Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Fireinfolding]

do all these different colors and underlining mean something? I can't seem to process it, so I tend to just skip your posts...

Please do continue to do so, they arent for everyone no doubt

 

[Montalban]

Luke witnessed Jesus.

Did Luke witness Jesus' birth? Yes, or no?

 

[Montalban]

Kristos,

Some people here post swathes of Bible quotes. For them the Bible quotes just mean something in particular to them and because it is so 'clear' to them it must not only be 'true' but clear to everyone else.

Underlying this is some circular reasoning. It goes like this...

"I have faith in God"

"I trust he will lead me rightly"

"I have come to this conclusion on the Bible"

"My conclusion must be right, because God wouldn't lead me astray"

"My conclusion of the Bible's passage is therefore from God - it's not an 'interpretation' - it is what the Bible says"

It's circular because it rests on itself. For even a slight admission that it's an interpretation would be to deny their 'trust' in God. So they're stuck in that mindset.

 

[Montalban]

your loss, some of them are actually getting interseting

random quotes with no obvious tie-in to anything have no interest to me, either

 

[Montalban]

Eyewitnesses of the death, burial, and resurrection. I doubt Peter, Andrew, James, and the others were there for the birth either

Exactly my point.

Mary must have told them about the birth. She relied on memory for events 30 years earlier.

However, where does it say that they have to be witnesses to these three? Paul wasn't.

I'm still waiting for scriptural verses to show we should only use scripture. Obviously Paul didn't have to be a witness.

In fact he 'recalls' things not found elsewhere in the Bible - so someone must have told him. Given that the gospels weren't yet written down, he must have been taught 'from tradition'.

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

 

[Standing Up]

Exactly my point.

Mary must have told them about the birth. She relied on memory for events 30 years earlier.

However, where does it say that they have to be witnesses to these three? Paul wasn't.

I'm still waiting for scriptural verses to show we should only use scripture. Obviously Paul didn't have to be a witness.

In fact he 'recalls' things not found elsewhere in the Bible - so someone must have told him. Given that the gospels weren't yet written down, he must have been taught 'from tradition'.

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

The irony Montalban. You only know these things because they were written down.

Look, I'll ask again, give me a continous oral tradition that Paul spoke that wasn't written down that you know about.

 

[Standing Up]

random quotes with no obvious tie-in to anything have no interest to me, either

You missed his point. Some of us do find the quoted connections incredibly tied-in, fascinating, revealing, and inspiring.

 

[Montalban]

The irony Montalban. You only know these things because they were written down.

The irony is you only know that these events were written down because a particular book, not authorising itself was authorised by the church. You've not yet shown how you know a particular book is of those events.

Look, I'll ask again, give me a continous oral tradition that Paul spoke that wasn't written down that you know about.

I already talked about the formula of the trinity. The formula itself is not in scriptures, but certainly not contrary to scripture.

Perhaps you missed that?

Given you've not answered my challenge I don't see why you're asking me to address a challenge already met.

You've also not shown how Paul was a witness to the random events you've now chosen (as opposed to just being a 'witness' which was what you first stated one had to be)

 

[Montalban]

You missed his point.

They're from a woman. A little detail you missed.

Some of us do find the quoted connections incredibly tied-in, fascinating, revealing, and inspiring.

You're more than welcome to explain it. I asked the author who told me she's never going to reply to me ever again.

So far I've seen several people say how wonderfully apt these random quotes are. Perhaps it's the colours and underlining that does it for you?

 

[Standing Up]

They're from a woman. A little detail you missed.

Magentic is a man. The quotes are scripture.

You're more than welcome to explain it. I asked the author who told me she's never going to reply to me ever again.

So far I've seen several people say how wonderfully apt these random quotes are. Perhaps it's the colours and underlining that does it for you?

Maybe it's like the tradition thing. You just know that tradition is true, correct, and never changing.

 

[Montalban]

Magentic is a man. The quotes are scripture.

Fireinfolding is a woman. She's the one who quoted random scripture. I made a comment on that.... that I didn't understand the meaning of HER post.

Magnetic simply made the same comment you did. I said to him I didn't get the meaning of Fireinfolding's quotes.

You applaud the quotes too. I told you too that I didn't get the meaning of her quotes

Maybe it's like the tradition thing. You just know that tradition is true, correct, and never changing.

Maybe you'll answer my question?

 

[MamaZ]

Did Luke witness Jesus' birth? Yes, or no?

I don't believe that he witnessed the actual birthing of Jesus. Why do you ask?

 

[MamaZ]

The irony is you only know that these events were written down because a particular book, not authorising itself was authorised by the church. You've not yet shown how you know a particular book is of those events.

I already talked about the formula of the trinity. The formula itself is not in scriptures, but certainly not contrary to scripture.

Perhaps you missed that?

Given you've not answered my challenge I don't see why you're asking me to address a challenge already met.

You've also not shown how Paul was a witness to the random events you've now chosen (as opposed to just being a 'witness' which was what you first stated one had to be)

The formula to the trinity is indeed wrtten down in scripture. From the begining.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
Gen 1:2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,
Gen 1:3 then God said, Let light be! And there was light.

We have Father Spirit and Word.. Then in John we read that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us. That nothing we created without Him

 

[Montalban]

I don't believe that he witnessed the actual birthing of Jesus. Why do you ask?

Then how can he write about what he was not witness too? StandingUp said that they gospels were chosen because they were written by 'witnesses'

 

[Montalban]

The formula to the trinity is indeed wrtten down in scripture. From the begining.

Not it hasn't.

What you cite is not a formula.

There were several different competing ideas on what the formula was and they were all based on the Bible.


One however also was based on tradition.

 

[MamaZ]

Then how can he write about what he was not witness too? StandingUp said that they gospels were chosen because they were written by 'witnesses'

So if your sister were to give birth and you were not right in the same room she was giving birth in does that mean you were not there to give witness that your sister actually did have a baby?

 

[MamaZ]

Not it hasn't.

What you cite is not a formula.

There were several different competing ideas on what the formula was and they were all based on the Bible.


One however also was based on tradition.

Sure it is the formula. This is where we come to the conclusion Trinity. The word itself is not in the scriptures the but the concept or the formula is.

 

[Montalban]

So if your sister were to give birth and you were not right in the same room she was giving birth in does that mean you were not there to give witness that your sister actually did have a baby?

That's not the point. Why you interject in a conversation I'm having with Standing Up when you're missing the point is beyond me.

No one is disputing that a baby would have been born, because I'd be able to see it, just as say, the Apostle John would have been able to see Jesus.

However the details of the birth were not witnessed by me therefore I would need to have that information passed on to me. If you're a sola scriptura buff, then to continue the analogy my sister would have written down an account and passed it on to me rather than just tell me.

Had you actually read what I wrote you'd have noted that I said that Mary must have passed the details of Jesus' birth on to the writers of the Gospels. I'm not disputing that John, for instance was a 'witness' to some aspects of Jesus' life. I was not arguing against someone not being there, but was refuting StandingUp's claim about them being a witness.

StandingUp said that they had to be witnesses to be chosen. If you'd read this you might well have regarded further what you were going to say in interjecting in our conversation.

IF as you now put it that one only need be a witness to the 'result' of an event - as your put in your analogy of me and my sister* then ANYONE who saw people preaching that Christ has risen could be called a 'witness'.

Is this the point you wish to make?

Also, when you can find some evidence for sola scriptura from the Bible itself, that would be really handy - as it's part of the OP

If you'd like to address how the books of the bible chose themselves that would be great too.

*-by the way she never had children and she's passed on.

 

[Montalban]

Sure it is the formula. This is where we come to the conclusion Trinity. The word itself is not in the scriptures the but the concept or the formula is.

I suggest you look up the word 'formula'.

There's a number of on-line dictionaries.

 

[Rick Otto]

Did Luke witness Jesus' birth? Yes, or no?

random questions with no obvious tie-in to anything have no interest to me.