Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Standing Up]

I just completed searching the web trying to find an online source. This is one a friend uses and figured it is pretty good: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers


Standing Up?

Look these over please. I am sure some of these (at the least) you can look at and find where someone was claiming to be an Apostle or writing for an Apostle.

This is only to show that the NT was confirmed through Oral Tradition. Even if they used a letter from Clement or Ireneaus it was still Oral Tradition.


This may be a good one: A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas

Standing Up,

The link I have provided with the Gospel of Thomas says it goes back as early as 50 AD.

I am posting it a 3ed time in hopes of an answer.

A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas

I don't see a question, but is it why the GoT isn't scripture?

 

[Rick Otto]

Axioms like omnipotence & omniscience are clear absolute precepts that can be built upon.

 

[MamaZ]

I think the formula of the Trinity is from both written and oral tradition.

Scripture and oral treadition give us "The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost" while oral tradition (confirmed through ECF) give us the Trinity.

That is why the NT does not say Trinity.

I guess before the NT was fully compiled and agreed upon for the Divine Liturgy that all scripture was tied to oral tradition...

Actually the OT scriptures were written where we read about God, Spirit, Word. So now how can the formula of the trinity not be found in scripture?

 

[MamaZ]

Just a small point. It's formula in the context of your sentence. When I speak of formulae I'm using the plural

The words to formulae come from the Holy Spirit. Jesus had said that his church would prevail

Plural for what may I ask? Where does one get the words of the formulae?

 

[MamaZ]

So you're arguing against StandingUp who said that the letters of Paul are known by their seal/sign/signature

I note sigh again your reliance on circular logic too. I've gone over this so many times. Any conclusion you come to regarding scripture is unassailable because you simply believe it is as scripture is meant to be read because of your faith that the holy spirit lead you to a correct interpretation in the first place. Never mind the 100,000's of other Protestants all believing in different things about the Bible, excepting that the Holy Spirit guided them too!

They are known by the seal ,signature, sign, and the HS quickens the truth. If someone came in and claimed to be Paul and wrote contrasting letters not held with context of the full of of all the letters do you believe that the HS would quicken lies to His people? For It is the Spirit who leads us into all truth. This is why we need the written to take what is being said and taught to us to the plumb line which is the scripture..

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't see a question, but is it why the GoT isn't scripture?

As discussed previously, the NT was compiled and chosen based on Oral Tradition. Without it there was no way to know for certain whic to use for Divine Liturgy.

Your previous contention is that they only chose books from the 1st century. I thought that was forgetting that the church did not take any action as a whole until the 4th century as to compiling accepted books for the Divine Liturgy. Of course there were those that wrote on what they thought was acceptable but the Church as a whole made no efforts until decades and even centuries after an Apostle wrote an Epistle.

I believe you last asked for a Book from the times of the Apostles and I provided the Gospel of Thomas.

So, we agree that Oral Tradition was used? Did all the books used in the NT has some special symbol or mark to designate it? What did the Christian Faithful use to narrow down a list of books well over 100 to the recognized canon of the 27 Books we use today.

*If you disagree with the 27 for NT then save that for another post please.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Actually the OT scriptures were written where we read about God, Spirit, Word. So now how can the formula of the trinity not be found in scripture?

"Formula of the trinity"

Please look at my post with me.

I think the formula of the Trinity is from both written and oral tradition.

Scripture and oral treadition give us "The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost" while oral tradition (confirmed through ECF) give us the Trinity.

That is why the NT does not say Trinity.

I guess before the NT was fully compiled and agreed upon for the Divine Liturgy that all scripture was tied to oral tradition...

Trinity was never mentioned in the NT or OT and was something that was preserved using Oral Tradition. Trinity is a word that carries meaning. Yet this Word was never used in the OT or NT. It was created by Men guided by the Paraclete.

If you are gonna respond again that the Trinity is a formula found in the Bible then understand it is not the Formula but that understanding of Trinity and the Word used to name it and describe it. This is what Men guided by the Paraclete used and taught and why you and most all people, that call themselves Christian, use the Word Trinity to name and describe "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost."

Since no person can show this Word in the Bible, one cannot say it is in the Bible.

 

[Standing Up]

As discussed previously, the NT was compiled and chosen based on Oral Tradition. Without it there was no way to know for certain whic to use for Divine Liturgy.

Well, that's your assertion against what scripture itself says.

Divine Liturgy meaning what? Mass circle? By whom, for what, and why? Please be specific.

Your previous contention is that they only chose books from the 1st century. I thought that was forgetting that the church did not take any action as a whole until the 4th century as to compiling accepted books for the Divine Liturgy. Of course there were those that wrote on what they thought was acceptable but the Church as a whole made no efforts until decades and even centuries after an Apostle wrote an Epistle.

I believe you last asked for a Book from the times of the Apostles and I provided the Gospel of Thomas.

So, we agree that Oral Tradition was used? Did all the books used in the NT has some special symbol or mark to designate it? What did the Christian Faithful use to narrow down a list of books well over 100 to the recognized canon of the 27 Books we use today.

*If you disagree with the 27 for NT then save that for another post please.

27 books of the NT.

Around we go again. The Thessalonians had receive a letter that claimed to be written by Paul. It disturbed them. Paul writes and says, it was false. You know because 2 Ths. 2:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

So, we know about 13 of the 27. There's no oral tradition, no council, no nothing about those letters except that they came from the hand of an apostle.

Now, within one of those letters, he quotes Jesus from Luke and Mt. and Deut. calling them scripture. That gives us 3 (Luke wrote Luke and Acts) more NT. 16 of 27.

Okay so far? Now to the other side for a moment.

Let's ignore the imprecise dating of the GoT and/or Clement of Rome's letter for the moment. Why weren't they included in scripture? Was it because of a council decision in 400 or 1500? Or what? It's the what.

John, the guy who walked and talked with Jesus, who was known by face, wrote against gnostics, against hidden knowledge, which is how the GoT begins. So, in this we find that clearly the church accepted John as authentic and not the other right at the beginning. There's no oral tradition over hundreds of years and no council decision. That gives us John, John 1,2,3, and Revelation. 21 of 27. Am I adding right?

CoR promotes reincarnation, priests, altars, and sun worship. Now, you would be right to say that some, especially in Rome and Egypt, wanted his letter as part of canon, but all I can tell you is that the Spirit of the Living God prevented it, using faithful men. But tell me, do you think CoR should have been included?

 

[MamaZ]

"Formula of the trinity"

Please look at my post with me.




Trinity was never mentioned in the NT or OT and was something that was preserved using Oral Tradition. Trinity is a word that carries meaning. Yet this Word was never used in the OT or NT. It was created by Men guided by the Paraclete.

If you are gonna respond again that the Trinity is a formula found in the Bible then understand it is not the Formula but that understanding of Trinity and the Word used to name it and describe it. This is what Men guided by the Paraclete used and taught and why you and most all people, that call themselves Christian, use the Word Trinity to name and describe "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost."

Since no person can show this Word in the Bible, one cannot say it is in the Bible.

The word Trinity is not in the bible but the concept is written. Just as if there are two people who travel and sing together we call them a duo..

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Let's ignore the imprecise dating of the GoT and/or Clement of Rome's letter for the moment. Why weren't they included in scripture? Was it because of a council decision in 400 or 1500? Or what? It's the what.

John, the guy who walked and talked with Jesus, who was known by face, wrote against gnostics, against hidden knowledge, which is how the GoT begins. So, in this we find that clearly the church accepted John as authentic and not the other. That gives us John, John 1,2,3, and Revelation. 21 of 27. Am I adding right?

CoR promotes reincarnation, priests, altars, and sun worship. Now, you would be right to say that some, especially in Rome and Egypt, wanted his letter as part of canon, but all I can tell you is that the Spirit of the Living God prevented it, using faithful men. But tell me, do you think CoR should have been included?

This is what I was looking for. Let me know if I missed something above that you wanted to discuss. Right now I have something to chew on.

Reading ypur answer you say that GoT was about hidden knowledge and that John was known by face and because John wrote against gnostic that it is so. But there are some assumptions in there. But let me ask some questions regarding your answer. Who knew John by face and are you saying this matters because no one knew Thomas by face? Also, how do we know a writing of John's is not a forgery? From my knowledge the whole Church did not endeavor to compile all acceptable Books until the 3rd century and nothing was formal (it seems) until the 4th century. In the 3rd century no one would know the face of John or Thomas and I still do not know why that matters.

"CoR promotes reincarnation, priests, altars, and sun worship is what you write. The NT writes of priests and so that should not matter. I believe the NT speaks of altars too and so I am not sure why that matters. Reincarnation and sun worship huh??? I do not recall that when I read it. But regardless, who decided if it should be included?

My understanding is that the Church was developing a canon slowly over decades because at times there were questions if something could be trusted. These writings were used daily in the Divine Liturgy or what Catholics commonly call the Mass. The Whole Church was developing this in the 3rd through 5th century, as I recall. That is not to say that some wrote a letter as to books they felt should be included. The Gospels were generally accepted by all and we have early letters saying as much. Some of the Books like Revelation were not seen so surely as the others.

Allot going on here...

What about Jude? And why Paul?

Jesus chose the 12 and only 11 were left after Iscariot killed himself. The next to be in the office that Iscariot left was Matthias. Yes, the Twelve is how some of the ECFs referred to the Apostles. But why Paul? He was behind the deaths and punishment of many Christians after Jesus rose to Heaven. Becuase Jesus chose him. For what? To help make the Gentiles part of the Family of God. Peter and Paul were also seen as the main figureheads as well. The Early Church saw reliability in Peter and Paul in Rome. So we can see why Paul was chosen. But why Judas? And why not any of these other books that Christianity was using?

The Didache seems like a pretty good tool. But the Books were being chosen for the Divine Liturhy and maybe this did not fit?

The ECFs that decided based their decisions on three things and that the Paraclete guide them. In this they used Oral Traditions and Written. They used writings from the Books we know as the NT and writings from many others. The writings otside what we use as the NT held the Oral Tradition still written down. The Church also had knowledge that all agreed on. The Paraclete worked through these men using all the resources available to create a collection of Books that could be trusted because the whole church agreed on it and knowing they had both Oral and Written reminders and knowing God was there with them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The word Trinity is not in the bible but the concept is written. Just as if there are two people who travel and sing together we call them a duo..

Thank you. We can thank Oral Tradition for knowing that word and it's theological understanding that we share with sctripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you. We can thank Oral Tradition for knowing that word and it's theological understanding that we share with sctripture.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7416863/
similar thread: oral tradition

 

[sunlover1]

But even Jesus contrasted to what was written. Recall when he's talking about "Love thy neighbour" he says "You have heard this... BUT I say this..."

The written word was not sufficient enough.

Where did you hear that Jesus said that?

He was making a change. Actually He wasn't making a change
because the words following "but I say" were always His highest.
He was raising the bar. Stating that yes, up to now we did expect you
to such and such.
But now that you have the Spirit of God and can clearly Hear Him,...
it's even harder!!! lol That was a joke.
I remember when you used to be fun too btw

We can go to Acts 15 and the Council based their decision on Peter and Paul's words AND the teachings of the prophets.

Excellent point and here it is

13 When they had finished, James stood and said, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Peter[c]15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written: 16 ‘Afterward I will return
and restore the fallen house[d] of David.
I will rebuild its ruins
and restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord,
including the Gentiles—
all those I have called to be mine.
The Lord has spoken—
18 he who made these things known so long ago.’[e]
19 “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”

So what? Why then didn't he compile the Bible? Why didn't Jesus write it down and hand the book over to his disciples?

This is a silly rabbit trail that I can't make time to follow.

In point of fact Jesus came to us as the living Word of God. Jesus wasn't just written but the living 3-D word of God. Much more important that the 10 commandments

Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you
(NOT kidding though)




You confine him to a book


Books don't generally teach. We need outside references. Schools would be a lot different otherwise.[/quote]

 

[Standing Up]

This is what I was looking for. Let me know if I missed something above that you wanted to discuss. Right now I have something to chew on.

Reading ypur answer you say that GoT was about hidden knowledge and that John was known by face and because John wrote against gnostic that it is so. But there are some assumptions in there. But let me ask some questions regarding your answer. Who knew John by face and are you saying this matters because no one knew Thomas by face? Also, how do we know a writing of John's is not a forgery? From my knowledge the whole Church did not endeavor to compile all acceptable Books until the 3rd century and nothing was formal (it seems) until the 4th century. In the 3rd century no one would know the face of John or Thomas and I still do not know why that matters.

Have you read the GoT? Here's a sample (A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas):

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

Reply--SUp--But Paul preached the Good News, not a disturbance. Make a joyful noise unto the LORD.


12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Reply--SUp--Now we know why it was excluded . C'mon no apostle would write that stuff. The point is, like the false Thessalonica letter written by "Paul", the GoT was not truly written by an apostle. And quite simply, it is not part of canon.

"CoR promotes reincarnation, priests, altars, and sun worship is what you write. The NT writes of priests and so that should not matter. I believe the NT speaks of altars too and so I am not sure why that matters. Reincarnation and sun worship huh??? I do not recall that when I read it. But regardless, who decided if it should be included?

We differ. There's no priests (only presbyters) and there's no altars of sacrifice in the NT. I already acknowledged, however, that some wanted it part of canon, but I can assure you that there is no way God would allow it to ever be considered His word.

My understanding is that the Church was developing a canon slowly over decades because at times there were questions if something could be trusted. These writings were used daily in the Divine Liturgy or what Catholics commonly call the Mass. The Whole Church was developing this in the 3rd through 5th century, as I recall. That is not to say that some wrote a letter as to books they felt should be included. The Gospels were generally accepted by all and we have early letters saying as much. Some of the Books like Revelation were not seen so surely as the others.

Well, we'd differ on the Mass thingy. Scripture says they were written that we might believe on Him who God sent.

Allot going on here...

What about Jude? And why Paul?

Jesus chose the 12 and only 11 were left after Iscariot killed himself. The next to be in the office that Iscariot left was Matthias. Yes, the Twelve is how some of the ECFs referred to the Apostles. But why Paul? He was behind the deaths and punishment of many Christians after Jesus rose to Heaven. Becuase Jesus chose him. For what? To help make the Gentiles part of the Family of God. Peter and Paul were also seen as the main figureheads as well. The Early Church saw reliability in Peter and Paul in Rome. So we can see why Paul was chosen. But why Judas? And why not any of these other books that Christianity was using?

We have to distinguish like they did. Surely you don't think that Christians continued to use that false Thessalonica letter?

The Didache seems like a pretty good tool. But the Books were being chosen for the Divine Liturhy and maybe this did not fit?

Divine Liturgy had zero to do with it. In fact, the Didache has stuff in it on DL (it only mentions bishop and deacon, never priest. it only mentions eucharist as thanksgiving (now we know why it was rejected ) Anyway, the compiling of canon had to do with the phrase in Romans 10:6-21, who will ascend to bring Christ down and who will descend to bring Christ up? But it is nigh thee. That was written by Paul to the Romans. He copied it from Moses (Deut) who wrote the same to the Israelites before he would die. Moses would die, the apostles would die. The point is that God gave us scripture, the written word. These men knew they were going to die and wrote it down and instructed the faithful to pass it around.

But, I will say this also, both in the OT and for us in the NT, men still have put up their traditions.

The ECFs that decided based their decisions on three things and that the Paraclete guide them. In this they used Oral Traditions and Written. They used writings from the Books we know as the NT and writings from many others. The writings otside what we use as the NT held the Oral Tradition still written down. The Church also had knowledge that all agreed on. The Paraclete worked through these men using all the resources available to create a collection of Books that could be trusted because the whole church agreed on it and knowing they had both Oral and Written reminders and knowing God was there with them.

Why did Jesus rename Peter? Why did Jesus rename James and John, the sons of Zebedee? What is a key component when they included Matthias pre lot? What was Paul's claim as an apostle?

If we read through Paul's, Peter's, John's, Jude, James letters, they mention brethren, some by names. The apostlic eyewitnesses didn't operate in a vacuum, leaving their record to chance.

I know tradition and councils arose. But look at Athanasius before any council rubberstamped what they knew:

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand45434543 Luke i. 1. ,’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed 552good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I know he wrote 300 years after the fact, but look at his words. They point backward: "have been fully persuaded as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses ... learned from the beginning, included in the Canon, handed down, accredited as Divine". He is not so foolish or boastful as to make the claim that tradition or council made these decisions.

 

[sunlover1]

You confine him to a book

Repeating something doesn't cause it to become true.
Why the ad hom? It has no place in this discussion.
Seriously, do YOU have extra time in your day to accuse the
brethren? Because I am already skating on thin ice here time-wise...
stewardship-wise...

Books don't generally teach. We need outside references.

Singing to the choir.

 

[Montalban]

Where did you hear that Jesus said that?

Well obviously you're not going to accept an argument from tradition.

He was making a change. Actually He wasn't making a change
because the words following "but I say" were always His highest.

That is a change. He's saying you've heard this, but I say this...

He was raising the bar. Stating that yes, up to now we did expect you
to such and such.

Therefore you must agree that as written the OT was not sufficient.

Excellent point and here it is

That's a clear case of the bible being used in conjunction with the Apostles

This is a silly rabbit trail that I can't make time to follow.

Silly because you can't answer?

Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you

Even if you say "but the spirit" then that's still not 'the bible'

 

[Montalban]

Repeating something doesn't cause it to become true.

You do. You confine his word to a book. I raised the issue of him being the word made flesh you just say you're just kidding about stuff. If you don't actually come up with a reasoned response then I'm left believing what I do.

 

[MamaZ]

Thank you. We can thank Oral Tradition for knowing that word and it's theological understanding that we share with sctripture.

So what made one believe there was a trinity?

 

[MamaZ]

12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

 

[Montalban]

So what made one believe there was a trinity?

What's the Trinity? How do each members of the Trinity interact?