A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

[Word_Swordsman]

and it was proven by the second century that he and Aquilla had intentionally altered the scriptures in other books shouldn't it make sense that the differences between LXX and Theodotions translation are altered the same?

I suggest that even if the two of them altered every text they could find they couldn't possibly find enough texts out of possibly hundreds of copies to change future copy content forever. I liken that to splitting a down pillow on a windy day on a hilltop. You probably would not have all your pillow back. Someone finding just one feather could rightly suspect there might still be a nice pillow to be had. Copies of the texts, at least portions of the whole, were by their day widely distributed, the finding of one unaltered copy exposing forgeries compared to it. I suspect many texts resided in many synagogues and in some private hands.

Taking all of the texts together yields an amazing amount of agreement, probably most differences being simply missing chapters or whole books. I expect Jesus read from a Hebraic scroll, not the Septuagint, inside a synagogue. The Septuagint was apparently meant for Jews living in areas where Koine Greek dominated, which Paul doubtless mastered along with Aramaic, as needed in his travels. Hebrew was honored as official for Jews in His time and location, with high assurance all official scrolls were authentic copies of the most ancient available text. One slight error would have been easily detected resulting in burning of the whole document. Dead Sea Scroll studies are revealing much about the times of Jesus.

 

[Jason0047]

Yeah, not the type of guy people would probably want to be around - it's not persecution, there is a difference between being persecuted, and being a jerk, or someone who is obtuse in his dealing with people and scripture

Off topic discussion. Please start another thread if you want to talk about the church. This thread is about Sola Scriptura.

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you today.

 

[dcontroversal]

Great passage, which I would translate "expired of God." Theopneustos.

All of God's word is not uniformly understood by each reader without dissension. Peter says that there are difficult things to understand in Paul. Understanding is always less than perfect, but quite sufficient for salvation & all things that pertain to godliness. Even when it is less than 100 percent understood, we may read and the Spirit may use it in our lives.

I like this as well and translate it (God Breathed) hahahha good point as well.

 

[dcontroversal]

Like I said.,,, Emotional spasms. Nothing more.

Have a pleasant evening, dcon.

We shall see who suffers emotional spasms MANARD for sure.....and thanks...I will have a pleasant evening, day, morning...........!

 

[dcontroversal]

And the Corinthian Church consistently using the Acts of Peter as Scripture until the ordinance of a canon from the Council of Nicea is trivial? That's not covered up history. Many Churches held onto the core Scriptures, often denying something as Scripture while holding others as Scripture. The earliest Greek Bishops did not accept Revelation as Scripture until the Council. That's important because the Church banded together to remove heresies and heretical books and infallibly names the canon because the Holy Spirit worked through each person at that meeting, to ensure a Divine Word free from error and fallible teachings. Why do you accept that and not accept that throughout the Church there have been reforms and changes to the Catholic Church? Seriously, prior to the foundations of Francis and Dominic, all religious priests and monks hid themselves from the world, and suddenly now they are on the streets, teaching, and feeding the poor and hungry. That was a reform. We believe that Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit guide the Church and steer the Church throughout history. As one comedian said in the 1500s, "Nothing this corrupt could last 14 years, let alone 1,400. It must be God."

SO is Islam from God? That is not a valid reason to accept something as being from God. Can you honestly say that it is ok to worship...

1. Bone fragments
2. Teeth
3. Hair
4. Bleeding statues of women and statues of men
5. Worship a man and make him EQUAL with God
6. Pray somebody into heaven
7. Finger nail clippings

ETC. REALLY take a breath and go to the bible and NOT A PRIEST and READ and understand how the above cannot be SCRIPTURAL.....NOT ONE EXAMPLE of a child, baby being IMMERSED found.....The whole theology of Catholic Dogma is corrupt and contrary and MY BIBLE teaches that what they/you teach for the MOST part is heretical and I say this with no animosity, anger, heat or in a mouthy way!

The bible is the final rule of faith and practice...not Catholic Dogma!

 

[Maynard]

We shall see who suffers emotional spasms MANARD for sure.....and thanks...I will have a pleasant evening, day, morning...........!

LOL! Dang that's funny.

Love you dcon spaz-man!

 

[ThomistColin]

#3 There was precisely zero discussion of the biblical canon at Nicea. I don't know why people keep saying this, but there wasn't - even non-Christian scholars like Robert Price know this, but somehow it circulates around. Have discussions on canon, by all means, but for goodness sake do some actual research into the primary sources instead of simply repeating what other armchair critics have said on the internet.

Canon was discussed at Nicea. However, it was not confirmed at Nicea. Both Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Peter ended being held as Scripture at Nicea. It was the following councils that defined the canon, but Nicea was the beginning. This is why it is often referred to, though most don't delve deeply into the history. It's often best to mention it as you have, as a point of order.

 

[ThomistColin]

What is your proof of that one?
Now for starters, prove that in AD 100 The Corinthian Church used Acts of Peter as Scripture. And prove that the majority of the congregation did so.
Then take each year after that & prove it for each year 101, 102, 103, etc., for you said "consistently." Now give us 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each year. Either do that or retract.


That corruption can't last thousands of years is absurd. When did satan ever go out of business? How did Islam continue?

Thomist, anyone can up & claim anything the want. But the above is just you saying things. Let's see the proof for each of your claims. Give 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each assertion. Prove it for 100 AD, 150 AD, 200 AD, 250 AD, 300 AD. There have ever been heretics around.

Now opposed to what you say above, the Lord Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." It is clear that whenever a prophet gave the Word of God the people were responsible to accept the prophecy. Peter endorsed Paul as scripture -- not waiting 300 years.

Do you really think that the bishops = elders of the 7 Churches in Asia Minor who received the Revelation from John, rejected it for 300 years??? Absurd. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the 7 churches! So you think they all ignored that. You give not a shred of evidence for that one.

God's word is ever opposed by satan's agents, and there were many of his agents in the early church. Maybe Diotrephes of 3 John rejected it; but what does that prove?

The fact is that God's people accepted His Word when they got it, and didn't wait 300 years (long after they were dead) to accept it.

St. Iranaeus mentions it, as does Marcion, as does Justin Martyr, as does Pope Saint Clement I, as does St. Augustine. That takes you from the beginning of the 2nd century to the late fourth century. There is your proof. Augustine mentions it in his sermons on the core Gospels as the inspired word of God and the delineation between the two. Also, read the Church Fathers and their contemporaries. Read about how Revelation was not accepted by many as Scripture until it was decided upon infallibly by an Ecumenical Council.

 

[ThomistColin]

[/B][/U]
SO is Islam from God? That is not a valid reason to accept something as being from God. Can you honestly say that it is ok to worship...

1. Bone fragments
2. Teeth
3. Hair
4. Bleeding statues of women and statues of men
5. Worship a man and make him EQUAL with God
6. Pray somebody into heaven
7. Finger nail clippings

ETC. REALLY take a breath and go to the bible and NOT A PRIEST and READ and understand how the above cannot be SCRIPTURAL.....NOT ONE EXAMPLE of a child, baby being IMMERSED found.....The whole theology of Catholic Dogma is corrupt and contrary and MY BIBLE teaches that what they/you teach for the MOST part is heretical and I say this with no animosity, anger, heat or in a mouthy way!

The bible is the final rule of faith and practice...not Catholic Dogma!

First, we don't worship such things. That is a lie.
Second, I have read Scripture, studied the History around it. It is the perfect, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. (By the way, that's Catholic Dogma)
Third, I was neither raised nor born Catholic. You're not talking to someone who doesn't understand nor hasn't explored his faith.
Fourth, your attack on infant baptism has to be widened, we aren't the only ones who do it.
Fifth, the WHOLE theology of Catholicism can't be corrupt and contrary since we both agree on topics such as: abortion, gay marriage, the meaning of Good, Ethics, and Bio-Ethics. Much of philosophy is born out of famous Catholic theologians who are studied and highly held by most Protestants.

 

[Nick01]

Both Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Peter ended being held as Scripture at Nicea.

Not according to Athanasius, it wasn't. In his 'Decrees', as far as I have found, he explicitly states that Hermas was not considered "canon". No mention of AoP. Given that, apart from the canons themselves (which don't mention biblical canon), he's our most detailed account of what actually happened at Nicea and given he only refers to Hermas in discussing the Arian heresy, Ill have to ask for some further sourcing before believing either of those texts were viewed as Scripture by the council. The whole thrust of Athanasius' passing comment assumes they were not commonly considered such.

In any case, it seems there was no formal discussion of canon, and Ath's reference is only precipitated by the use of Hermas by Eusebius.

A side point, but I think its worth being as accurate point on a matter frequently misused and miscited.

 

[JaumeJ]

This is probably6 already addressed, but my thoughts go to the warning not to add to nor take away from the Word of God, and in Revealtions, not to add to nor take away from the words of the prophesy of that book.

These are two direct warnings about adding to or taking away from scripture, and they are easy to abide by in sticking only to the Holy Scripture attributed to the servants of God.

 

[Dan_473]

Did Jesus and the apostles argue over what was authorative Scripture or not? No. They knew what was Scripture and what was not Scripture and quoted it with authority and power. My point being is that you are walking by sight and not by faith when you seek to look at old manuscripts and or historical documents to confirm your faith. But faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In other words, you still do not know what the Word of God is yet (if you doubt what is in God's Word). This makes it sound like you are still seeking. Still wondering. Maybe there is more words of God? That is the danger. New revelation. For everyone out there is having dreams and visions. Everyone out there is declaring such and such writings are inspired, too. But all these things under close examination next to the written Word of God cannot stand. God is not powerless to provide His Word for us today. For those believers who died in Revelation had died for their witness for the Word of God (i.e. the Bible) and for Jesus Christ. They were not still seeking for the Word fo God. They were giving testimony to it already.

i agree that we have no record of Jesus and the apostles arguing over what was authorative Scripture... my take on that is most Jewish people of that time were expecting the Messiah to come along any day and restore the kingdom to Israel, fix temple worship, etc... it's interesting that in Luke 4, Jesus seems to be reading out of the lxx, which uses a different canon than the masoretic text we use today... if someone simply wants to declare their faith in a certain document being absolutely God's word, then I say Go with that, and may the lord be with you...

 

[Dan_473]

i agree that we have no record of Jesus and the apostles arguing over what was authorative Scripture... my take on that is most Jewish people of that time were expecting the Messiah to come along any day and restore the kingdom to Israel, fix temple worship, etc... it's interesting that in Luke 4, Jesus seems to be reading out of the lxx, which uses a different canon than the masoretic text we use today... if someone simply wants to declare their faith in a certain document being absolutely God's word, then I say Go with that, and may the lord be with you...

passion is good! let us continue to seek to edify each other!

 

[Dan_473]

You are most welcome.

And may God bless you greatly today.

Please do not take offense to anything I write sometimes. I can get a little passionate about defending God's Written Word because it is very close to my heart.

passion is good! let us continue to seek to edify each other!

 

[Dan_473]

post 93 was supposed to be deleted, it's in reply to the wrong post... oh well...

 

[dcontroversal]

First, we don't worship such things. That is a lie.
Second, I have read Scripture, studied the History around it. It is the perfect, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. (By the way, that's Catholic Dogma)
Third, I was neither raised nor born Catholic. You're not talking to someone who doesn't understand nor hasn't explored his faith.
Fourth, your attack on infant baptism has to be widened, we aren't the only ones who do it.
Fifth, the WHOLE theology of Catholicism can't be corrupt and contrary since we both agree on topics such as: abortion, gay marriage, the meaning of Good, Ethics, and Bio-Ethics. Much of philosophy is born out of famous Catholic theologians who are studied and highly held by most Protestants.

If the root is corrupt...so is the tree and yes the Catholic Church does worship the things listed above in post 85.....and my statement on babies and youth being IMMERSED (sprinkling not valid) does apply to any religion that does such things.......

 

[Dan_473]

so, Jason... it's taken me a while to wrap my mind around the idea of the spirit not guiding Christians today into all truth... though my wife says she grew up in a church where a lot of people thought that... so, do you believe that the Comforter is with Christians today... John 14...?

 

[Jason0047]

so, Jason... it's taken me a while to wrap my mind around the idea of the spirit not guiding Christians today into all truth... though my wife says she grew up in a church where a lot of people thought that... so, do you believe that the Comforter is with Christians today... John 14...?

Well, I don't want to lead this into an off topic discussion, but to give you a quick reply in relation to this topic, I believe ALL true believers thru out time have the Holy Spirit whereby the Spirit guides and leads them into all truth according to the Communicated Word of God available to them. Before the writing of the Torah and the writing of the book of Job, men exclusively had the "Spoken Word of God." From the first writings of Scripture to the close of Revelation, men had both the Written Word of God and the Spoken Word of God. After the close of Revelation, men just have the Written Word of God.

Yeah, but what about the disciples not having the Spirit during Christ's ministry? See, Jesus lived in the hearts of the disciples before He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them. That is how they had life. For He that has the Son has life and He that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12).

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."​

Jesus said this to the people living back then and not just to us today. In other words, when a person back then gathered together in Jesus' name, our Lord Jesus was admist them because He is God. John 14 is the point in time before the receiving of the Holy Spirit. John 20:22 is the time when they did receive the Holy Spirit. In the church, we see many who accepted Christ and were baptized had received the Holy Spirit. Some even received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Having the Spirit means you are saved. No God living in you, no salvation. For God is the source of a person's salvation. Salvation is God. It's not in what you do. Yes, we have to respond to God, but once we let the Lord into our life, He can then transform us spiritually so that He can live within our heart and lives. For salvation is about God living in you. Salvation is not about in human effort alone (Apart from God). No Holy Spirit guiding a person into all truth would mean a person does not have the Holy Spirit. Ask God for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth within His Word and see what happens. Believe.

 

[Dan_473]

Well, I don't want to lead this into an off topic discussion, but to give you a quick reply in relation to this topic, I believe ALL true believers thru out time have the Holy Spirit whereby the Spirit guides and leads them into all truth according to the Communicated Word of God available to them. Before the writing of the Torah and the writing of the book of Job, men exclusively had the "Spoken Word of God." From the first writings of Scripture to the close of Revelation, men had both the Written Word of God and the Spoken Word of God. After the close of Revelation, men just have the Written Word of God.

Yeah, but what about the disciples not having the Spirit during Christ's ministry? See, Jesus lived in the hearts of the disciples before He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them. That is how they had life. For He that has the Son has life and He that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12).

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."​

Jesus said this to the people living back then and not just to us today. In other words, when a person back then gathered together in Jesus' name, our Lord Jesus was admist them because He is God. John 14 is the point in time before the receiving of the Holy Spirit. John 20:22 is the time when they did receive the Holy Spirit. In the church, we see many who accepted Christ and were baptized had received the Holy Spirit. Some even received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Having the Spirit means you are saved. No God living in you, no salvation. For God is the source of a person's salvation. Salvation is God. It's not in what you do. Yes, we have to respond to God, but once we let the Lord into our life, He can then transform us spiritually so that He can live within our heart and lives. For salvation is about God living in you. Salvation is not about in human effort alone (Apart from God). No Holy Spirit guiding a person into all truth would mean a person does not have the Holy Spirit. Ask God for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth within His Word and see what happens. Believe.

so, in your view, what was the Communicated Word of God available to believers in the time just before the kjv was written that the spirit was using to guide them into all truth?

 

[Jason0047]

so, in your view, what was the Communicated Word of God available to believers in the time just before the kjv was written that the spirit was using to guide them into all truth?

The Word existed perfectly in written form in Latin manuscripts (Not the corrupt Latin Vulgate Roman Catholic manuscripts) before the KJV 1769 (1611). Before the Latin, they existed perfectly in Greek manuscripts (NT) and Hebrew manuscripts (OT). But as I said before, only the "Written Word of God" now exists from after the point of the close of the book of Revelation (When John's scroll was complete).