Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I realize the OT's prophesied of the Messiah.
My point is this:
1) Sola scriptura relies on the assertion that Scripture is sufficient for all things necessary for salvation.
2) People are claiming the Bereans are an example of sola-scriptura
3) The only Scriptures the Bereans had was the OT
4) If 1, 2, and 3 are correct -- that means that the OT scriptures in themselves are sufficient for all things necessary for salvation, and the testimony of Paul as to the person of Jesus Christ having fulfilled those is not essential or necessary for the Bereans.
Either
1) The OT Scriptures are sufficient for salvation rendering the NT unnecessary
OR
2) The Bereans also required information outside of Scripture -- the oral information Paul provides about the person of Jesus Christ and how this person fulfilled the Scriptures (later recorded in the NT). By accepting the oral testimony of Paul (information not found in Scripture), they can't be seen as an example of sola-scriptura at all.
In order for what you say to be true (that searched the scriptures daily means the same thing as Sola Scriptura), you need to provide evidence that the texts Sola Scriptura refers to are the same texts that were being searched in Acts 17:11.
So by all means show us what scriptures those were that they were searching through in Acts 17:11. Did those scriptures include Baruch? 1 Enoch? The Community Rule? Herodotus? Plato? Esther? Were their scriptures Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? Latin? A combination? If a combination, which ones were which?
What it means is that scripture itself doesn't point to one conclusion.
The Bereans had scripture before Paul, and they were Jews. They read the same scripture then in light of Paul's oral teachings and found that scripture was also able to be interpreted in a totally different way - and they converted to Christianity.
Christianity and Judaism - two different religions can find truth in the same scripture and come to two totally different conclusions.
Saying one should rely only on scripture is therefore pointless. It was Paul's understanding (tradition) that tipped scripture for the Bereans.
This is why the same scripture didn't convnice some Thessalonians.
Scripture can be read by 100,000 different Protestants and they can come to 100,000 different interpretations!
And yet in Acts 15 the council decided that circumcision was no longer valid - a conclusion not based on scripture!
That's what tradition is!You fail. Pauls understanding was not based on Tradition, if it was he would not be teaching Jesus. His understanding was based on the Holy Spirit and Jesus (The Word).
No. He had the basis of a new understanding - the start of our tradition, else he'd still be a Jew.Since it went against tradition, he instructed them to search the scriptures!
That's what does happen!Also your math is not so good either. 100,000 readers would not equal 100,000 interpretations. The Bible would need to be really vague in order for that to happen.
Based on Pauls testimony and regarding his dream, yes.
Again they went against tradition in favor of direct revelation from a true apostle.
If they went with tradition, they would have been snipped.
That's what tradition is!
No. He had the basis of a new understanding - the start of our tradition, else he'd still be a Jew.
That's what does happen!
Show me otherwise
Based on Pauls testimony and regarding his dream, yes.
Again they went against tradition in favor of direct revelation from a true apostle.
If they went with tradition, they would have been snipped.
I'm glad your starting to see traditions weakness, there is hope for you?
Could it be the Bereans checked the basics than and they were not using Scripture alone because Paul had to tell them more than the basics but now with the canon finished as it were could be considered sufficient?
Could it be the Bereans checked the basics than and they were not using Scripture alone because Paul had to tell them more than the basics but now with the canon finished as it were could be considered sufficient?
Did the Bereans understand from OT scripture that circumcision was no longer valid?
Actually it's Peter who has the direct revelation from God regarding in the form of a vision regarding the Gentiles. It is his testimony that sways James from his insistence of requiring circumcision in Acts 15 -- Paul doesn't get anywhere with him.
And circumcision is far from a mere tradition -- we see God give it to Abraham in Genesis 17 with the command that all his descendants are to be circumcised -- an everlasting covenant. This is a command of God -- how can you equate it with tradition?
Appeal to incredulity.Your kidding right?
I have no problem with Christians following a different tradition than the Jews. We do so all the time, such as with eating pork, Sunday worship, etc.Where to begin.
So new tradition that goes against tradition is still tradition according to you?
It's evidenced in the number of Protestant groups (including all those claiming not to be part of any church)As soon as you show me the proof of your ridiculous statement that 100,000 people = 100,000 denominations lol I will show you actual university studies.
I like you avatar, it fits you
Or another way to view this....
How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?
How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem?
How did the Bereans know the person Jesus Christ did not see decay?
Etc.
The OT merely point to a person who would come.
They do not identify Jesus of Nazareth as that person. The Bereans accept from oral tradition (Paul) that Jesus of Nazareth was
1)born of a virgin
2) born in Bethlehem
3) did not see decay.
Which promptly removes them fromt he world of sola-scriptura and squarely into the world of scripture AND tradition.
If the Bereans understood that circumcision was no longer necessary, I take it they were different to that group of new Christians who made it an issue in Acts 15
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?