"This also violates Sola Scriptura. Look at verse 47, "In the presence of all the people, she told..." Then, Jesus says to her "Daughter ...". Presumably, this was also in the presence of all the people. Simple common sense. With such a public admission, surely this incredible circumstance would have been written about by others. More common sense. Further, having a child out of wedlock would have ruined Jesus' status as sinless, and also would have made Him a liar in His teachings. Doing no work at all, Sola Scriptura immediately throws ALL of this out the window."
Oh, I don't know. That which is common sense and common understanding today may well not have been common sense and common understanding then. As a matter of fact, the argument was that far from being illegitimate, the children of Christ were born of His marriage to Mary Magdelen, or so the Gnostic Gospels would have us believe. But of course, a group of Greek speaking bishops took care of the Gnostic Gospels by measuring what they said against the Holy Tradition of The Church and finding them wanting; they didn't employ sola scriptura or "common sense", FK. Common sense didn't give you the scriptures which you interpret through a common sense application of sola scriptura, Holy tradition wielding Greek bishops did! :)
How do you say, "Touche" in Greek?
In this case, really? In this story of the woman who touched Christ's garment, do you think that more is needed than common sense of any era to dismiss the idea that Sola Scriptura supports that she must have been Christ's daughter? I fully agree that arguing solely common sense does not always lead to fully correct answers, there can be no doubt of that. I was just defending Sola Scriptura and one of its components, since it was the easiest to state in this case. Since I knew that BAC didn't actually believe the hypothetical I didn't spend a lot of time writing a whole long proof about it. :)
As a matter of fact, the argument was that far from being illegitimate, the children of Christ were born of His marriage to Mary Magdelen, or so the Gnostic Gospels would have us believe. But of course, a group of Greek speaking bishops took care of the Gnostic Gospels by measuring what they said against the Holy Tradition of The Church and finding them wanting; they didn't employ sola scriptura or "common sense", FK.
What I'm saying is that they COULD have applied Sola Scriptura, since there is no reasonable interpretation of the Bible that allows for Christ to have been married with children. He told us specifically why He came to us. We are given the will of the Father. No where in there is there anything about taking a family. There is nothing about Him leaving bio-children to carry on His work. That question is fully else-wise answered to both of our respective satisfactions. :) In this case, both Sola Scriptura and (extra-scriptural) Tradition arrive at the same conclusion. I say that's great.
Common sense didn't give you the scriptures which you interpret through a common sense application of sola scriptura, Holy tradition wielding Greek bishops did! :)
Of course I am only referring to common sense within the scriptures, and I give those bishops full credit for partially using common sense in their interpretations. If common sense is of no use at all in Biblical interpretation, then the whole work is truly fully in code. I don't think you believe that.