Posted on 05/05/2015 8:14:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
John 20
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Big difference between “all” and “only.”
I watch a number of TV programs that have Biblical themes. Most of which are quite good and offer strong proof and evidence connecting historical evidence to events which are written about in the Bible. That is what interests me. I believe the Bible in addition to being a spiritual book is also a history book. If the history isn’t there, then I am not usually there. My major criticism of Mormonism is that I could never find any historical evidence confirming anything that is written in the Book of Mormon. However, with the Bible, we find plenty of archeologolical and other sources corroborating events which occurred in the Bible. Also in many of these programs we come across how the Bible as we know it was originally compiled. There apparently were many gospels written after Jesus’s crucifixtion and resurrection. But only four of them have been accepted into the Bible. I think the motive with some of the programs may be to show how and why some gospels were accepted and others were rejected. My take away from all of this is that politics played no small role.
Why ignore John 20:30-31?
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Jesus did a lot not written in Scripture, but what was written is sufficient for belief and life.
If scripture wasn't sufficient, why didn't the people that knew the additional information that was required write it down?
What does it matter that everything wasn't recorded? Why would a two thousand game of telephone be more reliable that a written record that is sufficient for belief?
Option A: Scripture, sufficient for belief, says...
Option B: Person 1 says that person 2 said that person 3 said that person 4 said that person 5 said that person 6 said that person 7 said that person 8 said that person 9 said that ... that person 120 said that Peter said that "I am the rock and my successors will rule the church until the end."
Option A please.
So is Hippolytus really asserting Sola Scriptura? I'll grant you, the phrase, "and no other source," sounds like he is. (Unlike, say, Irenaeus, who explicitly states that the successors of the apostles succeed them in their authority.) But where is the power to INTERPRET the Holy Scriptures? Hippolytus tells us in the Holy Church.
Still his wording "and no other source" is pretty directly stated, relative to his insistence from that same passage that the Church has the authority of interpretation. I could truly imagine that a fair-minded person, feeling that by reading the entire passage, he has placed the quote in context, interprets that as an insistence on sola scriptura. But whenever we interpret someone's writings, we are obliged to consider them rational and, unless they make reference to changing their mind, consistent. If someone is a hypocrite, nonsensical or self-contradicting, what use is he as an authority to appeal to?
In the same work as Against the Heresy of Noetus, we receive Against the Heresy of the Quattrodecenians, who insisted on celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. Here, Hippolytus completely, thoroughly and unashamedly sets aside any notion of sola scriptura, in order to affirm the later *traditions* of the Church above the explicit *commands* of the Old Testament scripture.
And certain other heretics, contentious by nature, and wholly uninformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome, combine in maintaining that Pascha [Easter] should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day of the week it should occur. But in this they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not so keep the commandment as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this fact, that the legal enactment was made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover [Pascha]. And this Paschal sacrifice in its efficacy, has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter merely. They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the Apostle: 'For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.' In other respects, however, these consent to all the Traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles."
So is Hippolytus merely contradicting his own principal? Not when we look at the intentional context of his words, not merely the literal content: Noetus used the scripture to lead people away from the Church. He therefore challenges people that they should look to the scriptures to confirm the teachings they have received, and reject unauthorized preachers who have invented doctrine. He in no way asserts that in matters that the successors of the apostles should be doubted if one cannot confirm their teaching with their own interpretation of the bible, guided by their own intellect.
“Sufficient” is fine, but some folks just want more, making life better [or more enjoyable] for all of us.
http://jenniferfulwiler.com/saints/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L-WhdPBaiE
Earliest is not an indicator of validity. In fact, it can mislead because the "earliest" codices or fragments were ones discounted by their first possessors, put on the shelves, and not used; so they didn't get worn out and need copying.
The best assurance is (contrary to Westcott & Hort and their philological kin) the preservation by the institutes using them; i. e., those most numerous and agreed upon by a wide distribution of copiers.
That is my position. KJV is a good translation, but then, only a translation.
Modern versions based on the Critical Greek text are almost worthless for their corrupted contents.
I came across the last few minutes of a show about the flood. The show seemed to believe it truly happened. What I do not understand was a show which concluded that Jacob’s Ladder was an UFO. One said Atlantis was one, too, and that is why it disappeared, another said the Burning Bush was one, too.
Are you saying the Bible is not enough to make life enjoyable?
Avoid the goofy ones and watch the serious ones. I have become intrigued with Robert Ballard’s more recent exploits on the Black Sea. Remember Ballard was the one who found the Titanic. Seems that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake. Then there was an epic flood that brought in salt water overflowing in from the Mediterranean at around the same time of Great Flood during the time of Noah.
I am also intrigued with all programs about the Shroud of Turin which I think is the real deal and I have also read many books on that subject as well.
Avoid the space alien shows and focus on the ones that present historical, archeological, and scientific evidence.
It’s “sufficient” MamaB. :)
the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
Please take time to READ this Sal, Not things He taught or said..but things HE DID ..words mean things ........
Why ignore John 20:30-31?
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
On more time Sal ..Signs, things...not teachings or traditions ...
The teachings that God wanted to leave for us were brought to the mind of the mind of the NT writers.. just as Christ ha promised
Joh 14: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This.
“For me it was “Believe in Jesus and you will go to heaven”. That’s bible based and came from a Christian to a non-Christian and then I believed.”
Praise God!
AMEN!
I distinctly remember getting back from tdy in Honduras, where I got saved, and a Christian walking up to me and shaking my hand saying "I HEARD YOU GOT SAVED!!! You won't believe what's going to happen in your life now".
Praise the Lord!
I won't seem that man again until "we all get together, what a day of rejoicing that will be". But when I do see him I can't wait to tell him how right he was.
Wondering if you had any thoughts about my post #17.
Would you agree that an adherent of sola scriptura could question, say, the conclusions of the First Council of Nicaea, based upon his own personal reading of Scripture?
Let me get some clarification, are you asking if someone can disavow the Nicene Creed?
Let me slightly re-word..... Upon what ground did the Council of Nicaea establish an interpretation of the Bible with which I may not disagree? As far as I know, Arius and Athanasius were reading from the same Book.
“When we all see Jesus, we’ll sing and shout the victory (shout the victory)!”
That’s a great song. Our church sings way too many of the new ones that are really weak doctrinally and require a lot of vocal skills, which I lack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.