Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

LLOJ, discussing that topic would be off-topic from this thread, so....another time, another thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ, discussing that topic would be off-topic from this thread, so....another time, another thread.

I believe that is on topic.
Did the RCC come up with all of that from the authority of the Bible or men?

Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

1 Corinthians 7:23 Of value/honor ye are purchased,
no be ye becoming! bond-servents of men.
[Hosea 13:14/Reve 5:9]

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I believe that is on topic.
Did the RCC come up with all of that from the authority of the Bible or men?

Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

1 Corinthians 7:23 Of value/honor ye are purchased, no be ye becoming! bond-servents of men.
[Hosea 13:14/Reve 5:9]

OK then.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OK then.

This one member actually had a good post on that thread where he quoted a favorite verse of mine.
[I redid the translation of it tho ]

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-86/#post43646993

<snip>
John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him.
And shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation
[Reve 6:6/14:8]

So you see LLoJ...the RCC or any "business" that is involved in day to day ops certainly can't allow ALL MEN to believe in Him...the only ones who are allowed to believe are those who ADHERE to their particular organizations DOCTRINE...because THAT is the FORCE they use to keep their CUSTOMERS...and if you don't buy into ANY "churches" system...they will DAMN YOU TO BURN ALIVE.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Are all the threads similar to that one particular topic closed?! And if so, why?!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are all the threads similar to that one particular topic closed?! And if so, why?!

Probably because of too many reports being generated....perhaps for flaming? Sad, but true

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

This one member actually had a good post on that thread where he quoted a favorite verse of mine.
[I redid the translation of it tho ]

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-86/#post43646993

Or there's this new post in that particular thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075-2/#post57047252.

"I am glad you came here to get a balanced opinion. All too often Protestants come very close to the truth but end up
in the East instead. It is tragic because they come so close to the True Church but end up in the Greco-Slavic schism."

I think it's rather ironic (and humorous) to say he's getting a balanced opinion. LOL

 

[Standing Up]

It's one of his pet theories; that the Bible contains only deacons and priest-bishops, and that Clement supports this.

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit to be http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xlii.html?highlight=bishop,deacon#highlightbishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops183183 Or, “overseers.” in righteousness, and their deacons184184 Or, “servants.” in faith.”185185 Isa. lx. 17, Sept.; but the text is here altered by Clement. The LXX. have “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness.”
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Nothing about firstfruits of priests.

Guide: We can also see Clement referring to scripture and tradition-tied-to apostles.

 

[FredVB]

In fact every church there is has traditions to go by, it is though more noted in some churches than others. If a tradition is not in fact working something which is immoral, there is not anything inherently wrong with having the tradition. It would need to be remembered on the other hand that what the Bible says has priority, texts in context, as this is the word of Yahweh God, and though it is often not observed, traditions should not be elevated over that authority which preceded them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I
Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception


-Infallability of the Pope
-Papal supremacy
-Immaculate coneption
-purgatory
Errors:
-Vatican I and II(not the councells but their decisions....although II was worse than I)
-indulgencies
-crusades
-Vatican City.... (never should have been a "seperate state"but goes hand in hand with the Papal supreority)

Yup. There are DOGMAS (binding teaching of the very highest level of importance and certainty) coming directly from CLEAR infallible, Apostolic Tradition - that the EO and RC and OO all dispute, inspite of each having Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and having been founded by Jesus and being promised they would not err or teach wrongly.

The problem is this: There is no objective, knowable, corpus of "Tradition" - from the Apostles or any other. EVERY SINGLE WORD we have from the Apostles is found..... you know where: objectively, knowably, undeniably, in black and white. Oh, and it's the oldest Tradition, too ("trumping" all later Tradition, insists our Orthodox friends). A sound rule needs to be as objective as possible, as knowable by all and alterable by none as possible. And it needs to be as broadly embraced as possible. What each "sees" in the phantom "Tradition" of itself seems problematic

Why Scripture?

In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.

Pax



- Josiah

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Or there's this new post in that particular thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075-2/#post57047252.

"I am glad you came here to get a balanced opinion. All too often Protestants come very close to the truth but end up
in the East instead. It is tragic because they come so close to the True Church but end up in the Greco-Slavic schism."

I think it's rather ironic (and humorous) to say he's getting a balanced opinion. LOL

Well, my patron saint W. Tyndale wasn't too fond of the RCC, and like Luther, he didn't say anything deragatory against the Greek EOC

http://www.christianforums.com/t7545789/#post57048213
One of the most profound verses in the Bible.

NKJV) Luke 9:62 But Jesus said to him, "no one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

.........A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, "We are better to be without God&#8217;s laws than the Pope&#8217;s".

Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, "I defy the Pope and all his laws.
If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!"

 

[Dorothea]

No, is God. He is perfectly capable to preserving His revelation.



No, God is responsible. The church merely discovered what God had already decreed.

I don't know if "discovered" is the right word, but maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I believe God revealed His Truth to the Church and it was created by Him.

 

[Dorothea]

No, I read the bible that God picked. After all, God is omniscient.

the NT or the OT? The OT that Christ used was the Septuagint - which had all of those extra books that Luther threw out.

 

[Hentenza]

the NT or the OT? The OT that Christ used was the Septuagint - which had all of those extra books that Luther threw out.

Jesus never quoted form the apocrypha. Secondly, apocryphal books like Esdras, the additions to Esther, Baruch, 2-4 Maccabees, and the Song of the Three Children were never written in Hebrew but only existed in the Greek version. The others were written in Hebrew and circulated forming the section of the Hagiographa. The problem is that these books never attained a position of authority and were eventually fully rejected in the Hebrew Bible.

Luther never threw them away because they were never part of it to begin with. I know that your church uses them and I have read them and they are an interesting read but they are not inspired text.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't know if "discovered" is the right word, but maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I believe God revealed His Truth to the Church and it was created by Him.

lol You had to put in the plug for 'tha' church.

Yes, it works that way also since God uses whom He pleases to do His will.

 

[Dorothea]

Jesus never quoted form the apocrypha. Secondly, apocryphal books like Esdras, the additions to Esther, Baruch, 2-4 Maccabees, and the Song of the Three Children were never written in Hebrew but only existed in the Greek version. The others were written in Hebrew and circulated forming the section of the Hagiographa. The problem is that these books never attained a position of authority and were eventually fully rejected in the Hebrew Bible.

Luther never threw them away because they were never part of it to begin with. I know that your church uses them and I have read them and they are an interesting read but they are not inspired text.

I'm working on looking over my bible and following what you're saying so bear with me, Henry. I'm no Einstein. I have a question about what you said about these OT books that were never written in Hebrew but only existed in Greek. I'm having a hard time understanding it because they way I understand where the OT came from and how it was translated, it was all in Hebrew first, not Greek. It was translated into Greek - the Septuagint - by the 70 men - and that was about 200 years before Christ came to this earth. So, I am confused how OT could've been in Greek only without there having been a Hebrew text first because we all know the OT came from the Jews. Can you help me out, please?

I'm also confused when you said they were never a part of the OT to begin with? Where did they come from then? I'm not sure I'm following you at all. The OT was translated into Greek because even the Jews at that time were speaking Greek because it was the "universal" language by that time. So, when they translated the OT before Christ, are you saying, they made up OT books from thin air? Totally lost here.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Jesus never quoted form the apocrypha. Secondly, apocryphal books like Esdras, the additions to Esther, Baruch, 2-4 Maccabees, and the Song of the Three Children were never written in Hebrew but only existed in the Greek version. The others were written in Hebrew and circulated forming the section of the Hagiographa. The problem is that these books never attained a position of authority and were eventually fully rejected in the Hebrew Bible.

Luther never threw them away because they were never part of it to begin with. I know that your church uses them and I have read them and they are an interesting read but they are not inspired text.

Ah, sleight of hand. Jesus quoted from the septuagint translation, which included the apocrypha. By the time the apocrypha was penned, many jews were speaking greek, which is why the septuagint was commissioned. Therefore, just because they weren't originally written in greek says nothing regarding their inspiration. Nowhere does it say that 'all scripture must be written in hebrew'. If that was the case, the NT would be out.

You say they never attained a position of authority, yet they were included in with the rest of scripture. They were rejected in the 9th century by the masoretes, yes, who were blatantly anti-christian.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

the NT or the OT? The OT that Christ used was the Septuagint - which had all of those extra books that Luther threw out.

Did the book of Reve also use the LXX/Sept.

For example, the song of Moses is mentioned in Reve 15 which is quoting from Exodus 15 [coincidentally, using the same chatp #s]. Thoughts?

Exodus 15:1 Then Mosheh is singing and sons of Yisra'el the song, this to YHWH.
And they are saying to say of "I shall sing to YHWH that to exalt He exalts. Horse and one riding of him He heaved into sea [Reve 15:3]

Reve 15:3 And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God
and the Song of the Lambkin saying "great and marvelous the Works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty. Just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the saints" [*ages/*nations].


THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament. You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That&#8217;s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation.
That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited. How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

 

[laconicstudent]

Jesus never quoted form the apocrypha. Secondly, apocryphal books like Esdras, the additions to Esther, Baruch, 2-4 Maccabees, and the Song of the Three Children were never written in Hebrew but only existed in the Greek version. The others were written in Hebrew and circulated forming the section of the Hagiographa. The problem is that these books never attained a position of authority and were eventually fully rejected in the Hebrew Bible.

Luther never threw them away because they were never part of it to begin with. I know that your church uses them and I have read them and they are an interesting read but they are not inspired text.

*bored tone* Jesus didn't quote Song of Solomon either. And who cares about whether or not they were rejected by the Jews? Jews /= Christians.

 

[Dorothea]

Ah, sleight of hand. Jesus quoted from the septuagint translation, which included the apocrypha. By the time the apocrypha was penned, many jews were speaking greek, which is why the septuagint was commissioned. Therefore, just because they weren't originally written in greek says nothing regarding their inspiration. Nowhere does it say that 'all scripture must be written in hebrew'. If that was the case, the NT would be out.

You say they never attained a position of authority, yet they were included in with the rest of scripture. They were rejected in the 9th century by the masoretes, yes, who were blatantly anti-christian.

Yes, this is my understanding. The Jewish authorities that came together to "edit" for lack of a better word, the OT, they did not keep those books originally kept their by their former Jewish authorities because there were too explicit descriptions of Christ and also how the Mother of God was explained in there as well, is what I've read on this and heard.