|
|
Post by jimmie on Sept 5, 2014 9:51:18 GMT -8
Sola scriptura is why Catholics mock Protestants. Protestants claim to get their instruction solely from scripture. Yet they worship on Sunday, and keep holidays not established in scripture, both of which were established by the Catholic Church. Below are a few reason that I do not believe in Sola scriptura: (Prov 6:6 KJV) Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: (Psa 143:5 KJV) I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands. (Prov 1:8 KJV) My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: (1 Cor 11:14 KJV) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a  unto him? (John 14:26 KJV) 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. Prov 24:30 I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; 31 And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. 32 Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction. (1 Cor 14:6 KJV) Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 5, 2014 11:30:44 GMT -8
Good points.
We all keep traditions- hopefully the right ones.
Every "sola" I know uses commentaries, concordances, lexicons, books and even the internet. More like sola whatever agrees with me but you can't use your references because I'm "Sola scriptura". Right, under a pig's tale!
But sola scripture generally works ok for me if that is how someone wants to argue a point. I got LOTS of scripturas if I need 'em. Usually though they prove themselves wrong, though you'll seldom get a mainC type to admit it. They are too brainwashed to even see the truth when it is laid out under their sola nosas.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on Sept 6, 2014 5:58:22 GMT -8
Below are a few reason that I do not believe in Sola scriptura: I didn't see reasons, only scripture quotes! I read those scriptures and find insight and guidance. What do you believe I am missing? 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Omnis Scriptura et Sola Scriptura. Now, perhaps you are emphasizing that we must study, meditate, and ponder. However, what we study, meditate, and ponder is SCRIPTURE! Scripture also guides us in these passages to consider the work of God in nature. However, this guidance comes from SCRIPTURE! Yes, scripture also guides us to participate in holy convocation and other things where we will learn of each other, which is tradition. However, we must beware of tradition that contradicts scripture (even in Messianic Judaism) or seeks to add requirements beyond what God has commanded. We must also test what we hear against SCRIPTURE! Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. I believe in Sola Scriptura because of what you quote. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 6, 2014 14:11:06 GMT -8
If I had to describe myself, I s'pose it'd have to be "Prima Scriptura"; scripture first, last, and always the benchmark. However I see nothing wrong with reading deuterocanonical books, some of which carry the weight of scripture, others have errors. I also use commentaries, Talmud, books on history and customs, language ... there are many resources which help us to properly understand scripture. I'm waiting for a good book to come out that explains Sha'ul from a Messianic perspective! Either that or a book entitled "The Words of Paul Written So a Third Grader Can Understand Them." But I'm thinkin' I'll just have to muddle through. 
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on Sept 7, 2014 7:51:10 GMT -8
I agree that other resources can assist us with understanding scripture but they are wrong if they contradict or attempt to go beyond scripture. Discerning the difference is not easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 11, 2015 16:06:37 GMT -8
I am leaning on sola scriptura the more I pursue Messianic Judaism. I find I don't seek out other books like I did as a Christian, but I do seek out biblical studies from Messianic teachers and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
We shouldn't always run to another source if we find ourselves struggling in scripture. Struggling and praying may be what we are supposed to be doing to be ready for the answer and the right timing. Understanding scripture is G-d revealing himself to us. It isn't just about what we know. It is also about being in a place where you have the strength to handle what you learn and have the faith to apply it. G-d has a way of protecting us and strengthening us by slowing us down sometimes. I am a big believer in not being afraid of struggling to understand and waiting on His timing. G-d has always come through for me and He has always blessed me with more than I could have know to ask for in the process.
G-d does give us good teachers that we should look to, but a good teacher is in the spirit and will be seeking a better understanding of G-d's word to live in His way. Therefore, a good teacher's students will simply find themselves more deeply grounded in and thirsting for scripture. If the best benchmark is scripture, then maybe the best benchmark of a good teacher is his students desire for scripture. I only say this because, as a confused Christian, I got lost in what is the mayhem of Barnes and Noble's self-help and Christian Literature sections. I see now how desperate I was for G-d's word.
Anyway, I found this thread because I have a question related to the Catholic Scriptures. Does anyone have any information or insight into why the Catholic Church includes more books in their bible and where they got them from? What are their grounds for including them, and what was the reformation's grounds for excluding them. I am just looking for a better understanding of history, and I haven't gotten a good answer from Catholics or Protestants yet. My parent's pastor said they aren't "the inspired word of G-d", but he didn't explain further. He also didn't seem to think it's a big deal as he went on to say it's okay to read them. Anyway, it seems to me it should be a big deal, and I thought maybe it is somehow related to this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 11, 2015 17:19:42 GMT -8
... Does anyone have any information or insight into why the Catholic Church includes more books in their bible and where they got them from? What are their grounds for including them, and what was the reformation's grounds for excluding them. I am just looking for a better understanding of history, and I haven't gotten a good answer from Catholics or Protestants yet. My parent's pastor said they aren't "the inspired word of G-d", but he didn't explain further. He also didn't seem to think it's a big deal as he went on to say it's okay to read them. Anyway, it seems to me it should be a big deal, and I thought maybe it is somehow related to this debate.
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha ( “hidden” books) were mostly written in the @400 yrs. between the Old and New Testaments. The books are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees,3 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel.
The Jews respect but do not accept Deuterocannon as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of Deuterocanonicals, but most rejected them as Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament many times, but nowhere from the Deuterocanon. There are, as I said, many errors and contradictions; many things that are not true nor historically accurate. The Roman Catholic Church added the Apocrypha to their Bible at the Council of Trent (in the mid 1500’s) This was primarily a response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha supports their doctrine and practices. These practices are not Biblical according to Protestants.
* praying for the dead
* petitioning “saints”
* worshipping angels
* alms giving to atone for sins
* Purgatory
* paying to shorten someone's stay in Purgatory
* the Confessional
and many other doctrines.
Many things in Deuterocanonical books are true, correct doctrinally, good history and excellent for understanding customs of the times not found in canonical scripture. Part of the Catholics reputation for "faith" comes from 1 & 2 Maccabees. I'd say there is more good than bad in Deuterocannon. Some books, like Judith, contain nothing wrong that I am aware of. But they are not the authoritative Word of God. A healthy spirit of discernment is required when reading them.
Dan C
edit: and yes, the topic is very relevant, as if you are going to say "sola scriptura' you must a.) define what scriptura, and b.) probably should know the why as well as some history behind your scriptura.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 12, 2015 9:06:18 GMT -8
I looked it up, and there are 2 more books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible than in the Roman Catholic Bible. They use the entire Septuagint, whereas the Council of Trent in third session (1546), excludes 1st Esdras and 3rd Maccabees. However another site says these were "confirmed" by the Vatican Council of 1870. So it gets confusing- just there are more in the Roman and Greek Bibles than in ours ... . There are apparently a lot more footnotes with additional information in the Eastern Orthodox version, which also claims to use the original and authentic Greek texts for the New Testament. Remember there are almost 5700 known texts or fragments of texts, very many of them in disagreement with each other, which must be sorted through to piece together the New Testament. But THEY just want you to know they have the ORIGINAL and correct texts. (That's my sarcastic voice, btw).
I've argued with Greek Orthodox people online, and they are so well drilled in their translation of the Bible- so brainwashed- it is worse than talking to a Mormon. They can not, will not see any other way. If God puts one in front of me, I'll talk to him. But otherwise I don't even bother to engage them any more, as it is pointless. And now this is the only site I go to other than occasionally lurking on some Jewish sites, so I don't have much reason to interact with them. I knew a Greek Orthodox person in college, and she was very nice, so I'm not dumping on them as people. (I've known several Mormons, and most are nice people too, so not dumping on them either). Just they are really brainwashed with all their liturgies I think, so that they can not see any point but theirs.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 12, 2015 11:49:29 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. I will use it to help me understand the historical dynamics and decisions that took place. I am also interested in the Jewish perspective of these other books.
I will try to understand the various perspectives before I read them, and focus on a firmer understanding of what G-d has put in my hands for now. I don't feel ready to look into anything like this yet. My history with the Catholic Church leads me to be a bit wary simply because so much of what is believed tends to lend itself to superstation. That has just been my personal experience, and since I am just now finding my way out, I will be cautious. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 12, 2015 14:24:51 GMT -8
... I am also interested in the Jewish perspective of these other books. ...
Other Godly men may have also been witness to things and prayerfully wrote of them. But these may not be considered "cannon" for many reasons. They may also be accepted by one sect but rejected by another. This doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from them, just that much discernment is required when reading them. There are many Deuterocannonical books as well as the Talmud which were written by Godly men trying to be faithful to the truth. But men being men, we do sometimes get things wrong. Another analogy is Christian commentators like Warren Wiersby. I like Wiersby, but he does get some things wrong. I'd consider him a Godly man, but flawed in some of his theology. So I read him with discernment.
Some Jews and, I've heard some Messianics hold Talmud to be above scripture. This is wrong to me, but an example of some of the different thought on scripture in Judaism. There are some debates recorded in Talmud, so someone was likely wrong. Yet they view it all as commentary which leads to understanding of scripture. Without Talmud we could not, in their eyes, properly understand scripture.
[Edit: Yeshua taught from the Talmud; so much so I'd say most, if not almost all of what He said was found somewhere in the Mishna- the Jewish Oral Tradition up to His time. I'd say that validates at least those early Talmudic traditions somewhat.]
The best description of Holy Writings comes from none other than that arch-Jew himself, Rav Sha'ul:
2 Timothy 3:15 (NASB) and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
So if someone gets wisdom from works other than the 66 books we call the Holy Bible, more power to 'em. We could all probably use some of that steadfast faith the RC's learn from 1 & 2 Maccabees. We just need to be well versed in our own scripture and doctrine before reading them, as well as being practiced in using discernment. If in doubt, remember the Bereans:
Acts 17:11 (ESV) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
And what scriptures did they examine to see if the word they had received was so? The word they were receiving was what later would become the "New Testament." The only scriptures they had were the TNK, the "Old Testament." And I'd say they went first where Jews always go as their benchmark- straight to  !
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 13, 2015 11:10:50 GMT -8
Jude Chapter 1
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 13, 2015 13:48:38 GMT -8
Jude Chapter 1 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. 
You wouldn't happen to know where this quote is from in the Book of Enoch?
I knew there were scholarly as well as doctrinal problems with our current Book of Enoch, so I did a search and found this:
From: reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm
"The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians [ed note: by Christians, not by Nots'rim]. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation." ...
"The return of the long lost Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821 Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The famous R.H. Charles edition was published in 1912. In the following years several portions of the Greek text surfaced. Then with the discovery of cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered."
"There are scholars who believe the Book of Enoch was published before the Christian era by some great unknown of Semetic race, who believing himself to be inspired in a post-prophetic age, borrowed the name of an antediluvian patriarch to authenticate his own enthusiastic forcast of the coming Messiah. The Book of Enoch is divided into five basic parts, but it is the The Book of Parables (37-71) which gives scholars the most trouble for it is primarily concerned with a figure called "the messiah"; "the righteous one"; "the chosen one" and "the son of man.""
That webpage also has several quotes from scholars calling this a "pseudepigraphical" work (a work claiming authorship by a biblical character). This all matches what I remember of my studies some time ago about the Book of Enoch. The site is just one that came up in my search. I reference it because I quoted extensively from it, but don't know anything about it and so cannot recommend the site. As always, we should use discernment if we go there, or anywhere on the web.
Dan C
edit: as I recall, there were doctrines of demons in the Book of Enoch which are contradictory and/or are not found elsewhere in scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 13, 2015 14:35:04 GMT -8
1 Enoch (1:3-9)
Just because something is quoted in the NT doesn't make is scripture.
Acts 17:3 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 13, 2015 17:25:41 GMT -8
1 Enoch (1:3-9) Just because something is quoted in the NT doesn't make is scripture.
Shoot, much of Christendom doesn't even believe any parts of the OT not mentioned in the New are still relevant. One church here in town even preaches that you should not even read from any part of the OT!
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 14, 2015 14:40:35 GMT -8
Here are some other references to works not included in the "christian cannon"
Jude 9 refers to the Assumption of Mosses.
Feast of Dedication is from Maccabees.
Hebrews 11:35 refers to II Maccabees 7:1.
II Tim. 3:8 refers to The Pentitence of Jannes and Jambres.
Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 refer to the book of Jasher. I believe the book of Jasher and the book of Life are one and the same. Jasher means upright thus alive. See Psalms 69:28
Ester 6:1 speaks of the book of records of the Chronicles
Num 21:14 the book of the wars of the LORD
I Kings 11:41 book of the acts of Solomon
I Chro. 9:29 book of Gad
I Chron. 12:15 book of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the Seer
I Chron. 20:34 book of Jehu
Esther 10:2 the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia
|
|
unto him?
- there are 70 faces to 
