Please don't quit your day job. :) One needs to understand the basics of Sola Scriptura before attempting to employ it.
[Luke 8:46-48] And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.
*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started menstruating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.
This violates Sola Scriptura on several levels. One is that one must use tortured logic to arrive at your conclusions. Sola Scriptura advocates for common sense. Without scriptural evidence against it, "for twelve years" would simply mean "for twelve years". To translate "for" into "since" would not be indicated because the verse could have said "since she had just turned 12", or something similar. Further Sola Scriptura evidence is found in verse 47, where the female is referred to as a "woman". Although I know that Catholicism does not hold the view that Jesus had any children, the reasoning you use in your example is EXACTLY of the same kind I see Catholics using ALL THE TIME. :) Sola Scriptura is the "anti" of that, so I think you have it completely backwards.
Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with menstruation etc. but she didn't want to embarrass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardizing His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...
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.
"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! :)
Are you telling me sola scriptura does not tell us to read the Word as it is and to first interpret it literally?
And then, try citing that teaching in scripture