Scripture and Tradition

The LXX could NOT have been "the standard" since as we saw "merely speaking Hebrew" was sufficient to quiet the mob intent on killing Paul. It is clear that their "standard" was Hebrew.

This was the text of scripture which the teachers and learned among the Hebrew speaking Jews in Israel would have used without question. It predates the LXX and was the hightest written "authority" that they used.

The LXX by contrast was similar to the Latin "Vulgate" - a compromised version in the language of greek speaking Jews outside of Israel.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that outside of Israel LXX would have been very common. But the standard - Hebrew version (and much older version BTW) would have been known to them.

The whole reason this LXX vs Hebrew came up in the first place was the confused notion that Jews did not know that the Appocrypha was not actually part of the Bible in the same way that Jerome centuries LATER STILL knew that same fact.

As for Acts 17:11 - this is the worst possible case for the "scripture plus tradition needed to validate doctrine" group since they did not have the NT and were STILL able to validate teaching "sola scrptura"!

in Christ,

Bob

 

So how then Bob could the Jews validate Jesus’ teaching of the Beatitudes via Sola Scriptura with the OT only?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

The teachings of the beatitudes is found in the OT in principle form, though they are not so concisely put as our Lord put them, and not so eloquently put, they are still there.

A better question is: How could the Jews at that time validate Jesus' teaching of the Beatitudes via Tradition, when Tradition didn't even exist? I find that hilarious. :laugh:

 

Thanks for the answer DHK, just the response I was hoping for...and I would agree btw that, a few parallels do exists in the OT in regard to our Lord’s teachings of the Beatitudes.

However, based on your response above…and not to put you in a box DHK but, how do you reconcile your particular Baptistic sects view of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper versus the Tradition of the Church’s view in light of the Old and New Testaments teachings on both?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

It took a long time for infant baptism to be accepted by the church, and even a longer time for anything but immersion to be accepted. In other words it can be shown both historically and Biblically that baptism by immersion for adults only was the only accepted method for the first few centuries of Christianity.

By using sola scriptura here are the best reasons.
1. The NT was written in Greek. The word Baptidzo means "immerse." That is its primary meaning: to dip, plunge, immerse. You cannot get sprinkling out of that word, or for that fact even pouring. It means immerse.

2. Every context that it is used in is used in a context of immersion. When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in the wilderness, they both went into the water and they both came out of the water. There was no canteen of water used. They waited until there was sufficient water for him to be immersed.

3. Paul explains the significance of baptism in Romans 6:3,4. It is a picture of our death to a life of sin, and our resurrection to a new life with Christ. Any other method of baptism would not fit with that picture.

Romans 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--buried by baptism into death--the death of our life of sin, our old life.
like Christ was raised from the dead...even so we also should walk in newnes of life---The rising out of the water signifies our new life in Christ; our new walk with Christ.

Other modes of baptism destroy this picture.
It also signifies the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which other modes of baptism cannot picture.

To clarify. I belong to an Independent Fudamental Baptist Church. You will find as many Baptists as there are Protestants. (Baptists are not Protestants). We may have some variance between us as you have no doubt seen. Some churches are Calvinistic and some are Arminian in nature. That difference is trivial in my mind, though it is a hotly argued theological topic here. There are certain distinctives which all Baptists hold to. And you have rightly defined two of them. These are not traditions. These are commands from Jesus himself that we obey. There is no traditon here. In fact, I challenge you to find any tradition that our church keeps as "Baptists." You cannot do it. If it were tradition, it would be uniform in all Baptist churches, or even uniform in all IFB churches. But you won't find any tradition among the Baptists. Sola Scriptura keeps that from happening.

 

It is noteworthy that the Greek Orthodox still baptize Scripturally -- by immersion.

This practice is just starting to stop being infrequent among Catholics.

 

DHK . Your two propositions that 1) Baptists are not Protestants and 2) that Baptist churches have no traditions -- I do not think you are on the mark here .

 

I realize there are difference of opinions, especially by those who either belong to a Baptist "denomination" or are outside of the IFB movement (that is redundant), but I believe I can back it up.

 

We can start with a few easy questions…which Apostle(s) started the first “Baptist” or shall we say, “Independent Fundamental Baptist Church” and in what city? And who was the Early Baptist father that the Apostle ordained Pastor to oversee or lead this particular Baptist church?

Oh and sources please…

ICXC NIKA
-

 

That is the great thing about sola scriptura. I ask how does our church differ in doctrine from the church in Jerusalem (the first church)? If it doesn't, for all practical purposes, I will name it the First Baptist Church in Jerusalem. Not that it was really called that, but does our doctrine differ from the early churches? No, I don't believe it does. Show me where I am wrong.
Yet OTOH I can show you where Catholic, and all of its branches (Orthodox, etc.) believe in many "man-made" unbiblical doctrines.

 

You DHK made the assumption that you can back-up that the early Church was Baptist. So don’t ask me to prove to you the differences…back-up your claims with solid proof.

Start DHK by citing for the class, early Church writings that allude to the traditions within the Baptist Church today as being the same as that of the Church in Jerusalem.

Oh and also DHK, Acts records that the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” in Antioch. So I assume, you believe this to be a “Baptist” Church as well…So with Church History DHK (like from your History class while you were in seminary), show the class, who the Apostle(s) were that started the Church in Antioch and who was the pastor this Apostle ordained to lead this “Baptist” Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

How come you still continue to preach the false belief that NT used LXX despite that I told you many times it was wrong!

Moreover, many Christian believers tolerate this !

Here is one example again.

Acts 15: 16-17

LXX Αmos 9:11-12

Εν τη ημερα εκεινη αναστησω την σκνην Δαυιδ την πεπωκυιαν και ανοικοδομησς τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αωνος

Οπως εκζησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ αυτους λεγει κυριος ο θεος ο ποιων ταυτα

Greek NT
Acts 15:16-17

Μετα ταυτα αναστρεψω, και ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαβιδ την πεπτωκυιαν, και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω και ανορθωσω αυτην,

17 Οπως αν εκζητησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων τον Κυριον, Και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ ουτους, Λεγει Κυριος ο ποιων ταυτα παντα

Can you compare them ? They are too much different each other !

New Testament would have never quoted Septuagint !

Do you need more evidence? I will post it hereunder. But please bring any verse of NT so that we may compare with LXX !

 

1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιθιον[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

His name shall be called


Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
You (feminine You) shall call his name


All 3 are different, because they translated the meaning instead of word to word.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)
LXX

Καλεσαι(call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX

3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα…[FONT=바탕].. [/FONT]αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος[FONT=바탕] (- )[/FONT]
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα[FONT=바탕] ([/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕][/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]Hebrew cannot be written on this BB[/FONT]





LXX used the synonym, but different word.

 

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
[FONT=바탕](delight in, pleasure)[/FONT]

LXX

Εζητησας

[FONT=바탕](seek, pursue)[/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]Chaphatsta[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕](pleased to do, delight in)[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]5) Matthew 2:6 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] too much different, Hegemosin-Arxnota[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]6) Matthew 2:15[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]My son [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] His son[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]7) Mt 2:18 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] couldn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t be found in LXX[/FONT]
φωνηενραμαηκουσθη[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]θρηνοςκαικλαυθμοςκαιοδυρμοςπολυς[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]ραχηλκλασουσατατεκνααυτης[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]καιουκηθελεπαρκληθηναι[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]οτιουκεισι
[FONT=바탕]8) Mt 3:1 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] Isaiah 40:3[/FONT]

A) Isaiah 40:3 LXX:
ΦωνηβοωντοςΤηερημωετοιμασαταικαιεσταιπανταΤασκολιαειςευθειανκαιητραχειαειςπεδια

B) NT in Greek ( Textus Receptus=Other Greek Texts, No variance)
Φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον Κυριου, ευθειας ποιετε τας τριβοθς αυτου

 

The Hoax that the New Testament Writers quoted the Septuagint is an absolute Heresy mainly maintained by Roman Catholic who try to propaganda Apocrypha contained in LXX.

If my assertion is wrong, please bring any verse of NT which quoted Septuagint and compare with Greek NT, Please !


In the above posts, I could not post the Hebrew Texts because BB doesn't accept my Hebrew copoes.

 

My proof is doctrinal. I don't differ in doctrine from those early churches that Paul established and taught. I gain my doctrine from the epistles that he wrote, and my example from the churches that he went to (in the book of Acts). That is all that I need.

Why should I go to man's fallible writings full of error when I have God's infallible writings free of all error? Does that make sense? Not a bit. Remember I believe in sola scriptura. So you will have to fight this battle on my battle field.

It is evident that Paul and Barnabus started the church:

Acts 11:25-26 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Paul and Barnabas stayed there a whole year teaching those that they led to the Lord. A church was thus formed.

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

On their return, they ordaine elders (pastors) in Antioch (as well as the other churches they started). The names are not given, but certainly there was a church started there by Paul and Barnabas, and pastors were ordained by them.