Which Epistles are Reliable?

[FreezBee]

The (you have a mistaken idea of what sola Scriptura means, probably deliberately) Curtmudgeon

What does sola scriptura mean to you then?

The (just curious) FreezBee

[The Curtmudgeon]

What does sola scriptura mean to you then?

The (just curious) FreezBee

Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture is the rule by which we judge anything else to be correct or not. It does not mean that we ignore everything outside Scripture, as Adam claimed, only that we ignore (for the purposes of defining Christianity, setting guidelines for our lives, etc.) anything that conflicts with Scripture. If a Muslim or a Jainist or an atheist writes something about living a moral life which does not in fact conflict with the Bible, then certainly we can accept that and point to it approvingly. If a Baptist or Methodist or other evangelical writes something that can be shown to conflict with the Bible, then we point out (or at least, we're supposed to point out) their error(s) and reject them (the errors, that is).

More specifically, sola Scriptura means that nothing overrides the Biblical text, as exegeted using a contextual hermeneutic that takes the text in a plain-sense (not woodenly literal) understanding except where there are clear indications that a different sense is needed. There is no Magisterium, no papal infallibility, no re-interpretation to make the text "more in keeping with modern society".

The (and no, "This doesn't agree with my theology" is not a clear indication that the literal sense is wrong) Curtmudgeon

[RBerman]

I'm tired of this. Very tired. I was practically atheist before I became Christian after reading the Bible about five years ago. That's it. No sectarian axe to grind. Nothin'.
Now, what I'm questioning is not whether I can trust Paul, but whether it actually is Paul.

Then be aware that most Christians believe the Bible is completely reliable. Those that say they were written by Paul, were written by Paul. Those that are named after a particular person are written by that person (except Timothy and Titus, of course, which say they were written by Paul to Timothy and Titus respectively). Hebrews is the only anonymous book but is still considered utterly reliable. I hope you'll give this line of thought a try, and heed your teachers at church.

[Obsidian]

The other problem with comparing the vocabulary and writing styles -- aside from the different purposes Jaltus mentioned and the different scribes that RBerman mentioned -- is that the works are relatively short. You can't get a big enough sample size to adequately compare the writers. At least that is what JP Holding says.

I would like to begin by repeating something I said elsewhere: Things like choices of words should be disregarded forevermore as a determination of authorship. Over the years I have seen many NT and Bible scholars (on all sides) make outrageously absurd statements about literature that would send a literary symposium into fits of giggles. Word choice and writing style are NOT suitable criteria for saying that a person did or did not write a particular piece of literature - especially when we are dealing with writing samples as small as the Pastorals! In this regard, conservative scholars rightly cite the work of Yule [Knig.PE, 39; Oden.12TT, 13], who notes that samples of at least 10,000 words are needed to make such determinations - and the Pastorals are rather short of that mark! To put it bluntly, quoting one commentator who has a modicum of literary sense: "...literary art cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation." [Guth.PE, 214]

[FreezBee]

[QUOTE=The Curtmudgeon;2654016]Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture is the rule by which we judge anything else to be correct or not. It does not mean that we ignore everything outside Scripture, as Adam claimed, only that we ignore (for the purposes of defining Christianity, setting guidelines for our lives, etc.) anything that conflicts with Scripture.

Ok, so sola scriptura only excludes anything that conflicts with Scripture, not anything that just isn't derived from Scripture?

If a Muslim or a Jainist or an atheist writes something about living a moral life which does not in fact conflict with the Bible, then certainly we can accept that and point to it approvingly.

As above, this allows for something that isn't derived from Scripture, as long as it just doesn't conflict with Scripture.

Who gets to decide, what conflicts with Scripture?

If a Baptist or Methodist or other evangelical writes something that can be shown to conflict with the Bible, then we point out (or at least, we're supposed to point out) their error(s) and reject them (the errors, that is).

More specifically, sola Scriptura means that nothing overrides the Biblical text, as exegeted using a contextual hermeneutic that takes the text in a plain-sense (not woodenly literal) understanding except where there are clear indications that a different sense is needed. There is no Magisterium, no papal infallibility, no re-interpretation to make the text "more in keeping with modern society".

Isn't that last statement only reintroducing tradition into Bible hermeneutics? I mean, Luther interpreted the 'raqqia' as a firmament (following the Vulgate), yet many modern apologists (e.g. JP Holding) project modern astronomy unto the 'raqqia'. Are such apologists violating sola scriptura?

The (and no, "This doesn't agree with my theology" is not a clear indication that the literal sense is wrong) Curtmudgeon

But what is a 'literal sense' for a language, where you can pick and choose, what each word means? Apparently Hebrew words are extremely flexible and can take on any meaning you desire -- just compare any two OT translations


The (I suppose this little discussion leads too far off topic, so you need not respond) FreezBee

[The Curtmudgeon]

The (I suppose this little discussion leads too far off topic, so you need not respond) FreezBee

So I split it off, here.

The (so you see, I actually did respond) Curtmudgeon