Nostr

Moses doesn’t die in the book of Exodus(second book of the Pentateuch) he dies in Deuteronomy (the last book but it goes on after he died). The decalog is what is said to have been contained on the tablets that were given to Moses by God, yes. Again, Muhammad didn’t make that up. The original tablets were not “lost” either they were smashed by Moses himself according Christian and Jewish bibles in Exodus 32:19. Then Moses chiseled out the decalog himself again later (Exodus 34.) the decalog is in 2 different places in Jewish and Christian bibles (both Exodus and Deuteronomy) and they quite frankly don’t match each other. I don’t know any abrahamic faith who doesn’t think that Moses destroyed the tablets but they were just lost instead. Pretty sure they all agree that Moses smashed them on purpose.

James A Lewis 1y ago

I probably should have separated into paragraphs. I meant that it's been awhile since I read Exodus in reference to "God wrote and handed to Moses...specifically Exodus," but I didn't mean to say Moses passed away in the book with my next statement. Rather, that he did within the timespan of the Pentateuch.

So, God wrote the Decalog, gave it to Moses, and it got smashed but re-written presumably without error. In that way the original text and its copied could have been called God's literal words, but translations are still works of men.

In this way, our Scriptures are distinct from the texts of Mohammed because translations are not recognized as the same text, whereas we do recognize translations as legitimate, albeit not normally protected by infallibility.

This is, I guess, reason #58 against Sola Scriptura: which translation, or canon for that matter, is the actual authoritative one? KJV-only? The Latin Vulgate? Who decides?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

†𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖 1y ago

I see what you mean yeah we were getting a little mixed up there. We mostly agree. I just think your number 57 would be better without saying sola scriptura is Islamic because although I vehemently disagree w sola scriptura I think saying it’s Islamic is too far! I do largely agree with the video short too but I also am curious your thoughts on it a bit more.

If you don’t mind! Let’s forget sola scriptura for a second because neither of us are fans of that anyway haha. Going back to the content of the video short though included in your original sola post. Comparing Islam and Christianity as far as who worships what I honestly am more comfortable saying that we both worship God.

I say this because I think comparing the Quran to Jesus sort of diminishes the awesomeness of the undivided Trinity. I don’t disagree with the argument made in the short but I think it’s an oversimplification of who Jesus really is to us as the Christ. What do you think?

James A Lewis 1y ago

I agree. As any alternative, anything other than the Trinity would necessarily be lesser.

It would be hyperbolic and an oversimplification to say Sola Scriptura is **actually** Islamic, sure, but you do see a parallel in that it makes the book into "the Word of God." I've heard protestants say something along the lines in reference to "the Word" in John 1 being also the Bible, which is tantamount to making the Bible an object of worship. It's one probable reason why the pulpit is the center of their churches in the stead of an altar.

†𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖 1y ago

Thank you for this, I do see what you mean and I didn’t know that there were Protestants who considered “the Word” in John 1:1 to be the Bible. Though I shouldn’t be surprised because I think that’s how it is with many Christian-adjacent groups like Mormons. I guess I don’t have an issue with hearing the phrase “the word of the Lord” referring to scripture because I got used to hearing it as a Catholic during the Liturgy of the Word after the epistle reading and responding “thanks be to God!”

I attend Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom at Orthodox Churches now though where you’re right, we dont say “the word of the Lord” after the epistle or “the gospel of the Lord” after the gospel reading either actually. Much to think about. Thank you for the discussion, sorry if I was annoying I can be very passionate about these things

James A Lewis 1y ago

We may simply have different experiences with protestants.

My family of origin are protestant, and when they say "the Word" (you can hear the capitalized "W") and when they hear "Word of God," they think the Bible. You may hear something like, "I was in the Word yesterday morning, and the Lord put it on my heart to tell you..." They think that reading the Scriptures **is** worship in a similar way we believe that consuming and imbibing the body and blood of Christ in the Mass is, because you are taking Him into yourself through "The Word."

I counter and ask, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became Flesh, indeed, but when did the Word then become written and cease being flesh?" True worship of God is to become one with Him, but that doesn't happen by reading the Bible.

Now, "The word of the Lord, etc." and "the gospel of the Lord, etc." are totally fine (I would be the one with the problem if I has a problem with that), but it requires some specification and distinctions

†𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖 1y ago

Tbh I have very little experience with Protestantism and what experience I do have with it has been high church Anglicans. You’re correct that I haven’t come across “I was in the Word” as a way of saying that they were reading scripture. To me it almost seems parallel to something like Lectio Divina? Is it like that?

My background is Catholic so I was raised with reading scriptures literally being worship as well but in this sense (screenshot from the GIRM) rather than like being the same thing as the real presence of the Eucharist though.

Very interesting!! I guess the low church Protestant tradition came from the high church prot/Catholic tradition but without having the real presence in the sacrament of communion so this really would maybe be the next closest thing for them 🤔

James A Lewis 1y ago

100%! Low church Protestantism is so far removed from Catholicism that they have lost the meaning of worship and now see Bible study and prayer as worship, as in latria, whereas we see latria as basically sacrifice, and most notably the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Because of this, and the fact that they still want to claim to be "worshiping" has motivated them to see Bible study, singing, and prayer as such. This is also why they see prayer to the saints as blasphemous, and, similarly but to a much lesser degree, so is reading their books in a spirit of deference and reverence.

†𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖 1y ago

Thank you for the insight!