St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Rick Otto]

This thread has strayed a very long way away from The Acts of the Apostles chapter 17.

Your sense of distance has been institutionalized.

 

[sculleywr]

My "evidence" is in the texts I post -- highlighted, colored, underlined etc.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Your solution is to ignore every detail in the text - as if this is "compelling".

Another example of "evidence" in the actual post --

The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

Your solution is to ignore every detail in the text - as if this is "compelling".

I am more than happy to go with scripture on the point demonstrated since your only solution appears to be ignoring those scripture details -- there is no reason for me to change on that point.




Why is that a "problem" since the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine" is not in the form "There is no such thing as tradition".




The Hebrew OT was produced by the Hebrews -- not by the Catholics. None of them were "waiting 700 years for Catholics to show up and tell them what to read" as we all know.

Even Josephus admits that the Hebrew Bible has canonized - fixed - nothing at all added to it - for 400 years prior to the time of Christ.

History is not deleted simply because someone wants to use "large font" to ignore it.


Nobody in the NT or OT said "hey! we need to wait a few centuries before we know what scripture even is".

Hence in Luke 24 "in ALL of scriptures" is a term undisputed by the first century readers.
Hence in Acts 17:11 "Searched the scriptures" is a term - undisputed by the first century readers.

the point remains.

History is not deleted simply because it is inconvenient to you. The canon you use was formed by Jews 500 years after Christ. The canon I use was formed by the Essenes in the time just around 40 years prior to Christ's birth.

Now, if you can produce a list of the books of the Old Testament older than the Septuagint's list, please do. Otherwise, you have nothing. No evidence

Also, the "evidence" you PERCEIVE in the text is only there as a result of your personal bias. Remove the bias and it isn't there. No logical person would read that and see the Scripture replacing Tradition. The true problem is that they were replacing the Tradition of God with the traditions of men. There are two Traditions in Scripture, Apostolic and manmade. The Apostolic Tradition is commanded in II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:8, and commended in I Corinthians 11:2

 

[sculleywr]

Your redefinition is evasion.

We aren't redefining. We're sticking with the Scriptures. There is no death in Christ. Besides that, praying to the deceased is not rejected. Summoning them is.

 

[Rick Otto]

We aren't redefining. We're sticking with the Scriptures. There is no death in Christ. Besides that, praying to the deceased is not rejected. Summoning them is.

Redefinition.

 

[sculleywr]

Redefinition.

Just because you will it doesn't make it actual. Engage the post or be silent. Repeating your argument without evidence is not an argument.

 

[Wgw]

Your redefinition is evasion.

No, it's not.

 

[BobRyan]

We aren't redefining. We're sticking with the Scriptures. There is no death in Christ. Besides that, praying to the deceased is not rejected. Summoning them is.

First of all - I thought the EO did not pray to the dead. Did I get that wrong?

Sticking with scripture by not quoting it?? that is not "sola scriptura" testing of anything.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[Rick Otto]

No, it's not.

LOL! props for sense of humor.

 

[sculleywr]

Well that may be - as long as you agree that turning the point of "sola scriptura" testing of Paul in Acts 17:11 is in no way related to how the OT Hebrew canon was fixed and unchanged for 400 years before Christ thus the term "scriptures" in Acts 17:11 testing of Paul is "undisputed" by the first century readers of Acts.

Same as we see in the "All of scriptures" of Luke 24.

Be that as it may -- it is shown how Paul's teaching in Gal 1:6-9 relies on the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11 - where Paul himself is being tested.

Not only are they not relevant, they have no archaeological evidence. They are contrary to what historians know about the formation of the canon. There were several canons at the time of Christ. one was just the Torah, one was the Hebrew text, though there is no list of these books from the time of Christ, and the last was the Septuagint, which the majority of Jews and Christians used.

 

[sculleywr]

First of all - I thought the EO did not pray to the dead. Did I get that wrong?

Sticking with scripture by not quoting it?? that is not "sola scriptura" testing of anything.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

One, I'm not required to directly quote Scripture and give chapter and verse to be quoting Scripture. By saying there is no death in Christ, we are not referring to physical death. We are using the definition of death used in Genesis, when God says "you shall surely die". It is a spiritual death that is not in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Well that may be - as long as you agree that turning the point of "sola scriptura" testing of Paul in Acts 17:11 is in no way related to how the OT Hebrew canon was fixed and unchanged for 400 years before Christ thus the term "scriptures" in Acts 17:11 testing of Paul is "undisputed" by the first century readers of Acts.

Same as we see in the "All of scriptures" of Luke 24.

Be that as it may -- it is shown how Paul's teaching in Gal 1:6-9 relies on the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11 - where Paul himself is being tested.

Not only are they not relevant, they have no archaeological evidence. They are contrary to what historians know about the formation of the canon. There were several canons at the time of Christ. one was just the Torah, one was the Hebrew text, though there is no list of these books from the time of Christ, and the last was the Septuagint, which the majority of Jews and Christians used.

So then the Jews and Josephus in the first century knew nothing about the Hebrew OT - used in the first century - only the guys coming along 1800 years later know anything about it? really?

Well you have free will - choose what you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

New
BobRyan said: ↑
First of all - I thought the EO did not pray to the dead. Did I get that wrong?

Sticking with scripture by not quoting it?? that is not "sola scriptura" testing of anything.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

One, I'm not required to directly quote Scripture and give chapter and verse to be quoting Scripture.

Is that because you do not wish to make a compelling argument to support your speculation and suggestions about the 1 Thess 4 "dead in Christ" not existing??

By saying there is no death in Christ, we are not referring to physical death. We are using the definition of death used in Genesis, when God says "you shall surely die". It is a spiritual death that is not in Christ.

I am fine with the John 11 term "even though he is dead - yet will he live" - but that is not where we find the term "the Dead in Christ" in the Bible. In the actual Bible - we find it in 1Thess 4.

What we do not find in all of scripture is the term "the alive in Christ" used to describe those who are deceased.

 

[sculleywr]

So then the Jews and Josephus in the first century knew nothing about the Hebrew OT - used in the first century - only the guys coming along 1800 years later know anything about it? really?

Well you have free will - choose what you wish.

We also have the Essenes, the first century Christians, and nearly EVERY CHRISTIAN FROM THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES using the Septuagint. Josephus and Jerome, that's ALL you have? You have no compiled lists? You won't give the citations as to when and where Josephus was speaking about the canon? I have given the location of the use of the Septuagint by referencing the various authors and texts that quoted it, including Athanasius in "De Incarnation", John Chrystostom in his collected homilies, and others.

So what? Only the people from 500 years later knew what belonged in the Old Testament? That's what you said. The Masoretes are the ones who compiled your list based on a fake rule that isn't Scripturally based.

 

[sculleywr]

New
BobRyan said: ↑
First of all - I thought the EO did not pray to the dead. Did I get that wrong?

Sticking with scripture by not quoting it?? that is not "sola scriptura" testing of anything.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.



Is that because you do not wish to make a compelling argument to support your speculation and suggestions about the 1 Thess 4 "dead in Christ" not existing??



I am fine with the John 11 term "even though he is dead - yet will he live" - but that is not where we find the term "the Dead in Christ" in the Bible. In the actual Bible - we find it in 1Thess 4.

What we do not find in all of scripture is the term "the alive in Christ" used to describe those who are deceased.

And you're mixing terms. You use death as though it is complete. We reject the complete death of man, as it is a rejection of salvation itself. The term "dead" in that part refers only to physical death, whereas none are spiritually dead in Christ. It would be impossible to be present with the Lord and dead spiritually. And there is nothing that can separate those who are in Christ, regardless of physical status.

 

[BobRyan]

having no text should not be pretext for avoiding both Bible text and context.

When I point to the actual content of 1Thess 4 supporting the Biblical teaching on the "dead in Christ" I am not arguing that the "dead in Christ" do not exist -- rather they do exist - and they exist in the state that 1Thess 4 describes.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[sculleywr]

having no text should not be pretext for avoiding both Bible text and context.

When I point to the actual content of 1Thess 4 supporting the Biblical teaching on the "dead in Christ" I am not arguing that the "dead in Christ" do not exist -- rather they do exist - and they exist in the state that 1Thess 4 describes.

Is 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?

1 Thess 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Scripture posts no opinion on the Old Testament Canon. Therefore there is no text needed to disprove your wild theories about the Old Testament Canon which are proved by a total of zero sources, as you have no list contemporary to Christ, no refutation of the existence of the Septuagint at the time of Christ, and no rebuttal against the swarms of Christians who quoted the Septuagint in the first three centuries after Christ. In fact, you have no rebuttal also against the accusation that your canon was compiled in the 5th century AD by the Masoretes, for whom your canon was named!

You ever wonder why it is called the Masoretic canon, and not the Hebrew Canon? Because it was named for its compilers!

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture posts no opinion on the Old Testament Canon.

Until you read Luke 24 "all of scriptures" and Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures" and this confirms Josephus' statement that they had a well know set of scriptures already canonized already known and could make sense of the phrase "all of scriptures" without question.

Therefore there is no text needed to disprove your wild theories about the Old Testament Canon

I see you speculating - but the texts to the contrary are there for all of us to read - as well as the Jewish historians like Josephus debunking the wild speculation you would offer as an alternative to Bible and historic fact.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

MoreCoffee said: ↑
Your theories about the old testament are not relevant.

Seldom have I seen a single case where non-Catholics bring up the canonization of the Old Testament to prove/refute sola scriptura -- we merely "accept it".

Indeed it is only those opposed to 'sola scriptura' that continue to drag in the "irrelevant" topic of what the Jews had has their OT canon at the time of Christ. Perhaps that "irrelevant" topic that they bring up is there as a diversion.

Clearly the OT was written 400 years before Christ and the "all of scripture" in Luke 24 -- which is about 700 years before the Catholic church -- or more.

 

[sculleywr]

Until you read Luke 24 "all of scriptures" and Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures" and this confirms Josephus' statement that they had a well know set of scriptures already canonized already known and could make sense of the phrase "all of scriptures" without question.



I see you speculating - but the texts to the contrary are there for all of us to read - as well as the Jewish historians like Josephus debunking the wild speculation you would offer as an alternative to Bible and historic fact.

in Christ,

Bob

Those are not opinions on which canon should be used. They don't give a list. We know for a fact that the New Testament quotes the Greek Septuagint. So the "texts to the contrary" come from only one side of the debate. Of course, you like pretending that your side is the only side of the debate. The fact is that there are texts affirming the use of the Greek canon of Scripture in the very New Testament itself. It quotes the Greek Septuagint word for word in many places. And you really don't want to start playing your wild speculation onto history. The accepted history of the Canon is that it was a hot debate for many years after Christ, and it wasn't completed for the Jews until the time of the Masoretes.

Now, if you can get yourself a LIST, you have something. until then, you have one source against the dozens used by most historians.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

read my signature... in it Christ states that Moses and the prophets are the criteria to be followed while Jude states that the salvic criteria has been delivered once and for all
This would be a good add
2 John 9-10
9 Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, *he* has both the Father and the Son.

10 If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into [the] house, and greet him not;

most are too set in their ways for"
those who are in doubt, we should "have mercy" on them (Jude 23), and should correct them in meekness, "if perhaps God may give them repentance unto the full knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:25)