commentary. What you'd get after a while is increasingly specialized and technical discussions of formal theology that found itself removed from the original sources. The Humanist movement grew as a response to this and soon found it's most fertile ground in the reformation.

For the reformers then, the perspective was that one ought to go back to the scriptures and the early fathers for one's theology, as the scholastics had encrusted the simple faith with generations of speculation. You can see this for instance, in Calvin. In his combined works, he cites fathers from 100-400 AD well over 2,000 times (scholars have compiled a complete list you can get). Many of these cites are positive or at least given the respect of a thorough examination. This is in contrast to his cites of medieval schoolmen, number in the low hundreds, many of which are treated rather more harshly. If anything, the major reformers saw the early church as a golden age of Christianity, an age eclipsed by a corrupted post-schism papacy and it's attendant theological schools."

We hold the scriptures alone to be the standard of doctrine and the revelation of God. However, we do not ignore history or secondary sources of fallible authority (such as our confessions).

In that sense, I take it you would agree with me that people should not simply point to the Bible for an answer to every question without taking into account the history, context it was written, and other forms of evidence by the Church fathers that can provide insight as to how the Bible was interpretted by the first Christians.

Yes, I would agree with that, though with stipulations. Those fathers should be read with respect, but the scriptures themselves are the final authority above any individual father or collection of them. Ultimately, they are fallible men and the scripture is God's infallible revelation.

Ultimately, the scriptures are what God uses to stregthen and teach his people. The writings of even the greatest man of the church is a shadow next to the light of the scriptures themselves.

I just want to make sure that you agree with me that history is an important consideration when seeking to understand the true interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, it is. But it is not infallible itself, nor is it to be taken at face value without testing those historical view by scripture.

Beyond this, I cannot comment, as I do not want to get into a debate. Just clarifying what you blieve.

that's fine.

ken

 

[Rising_Suns]

Thank you. I am glad to see you value history, as it would seem others have all but tossed it out the window today.

As to the general concensius of what the Church fathers believed, I suppose we will have to put it off for another discussion. May God's peace be forever with you.

 

[II Paradox II]

Thank you. I am glad to see you value history, as it would seem others have all but tossed it out the window today.

History has it's value. I think, however, that if someone is going to devote their life to studying anything, I'd much prefer it to be the scriptures rather than history. IMO - history is far more difficult to interpret than the scriptures ever could be. The sheer amount of information to be considered is so massive it's hard to know where to begin even on the most narrow and simple subjects.

As to the general concensius of what the Church fathers believed, I suppose we will have to put it off for another discussion. May God's peace be forever with you.

I'm sure it will come up again.

have a good day...

ken