Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: 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. |