Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Mountainmike]

Gnostic beliefs and orthodox have little in common.

The only regard in which Gnosticism and Orthodoxy are similar is that they are both liturgical, and the Gnostic rite resembles the Eastern rite.

However the Gnostics use different texts then we do and call them scripture. They also pull doctrine from supposed visions they have during meditation. This is entirely different then educated spirit led debate at church councils.

 

[redleghunter]

He only knew 3 but there were a lot of different writings other than the 27.

I already sourced he addressed 25 of 27 NT books. I provided a link. I'll just paste it here:

Irenaeus recognized in the New Testament 25 books and letters, or every book except Philemon and 3 John.



Anatolius of Alexandria (270-280 A.D.) refers to Irenaeus in ch.10 p.149.



Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) mentions the New Testament and the Old Testament in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.34.1 p.563. He also mentions it on p.564

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. … the ‘pillar and ground’ of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side." Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.11.8

Irenaeus mentions "examining the gospels" in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 2 ch.22.3 p.390

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Matthew 1:1 as by Matthew. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.2 p.440

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Mark 1:1 as by Mark. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.3 p.441

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Luke 1:6 as by Luke. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.10.1 p.423

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes John 1:14 as by John. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 1 ch.8.5 p.328-329

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) in Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.2 p.440 mentions the Apostle John along with the other gospel writers. In book 3 ch.11.1-2 p.426 he quotes John 1:1,10,11,14 as being by John.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Acts 8:9-11,20,21,23 (Simon the Sorcerer) as written by Luke. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 1 ch.23.1 p.347

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes all or part of 18 verses in Mark. In Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 chapter 10.5 p.425 mentions Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, in his Gospel narrative, and quotes Mark 1:2a. In the first twelve chapters of Mark Irenaeus quotes or paraphrases are Mark 1:1,2,24; 3:27; 4:28; 5:31; 9:23; 10:38; 13:32; 14:21b; 16:19.

Irenaeus alludes to Mark 6:41,44; 9:2; 10:17; 13:33.

Irenaeus mentions Jesus conferring the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, which is a reference to Luke 10:19, but could also refer to Mark 16:17,18.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:1-4 as by Paulwriting to the Romans. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.3 p.441. Also Romans 8:36 as by Paul in his letter address to the Romans in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 2 ch.22.2 p.390

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 6:12 as by Paulin Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.37.4 p.519

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 8:14 as by Paul. Irenaeus Fragment 26 p.574

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 2 Corinthians 7:7-9 as by Paul in the Second to the Corinthians in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 p.3.1 p.529

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Galatians 4:4-5 as by Paulwriting to the Galatians. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.3 p.441

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Ephesians 5:30 as by Paul in his letter to the Ephesians in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.2.2 p.528

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Philippians 4:18 as "Paul also says to the Philippians" in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.18.4 p.485. He also quotes from Philippians 2:11

Quotes Colossians 3:5 as by the apostle in the letter to the Colossians. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.12.3 p.538

Quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as "in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians". Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.6.1 p.532

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 2 Thessalonians 2:11 as in the Second to the Thessalonians. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.29.1 p.502. He also quotes 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as by Paul "in the second to the Thessalonians" ibid book 3 ch.7.2 p.420.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) alludes to 1 Timothy 6:4,5 as by Paul. Irenaeus Fragment 36 p.574

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) "Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." Irenaeus Against Heresiesbook 3 ch.3.3 p.416

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 2 Timothy 4:10,11 as by Paulin the epistles. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 14.1 p.438

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes part of Titus 3:10 saying it is by Paul. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 1 ch.16.3 p.341

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Hebrews 13:15b as by Paul. Irenaeus Fragment 37 p.575

¼ Quote: James 2:23 Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.13.4 p.478 "Abraham … and so became ‘the friend of God.’ But the Word of God…" In Isaiah 41:8b God says "or descendants of Abraham my friend".

¾ Quote: James 2:23b "and he was called the friend of God" This exact phrasing is found only in James 2:23b. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.15.1 p.481

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes all of 1 Peter 1:8 as "Peter says in his Epistle" Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.9.2 p.472

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) refers to 5 ½ verses in 1 Peter. They are: 1 Peter 1:8; 2:16,23. He quotes half of 1 Peter 1:12 and alludes to 1 Peter 3:19,20

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 1 Peter 2:16 as "Peter says". Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.16 .5 p.482

1/3 Quote: 2 Peter 3:8m "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years". This exact phrasing is found only in 2 Peter 3:8m. Irenaeus Against Heresies p.551

1/3 Quote: 2 Peter 3:8m "For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years" Irenaeus Against Heresies p.557

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 1 John 4:1,2 and 1 John 5:1 as by "his disciple in his epistle". He also quotes from John as from his disciple in the gospel. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 16.8 p.443

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 2 John 7-8a. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.8 p.443 as by the Lord’s disciple in his epistle. He switches two clauses, but other than that the phrasing is exact, and this phrasing is found only in 2 John 2:7-8a.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes 2 John 10,11 saying it is by John, the disciple of the Lord in Irenaeus Against Heresiesbook 1 ch.16.3 p.342.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) Jude 3 "faith delivered unto us" Irenaeus Fragment 36 p.574. Jude 3 has "the saints" instead of "us", but except for that this is the exact phrasing. This phrasing is found only in Jude 3.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) alludes to Jude 7 mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Lot, as an example of the righteous judgment of God. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.36.4 p.516. The concept of Sodom and Gomorrah being an example is found only in Jude 7 in the Bible.

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) "John also, the Lord’s disciple, when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse: ‘I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And, being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the candlesticks One like unto the Son of man, clothed…" (and it goes one for much, much longer) Irenaeus in 33 references referred to 46 verses in Revelation. Against Heresies book 4 ch.20.6 p.489

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Revelation 6:2 as by John in the Apocalypse. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.21.3 p.493

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Revelation 5:8 as by John in the Apocalypse. Irenaeus Fragment 37 p.575



According to my count, Irenaeus quotes all or part of 223 verses from Matthew, 18 from Mark, 130 from Luke, and 109 from John. He quotes all or part of 88 verses from Acts, 291 from Paul’s writings, and 82 ½ from the rest of the New Testament.
Early Christian NT References

Nope. It also believed to be around the 1st century, just compiled around AD 140.

Source this as mine comes from several scholars.

There are some scholars who surmise gospel of Thomas was from the 1st Century, however this is based on an assumption of the assumed "Q" source. Which is a guess as no ECF even alluded to Q nor is there manuscript evidence for such.

Other than Hippolytus of Rome, I know of no ECF who considered Thomas as Scriptures.

And frankly no ECF would as Thomas does not hold to the apostolic rule of faith.

I have. But that is the point of why brought this up, if someone wants to consider this canon and reject lets say James... what point do you have against that?

I know of no Christian theologian or ecclesial authority which rejected James. Other than two Roman Catholic Cardinals at Trent one being the Papal Legate who did call into question the historic NT antilegomena books.

Luther died prior to Trent and his latest version of the German Bible contained James and all the antilegomena books as Holy Scriptures. Every edition did as well before that.

Again leading into and during Trent it was actually Catholic Cardinals with the argument against the canonical inclusion of the antilegomena:

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin, a recognized expert on the Council of Trent:

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."​

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”—CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

Therefore, thanks to Cajetan, Luther is off the hook.

 

[Mountainmike]

You need to study development of the canon, not impose your own meaning on what iraneus says. It is called " confirmation bias"- a typical Protestant trait,

We have iraneus to thank for confirming the four gospels but the rest was still fluid.

For example.. He speaks about Hermas. So is that scripture in your book?
He calls 1 Clement scripture.

Few even had a substantial set of scripts.
So it was not how faith was passed on.

The main thing we have to thank iraneus for is stating unequivocally that the teaching of succession bishops are the only way to trust what istrue doctrine, also stating that Rome had primacy in that regard,


Sola scriptura is neither what Jesus preached nor the early church did. Protestants forced that manmade tradition on us a millennium later. Causing explosion in the variety of meanings of doctrine.

You dodge the issue of the role of the church in defining doctrine, the succession bishops on which iraneus is clear. As ignatius and the rest.

Hardly surprising since Jesus sent his apostles to teach! He did not say write this, and certainly not "read this " on which Protestants base their entire theology.

No New Testament Yet? Then How does Irenaeus know about two Testaments and then quotes from the New Testament to refute "False knowledge". From book IV/XXXII

1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with lrespect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;”2 and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all”4—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,6 if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued8 those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established;10 and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.


Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 505–506). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Iraneus goes on to state that Apostolic doctrine is in harmony with the scriptures. He continues in chapter XXXIII:

8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution5 of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved,7 without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

Ibid

I can go on if you need more. Yes, do read the entire fourth book. In fact read all of Irenaeus.

 

[straykat]

Anyone trying to date Gospel of Thomas that early is wishful thinking. It has that Platonic/Pythagorean mystery cult schtick written all over it. This is late. Even in Justin Martyr's day, Christianity was looked at as sort of an intellectually disrespectable belief system (even less respectable than Judaism, since it was seen as borrowing from it), fit for slaves and lower classes by the intellectuals of the day. He set about being one of the first who tried to give it philosophical respectability and argue with these typew of thinkers. They were in a for a rude awakening -- but it was only after him, Tertullian, and Irenaeus that the trend to philosophize from a Christian perspective became popular. Even Marcion didn't go this route. He was an anti-Judaic heretic, but he merely deconstructed thing. He didn't create particularly new perspectives or philosophy, except by tearing down. He was more of a proto-Gnostic.

Back to the Pythagorean stuff. The red flag for Thomas and all Gnostic literature is Jesus always taking some special disciple to the side and keeping others in the dark. Modern Gnostics especially love the ones involving Mary Magdalene, thinking this is the "true gospel" that espouses "female empowerment" and that there was some grand conspiracy by the Church to shut out women. But they're missing the point. It didn't matter if it was Mary or some other disciple. The Church rejected it because it was a gospel based on inequality.. one of special apostles with "Gnosis" and the fools who were kept in the dark. This was anathema to the Church. Yet modern people actually think they're preaching liberation by embracing this stuff again. It's roots reach back to Pythagoras and Plato.. both of whom defended slavery, haves and have nots, elites, and ultimately a totalitarian system.

So anyways.. that's why it's not in the canon.

 

[redleghunter]

Well this "magisterium" roots back to the apostles. After Jesus left, all the teachings he gave to the apostles where eventually passed down to their apostles and onto right now.

Show me the establishment of the magisterium from the NT church. There was one council of peers, no magisterium.

It is true Jesus passed down His Divine teachings with the promise of the Advocate (John 15) and opening their minds to the Holy Scriptures (Luke 24:44-50). Jesus said He could be found in Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings).

You have to provide evidence the apostles passed on oral traditions not found in the NT writings. Good luck.

The fact of the matter is, the fact that you accept the 27 books in the canon NT and think that anything added or removed is wrong then you are following the magisterium.

Incorrect based on two reasons. Accepting the external evidence of what the early church accepted as a consensus of apostolic authoritative Scriptures, which as demonstrated just presenting Irenaeus was already recognized as Holy Scriptures is not submitting to a magisterium. A magisterium which you assert existed since Pentecost but did not even exist in the 3rd and 4th century.

Second, I accept the 27 books of the NT because I can hear the Divine voice of the Good Shepherd spoken in them by His own lips and through His chosen apostles and disciples.
I can easily read Thomas and know our Lord who treated women with respect and agape love would never utter this nonsense:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Thomas 114)[1]​

The 27 in the NT is the importance of apostolic tradition over Sola Scriptura, and protestantism is the evidence of the dangers of Sola Scriptura.

Actually that makes absolutely no sense.

It's Sola Scriptura that ended up splitting Christianity apart that if you go to wiki, you will read that not all christians believe in the trinity or Jesus being God... and those "christian" groups who dont were all originally protestant who ended up leaving whatever of the 5,000 denominations in protestantism because they read the bible and God told them that the teachings about Jesus being God is all false.

Actually, it was Sola Ecclesia which tore apart East from West as the Pope took on the assumed powers of the former Roman Empire title of Pontifex Maximus and later as a corrupt caricature of the dysfunctional Medici family in 15-16th tore asunder the Western Church. Then Trent sealed the deal to ensure there would never be reconciliation.

You and your Sola Scriptura is the one guilty of adding and almost removing the canon (my reference to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations in the earlier post) and that is why we have JW's, Mormons, Iglesia Ni Cristo, and other Unitarian cults that claim the scriptures deny the divinity of Jesus.

As shown in the previous post, no Protestants ever did so. However your own Cardinals were arguing for such going in to Trent.

Yet for some reason your unsubstantiated assertion once again crops up with no evidence.

The reason JW and Mormon and Oneness types cropped up and grew is because ecclesial authorities lost civil power and could no longer murder people who disagreed with them. A lesson both Protestants and especially Roman Catholics should have learned centuries earlier. You don't silence heretics with the sword but with God's Holy Truth.

So yes, it is best to follow the Church because it is the one who carefully identified all the hundreds of books at the table and found the 27 that was the inspired word. It is the one in where the true teachings of Jesus have been passed down from apostle to apostle. Jesus came here to build a church, not a book.

It's a nice piece of rhetoric but devoid of historical fact.

Unless your point is we cannot know Truth without a man-made magisterium.

Only Eastern Orthodox has the right to argue against us, you (with your 5k diverse doctrines) don't.

That one is quite amusing. They have more books in their canon than you do. So much for the infallible magisterium.

 

[Cis.jd]

I already sourced he addressed 25 of 27 NT books. I provided a link. I'll just paste it here:
snip

Maybe you should re-read my arguments. During Irenaeus' time there was not a universally agreed canon and it wasn't just 27 books that people knew about. There were plenty of gnostic writings circulating the area. You can pop up any form of arguments of Irenaeus knowing 25 books of the NT but that doesn't change the fact that it was the Catholic Church that canonized it. There were other bibles that were floating around from Ignatious to Irenaeus', etc.. The Muratorian Canon for example was a an NT that preexists the 27 canonized NT you know now. It is the NT you have now that is of Catholic canonization; Ignatious, Ireaues, Martyr, etc where all part of the development because it was part of the references Catholics used in making sure that the canon is nothing more or less 27 for the NT. Nevertheless, you are proving the catholic argument of apostolic tradition.. which i will get to after the next quote.

Source this as mine comes from several scholars.

Your arguments of Ignatious and everything that you think is supporting you is actually doing the opposite. You are showing the invalidity of Protestantism (all 5,000+ denominations).

we canonized the bible based on the teachings of the early fathers such as Irenaeus, Ignatious, and Justin Martyr and other reasons to know that the the Muratorian isn't completely true; the gnostic gospels were heresies; and hebrews, james, jude, rev, etc are inspired by the Holy Spirit. We filtered all the extras and knew that the NT is 27, period. why are you repping up some guy when the scripture it self does not name Matt-Rev nor says that the closed canon is 27 only?

So here you can see that we do carry on the apostolic tradition, dating as back to the apostles because Irenaeus, Ignatious, and all of them from the early-mid 2nd century are all apostle descendants of the apostles of Christ. What you've just shown in that huge copy/pasted block in your post is a testament. evidence of how inline we (including the eastern orthodox) are with the christians from the 1st to 2nd century. You, the protestant, can't say this.
I wonder why you are using Irenaeus as an argument supporting protestantism, because in reality Sola Scriptura forces you to look at him as useless (and just bad) reference. At the end, why should you or any body believe Irenaeus' views of the 25/27 books? Where in the Bible does it say that the NT books are 27 only and where do you see Matt-Rev named as those inspired books"? Why are you using quotes that a man validates other than what "scripture alone" should validate? Thanks for the quotes and references, it's great to know how foreign to christianity Sola Scriptura is..

 

[straykat]

Show me the establishment of the magisterium from the NT church. There was one council of peers, no magisterium.

It is true Jesus passed down His Divine teachings with the promise of the Advocate (John 15) and opening their minds to the Holy Scriptures (Luke 24:44-50). Jesus said He could be found in Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings).

You have to provide evidence the apostles passed on oral traditions not found in the NT writings. Good luck.
.

What do you even mean by "evidence"? I mean, in the modern sense? Good luck on that. The 1st century is relatively primitive. I doubt there were even 10,000 believers in the whole empire. Maybe much less than that. And it's hard enough to find useful and informative things that still exist in well established empires after this amount of time. Yet you demand evidence of a community, largely on the run, serving in small easily destroyed buildings at best (or a destroyed Jerusalem temple), and not in large numbers. That we even have THE CHURCH at all as a living testimony is already pretty fantastic. Is it not enough that the movement carried on to testify of itself? Or do you need words directly from that time, outside the NT? Maybe your best shot is the Didache, but it wouldn't tell you anything particularly new.

I think the one tradition in that, that still lives on today in the Orthodox is the rite of baptism: Baptism THREE separate times, for every person of the Trinity.

"1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head 'in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.'"

So I guess that's ONE tradition outside the NT, of the 1st century, that's still carried on and insisted by the Orthodox.

 

[redleghunter]

What do you even mean by "evidence"? I mean, in the modern sense? Good luck on that. The 1st century is relatively primitive. I doubt there were even 10,000 believers in the whole empire. Maybe much less than that. And it's hard enough to find useful and informative things that still exist in well established empires after this amount of time. Yet you demand evidence of a community, largely on the run, serving in small easily destroyed buildings at best (or a destroyed Jerusalem temple), and not in large numbers. That we even have THE CHURCH at all as a living testimony is already pretty fantastic. Is it not enough that the movement carried on to testify of itself? Or do you have words directly from that time, outside the NT? Maybe your best shot is the Didache, but it wouldn't tell you anything particularly new.

I think the one tradition in that, that still lives on today in the Orthodox is the rite of baptism: Baptism THREE separate times, for every person of the Trinity.

"1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head 'in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.'"

So I guess that's ONE tradition outside the NT, of the 1st century, that's still carried on and insisted by the Orthodox.

Thanks for proving my point. Yes the Orthodox dunk three times. The Romans don't. You stand on Easter Sunday throughout mass. Catholics don't.

The "good luck" is for Catholics to establish which apostolic traditions the apostles handed down which were not written in Holy Scriptures.

 

[straykat]

Thanks for proving my point. Yes the Orthodox dunk three times. The Romans don't. You stand on Easter Sunday throughout mass. Catholics don't.

The "good luck" is for Catholics to establish which apostolic traditions the apostles handed down which were not written in Holy Scriptures.

I should correct you and say I'm not Orthodox. Maybe Orthodox in spirit. But it's not my right to truly say anything like that yet.

There's a lot that is shared between the two.. but not sure why baptism changed for Catholics.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe you should re-read my arguments

You have not established an argument. You have restated assertions. Arguments actually provide evidence.
You have not done so and failed to address the evidence I provided other than "no." That's not an argument. Establish one as you are wasting my time.

During Irenaeus' time there was not a universally agreed canon and it wasn't just 27 books that people knew about.

1. Try refuting what I presented instead of establishing your own assertion to support another assertion.

2. Perhaps provide evidence for what was universally accepted outside the later 27 book canon which the majority of church fathers accepted as Holy Scriptures.

You mentioned the gospel of Thomas but I showed you other than one early father none accepted Thomas as apostolic.

 

[Cis.jd]

Show me the establishment of the magisterium from the NT church. There was one council of peers, no magisterium.

Ok, open whatever Bible you have. Look at the table of context of the NT.. there you go. Who else made it clear that the NT is 27, nothing more nothing less, and that 27 is Matt-Rev? You can say Irenaeus, but that just shows that us catholics made sure that we are not diverting from early church fathers unless we know that they were wrong, just like with the Muratorian canon/

It is true Jesus passed down His Divine teachings with the promise of the Advocate (John 15) and opening their minds to the Holy Scriptures (Luke 24:44-50). Jesus said He could be found in Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings).

Yes. God's words go as written and oral. Did he pass down his divine teachings by writing on paper and mailing it to them, or did he like verbally talk to his apostles?

You have to provide evidence the apostles passed on oral traditions not found in the NT writings. Good luck.

Ok, the accepting of Matt-Rev as the only 27 canon books.

Incorrect based on two reasons. Accepting the external evidence of what the early church accepted as a consensus of apostolic authoritative Scriptures, which as demonstrated just presenting Irenaeus was already recognized as Holy Scriptures is not submitting to a magisterium. A magisterium which you assert existed since Pentecost but did not even exist in the 3rd and 4th century.

Magisterium = Apostolic Tradition, you sort of proven this with all your quotes and talks about Irenaeus. Since Irenaeus pre-existed the Nicea, and as you said, recognized the Holy Scriptures (he also believed in Catholic Doctrines such as the Immaculate Concepcion) prior to the Canonization, then that shows that we (and our magisterium) are in line with the early christians. We did not just select the 27 based on random reasons but we also carry on the teachings of the early fathers.

Second, I accept the 27 books of the NT because I can hear the Divine voice of the Good Shepherd spoken in them by His own lips and through His chosen apostles and disciples.
I can easily read Thomas and know our Lord who treated women with respect and agape love would never utter this nonsense:(Thomas 114)[1]

snip
Actually that makes absolutely no sense.​

Why would i care about your opinion? Your claim on the 27 books (hearing the divine voice) is the same thing that Felix Manalo, John Smith, and even Mohammad said in justifying and supporting what they "think" is true. Since you go by scripture alone then unless those 27 books were actually named somewhere in scripture, then you are just giving your opinion/views.

Actually, it was Sola Ecclesia which tore apart East from West as the Pope took on the assumed powers of the former snip

The separation of the east and west isn't as bad as you protestants that after just 30-50 years of the reformation more than 300 different denominations came out, all claiming the other one is wrong.. now time traveling to our present time you are now 5,000k.

As shown in the previous post, no Protestants ever did so. However your own Cardinals were arguing for such going in to Trent.

Oh yes. he almost made his own canon too which was to exclude those books..
Luther's canon - Wikipedia

Yet for some reason your unsubstantiated assertion once again crops up with no evidence.

Felix Ysagun Manalo - "n 1904, he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church,[8] entered the Methodist seminary, and became a pastor for a while.[9] He also sought through various denominations, including the Presbyterian Church, Christian Mission, and finally Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1911."
This man eventually created a very popular cult in the Philippines that deny the divinity of Christ.

Charles Taze Russell - only a teenager left his Presbyterian congregation to attend a Congregational church. As a form of evangelism he would often go to public locations and use chalk to write out Bible verses related to sin and damnation. But then, at the age of sixteen, he engaged in a debate with a friend that led him to question the reliability of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.
The False Teachers: Charles Taze Russell - Tim Challies

Then you have others such as Fred Phelps who and his Southern Baptist justify their disgusting actions by quoting scripture (Leviticus for example).

So here is your proof of people birthing out cults because of Sola Scriptura/Protestantism. All claiming to have divine revelation and/or have verses/scripture behind them.

It's a nice piece of rhetoric but devoid of historical fact.
Unless your point is we cannot know Truth without a man-made magisterium.

We can know the truth but we need an empire (church) to make sure we don't misinterpreting it, other wise verses in where Jesus goes "the Father is greater than I" can be interpreted like a Muslim or JW...

see the above names again.

That one is quite amusing. They have more books in their canon than you do. So much for the infallible magisterium.

Yes they do. Is your canon like theirs or like ours? Regardless, they are still closer to what the apostles taught than you are. Your denomination wasn't even alive during the 1600s, and as you've shown with Iraneaus... while the East and West did not exist by name you can see it's starting states in the 1st to 2nd century. We (with the EO included) still carry the teachings of the early pre-300 AD fathers and I don't need to reference that because you've done that already.

 

[Athanasius377]

You need to study development of the canon, not impose your own meaning on what iraneus says. It is called " confirmation bias"- a typical Protestant trait,

We have iraneus to thank for confirming the four gospels but the rest was still fluid.

For example.. He speaks about Hermas. So is that scripture in your book?

Few even has a substantial set of scripts.
So it was not how faith was passed on.

Sola scriptura is neither what Jesus preached nor the early church did. Protestants forced that manmade tradition on us a millennium later. Causing explosion in the variety of meanings of doctrine.

You dodge the issue of the role of the church in defining doctrine

First let me thank you for being a believing Catholic. I enjoy these exchanges because I know that I am dealing with a believer and we are hammering out the finer points of doctrine. And let me be the first to invite you to stand for the historic catholic (not Roman, sadly) faith.

I have gone through great pains to show the context of Irenaeus to safeguard myself from confirmation bias. If I have misrepresented Irenaeus in any way please point it out. The Early Church Fathers (ECF) are not confessional Lutherans, nor are they modern Roman Catholics. My advice is to read the ECF and let them be the ECF. Some are operating without a complete NT nor have an idea what the the NT canon is (complete that is). And for the record I do appreciate everything the church in Rome has done for the catholic faith especially in the area of the canon.

That said, The development of the canon is something that is near and dear to me. I have several volumes on the process of the recognition of canon. So let's get down to it shall we?

It seems to me you have done little research in the area of ECF or the development of the canon. Irenaeus does a lot more than confirming the four Gospels, by my estimation he confirms the vast majority of the NT. If you are need of more quotes allow me some time and I can provide them for you.

The Shepard is an interesting book. Every Christian should be familiar with this book but if you have read the book the first thing you will recognize is the adoptionism that is evident in the book which as orthodox christians we reject. While not exactly orthodox it can still teach us about what early christians thought even if not exactly orthodox. I would also recommend 1st Clement and the Didache as mandatory reading. The ECF are not always reliable. And to say they speak with one voice is frankly silly. For example Irenaeus , who stated that the LORD according to tradition was almost 50 years old:

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being5 of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:—
Οἱ δὲ θεοὶ πὰρ Ζηνὶ καθήμενοι ἠγορόωντο
Χρυσέψ ἐν δαπέδψ:
which we may thus render into English:—
“The gods sat round, while Jove presided o’er,
And converse held upon the golden floor.”


Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

So you see why I pushed you on what is Tradition. Because according to tradition Irenaeus states the Lord was Almost 50 years old at the crucifiction and that is something no one believes is true.

Few even has a substantial set of scripts.
So it was not how faith was passed on.

Can you revise? I don't know know what you mean by these fragmants.


Actually, the Lord had plenty to say about tradition.


Traditions and Commandments
7 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“ ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” ’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mk 7:1–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Seems to me the Lord reacts rather strongly to "Tradition".

 

[straykat]

I like the Shepherd of Hermas too. Funnily, it is said that my avatar may have been the Shepherd of Hermas. Possibly just a general image of the "Good Shepherd" though.

Not sure I'd call it Canon, but definitely worth reading. The NT Canon was formed most of all for being Apostolic in nature.. or closely associated with Apostles (Luke, Mark).

 

[Cis.jd]

You have not established an argument. You have restated assertions. Arguments actually provide evidence.
You have not done so and failed to address the evidence I provided other than "no." That's not an argument. Establish one as you are wasting my time.

You pretty much helped me with all the Irenaeus quotes.. you just showed how connected the Catholic church is with the early church fathers (these fathers getting their knowledge from christians before who learned from the apostles) with all those quotes.

1. Try refuting what I presented instead of establishing your own assertion to support another assertion.

Assertion of what, that there wasn't a universally accepted canon during the 1st-2nd century? You just confirmed that by showing Iraneaus knowing 25/27... then you have the gnostic writings reference, to even the men of Nero such as Plinny the Younger being named. I don't understand how all that is assertion.

2. Perhaps provide evidence for what was universally accepted outside the later 27 book canon which the majority of church fathers accepted as Holy Scriptures.

Look up Marcion.

You mentioned the gospel of Thomas but I showed you other than one early father none accepted Thomas as apostolic.

Yup you showed me that, but you didn't realize that you were supporting my arguments. I had to do this just to show you how the Church has to be the main authority, not Scripture alone.

You are right, no church father accepted this gospel -- same thing with Marcion who made an NT canon; but their acceptance/rejection of that should be of no matter to you. you made all this negs about listening to a "magisterium" but you here are asking for evidence of church fathers accepting/rejecting certain gospels. So the church does and has to tell/confirm it, after all.

Why would you care to listen to what the "early church says" about Thomas or even the Marcion? Scripture alone is efficient and since nowhere in scripture does it say there are only 4 gospels, then whatever Iraneaus says or whatever church fathers accepted/rejected should be useless.

 

[redleghunter]

Ok, open whatever Bible you have. Look at the table of context of the NT.. there you go. Who else made it clear that the NT is 27, nothing more nothing less, and that 27 is Matt-Rev? You can say Irenaeus, but that just shows that us catholics made sure that we are not diverting from early church fathers unless we know that they were wrong, just like with the Muratorian canon/



Yes. God's words go as written and oral. Did he pass down his divine teachings by writing on paper and mailing it to them, or did he like verbally talk to his apostles?


Ok, the accepting of Matt-Rev as the only 27 canon books.


Magisterium = Apostolic Tradition, you sort of proven this with all your quotes and talks about Irenaeus. Since Irenaeus pre-existed the Nicea, and as you said, recognized the Holy Scriptures (he also believed in Catholic Doctrines such as the Immaculate Concepcion) prior to the Canonization, then that shows that we (and our magisterium) are in line with the early christians. We did not just select the 27 based on random reasons but we also carry on the teachings of the early fathers.



Why would i care about your opinion? Your claim on the 27 books (hearing the divine voice) is the same thing that Felix Manalo, John Smith, and even Mohammad said in justifying and supporting what they "think" is true. Since you go by scripture alone then unless those 27 books were actually named somewhere in scripture, then you are just giving your opinion/views.



The separation of the east and west isn't as bad as you protestants that after just 30-50 years of the reformation more than 300 different denominations came out, all claiming the other one is wrong.. now time traveling to our present time you are now 5,000k.


Oh yes. he almost made his own canon too which was to exclude those books..
Luther's canon - Wikipedia


Felix Ysagun Manalo - "n 1904, he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church,[8] entered the Methodist seminary, and became a pastor for a while.[9] He also sought through various denominations, including the Presbyterian Church, Christian Mission, and finally Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1911."
This man eventually created a very popular cult in the Philippines that deny the divinity of Christ.

Charles Taze Russell - only a teenager left his Presbyterian congregation to attend a Congregational church. As a form of evangelism he would often go to public locations and use chalk to write out Bible verses related to sin and damnation. But then, at the age of sixteen, he engaged in a debate with a friend that led him to question the reliability of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.
The False Teachers: Charles Taze Russell - Tim Challies

Then you have others such as Fred Phelps who and his Southern Baptist justify their disgusting actions by quoting scripture (Leviticus for example).

So here is your proof of people birthing out cults because of Sola Scriptura/Protestantism. All claiming to have divine revelation and/or have verses/scripture behind them.



We can know the truth but we need an empire (church) to make sure we don't misinterpreting it, other wise verses in where Jesus goes "the Father is greater than I" can be interpreted like a Muslim or JW...

see the above names again.


Yes they do. Is your canon like theirs or like ours? Regardless, they are still closer to what the apostles taught than you are. Your denomination wasn't even alive during the 1600s, and as you've shown with Iraneaus... while the East and West did not exist by name you can see it's starting states in the 1st to 2nd century. We (with the EO included) still carry the teachings of the early pre-300 AD fathers and I don't need to reference that because you've done that already.

I will reply when I see an argument.

 

[redleghunter]

I like the Shepherd of Hermas too. Funnily, it is said that my avatar may have been the Shepherd of Hermas. Possibly just a general image of the "Good Shepherd" though.

Not sure I'd call it Canon, but definitely worth reading. The NT Canon was formed most of all for being Apostolic in nature.. or closely associated with Apostles (Luke, Mark).

That is correct. Throughout the early writings the use of the terms "the prophets say", "the apostles wrote" and "the Lord said" mean a lot. That is how the canon was established. And why although popular the Shepherd was not accepted. Other than being written in the 2nd century which excluded it from being of apostolic origin.

 

[redleghunter]

Why would you care about what early church father accepted or rejected? The fact is you are Sola Scriptura not Apostolic tradition.

Because the early fathers applied Sola Scriptura.

Irenaeus was just the most prolific of Sola Scriptura adherents from the 2nd century.

Of course the NT writers come in first.

 

[redleghunter]

why are you asking about what a group of "men" (magisterium) say as to what is right or false? I thought you are scripture alone; no where in scripture does it say that Marcion was wrong and that the church fathers were right in accepting only 4 gospels so why should their views on Gospel of Thomas matter to you? Maybe you are slowly realizing how illogical protestantism is, i just had to trick your perspective a bit.

Where was the magisterium located in the 2nd century, or even the 3rd century?

It did not exist.

You still need to answer why it takes a ruling of men to determine what is inspired of God? By your Sola Ecclesia model, Jesus and His disciples should have listened to the Sanhedrin for matters of truth. They did not. They relied on Scriptures to establish truth claims. Not once does an apostle cite tradition in their epistles to establish their truth claims.

 

[straykat]

Because the early fathers applied Sola Scriptura.

Irenaeus was just the most prolific of Sola Scriptura adherents from the 2nd century.

Of course the NT writers come in first.

Either way, Irenaeus was still a bishop, and believed he had the succession of apostles. It's almost unthinkable that he'd consider otherwise, or that didn't bolster his confidence to defend against the heresies he was writing about. He was part of something greater than himself - the Church - but one of the fortunate ones to also be a mouthpiece.

 

[straykat]

Where was the magisterium located in the 2nd century, or even the 3rd century?

It did not exist.

You still need to answer why it takes a ruling of men to determine what is inspired of God? By your Sola Ecclesia model, Jesus and His disciples should have listened to the Sanhedrin for matters of truth. They did not. They relied on Scriptures to establish truth claims. Not once does an apostle cite tradition in their epistles to establish their truth claims.

This is strange, because Protestants operate on the same principle. They're using their own rule to become their own magisterium/Popes in a sense.. declaring by fiat which past Councils are good, which are not, what is canon, what is not. In fact, this is more bold than any Pope known to that point. Not even Rome set themselves up against the ecumenical canons to this extent.