Sola Scriptura ping
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
Why is Philemon on the Bible?
Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?
just a few questions.
I am a Catholic who puts the Bible FIRST.
Even in early Christian centuries they had both 1) The Old Testament which very much taught about the Messiah
2) The word, the memories and historical events of Jesus life, death and resurrection through the Apostles, and others who had witnessed (and sometimes personally experienced) the events with Jesus.
This is interesting, thanks for posting it.
Wouldn't it be more persuasive to address an actual argument?
Maybe from a Catholic source or from Catholic Church teaching on the subject?
And curiously, even though the author chooses the point he wants to critique he doesn't even address all his own points, but instead focuses on one (whether the Bible itself specifies sola sciptura) leaves out a couple (including whether the Church chose the books of Christian Scripture) and adds a new one that I've never heard before (that the disciples didn't consider the Hebrew Scriptures to be scriptures).
I guess I learned something from this article, but it wasn't what I was expecting.
Ping
The NT was completed within the first centeury. So the earliest Christians were listening to these letters being read almost from the beginning. It's not like the books of the new testament were written then kept in a drawer until someone decided to complile them into the "NT". The letters of the NT are just the written form of the teaching of the Apostles. These books ARE the tradition taught by the Apostles. Thus, "tradition" died with the apostles and we are left with the NT as the only "God breathed" revelation.
With all of the questions flying around I have one of my own: In what Scripture does the Catholic Church claim authority for having their leaders wear silk robes, red slippers, and for them to live in palaces?
Bonus question: Why do RCC leaders live surrounded by unfathomable wealth all while telling everyone else that if you live in wealth it’s practically a sin?
Thanks for posting.
Boøkmarking
Like a skipping CD, we hear the above circular 'logical' reasoning daily here. It is like the DNC talking points.
Ankerburg doesn’t provide any verse showing that “the Bible is the sole or ultimate rule of faith.”
I found this particularly amusing:
-— Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV).
They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith-—
How does he jump from the Scriptures helping to prepare presbyters (the “man of God”) for every good work, to the Scriptures being the “perfect guide to the Christian faith?”
The passage doesn’t say that. No passage does.
Yes, the Scriptures contain divine revelation, but the Scriptures require an authority to determine what constitutes Scripture.
History and Scripture tells us that Christ’s Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
Jesus commands us to “listen to the church,” and that those who “ will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”
No verse in the Bible refers to the Bible as we know it, because the many scrolls which comprise the Bible were written centuries before the Bible was compiled.
Therefore, no reference to Scripture in the Bible can prove the sufficiency of the Bible, because “Scripture,” in the Bible, refers to either the Torah, the Old Testament, or the Book of Revelation.
I don’t think Protestants believe in the sufficiency of the Torah, the Septuagint, or Revelation.
Ironically, Ankerburg makes the common mistake of reading Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura into the verses he cites.
During Ptolemy II of Philadelphus’ reign (285-246 B.C.), 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the entire Hebrew bible into Greek. This canon of the OT, translated by Jews, contained the books that Luther pitched more 1,500 years later. This is the septaguint named for the number of Jewish translators.
The Alexandrian translation was completed by 125 B.C. It it contained the books that Luther got rid of.
Greek was the common language in use in the Mediterranean at the time. This translation was the one in use during Jesus’ time, and was the translation used by the new testament writers and Jesus himself.
The Greek OT scriptures, translated by Jews, remember, reached more people, as Hebrew was dying out in the wider Mediterranean. Jesus himself used the Alexandrian canon of the bible. We know this because the New Testament records direct quotes from Jesus himself.
The septuagint contains 46 books and the Hebrew canon contains only 39. The Hebrew canon was not settled until 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia, in Palestine. It was done in reaction to the Christian (Catholic) Church which was using the Alexandrian canon and gaining converts because the books not used by the Jamnia council were converting MORE Jews to Christianity because they supported (and still do) Catholic doctrine.
Luther used the later Hebrew canon without the Septuagint books. Martin Luther, along with the Jews in 100 A.D. in creating the Palestinian canon, actually discarded the books because they supported Catholic doctrines. Luther’s excuse was that the disputed Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Hebrew copies of the disputed books, nullifying that excuse.
The Hebrew books that the original Alexandrian Jews had included were and are in fact legitimate.
Would you rather use a Martin Luther truncated OT, or an OT containing all 46 books, the one that was used by Jesus, the New Testament Writers, and the early Church? Martin wanted to get rid of even more books (James, Esther and Revelation) but he had no authority and he was talked out of it because it was absurd.
Martin Luther played fast and loose with the bible and thought he could get away with it. At one point he even added the word alone to Romans 3:28 strictly on his own authority, but the discrepancy was discovered quickly.
This is a great discussion - but do let’s be polite ;- )
Let’s hear it for the Rock!
Daniel 2:34, 35
While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
My question is not if Peter was the first bishop or not as Pentecost was one of the greatest events recorded in history and Peter was right there leading in it.
I do have a big question if Rome is successor to Peter or not.
On the rock issue, most of what I read agree that stone or rock would be derived from the Aramaic word of Cephas.
Jesus first named Peter (Cephas) in John 1:42.
ping