The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Sibyl]

Assuming that you are referring to the book mentioned in Revelation 5, it is a symbol or metaphor for the world's destiny, and its contents are revealed subsequently as each of the seven seals are broken.

In your original post. John 20:30-31.
"30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
Is john referring to prophecies in the Septuagint?

 

[Rick Otto]

This ^, however, is not about Sola Scriptura, which is the topic of the thread. Even if it were intended as some sort of rebuttal, no one in later times such as our own can make much of a case in favor of "traditions" that are not known to them or verifiable. Simply to insist that there were some is of little value when it comes to what the church teaches its members and requires them to believe.

Besides, they actually were more "print centric" than we are.
What they made sure got printed was what they held sacred.

 

[Rick Otto]

And for some number of years - probably 20-35 years after the Crucifixion - they were. Or to be more precise, the stories of what Christ said and did were. The first Gospels were likely written somewhere in the 55-70 AD timeframe.

I believe Luke 1:1-4 holds the key as to why they were written (emphases mine):



I would infer from this passage that many "Gospels" were being written at that time, and that, even if they were being undertaken with good intent, there were apparently some degree of inaccuracies represented among them. So Luke is writing Theophilus saying, in effect, "You have already been informed of these things, but I want to make sure that what you know about them is the truth, so I have compiled for you an accurate account."

BTW, I don't know that there is any Orthodox "doctrine" on this point - I've never heard an explication of "why" regarding the Gospels being written at the time they were written. This is just what I infer from Luke. There may additionally be liturgical reasons - the Gospels have a central place in the Divine Liturgy - but I haven't done much research on that.

Sounds like one of the best defenses of SS I've heard.

 

[lesliedellow]

I moved this out of order because your previous statement - about not knowing what written sources might have been available to Mark - can also apply to those things where the earliest written record came around 400 years later (where'd 2,000 come from?). We don't know if there were earlier written manuscripts they were based off of or copied from. That possibility tends to get consideration for things we accept, but dismissed for things we do not believe.

Same thing applies. Why isn't there a peep in the historical record about the supposed assumption of Mary until the fourth century? Why no mention of something so apparently important to Catholics and Orthodox? It is as if their had been no mention of Paul's row with Peter at Antioch, until an account of it suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. How much historical veracity would historians then attach to that?

But aside from that, the culture in the Levant in the first century was strongly oral. We err if we impose our print-centric views on a culture that did not share them.

The disciples of Isaiah or Jeremiah (to name two) clearly did not think it was a good idea to rely upon word of mouth to pass on their masters' teachings. And we have no record of what they did or said, apart from what appears in the books that bear their names. (Except for brief mentions in Kings)

 

[lesliedellow]

In your original post. John 20:30-31.
"30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
Is john referring to prophecies in the Septuagint?

He is referring to the book he has just finished writing (the Gospel of John). Chapter 21 is evidently a postscript, possibly added by John himself.

 

[MichaelS]

This ^, however, is not about Sola Scriptura, which is the topic of the thread. Even if it were intended as some sort of rebuttal, no one in later times such as our own can make much of a case in favor of "traditions" that are not known to them or verifiable. Simply to insist that there were some is of little value when it comes to what the church teaches its members and requires them to believe.

I respectfully disagree, but trying to debate these particular points too far would likely get off topic, so I'm good with letting it go. It's not like we don't have plenty of other points to debate .

 

[MichaelS]

Same thing applies. Why isn't there a peep in the historical record about the supposed assumption of Mary until the fourth century? Why no mention of something so apparently important to Catholics and Orthodox? It is as if their had been no mention of Paul's row with Peter at Antioch, until an account of it suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. How much historical veracity would historians then attach to that?

How much veracity do they give to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down? I rarely hear any serious doubters, yet as far as I can find we do not see that detail mentioned in writing until Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century. Perhaps that one is simply safer to accept since it doesn't challenge any beliefs?

But, honestly, this whole line of debate is a sideshow. If one trusts that the Church has faithfully maintained what was entrusted to her, whether by written word, oral tradition, hymnography, or any other means, then "why wasn't it written down earlier?" is no more than a question of idle curiosity. If one does not have that trust, it becomes another bit of evidence for suspicion. You and I can debate possible reasons - obviously from opposite sets of assumptions - but we have no proof either way. And mere speculation will not change any minds.

 

[Albion]

How much veracity do they give to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down? I rarely hear any serious doubters, yet as far as I can find we do not see that detail mentioned in writing until Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century.

Does anyone consider that believing this historical tidbit--or disbelieving it, either--affects his prospects of salvation? If the answer is "no," then it's not relevant to this discussion.

But, honestly, this whole line of debate is a sideshow. If one trusts that the Church has faithfully maintained what was entrusted to her, whether by written word, oral tradition, hymnography, or any other means, then "why wasn't it written down earlier?" is no more than a question of idle curiosity.

And that's not true, either. The theory of "Holy Tradition" is that there's a second stream of (unwritten) revelation from God that is the equal in authority to Scripture, but only if it's the mind of the whole church and has been so from the beginning.

Sometimes, the devotees of this theory simply claim that it was such, claiming, without any evidence, that the Apostles taught X, and then just creating a dogma. But now you're saying that the basis on which the church itself has said that traditions qualify doesn't matter either. They don't have to be Apostolic for being from the beginning but just have to have originated at some time or other and be selected by a denomination for being made into a doctrine.

 

[lesliedellow]

How much veracity do they give to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down? I rarely hear any serious doubters, yet as far as I can find we do not see that detail mentioned in writing until Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century. Perhaps that one is simply safer to accept since it doesn't challenge any beliefs?

I would guess that few historians lose any sleep over it, one way or the other. It is not of much importance from the point of view of either secular history, or religious faith.

But, honestly, this whole line of debate is a sideshow. If one trusts that the Church has faithfully maintained what was entrusted to her, whether by written word, oral tradition, hymnography, or any other means, then "why wasn't it written down earlier?" is no more than a question of idle curiosity. If one does not have that trust, it becomes another bit of evidence for suspicion. You and I can debate possible reasons - obviously from opposite sets of assumptions - but we have no proof either way. And mere speculation will not change any minds.

i distrust any self important institution's claims for itself. Especially when those claims, if true, would only serve to reinforce its importance in the eyes of those who believe the claims. And purely as a matter of secular history, I would trust no claim that Henry VIII actually had ten wives, unless the person making that claim could produce documentary evidence dating from the sixteenth century.

 

[BukiRob]

I never stated otherwise, what I am talking about is not Scripture, but the concept of Sola Scriptura which are not the same.

Some inherent flaws:

John tells us that the Word (AKA scripture) became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture= Messiah and Messiah=Scripture

 

[Albion]

Some inherent flaws:

John tells us that the Word (AKA scripture) became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture= Messiah and Messiah=Scripture

No, Rob. There are two uses, in scripture, of that word. In the Gospel of John, the "Word" is identified as Jesus of Nazareth and the reference is not to language (as in "the spoken word," for instance).

 

[BukiRob]

No, Rob. There are two uses, in scripture, of that word. In the Gospel of John, the "Word" is identified as Jesus of Nazareth and the reference is not to language (as in "the spoken word," for instance).

No Albion.

You are looking at this from a Hellenistic, Gentiles mind. John was a Jew. John's use of the word translated from Greek Logo's is the TORAH.

I am the way (the Torah is the way in which a man should go cited in numerous passages of the OT), I am the Truth (Torah is repeatedly called truth in scripture) and the life (Torah is also called LIFE) No one comes to the Father but by me.

John is speaking about the Torah. We are told in Proverbs that it was with him FROM THE BEGINNING that BY it, creation occurred.

 

[Albion]

No Albion.

You are looking at this from a Hellenistic, Gentiles mind. John was a Jew. John's use of the word translated from Greek Logo's is the TORAH.

Read the passage--all of it--then get back to me. John 1:1-20

 

[BukiRob]

Read the passage--all of it--then get back to me.

I have studied it in depth.... We will agree to disagree....

Yeshua was a Torah observent, pharisee and NOT a gentile, European dude that much of the gentile church portraits him as....

 

[Albion]

I have studied it in depth.... We will agree to disagree....

Very well. If you won't, allow me to point to the verse in which the Word becomes flesh and ask if you believe that the Torah became flesh or if "John bore witness of him" refers to the Torah.

 

[BukiRob]

Very well. If you won't, allow me to point to the verse in which the Word becomes flesh and ask if you believe that the Torah became flesh or if "John bore witness of him" refers to the Torah.

Yeshua is the Torah become Flesh.

 

[lesliedellow]

No Albion.

You are looking at this from a Hellenistic, Gentiles mind. John was a Jew. John's use of the word translated from Greek Logo's is the TORAH.

The Greek word is logos, without the apostrophe, which forms no part of Greek punctuation. John is using an idea from Greek philosophy as a means of communicating Jesus' significance to a Gentile audience. Logos can be translated many ways, one of which is word. John is using it in a way borrowed from the Stoics, to mean a divine creative force which pervades the universe.

 

[Albion]

Yeshua is the Torah become Flesh.

So the passage teaches that Yeshua is the Word.

 

[BukiRob]

The Greek word is logos, without the apostrophe, which forms no part of Greek punctuation. John is using an idea from Greek philosophy as a means of communicating Jesus' significance to a Gentile audience. Logos can be translated many ways, one of which is word. John is using it in a way borrowed from the Stoics, to mean a divine creative force which pervades the universe.

Which is exactly what the Torah is. It is a widely held view based upon scripture among rabbi's that creation occurred through and with the Torah.....We find allusions to this in the writings namely proverbs and the psalms.

 

[MichaelS]

The theory of "Holy Tradition" is that there's a second stream of (unwritten) revelation from God that is the equal in authority to Scripture, but only if it's the mind of the whole church and has been so from the beginning.

Sigh. No, that is not an accurate description of it - close enough to sound good, but far enough off to confuse the issue. From the OCA website:

Among the elements which make up the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Bible holds the first place. Next comes the Church’s liturgical life and its prayer, then its dogmatic decisions and the acts of its approved churchly councils, the writings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, the canon laws, and finally the iconographic tradition together with the other inspired forms of creative artistic expression such as music and architecture. All of the elements of Holy Tradition are organically linked together in real life. None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other or from the wholeness of the life of the Church. All come alive in the actual living of the life of the Church in every age and generation, in every time and place. As the Church continues to live by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Tradition of the Church will continue to grow and develop. This process will go on until the establishment of the Kingdom of God at the end of the ages.