Results 41 - 48 of 48
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: dschaertel Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48353 | ||
Makarios, "Is Revelation 22:18-19 only speaking of the book of Revelation? Or the New Testament? Or the Old Testament?" I believe that this only speaks of the book of Revelation. If you do a study on this you can see, however, that Revelation is loaded with quotations of Old Testament scripture. Because it is so rich in this way I understand it to be highly symbolic. I also am not convinced that Revelation was written around 90 or 96 AD as some say. I believe it was written prior to 70 AD, most likely 68 or so during the reign of Nero. This is most evident from Rev. 17:10 which seems to identify the time. Nero was the sixth Roman emperor. His name in Hebrew also adds up to 666. And there are many more nice fits. The aparent urgency of the prophecy also makes a good fit. Jesus said these things were about to happen very shortly. 70AD is pretty shortly after 68AD. If this was written in 96, then Jesus was apparently misleading us with this urgency stuff, because there are no events that can be identified that fulfill this prophecy at the very end of the first century. |
||||||
42 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48305 | ||
"The classical Protestant understanding is that there is ONE tradition, first oral and then written down as an infallible standard for the post-apostolic church" And just where do you get that from? Can you give chapter and verse? Or is it human tradition? "In other words, the church is not infallible (if you think that it is, please show me where the Bible says THAT)" Paul makes no claim that the church is without error but he does regard it as being the foundation of truth. You may note the absence of the word Bible here. Paul doesn't say refer to the scriptures. 1Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. "that at no time has the church been free from the possibility of error. " I don't think you understand what infallibility is. It doesn't mean that we are without error. It does mean that the church has authority to determine what is truth. We must have this, or we have nothing. |
||||||
43 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48301 | ||
"John 10:35 "If he called those to whom the word of God came 'gods' (and the Scripture cannot be set aside)," [ISV]" Was Jesus referring to the books of Mark and Matthew, or John when he said scripture cannot be broken? Or maybe he had read Paul's letter to Timothy? Or was it the book of Hebrews? I don't think these were written yet and I don't think Jesus taught from them, nor did he quote them, nor did he ever refer to them. The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura because the Bible does not define itself. If we were to use the scriptures that Jesus used, or only use the books that he quoted from, we wouldn't have the Bible. Paul exhorts Timothy to carry on what he taught him. He says: 2Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. I don't see any mention of the Bible here, do you? Did Paul say read the Bible and observe it only? I don't think so. |
||||||
44 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48299 | ||
Apparently you are missing my point. "Only books that are authoritative, and tell the truth about God as it is already known by previous revelation belong in the Word of God." What makes them authoritative? You are defining your terms with the terms. It is like looking up a word in the dictionary only to find it defined by itself. If I am trying to decide what is authoritatve, how do I go about that? What makes something authoritative? And where do you get that definition from? "Also, no NT author ever quoted from any of these books (that are included in the Catholic Bible) as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired writ. If these books had been inspired, then why did Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore all of these books?" This is just totally false and baseless. The books of Enoch (which isn't even in the Catholic books) and Baruch are quoted from in the NT. Not to mention there are quotations from early church fathers from the apocryphal books. However, there are other books in the Old Testament that are not quoted from in the NT, like Esther for example. This doesn't hold up as criteria for determining canonicity, sorry. "I believe that it is quite obvious when touching upon the text itself" I think this statement shows a lack of understanding of history and how the Bible came about. If it is so "obvious" how come there have been so many lists throughout the years? When Josephus wrote at the end of the first century he sites only 22 books in the Jewish canon. Throughout the years different books have been in and out. Luther did not want James and Revelation in the Bible. Say what! How does he come to that? I think if you put the blinders on and repeat the rhetoric, life is a bowl of cherries. But that doesn't chagne the facts. |
||||||
45 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48221 | ||
"(it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate)" It depends on how you look at this. Sure, Jerome didn't consider these books on par with the others, so they were isolated between the Old and New Testaments. But why do you suppose he left them in? It was because there were others who believed that they should be there and he didn't have enough of an argument to remove them. There was a difference between the Alexandrian texts and the Palestinian texts. The majority of complete manuscripts that come from the Alexandrian variety included the apocryphal books. You seem to think that because it wasn't until Trent that the RCC declared these books scripture that it was a new thing. You obviously don't know how the RCC works. Before they consider it dogma it has been the norm for some time. As you say, Luther originally didn't remove them, but moved them to the back. This shows that they were in there before the reformation. I am not Catholic by the way. But I do respect the doctrine, theology and heritage that they bring. It is very short sighted, in my opinion, to just ignore over 1600 years of Christian history. You ask me how do I tell what is scripture? That is a good question. I don't think there is a right answer to that. That is my point. I am not trying to argue in favor of the RCC Bible. I am trying to say that either position is not Biblical. |
||||||
46 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48216 | ||
Makarios There are plenty of verses that refer to scripture, but show me where is the magic list that tells which books are in and which are out. Tell me where is the criteria for determining this in the Bible, and then tell me how you know that should be in the Bible in the first place? |
||||||
47 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48182 | ||
Joe, After reading the stuff at your link I find nothing that disagrees with me except this guy's own opinion. The RCC declared these books part of the canon because they have been in use for centuries. They didn't just invent the idea. As a matter of fact there have been many canons throughout the centuries. They differ from time to time and from east to west. Parts and all of the apocrypha have been incuded. In fact the Old Testament that we now have is bigger than the original Jewish canon. It all depends on what year and in what context you are looking. Here is a question for you; when did the "protestant" church ever officialy declare it's canon? I missed that in any of the info you referred to. Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture? |
||||||
48 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48129 | ||
Joe, You may want to check your history a little. Luther clearly removed the apocryphal books. He also wanted to remove Revelation, James, and a couple others as well. These books have been part of the canon since throughout the centuries. They weren't part of the Jewish canon which occurred after the apostolic age. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |