St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[sculleywr]

Indeed - the Catholics did not write the OT and have no say at all over what it contains.

Jerome - one of their own Bible translators - reminds them of their error in confusing the greek text of the Septuagint with the Hebrew Bible - when it comes to the apocryphal inserts that the greek text contained but did not affirm to be in the canon. And in fact were not held as canon in the Hebrew temple.

And neither do Protestants 1400 years after the Early Church used the Septuagint with the original Greek canon for 1400 years. As for me, I'll use the canon used by the martyrs and not the canon of those who rejected Christ.

You follow the second canon. They aren't apocryphal, because they weren't hidden. Here's a list of references to it the Apostles made:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Apocryphal? More like well-known and accepted by many, despite the protests of the Sadducees.

 

[sculleywr]

Sola Scriptura from the 66 books of the bible have all that is needed for salvation within it. That which is added to from what God Himself terms the "silent years" are only confusing the issue for those of you who keep to it by placing things in a stumbling block that promotes pride and self justification afaics

Not that Protestants use Sola Scriptura in reference to the supposed 400 years. Please find verse and reference proving it. I've already provided a list of times the Apostles used the books you say they didn't use.

 

[sculleywr]

Lack of evidence is the deciding factor and SS is still intact. They are not doctrine to me at least, never heard of it before coming to cf

Lack of evidence is like saying Mount Everest is not there because you can't see it when it's behind you. At least when it comes to the evidence behind the Greek Canon.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

But the bible can't help you decide the matter. BobRyan will tell you it is all settled in the bible and what's kind of interesting is that both you & BobRyan use the same number of books in your bibles.

Ya big difference, I'm not SDA and it`s the SDA that`s argreeing with you as to doctrine not me.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not that Protestants use Sola Scriptura in reference to the supposed 400 years. Please find verse and reference proving it. I've already provided a list of times the Apostles used the books you say they didn't use.

The silent years is not doctrine. Scripture is sufficient for proving doctrine, reproof etc, not about things that are not doctrine, and yes, it is a compilation of prophesy that leads me to believe that the last word was spoken by Malachi and there was silence until the birth of John B. with not even his dad being able to speak. You guys don`t hold the monopoly on speculation ya know. That still doesn`t disprove SS on doctrine.

 

[sculleywr]

True enough. It's just a tin man to deflect the main point about SS.

The fact that your canon is a tradition that defines Scripture proves that you don't practice Sola Scriptura. There is no truly Sola Scriptura canon, because in the end, the rejection of the falsely named Apocrypha is an innovation within Christianity, and not the original stance, as evidenced by literally hundreds of Christian authors through every century. The rejection of them is based on an extra scriptural rule invented by Martin Luther, a tradition introduced to the Scripture from outside of Scripture. It was imposed upon Scripture, and not drawn from it. This allowed them to redefine the contents of Scripture to get rid of problematic passages, rather than allow the Scripture to mold their doctrines. Nobody ADDED the "Apocrypha", the "apocrypha" was subtracted from Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

The silent years is not doctrine. Scripture is sufficient for proving doctrine, reproof etc, not about things that are not doctrine, and yes, it is a compilation of prophesy that leads me to believe that the last word was spoken by Malachi and there was silence until the birth of John B. with not even his dad being able to speak. You guys don`t hold the monopoly on speculation ya know. That still doesn`t disprove SS on doctrine.

There is no prophecy pointing to that. That was a doctrine introduced to redefine the contents of Scripture long after the Church had settled the issue. And it IS a doctrine, because it is in authority over Scripture. It has higher authority than Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Catholics decided what books are canonical and what books are not.

Nah. You folks had 28 books of the NT until corrected.

 

[Standing Up]

The fact that your canon is a tradition that defines Scripture proves that you don't practice Sola Scriptura. There is no truly Sola Scriptura canon, because in the end, the rejection of the falsely named Apocrypha is an innovation within Christianity, and not the original stance, as evidenced by literally hundreds of Christian authors through every century. The rejection of them is based on an extra scriptural rule invented by Martin Luther, a tradition introduced to the Scripture from outside of Scripture. It was imposed upon Scripture, and not drawn from it. This allowed them to redefine the contents of Scripture to get rid of problematic passages, rather than allow the Scripture to mold their doctrines. Nobody ADDED the "Apocrypha", the "apocrypha" was subtracted from Scripture.

Not really. We use the same reasoning as did Christ and Paul and 1 Macc to establish what's scripture. OT-prophets. NT-apostles. Believe we've been over this. You and I disagree, but let's at least maintain the witness.

 

[sculleywr]

Not really. We use the same reasoning as did Christ and Paul and 1 Macc to establish what's scripture. OT-prophets. NT-apostles. Believe we've been over this. You and I disagree, but let's at least maintain the witness.

There is no comprehensive list of who was a prophet in the Old Testament that can be found in Scripture. The "witness" is not the same when the early Church nearly unanimously disagrees with you as to the content of Scripture. It is a tradition, since any list you come out with is extra-scriptural. The fact that you're using a text that is part of the texts considered by the early Church as Scripture as evidence is self-contradicting the idea that they were either not included or hidden.

To top it off, you have three books that are definitely not written by Apostles in the New Testament, the gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as the book of Acts, at least if you are going to work by method of Sola Scriptura. Moreover, the gospels are attributed to their authors not from the text itself, but based on the testimony of Irenaeus.

 

[Standing Up]

There is no comprehensive list of who was a prophet in the Old Testament that can be found in Scripture. The "witness" is not the same when the early Church nearly unanimously disagrees with you as to the content of Scripture. It is a tradition, since any list you come out with is extra-scriptural. The fact that you're using a text that is part of the texts considered by the early Church as Scripture as evidence is self-contradicting the idea that they were either not included or hidden.

To top it off, you have three books that are definitely not written by Apostles in the New Testament, the gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as the book of Acts, at least if you are going to work by method of Sola Scriptura. Moreover, the gospels are attributed to their authors not from the text itself, but based on the testimony of Irenaeus.

Did God say is the oldest question. Hear's to hearing the answer.

 

[sculleywr]

Did God say is the oldest question. Hear's to hearing the answer.

The answer is that He did not say in Scripture who was and wasn't a prophet. We know for a fact that prophecies in the so-called "Apocrypha" came true, such as the very specific prophecy that a decree would go out resulting in the death of many infants in an attempt to thwart the Messiah. It certainly is much more specific than the other prophecy regarding the event.

 

[Rick Otto]

Did God say is the oldest question. Hear's to hearing the answer.

It's a question one could start an institution with.

 

[Standing Up]

The answer is that He did not say in Scripture who was and wasn't a prophet. We know for a fact that prophecies in the so-called "Apocrypha" came true, such as the very specific prophecy that a decree would go out resulting in the death of many infants in an attempt to thwart the Messiah. It certainly is much more specific than the other prophecy regarding the event.

Paul mentions poet prophecies, but no one is confused to think they speak "thus sayeth the LORD". And there are tests in scripture about prophets and apostles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nah. You folks had 28 books of the NT until corrected.

I doubt the accuracy of your claim.

 

[sculleywr]

Paul mentions poet prophecies, but no one is confused to think they speak "thus sayeth the LORD". And there are tests in scripture about prophets and apostles.

But there isn't an official list, nor is there a consistent application of those rules. For example, the standard Apostle rule in the west is that they have directly been sent out (apostolos) by Christ Himself. However, there is no conclusive evidence that either John-Mark or Luke ever met Christ, even in extra-scriptural writings. On top of all this, there isn't any real CONCLUSIVE evidence as to who actually wrote the Gospels or the book of Hebrews, as the names are attributed to the gospels via Tradition, and not via Scripture or internal identification.

In that manner, you have Tradition both identifying AND confirming the authors of the gospels, not simply confirming as in the case of Paul's letters.

Even then, it was Tradition that determined the genuine letters of Paul from the fakes being generated by heretics, which we know existed because Paul warns of their existence.

In the end, it is Tradition that determines the content of Scripture, and thus Tradition which stands in authority over Scripture. This is what empowered Protestants to change the Christian canon. They took a rule that is nowhere in Scripture, specifically the assertion that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and they placed that extra-scriptural rule over Scripture. This is why parts of Daniel and Esther were removed. It's also why the book of Esther became the only book in the entire Protestant canon that never mentions God once (a unique fact I was surprised by in my first semester at a Baptist college). If you include the portions which were possibly lost to time in the Hebrew texts, you find many mentions of God.

The fact that Christ observed the religious feasts ordained in the Septuagint's complete canon, such as Hannukah, is strong evidence that Christ used the Greek canon, and not the Hebrew. Other evidence exists in the massive number of references to the books removed by the west found in the New Testament. It is simply the replacement of the Apostolic Tradition with a tradition invented in the 5th century.

 

[sculleywr]

I doubt the accuracy of your claim.

I'd like to know what book he is talking about, too. I've never heard of a 28 book canon existing, and that's after 3 years of studying the history of the Church. There isn't even a whisper in my materials.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd like to know what book he is talking about, too. I've never heard of a 28 book canon existing, and that's after 3 years of studying the history of the Church. There isn't even a whisper in my materials.

Maybe "shepherd of hermas"? That was once used in some churches. Never given in any significant council's canon list.

 

[Standing Up]

I doubt the accuracy of your claim.

Of course. I'd have to dig around some to find the reference, which I'm not inclined to do. Don't worry. Believe EO had 28 too at one time.

 

[Standing Up]

But there isn't an official list, nor is there a consistent application of those rules. For example, the standard Apostle rule in the west is that they have directly been sent out (apostolos) by Christ Himself. However, there is no conclusive evidence that either John-Mark or Luke ever met Christ, even in extra-scriptural writings. On top of all this, there isn't any real CONCLUSIVE evidence as to who actually wrote the Gospels or the book of Hebrews, as the names are attributed to the gospels via Tradition, and not via Scripture or internal identification.

In that manner, you have Tradition both identifying AND confirming the authors of the gospels, not simply confirming as in the case of Paul's letters.

Even then, it was Tradition that determined the genuine letters of Paul from the fakes being generated by heretics, which we know existed because Paul warns of their existence.

In the end, it is Tradition that determines the content of Scripture, and thus Tradition which stands in authority over Scripture. This is what empowered Protestants to change the Christian canon. They took a rule that is nowhere in Scripture, specifically the assertion that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and they placed that extra-scriptural rule over Scripture. This is why parts of Daniel and Esther were removed. It's also why the book of Esther became the only book in the entire Protestant canon that never mentions God once (a unique fact I was surprised by in my first semester at a Baptist college). If you include the portions which were possibly lost to time in the Hebrew texts, you find many mentions of God.

The fact that Christ observed the religious feasts ordained in the Septuagint's complete canon, such as Hannukah, is strong evidence that Christ used the Greek canon, and not the Hebrew. Other evidence exists in the massive number of references to the books removed by the west found in the New Testament. It is simply the replacement of the Apostolic Tradition with a tradition invented in the 5th century.

Like I said, we've been over this and disagree.