Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Kolokotronis; bornacatholic
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.

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.

3,139 posted on 12/30/2006 3:08:13 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2882 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper; bornacatholic

"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."

No, I don't believe that about the whole work; Revelations, well that's another matter! :) BAC and I were just having some fun with sola scriptura, FK. But common sense will only take you so far when dealing with matters which are outside our understanding let alone even beyond our existence.


3,141 posted on 12/30/2006 3:17:46 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson