Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion

Tim Staples' Blog ^ | January 18, 2014 | Tim Staples

[Seven_0]

Psst,...He IS the Word.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

[Elsie]

I was not there either of course, but all reasonable people KNOW that copies of actual Scripture were RARE until the printing press...

So says the True Scotsman.

---

Your use of 'rare' is improper.

They were NOT 'rare', but merely few in number AMONG THE GENERAL POPULATION.

EVERY synagogue had a 'copy' and EVERY 'church' did as well.

[Elsie]

...MOST Christians NEVER read from actual Scripture in the early Church, they learned for an Oral Tradition.

First part true, second part what you've been taught.

Fact is - they LEARNED by LISTENING to the Word being read - just like today.

[Elsie]

Some on this thread think that copies of Sacred Scripture were easy to obtain and available to all who wanted to study or read them.

Who?

I want to KNOW just WHO thinks what you CLAIM they do; Mindreader!

[Elsie]

NICE cars!

You like Papa John’s pizza?

[metmom]

No it isn’t.

Because it’s not *tradition*.

[metmom]

You were not there.

Were YOU?

How do you know how people handled the word in those days and who could afford Scripture and who owned them and all the other specious claims you have been making?

[metmom]

I was not there either of course

Of course. So why do you tell us stuff as if you were>

, but all reasonable people KNOW

Assumed knowledge? IOW, anyone who agrees with you is a reasonable person?

that copies of actual Scripture were RARE until the printing press,

Proof?

and that MOST Christians NEVER read from actual Scripture in the early Church, they learned for an Oral Tradition.

You're sure? You can prove it? Did they tell you? So you admit you weren't there but you're SURE of how it was for them.

Yeah.... right......

[Elsie]

bttt

[Kansas58]

My opposition, on this thread, has provided all the evidence I need to make my case that Sacred Scripture was RARE during the time of Jesus and the Early Church.

Your postings almost all prove my point. While you deny that there was an “Oral Tradition” in the Early Church, you admit that the early Church Fathers MEMORIZED Scripture as it was, indeed, not practical to carry rare, expensive, heavy scrolls around with them.

Lets say that each Apostle taught regularly to maybe 10 people, during travels. (I would go with a bigger figure but I don’t think many will argue with 10). So, that Apostle is ONE person, speaking to 10 who most likely have not been in contact with Jesus, directly, and most likely have not, themselves, read any portion of Sacred Scripture, directly.

That would be 10 to 1 ratio of those who had actually heard Jesus or read the writings of the other Apostles.

You admit that the Early Church MEMORIZED and then PREACHED, but why on Earth recite MEMORIZED teachings to those who already knew such passages of Sacred Scripture?

The vast majority of Early Christians learned with their ears not with their eyes, they HEARD the Word, most did NOT read the Word.

[Kansas58]

My claims about how rare Sacred Scripture copies were are not “specious” at all.

Very few Protestant Theology Schools would disagree with me on that point. You have taken yourself down a blind alley and you can not win in this argument.

If Jesus never carried around the Old Testament Books, on his travels, if the Apostles never handed out flyers and tracts and copies of Old Testament writings and Christian Scripture, that alone proves my point.

Scripture was RARE!

Why was the invention of the printing press so important, if you think it was so easy to copy or mass produce the written word?

[Kansas58]

Huh?
So you are against ANYTHING that is “Traditional”
Really?
Why?
Is that a Biblical position?
And it was TRADITION that helped and guided the Early Church in deciding which Scripture should be in the first Bible.
Jesus himself did follow JEWISH tradition and ritual even though some of the Jewish tradition was not spelled out in writing.

[Kansas58]

You have just described and defined the Oral Tradition which you claim does not exist.

“Fact is - they LEARNED by LISTENING to the Word being read - just like today.”

[Kansas58]

Your post is FALSE:

“Your use of ‘rare’ is improper.

They were NOT ‘rare’, but merely few in number AMONG THE GENERAL POPULATION.

EVERY synagogue had a ‘copy’ and EVERY ‘church’ did as well.”

There really was NO uniform agreement until the year 394 in the WESTERN Church, which was still not in full agreement with the Eastern Church. In other words, how could any Church be in full possession of copies of ALL Sacred Scripture with such disagreement about what did and did not belong in the Bible clear up to the Synod of Hippo?

Synod of Hippo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426. Some were attended by Augustine of Hippo.

The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, Rome.[1] Previous councils had approved similar, but slightly different, canons. The council also reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical continence and reasserted it as a requirement for all the ordained, in addition requiring that all members of a person’s household must be Christian before that person can be ordained.[2][3]

Rules regarding clerical succession were also clarified at the Synod,[4] as well as certain liturgical considerations.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

[Elsie]

You have just described and defined the Oral Tradition which you claim does not exist.

I didn't claim it didn't exist; I claimed in has no place in trumping what Scripture teaches.

[Elsie]

There would be a very shortened New Testement if the ORAL TRADITION was working properly.

Most of Paul's writings were to CORRECT ERROR in the church; was it not?

[Elsie]

[metmom]

While you deny that there was an “Oral Tradition” in the Early Church, you admit that the early Church Fathers MEMORIZED Scripture as it was, indeed, not practical to carry rare, expensive, heavy scrolls around with them.

That does not mean that they were RARE. That's an assumption.

And *I* memorize Scripture. Do you think Scripture is *rare* these days because of that?

The vast majority of Early Christians learned with their ears not with their eyes, they HEARD the Word, most did NOT read the Word.

Prove it.

Provide the links to the sources that document this. Otherwise it amounts to nothing more than speculation and opinion.

[Kansas58]

Common sense, please.
The population could not travel long distances, easily.
The printing press had not been invented.
It took thousands of hours and lots of money to hand write an entire Bible in with the methods used at that time.
The entire work of recognized Scripture was very large and very heavy and very fragile and PRICELESS.

There was no Bible at all, recognized as such, until nearly 400 BC.

[Kansas58]

And Protestants can not agree what Scripture does teach, do they?
That is why you have so many different denominations.