The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.

[ozso]

just read the gospel according to saint Luke and use it to establish the truth of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity.

That's actually pretty easy. I'm at work on my phone right now. But I'll start with

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:23

Since Jesus is the Son of God, that obviously means the Holy Spirit is God. I seriously doubt it's any less easy to establish Jesus and the Father as God too using the Gospel of Luke.

 

[ozso]

Saint Luke is continuing his account from the gospel that bears his name. The two works taken together will not yield an exhaustive presentation of all that Jesus did.

So again then what did Luke mean when he said:

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven.

And what does Acts teach about what Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven, that Luke's first book didn't?

 

[dzheremi]

Why is there even this desire in the first place to have the Bible contain everything when the scriptures themselves tell us quite reasonably that they cannot do so?

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25; emphasis added)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's actually pretty easy. I'm at work on my phone right now. But I'll start with

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:23

Since Jesus is the Son of God, that obviously means the Holy Spirit is God. I seriously doubt it's any less easy to establish Jesus and the Father as God too using the Gospel of Luke.

You say obviously, but it isn't.

Jesus can be the Son of God, through his birth, and through his baptism, without being God. And a dove form for the Holy Spirit does not prove that either the dove or the Holy Spirit is God. If you ever try that as a "proof" with one of Jehovah's witnesses, you'll soon find out how unconvincing it is.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So again then what did Luke mean when he said:

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven.

What he said in Luke 1:1-4; he is continuing to document the things that Theophilus heard.

 

[ozso]

What he said in Luke 1:1-4; he is continuing to document the things that Theophilus heard.

That's not what he said though. He said the full truth is contained in his first book.

 

[ozso]

You say obviously, but it isn't.

Jesus can be the Son of God, through his birth, and through his baptism, without being God. And a dove form for the Holy Spirit does not prove that either the dove or the Holy Spirit is God. If you ever try that as a "proof" with one of Jehovah's witnesses, you'll soon find out how unconvincing it is.

That was just a beginner. I'm on my phone away from home right now. And considering that JWs aren't convinced by any Trinity dogma whatsoever, that's not a very good point. When it comes to the vast majority of believers there's most likely enough in Luke to establish the Trinity doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

for Matthew and John it could be the same. All four Gospels were written later, so the stories were circulating orally first. The Church was already established.

Did you miss the part (post #2) about Matthew, John and Peter being eye witnesses?
They wrote about what they saw, not just what they heard about.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's not what he said though. He said the full truth is contained in his first book.

Nope, he wrote

Most Honourable Theophilus: Many others have tried to give a report of the things that happened among us to complete God's plan. What they have written agrees with what we learned from the people who saw those events from the beginning. They also served God by telling people his message. I studied it all carefully from the beginning. Then I decided to write it down for you in an organized way. I did this so that you can be sure that what you have been taught is true.​

Luke 1:1-4 ERV

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That was just a beginner. I'm on my phone away from home right now.

Excuses excuses

And considering that JWs aren't convinced by any Trinity dogma whatsoever, that's not a very good point.

Nope, it is a lovely point.

When it comes to the vast majority of believers there's most likely enough in Luke to establish the Trinity doctrine.

Give it a go then.

 

[Fervent]

Why is there even this desire in the first place to have the Bible contain everything when the scriptures themselves tell us quite reasonably that they cannot do so?

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25; emphasis added)

It's not about exhaustion, but sufficiency. Scripture gives the full extent needed to establish the Christian truth, and the supplement of a holy tradition serves not as additive but as deletorious. Especially when that tradition is only identifiable on the basis of what some magisterium declares to be the tradition and not independently. Realistically "tradition" is two different things when speaking from a Catholic perspective versus an Orthodox one, and the orthodox view of tradition would likely be acceptable to most protestants were it not for confusion over the two.

 

[Fervent]

You say obviously, but it isn't.

Jesus can be the Son of God, through his birth, and through his baptism, without being God. And a dove form for the Holy Spirit does not prove that either the dove or the Holy Spirit is God. If you ever try that as a "proof" with one of Jehovah's witnesses, you'll soon find out how unconvincing it is.

Bringing JWs into the argument isn't a very good point, since they had to change Scripture to perservere in their views and they place a magisterium above the Scripture anyway with the Watchtower society.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Scripture gives the full extent needed to establish the Christian truth

Does it? Scripture can make a "man of God" become, "fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed", but this is no promise that such a man of God will know everything that is needful to know for teaching the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

they place a magisterium above the Scripture anyway

The same can be said of nearly every protestant denomination.

 

[Fervent]

The same can be said of nearly every protestant denomination.

This comment only makes sense if you have no idea about the influence the watchtower society has over JWs. JWs are in no way a sola scriptura organization, and comparing ordinary denominational governments to the watchtower society is either misinformed or grossly insulting.

 

[ozso]

Excuses excuses

Nope, it is a lovely point.

Give it a go then.

One thing is for sure, when I get the time to do so, which I'll do to see if I'm right, you'll have to reject it because you'll stick with it can only be proven through Holy Catholic Tradition, even though that's completely dependent upon scripture like any other doctrine. Even heretical and false tradition and doctrine is dependent upon scripture.

 

[ozso]

Nope, he wrote

Most Honourable Theophilus: Many others have tried to give a report of the things that happened among us to complete God's plan. What they have written agrees with what we learned from the people who saw those events from the beginning. They also served God by telling people his message. I studied it all carefully from the beginning. Then I decided to write it down for you in an organized way. I did this so that you can be sure that what you have been taught is true.​

Luke 1:1-4 ERV

You originally used the Good News Bible translation. Now you switched it to the Easy-to-Read Version translation. What's next, The Living Bible?

How about:

ἵνα so ἐπιγνῷς that you may know ἀσφάλειαν the exact truth περὶ about λόγων the things κατήχηθης you have been taught.

 

[Fervent]

Does it? Scripture can make a "man of God" become, "fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed", but this is no promise that such a man of God will know everything that is needful to know for teaching the Church.

What more teaching is needed than to be fully qualified and equipped for every kind of good deed?

 

[ozso]

Saint Luke is continuing his account from the gospel that bears his name. The two works taken together will not yield an exhaustive presentation of all that Jesus did.

That's completely contrary to Luke saying:

In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven.

Luke's second book is about the acts of the apostles that took place after Jesus was taken up into heaven.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You originally used the Good News Bible translation. Now you switched it to the Easy-to-Read Version translation. What's next, The Living Bible?

I wanted to be sure that you'd read it and understand what you read.