Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

This is simply untrue.

 

Thank you for that clarification

I don't understand how you argue that "qahal" as understood by Jews in the Septuigent supports your position? Just examine the use of ekklesia in the Septuigent for yourself and you will see they did not translate qahal in every case by ekklesia but ONLY in cases where it does not take any wider meaning than a visible local congregation.

This version demonstrates they did not view ekklesia strictly equivilent to qahal but rather understood that ekklesia was much narrower in meaning and usage than qahal.

Furthermore, you have not addressed the greater problem with your explanation. No matter what word you use, the usage by Christ denies your position whether in Matthew or Revelation. Why would Christ mean one thing by qahal/ekklesia in Matthew 16:18 but an entirely differen thing in the next 22 times he uses the same term? Isn't the qahal/ekklesia/church he confessed to be the builder of in Matthew 16:18 the same kind he goes on to claim as his qahal/ekklesia/church in his remaining uses of the term???

How does your explanation reconcile the obvious 99% usage of qahal by Christ corresponds with the use of "ekklesia" rather than the more general use of qahal?

 

Where in the Old Testament do we have the metaphor "body of Christ" used for anything by anyone at any time?

You are assuming your position before proving it. Isn't that circular reasoning?

It is as much as a New Testament concept as is Christ's ekklesia. I contend that the metaphor "body of Christ" cannot possibly be used for anything other than a local visible congregation of Christ for the following reasons:

1. It is rooted in the metaphorical relationship of Christ as the metaphorical "head" (authority) versus the congregation as his metaphorical "body" (submission)in a progressive sanctification context as illustrated in the husband and wife relationship (Eph. 5:20-27).

2. It has nothing to do with spiritual union (regeneration - Eph. 2:10a) or legal position (justification) "in Christ" but with public representation (metaphor) "in Christ" just as baptism has nothing to do with regeneration or justification but with public symbolic identification "in Christ."

3. Each local congregation is the body of Christ and the composite membership of that local congregation are "members in particular" - 1 Cor. 12:27.

4. Christ is the "head" over all things EQUALLY as He is the head over the church his body - Eph. 1:21-23. In the sense of spiritual union that would teach pantheism. Metaphorically it teaches only he is the final source of AUTHORITY over all things including the congregational body of Christ.

5. That each metaphorical congregational body has it's own "head" distinct from Christ - 1 Cor. 12:21 - just as the woman has her own physical "head" in addition to the husband being her metaphorical "head." Hence, "head" used as a metaphor has nothing to do with physical or spiritual union between the head and body but with AUTHORITY in the sphere of sanctified service for God.

 

R.C. Sproul has a good article on sola scriptura in which he says this:

 

The NT church, the body of Christ, did not have its beginning in the OT.
In the NT we see the concept of the bride of Christ for example. Even John the Baptist admits that he will not be a part of this bride. He will be a friend of the bridegroom, but not a part of the bride, as will all the OT saints. The OT Israel has no part or parcel in the NT church. It seems to me that you are headed toward a dangerous heresy known as Replacement Theology. Ekklesia simply means assembly. It means assembly in a secular sense as well, as it is used in Acts 19:

`And if ye seek after anything concerning other matters, in the legal assembly it shall be determined; (Acts 19:39)
and these things having said, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:41)
--Here are two times that the word ekklesia is not translated church but assembly, even in the KJV, although I quoted from Young's. They assembled in the theater. It was an assembly that assembled for a purpose.

 

Yes, most likely they did.

Look at this context--a crowd full of Jews.
1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) (Acts 22:1-2)
--They were astonished that he spoke Hebrew to them. This was rare. It was their sacred language usually only spoken in the Temple when their Scriptures were read. It was the language of the learned. The common universal language of the world at that time was Greek, which was even spoken among the disciples. It is not that they didn't understand Hebrew or its cousin Aramaic; it is simply that in that nation and culture they grew up speaking Greek as their mother tongue. Hebrew was learned in the synagogues.

 

:thumbs: Amen!

 

I love it when an Independent Baptist quotes Presbyterians :applause: --- More from my good friend RC ---

"One thing is certain. The Roman church has interpreted Trent as affirming two sources of special revelation since the sixteenth century. Vatican I spoke of two sources. The papal encyclical Humani Generis spoke of "sources of revelation." Even PopeJohn XXIII spoke of Scripture and Tradition in Ad Petri Cathedram.

Not only has the dual-source theory been confirmed both by ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals, but tradition has been appealed to on countless occasions to validate doctrinal formulations that divide Rome and Protestantism. This is particularly true regarding decisions in the area of Mariology.

Over against this dual-source theory stands the sola of Sola Scriptura. Again, the Reformers did not despise the treasury of church tradition. The great councils of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople receive much honor in Protestant tradition. The Reformers themselves gave tribute to the insights of the church fathers. Calvin's love for Augustine is apparent through out the Institutes. Luther's expertise in the area of Patristics was evident in his debates with Cajetan and Eck. He frequently quotes the fathers as highly respected ecclesiastical authorities. But the difference is this: For the Reformers no church council, synod, classical theologian, or early church father is regarded as infallible. All are open to correction and critique. We have no Doctor Irrefragabilis of Protestantism.
Protestant churches have tended to be confessional in character. Subscription to confessions and creeds has been mandatory for the clergy and parish of many denominations. Confessions have been used as a test of orthodoxy and conformity to the faith and practice of the church. But the confessions are all regarded as reformable. They are considered reformable because they are considered fallible. But the Sola Scriptura principles in its classic application regards the Scripture as irreformable because of its infallibility."

 

<Sigh> I already set out that explanation a couple of posts of mine back but I'll restate it here again in the interests of clarity: the primary addressees of Matthew's Gospel were Jewish Christians who, whilst they knew some Greek, were indeed Jewish in background and so would have understood ekklesia as being congruent with their Hebrew term qahal whereas, to follow your example, the Johannine churches which were the addressees of Revelation were 'pure' ie: Gentile Greek, who would have understood ekklesia as synonymous with the assembly of the Greek city-states. So that is the explanation for the difference in meaning - universal and local - of the term at different places in the NT.

 

Either I am failing to convey why your theory simply does not adequately address the problem or you are failing to read carefully what I am saying. Both Matthew and John are providing Christ's own usage of ekklesia rather than two opposing views. You cannot dissect them as though they originate from two different sources because they do not - One Holy Spirit is the author and one Jesus Christ is the speaker in all 23 instances.

It does not matter whether Matthew was written to Jews or not or Revelation was written to hellenistic Jews or not as both EQUALLY convey the use of ekklesia by the same person - Jesus Christ under leadership of the same author - The Holy Spirit.

You completely fail to acknowledge that the Septuigent provides the proper Biblical background for Jewish understanding of ekklesia in regard to the Hebrew term qahal.

Moreover, the second and third use of ekklesia in Matthew 18:17 simply destroys your rationale altogether. Regardless how you define ekklesia in Matthew 16:18, you have the same speaker using the same term in the same grammatical way (singular, definite article, no geographical location, in connection with the keys of the kingdom) in Matthew 18:17. Hence, your argument falls flat.

 

It is a meaningless argument since qahal was a word that was never used, not even ever referred to. The word has nothing to do with the conversation. The NT was written in the Greek language, and that includes Matthew's Gospel.

 

No failure on my part at all.

Sound exegesis demands that we look at the context in which the HS through Matthew and John uses the word: in Matthew's case it was to a principally Jewish audience, who would have understood ekklesia to have the same meaning as the Aramaic adta and the Hebrew qahal, whereas John's Greek audience would have understood it to mean assembly. From this we can deduce that when Jesus and the HS use the word in Matthew, it has a different - universal - meaning from when They use it in Revelation, where it has a local meaning.

This is now the third time I have had to explain this to you, and I hope there will not be the need for a fourth...

You completely fail to acknowledge that the Septuigent provides the proper Biblical background for Jewish understanding of ekklesia in regard to the Hebrew term qahal.

Moreover, the second and third use of ekklesia in Matthew 18:17 simply destroys your rationale altogether. Regardless how you define ekklesia in Matthew 16:18, you have the same speaker using the same term in the same grammatical way (singular, definite article, no geographical location, in connection with the keys of the kingdom) in Matthew 18:17. Hence, your argument falls flat.[/QUOTE]

 

The word Jesus would have spoken would have been adta, directly derived from qahal and having the same universalist meaning since, contrary to yor earlier rather absurd suggestion, the disciples and Jesus would have conversed in Aramaic since (a) that was the common speech of the Jews at the time and (b) the disciples - some of them at least - were unlearned fishermen who would have been most unlikely to have known much if any Greek.

Just because it was written in Greek doesn't mean the orginal words spoken by Jesus were Greek. The KJV version of Matthew's Gospel was written in English - does that mean that Jesus and the disciples conversed in English? Of course not! Neither does the written language of the original MS have any bearing on the language they used for everyday conversation - which was Aramaic.

 

[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't bet on it, might want to duck, he loves to throw stuff "in your face".

 

Sorry, completely messed up my code in my penultimate post: the statements after "I hope there won't be the need for a fourth..." are Walter's.

 

You have no concept of "sound exegesis" or you wouldn't even mouth such absolute utter irrational nonsense.

You have the same speaker - Jesus Christ - being quoted by Matthew and John, the Same Divine Author - The Holy Spirit - and yet conveying two absolutely contradictory meanings to Jews in both audiances and worse yet Matthew contradicting himself by claiming Christ built one kind of something in Matthew 16:18 but talking about something entirely different in Matthew 18:17. Worse yet, you completely disregard the only available manuscript evidence available which is GREEK and then deny the Greek grammar means anything to any audiance at any time, as you base your whole "sound exegesis" on absolutely your IMAGINATION of what langauge they used or what they really meant thus SCORNING the Greek text altogether for your IMAGINARY basis for "sound exegesis."

On top of all this nonsense, you completely ignore that "qahal" in its relationship with ekklesia has been culturally established within the religious Jewish community by the Septuigent which totally anihilates your whole theory.

You sir, are simply ignorant of sound exegesis and wouldn't recognize what it is, if it starred you in the face.

 

Yeah, well, it takes one to know one and all that...and at least I can spell, even if I can't get my code right!

[ETA - the first use of ekklesia in the LXX is in Deut. 4:10, where it refers to the whole nation of Israel. Care to reconsider about whether the LXX supports your theory?]

 

You have written much, most of it based on unfounded assumptions.
You didn't read my post very carefully did you. I said that they were more apt to converse in Greek because that was the common language of the day. Hebrew was their sacred language that was spoken primarily in the Temple. I never mentioned any of them as being unlearned. They wrote our NT. Why would I say they were unlearned. There was diversity among them, but that doesn't mean they were unlearned.

What does the Scripture say about languages:

This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. (John 19:20)
--Hebrew here must mean Hebrew; it cannot refer to Aramaic. It was written in the Hebrew language.
It was also written in the Greek and Latin languages. Why?
Hebrew was the national language of the "Hebrews," or Israel.
Latin was the official language of Rome.
Greek was the universal language of the world, that which Alexander the Great gave them, Caesar's predecessor. It was the "common language," the "lingua franca," "koine Greek," and thus the language the the NT was written in.

What else:
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1)
--The murmuring of the Grecian or Hellenized Jews vs. the Hebrew Jews.
The one group of widows primarily spoke Greek.
The other group had grown up speaking the language of their ancestors--Hebrew. Again, this word cannot be translated any other way.

What it does mean is that the inspired word of God is written in Greek and that is what we must go by. God intended us to use His Words not the words of others. His word says ekklesia. All other is speculative at best. If God says ekklesia, then ekklesia it is. The Scriptures are our only authority in this case. They become final and authoritative speaking as the voice of God.

 

Are you saying you accept the LXX as the only inspired version of the OT over the MT or other Hebrew versions???

 

No, I was speaking of the NT, where we find the word ekklesia. That is the only inspired Scripture where we find that word.
The LXX was written ca. 250 B.C. It is not inspired. It is a translation, no more inspired than the NIV or ASV. It is simply a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. It was canonized as Scripture close to 400 B.C. The Jews never accepted any book written after that date as Scripture. Thus all apocryphal books have been consistently rejected by the Jews, the oldest one being about 250 B.C. Again, nothing in the LXX is inspired; it is simply a translation.