• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Jesus instructed the eyewitnesses who understood they had to write it down.
:sigh:
That's still missing the point. You're not alone in this, so I'm not trying to pick on you.

Let's go through this in baby steps

Paul writes to the Thessalonians

The church in Rome, how do they know Paul actually wrote that Epistle?

The church in Antioch hears that there's a book called "The Gospel of Thomas". How do they know if Thomas wrote that, or not.

It starts off...
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."
A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas

What is it about one book that screams "This is genuine" and another doesn't?

If you believe in sola scriptura then your evidence MUST come from the book itself.

300 or so years later they've got hundreds of books, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of John, Didache, Epistle to the Galatians, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of the Apostles

Within SOME of those books is the word of God. But does the word of God say at the beginning of the book "This is 100% genuine Word of God"?

Do these books even date themselves?

Please provide evidence from scripture.

All of this is to show why, for example, Clement of Rome's letter was rejected as scripture. He wasn't an eyewitness. Same with Marcion. It wasn't whether they were or weren't Christian, but that their words are not equal to the actual eyewitnesses. We shouldn't equate the two.
Was Paul a witness?

Was Luke?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:sigh:
That's still missing the point. You're not alone in this, so I'm not trying to pick on you.

Let's go through this in baby steps

Paul writes to the Thessalonians

The church in Rome, how do they know Paul actually wrote that Epistle?

The church in Antioch hears that there's a book called "The Gospel of Thomas". How do they know if Thomas wrote that, or not.

It starts off...
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."
A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas

What is it about one book that screams "This is genuine" and another doesn't?

If you believe in sola scriptura then your evidence MUST come from the book itself.

It screams fake with the opening sentence's word "secret".

Jn. 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

300 or so years later they've got hundreds of books, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of John, Didache, Epistle to the Galatians, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of the Apostles

Within SOME of those books is the word of God. But does the word of God say at the beginning of the book "This is 100% genuine Word of God"?

Do these books even date themselves?

Please provide evidence from scripture.

Jesus commanded them to write it down. They did. My last post provided the scripture evidence.

Was Paul a witness?

Was Luke?

Luke certainly makes that claim---It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

As a devout Jew, Paul would have been there at Passover to witness the Lord's death and burial. We know of the resurrection appearance to Paul.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It screams fake with the opening sentence's word "secret".

Jn. 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
:D

You have to stop working from the premise that you already accept John as genuine in answering my question, because it again misses the point. How would they have known John was genuine in order for them to judge Thomas as not being genuine?

Jesus commanded them to write it down. They did. My last post provided the scripture evidence.
It didn't. It simply begs the question how do you know which things written down was that which was written down as a request from Jesus?

You don't seem to realise the problem of this when you simply quote Bible verses as 'proof' here given that at one stage there was no NT. You NOW KNOW that there's an NT, but simply accepting the NT as definitive without understanding how it came about doesn't help your cause

Luke certainly makes that claim---It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
How's that make him a witness? Was Luke there at the birth of Jesus? Was Luke at the wedding? Was he at the tomb when it says only Peter and John and the women were there? Maybe Peter and John didn't see him hiding near-by writing everything down ;)

Perhaps, just a thought, having 'perfect knowledge' meant that he spoke to people who were there, like Mary.
As a devout Jew, Paul would have been there at Passover to witness the Lord's death and burial. We know of the resurrection appearance to Paul.
So what? Was Paul there at the birth of Jesus? Was Paul there in the room when Jesus broke bread?
 
Upvote 0
What's your point? You started to interject in a conversation I was having with another person who claimed that the Holy Spirit wasn't working within the Ethiopian
If I remember correctly it was not he that claimed this but you who asked this. He just stated that the HS does not indwell non believers. Read posts #497,#498. then you posted this.
So the Holy Spirit didn't guide him? Who says he was a non-believer? It just says that he was reading and he didn't understand. He was seeking the truth. Perhaps you think God wasn't at work in this?
You asked who said he was a non believer. This is when I interjected with the scripture. God is always at work with those who become saved.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If I remember correctly it was not he that claimed this but you who asked this. He just stated that the HS does not indwell non believers. Read posts #497,#498. then you posted this.

You asked who said he was a non believer. This is when I interjected with the scripture. God is always at work with those who become saved.

He was on his way to Jerusalem to pray. It says so clearly.

He was a believer.

Perhaps you mean to say he was a non-Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
A believer in what?

Given that he's going to Jerusalem to pray and he's reading the scriptures, then I would guess that he's Jewish. However regardless of what he's a believer in, the interesting thing is that the scriptures he's reading which he can't quite follow are explained to him by a Christian.

The scripture he's reading aren't Christian, but can only be really understood in the light of Christianity - given that the OT is all leading up to the Messiah!
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's exactly like Jesus talking about 'love thy neighbour'. He does indeed use scripture, but he says "You may have heard this, but I say that..." and he contrasts his lesson with what's in the scriptures. The lesson of Jesus was different, more exactly broader in terms of 'neighbour' than that in the scriptures

Scripture alone was not sufficient. If it was, Jesus' lesson would have been redundant

This is not to say that scriptures aren't used. Nor does it mean that Jesus contradicts scriptures. However it goes to understanding the Bereans incident. They too could read scripture, but Paul's lesson to them is not strictly speaking found in scripture, because the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, however Paul could point out that Jesus is the Messiah as spoken of in scriptures. Scriptures would have been one tool Paul used. Not the only one, because Christianity teaches the fulfillment of the OT.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So now you're saying you don't get what I was talking about so you just decided to post a swathe of bible quotes anyway?

That's odd, to me it's odd.

Do I need to apologize about all the endless drivel (on my end) in posting a swathe of Gods words to you? Montalban, thats how you appear to treat Gods words as, like they are just that, or at least you very much come across like that.

Though it might appear less condemning (perhaps) to say a swathe of bible quotes verses saying a swathe of GOD'S words

And "now" I am not saying I dont get what you were talking about there (as in before I posted) as I could only guess (more or less) because its always you that always makes that clear after the fact (and to the majority who converses with you on them).

So just continue on without me. Im not willing to strive with you any longer over the value I might place on Gods words (alone) or the "swathe of them" (as you say) I find they are very confirming.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:D

You have to stop working from the premise that you already accept John as genuine in answering my question, because it again misses the point. How would they have known John was genuine in order for them to judge Thomas as not being genuine?

Figured you'd say that. ^_^

You've neglected the fulfillment of the OT. They searched the scriptures. God commanded them to write it down. And you're operating under the assumption that men put it together on par with their traditions as they evolved at later councils, rather than as God-breathed from the start passed on to faithful men.

Two different world views. God is faithful versus Council men tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Do I need to apologize about all the endless drivel (on my end) in posting a swathe of Gods words to you? Montalban, thats how you appear to treat Gods words as, like they are just that, or at least you very much come across like that.
Where have I said that God's words are drivel?
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Figured you'd say that.

You've neglected the fulfillment of the OT. They searched the scriptures. God commanded them to write it down. And you're operating under the assumption that men put it together on par with their traditions as they evolved at later councils, rather than as God-breathed from the start passed on to faithful men.

Two different world views. God is faithful versus Council men tradition.

Where does it say what they wrote down is in one particular book, as opposed to another? That was my question to you, which you didn't answer in your previous three posts
 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest
Figured you'd say that. ^_^

You've neglected the fulfillment of the OT. They searched the scriptures. God commanded them to write it down. And you're operating under the assumption that men put it together on par with their traditions as they evolved at later councils, rather than as God-breathed from the start passed on to faithful men.

Two different world views. God is faithful versus Council men tradition.

The canon of the Old Testament wasn’t established until a Christian council was established. The Jewish canon was finalized after the Resurrection of Christ. The words Old Testament is inherently defined by a council whether Jewish or Christian.

The only reason why we understand the fulfillment of the OT is because of the context a.k.a tradition it was taught in. The reason why I say this is because there were Jews who read the Scriptures and were able to identify Christ and there were Jews who read Scripture and thought of Him as a blasphemer. Both groups read the same book but the correct tradition is what helped them identify it.

Montablan is under the correct assumption that God works outside of Scripture as well and that God is not limited to it.

The correct chronology is this, first God exists, then man exists, then Scripture exists.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where have I said that God's words are drivel?

You know exactly what I said Montalban and I clarified it speaking of it as how His words are treated like.

I will not answer you again, goodbye Montalban
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where does it say what they wrote down is in one particular book, as opposed to another? That was my question to you, which you didn't answer in your previous three posts

I've answered your question in a number of ways, just like other people have. I'll post again. And then you try to answer the PS.

Jesus instructed the eyewitnesses who understood they had to write it down.

Acts 10:42 And He ordered us to
[fn] preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.

1 Peter 1:12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to
[fn] look.

This next verse shows that they understood this. It's the same revelation Moses had. He is dying. What will happen after his death? He wrote it down. Men understood.

Rom. 10:5 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO
[fn] BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

All of this is to show why, for example, Clement of Rome's letter was rejected as scripture. He wasn't an eyewitness.
Same idea with the Gospel of Thomas. It's gnostic.

Now I've answered you 4 or 5 times, though you either still don't understand or can't or disagree. Please answer this---

PS Do you have any non-written tradition handed down, besides traditions of men to which you might point? Let me help. Stephen and James were martyred. The apostles had two perfect examples to write about as befits the idea of praying to the deceased Saints. But they didn't. This is a clear, unequivocal example of a tradition of solo man.
 
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟45,052.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You make it sounds like a documentary. Unless I'm missing Paul wasn't there for any of it, yet he speaks with authority on the Last Supper...a product of the liturgical tradition in Antioch...and btw was written before the gospel accounts. Shall we then conclude that all of Paul's writings are the result of tradition? If he had written something that contradicted tradtion, would it have been accepted. Like your example of the gospel of Thomas - rejected because it did not agree with tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The canon of the Old Testament wasn’t established until a Christian council was established. The Jewish canon was finalized after the Resurrection of Christ. The words Old Testament is inherently defined by a council whether Jewish or Christian.

Mt. 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

The only reason why we understand the fulfillment of the OT is because of the context a.k.a tradition it was taught in. The reason why I say this is because there were Jews who read the Scriptures and were able to identify Christ and there were Jews who read Scripture and thought of Him as a blasphemer. Both groups read the same book but the correct tradition is what helped them identify it.

Mt. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Montablan is under the correct assumption that God works outside of Scripture as well and that God is not limited to it.

Acts 14:17 Nevertheless he (God) left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

The correct chronology is this, first God exists, then man exists, then Scripture exists.

Deu. 30:4 But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Rom. 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Hope that helps.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You've not answered it at all. You keep saying that it was ordered written when I'm not asking that. I'm asking how do you know book "X" is that which was written following that instruction?

Yes, if Jesus said to write it down, how does this show that "Gospel of Mary" is not that which he asked to write down?

When you compare one book (where it said "secret teachings") to what's written in another book, you missed the point because you accept one book as an authority without answering how do you know it's an authority in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.