Sola Scriptura

I think it would be incumbent on Him and the NT authors to condemn part of a publication from which they themselves were quoting: the LXX. Yet at no time do any of them say when so quoting "It is written [insert quote] - but by the way guys there are 7 books in there that aren't really Scripture at all."

 

God closed the Torah (Bible) with Deut.

Deuteronomy 13

1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

In other words, the following books are non-conflicting commentary on Torah.

 

Luke 3:2-3, " The word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all region about the Jordan , preaching a baptism of repentance.... "

Some of you peolple think the phrase "word of God " in Holy Scripture refers to the Bible alone, Often it doesn't. Often it refers instead to Jesus, inspiration, and the oral preaching of the Gospel , -

other verses Isa. 55: 10-11 ; Luke 4: 44; 5v 1; Luke 8: 11-15; John 1:1, 14; Acts 4 v 31; 1 Thess 2 v 13; Heb. 4: 12-13; Heb. 11 v 3

 

I am quite aware what the LXX is, a poor Greek translation of the Hebrew text. It was started in ca. 250 B.C.

And so? You have a Greek translation, and let me emphasize "translation" in the LXX. Then you have the Hebrew sacred Scriptures untranslated which Jesus could translate himself in his mind while speaking, if He was the one speaking Greek. He could have been speaking Hebrew, and the author of the Gospel recorded it in Greek, for all the NT was written in Greek. Either way you have no proof that Christ was quoting from the LXX. Most of the Jews knew fluently: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and perhaps a local language that they may be from. See Acts 2 for an example of all the languages represented on the Day of Pentecost.

First of all the apocrypha contains at least 13 books.
Secondly did you even look up those references yourself, and check the accuracy of them. They are all bogus. Take the first one for example.

Mat. 4:4 "Man shall not live by bread alone." This is a quote from Deu. 8:3, and has nothing to do with the Book of Wisdom. The same is true with the rest of that list of spurious Scripture rejected by Jews and Christians alike.

 

When they quoted from the canon of Scripture there was no need to say anything but thus saith the Lord, or to speak authoritatively, as they did, correct? However, when they quoted outside the Word of God, as sometimes they did, they usually identified their source:
Examples:
Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch.
Paul in Titus quotes from a Cretian philosopher.
Paul on Mars Hill quotes from a Greek poet.

But never do they identify any other apocryphal book, or any other translation of the Bible. They used the accepted canon of Scripture that they had at the time--the Masoretic Hebrew Text.

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) (Acts 22:2)

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 26:14)

The Hebrew tongue or language commanded attention. It was their sacred language, the language that their Scripture was written in. Certainly there were translations. But this is the language that it was originally written in, and preserved. This was the language of the fore-fathers. It demanded attention. It demanded respect. And it got their attention, even as it got Saul's attention when Jesus spoke to him.

 

I also preach, and not just in churches; sometimes in open areas. Does that qualify my sermons as inspired? I admit it is the "oral preaching of the gospel." I do it all the time. What would make my preaching any less inspired than John the Baptist?

 

Preaching the Word of Jesus directly from those that had been given the authority and power to Teach [ large T ] directly from Jesus the Son , from God the Father making Jesus a Teacher with Authority and He in turn with all Authority making His Apostles along with their future Successors [ Matt. 28:18-20 ] also "teachers with authority " [ John 20:21; Luke 10: 16 ] As the Holy Bible tells us Jesus and His Apostles/successors all had the aithority to Teach the Teachings of Jesus without a Holy Bible . Once the Holy Bible was written [ Gal. 1: 11-12 ] compiled with the correct Books [ 350-405 A.D. ] then the Holy Bible along with the Apostolic Teachings are needed for proper interpretation/understanding of the Bible, as the Holy Bible was intended ,as found in 2nd Peter 3:16 and John 20: 30 . The understanding of the "Fullness of God's Word" must be with both Apostolic Teaching along with the Holy Bible [ 2nd. Thess. 2; 15 and Luke 10:16 ]. Both are needed , if not then just look around and see all the confusion that is going on since man's intervention with the work of Christ's One True Church that was given to "all" men to be stewards of His Church. Jesus said "my church" [ mATT 16: 15-19 ] and in that same verse Jesus gave all power and authority to His Apostolic Church the following authority - "... And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven , and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ". Now read Matt. 18: 15-18 and ask yourself which church in that verse was Jesus speaking about , it had to have been only His Apostolic Church that was existing then with all necessary Doctrine/ Teachings intact then, at that time, not hundreds of years later. No future churches needed because everything needed for the "Fullness of the Christian Faith ' was and still is found in God's One True earthly Church. Romans 16: 17-18 and 1 Cor. 1:10. '' ... in opposition to the "doctrine that you have been taught' ..... "
I am Catholic because the Holy Bible tells me that i should belong to Christ's Church, and i believe that the Bible is telling me the truth , that Jesus formed only One Church for all of us. Jesus never said that it's members would be perfect ,only it's Teachings/ Doctrine.

 

I teach directly from the Bible. It is my authority. My authority also comes directly from Christ who commissioned me. Right now I am in a foreign nation. When people ask who sent me here, I tell them "God sent me here." And that is the truth.
If you want to belong to Christ's Church why would you join one that has its roots in a ruthless emperor of the fourth century, and made Christianity a state-religion. The state-religion became the RCC. Those that opposed it (that were Christians), remained true to the word of God. It was at that time that Constantine paganized Christianity, and it remains paganized to this day in the form of the RCC.

 

If you would have bothered to read the verses that i presented to you then you would have clearly seen that it is Christ's Apostolic Church ,and not your church or any other man-made church along with their off-spring cults that the Bible was speaking about, but no , you only stopped at where you could find ammo to shoot back with. You are not being honest with yourself .And You are not following the Holy Bible with believing that your church is from Jesus, because no where can any of you Prots find a verse where Jesus gave 'Authority ' to any other mere man the authority to start a different church. You aren't even biblical "ordained.''You DNK are actually saying that Jesus lied with His promise of always protecting His Church which was and still is only Apostolic in origin . Jesus never promised a Church with perfect members ,only a Church with a perfect unchangeable Doctrine.Only the Catholic/ Apostolic Church is that Church not your church or any other man-made church invented by mere men from the 6th century on. Go back and read those verses that i supplied for you or any other Protestant to read, then show me any verse that supports a Protestant church, you can't , can you ? Talk about dishonesty.

 

Which supports my contention: if the Deuterocanonical books were not sacred Scripture to them, they would have identified the source as Apocryphal when quoting from them

I trust therefore you have excised the passages from your OT which were originally written in Aramaic eg: parts of Daniel? Let me know when you have and I will take your point seriously.

 

Whaaat? Are you now arrogating to yourself the same status as John the Baptist?!!

 

GE:

Yes, 'Inspiration' of the books of the New Testament in themselves is believed.

But we forget the Providence of God - that also is driven by the Spirit of God - in the end DETERMINED DIVINELY which books are, the 'Inspired Canon of Holy Scripture.

As the Spirit of God guided the hand of the prophet to write, so the Spirit of God destined HISTORY throughout the forming and establishing of the Canon, AS WE NOW HAVE THEM in the 'texts' compiled from all available manuscripts.

God, who watched over the 'survival' of rolls and pieces of paper and other materials upon which was written the words of the Scriptures AND THEIR DISCOVERY, is the Author, Editor and Publisher of his Written Word.

That is what I believe. That supplies the grounds on which I accept and believe the Greek Texts whichever and collected together however by whomever whenever, has all the while been the Word and the only 'inspired' written Word of God.

That, I believe, is God's FOR EVER CLOSED, Canon of Holy Writ.

Therefore, any others who might try to force their entry into the company of the true prophets of God are already exposed for the fraudsters they are.

 

Protestant, this is what you wrote: "As the Spirit of God guided the hand of the prophet to write, so the Spirit of God destined HISTORY throughout the forming and establishing of the Canon, AS WE NOW HAVE THEM in the 'texts' compiled from all available manuscripts.

God, who watched over the 'survival' of rolls and pieces of paper and other materials upon which was written the words of the Scriptures AND THEIR DISCOVERY, is the Author, Editor and Publisher of his Written Word. "


Yes, and all completed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and that is an undeniable, irrefutable fact of secular , Judaic and Christian history.

 

Lakeside,

Do you think the term "catholic" has always meant the same thing in history? For example, there are some epistles called the "catholic" episitles. Did not that simply mean "generally accepted" or "universally recognized" epistles? Didn't some early groups that Rome called "heretics" claim to be the true "catholic" church as well? If it were a denominational title early in history then why would those Rome regarded "heretics" (and obviously they regarded Rome as heretical) call themselves the "catholic" church? It appears that the term "catholic" at this early period simply meant "universally recognized" or "generally received" churches of Christ. Wasn't each particular congregation called "catholic" in the same sense. Wouldn't this term amount to "authentic" and thus a claim to universal recognition as apostolic in origin?

 

Yes. Univeral. Always means universal.

 

Not quite Matt! :laugh: I am just trying to challenge Lakeside's thinking on what is inspired and what is not.

 

Quite a large portion actually: Dan.2:46-7:28 is written in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Gentiles. In this passage God deals with his plan for the Gentile people.

 

So, that kind of demonstrates the principle that the OT doesn't have to be written in Hebrew to be inspired then.

Phew! I was going to send you a recipe for locusts and honey...plus a catalogue for the latest fashions in hairshirts!

 

I understand the etymological meaning of the term but it seems to me there is something more in its usage and application in the early church fathers. For example a local congregation is called "catholic" and that congregation is not "universal" in the sense area or distribution.

It would seem that the term "catholic" went through a metamorphis first in response to Judaism. Judiasm is a religion restricted to one ethnicity - Jewish whereas the early Jewish Christian congregations were "catholic" or universal in the sense of ethnicity.

It would appear that also the term "catholic" was used early to refer to mean "universal recognition" or conveying the same thing as "orthodox" because competing denominations would each claim to be the true "catholic" church and yet they were in opposition to each other and neither were truly "universal" in geographic extent.

Later the use of it as a denominational title as in "Roman Catholic" versus another "Catholic" division is something other than how it was originally used among Christians and congregations.

 

It always meant "Universal'; Jesus inteded for His One True Church to be 'universal'.
Christ's only Church has always been a One Holy Catholic/ Universal & Apostolic Church. Every Church today comes out of Christ through Apostolic Succession. The litmus test- If a church can not be traced back to Jesus and His Apostles then that church isn't from Christ but from a mere man or woman.