Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?

Well, if Scripture is mentioned in the Bible it's not refering to "The Bible". The Bible did not exist until hundreds of years after the contents of the Bible, particularly the NT, were written.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But if you read Jesus words, there most certainly are other sources which are of equal merit.In the Talmudic debate relating to work on the Sabbath, Jesus uses common sense to supersede scripture.This message has been edited by jar, 10-20-2005 09:15 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nonsense. That's rediculous.Jesus says that you should use the brain your given and not check it at the door. He says "If your donkey falls in a ditch on the Sabbath only a damn fool would wait until the next day to haul it out".Jesus says, and this is definitely a message that many Christians miss, "Use your head!" edited to moosify sub-titleThis message has been edited by jar, 10-20-2005 03:02 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You need to remember that using the word "Scripture" to mean the Bible is a revision of what was meant by the word Scripture in the Bible.The Canons were not created until hundreds of years after the fact. When the things that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible, the word Scripture simply refered to all the body of theological writings and the oral tradition.To now try to limit Scripture to the various books included in the different Canons is to change completely what was meant at the time. edited to change sub-titleThis message has been edited by jar, 10-21-2005 12:17 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yup, read it. Laughed a lot.Somehow you still seem to be missing both the obvious and impossible to refute point.When you see the word Scripture used in the Bible it does not mean the Bible. It cannot. There was no Bible when those words were written.The whole Sola Scriptura movement is based on a fallacy. Yes, the Bible is created, the work of man, and it's contents vary from sect to sect. Not only is there no such thing as THE Bible, the Bible is not Scripture as mentioned in the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think the funniest part is the idea that Scripture is only the Bible and that when Scripture is mentioned in the Bible, it's refering to the Bible.First, there is no single Bible. I'm not refering to translations, there is no one list of what books make up the Bible.Second, since the Bible didn't exist until hundreds of years after the books that ended up being included, the reference to Scripture could not be refering to the Bible.Third, the term Scripture at the time the books of the NT were being written refered to things that were to be learned, written and oral.Fourth, there are NO writings from Jesus. All of his message was transmitted orally. If you are going to limit scripture to what was written, you can throw Jesus out.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, perhaps you'll be kind enough to point out just where I said that?Or maybe stop trying to put words in my mouth?What I have said is that there is no justification for the idea that the only source for knowledge about GOD is the Bible and that when the term Scripture is used in the books of the Bible it is referring to far, far more than the Bible, no matter which version (version not translation) is chosen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

IIRC the actual origin of the term Scripture came from the Greek word theopneustos which means God Breathed. It refers to anything that was inspired by GOD, written or oral.But regardless,when we see the term Scripture in the Bible, it does not refer to the Bible. The Bible did not exist at the time they were written.In addition, there is no one universal Bible today. The common Canon found in the RC and most Protestant churches is only one of many canons. Other Christian Churches have different Canons and so different books are included in the Bible.A good example is the Book of Enoch, 1 Enoch. It was Scripture at the time the NT was written, quoted in Hebrews. But it never made it into the accepted canon of the Roman Catholic Church (and thus into the Protestant Canon) but IS included in the Canon of the Ethiopian Christian Church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then perhaps it's because I haven't understood your questions. If you will list them for me I'll try again. That's good because most of the Bible was transmitted orally for a long, long time before being written down.But that statement seems contradicted by... When I combine those two conflicting statements with the paragraphs that preceeded the later... I really have to ask just what it is that you are saying.It seems to me that you're saying oral traditions are okay but that only written material will be excepted excluding the writings of Mark and Paul because those two don't know what they are talking about.Beyond the absolute absurdity of you insisting that only certain material may be considered, you still have not specified what is to be included in Scripture.Is the Bible Scripture?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, I'm paraphrasing. Notice I did not put it quotes.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And the answer to that is "The Bible cannot say the the Bible is the only source." That the Bible is the only source has always been a silly contention.There are several reasons.First, there is no such thing as THE Bible. The Ethiopian Christian Church Bible is different from the Roman Catholic Christians Bible. The Samaritan Christian Church Bible (which is probably the closest to what was meant by Scripture as known during the time of Christ) is unlike either of the others.Second, even the first Bibles were not compiled until hundreds of years after the content was written. Even then we have no idea of what the criteria was for selection or rejection or scripture.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Can we examinine that a little closer.Is 1 Enoch part of the Bible?Are the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John part of the Bible?At the time Jesus lived, what were the books of the Bible?What about when Paul was writting his Epistles?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion