Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[MamaZ]

If the scriptures do not contain the Formulae as one suggests then can someone tell me where they got the words of the formulae?

waiting for an answer

 

[JacktheCatholic]

waiting for an answer

You mean the word "Trinity"?

 

[Standing Up]

Great to see you contending for the truth.



Right, but if you can't 'see' something, you can't 'see' something.


Good question, but it was worded differently than youve worded it here. IIRC He didn't use the word 'and' but rather 'whether'.
He's telling them, "Hey, stick to what we've taught you"
(Some were taught it in person, some were taught it through the letters
but it was the 'same' thing obviously)

-snip-

That's another great point and Paul illustrates it when he counters the false Thessalonica letter.

2 Thes. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

3:7 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

2 Tim. 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

 

[Standing Up]

Circular reasoning. You don't know that a particular letter is the one that Paul mentioned... excepting that we all now know - because of tradition.

You seem to think you have something with the word circular.

2 Ths. 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

If you don't believe it, simply say so.

 

[MamaZ]

You mean the word "Trinity"?

What monte was saying. With trinity and theotokos and ect..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You mean the word "Trinity"?

What about these 2 words?
I needed to look 'em up on Wiki when I saw them, as I never saw them mentioned in the Bible ehehe

Sacramental/Ordinance Theology - Christian Forums
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology

http://www.christianforums.com/t7179509/
Consubstantiation vs Transsubstantiation

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah... my apologies. But my family comes first. As the father I do a family prayer and then I read scripture. Gotta go to bed on the right note.

Anyhow...

The books that we have were not even decided on until the 4th and 5th century. At best we could say the 4 Gospels had been decided on because men in the church, based on oral tradition, had already agreed that (reminds me of the 4 winds).

But even before this post you were told:



The men that used oral tradition to decide which books ended out in what would become the New Testament probably had many criteria. One was that it befit the Divine Liturgy or Mass.

So when we discuss books like the Didache or the letter from Clement, which can be placed to the 1st century by many, we can see that it was not a decision based solely on books believed to be written while an Apostle still lived.

I had a CD previously that came with someting I bought concerning the history of the Bible and if I can find I may be able to show a more complete list of all the books that they had to choose from.

The apostles knew they had to leave a written record. It's the point of the renaming of James and John, when Jesus delineated the OT (blood of Abel ...). It's written throughtout their letters, so you will know.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The apostles knew they had to leave a written record. It's the point of the renaming of James and John, when Jesus delineated the OT (blood of Abel ...). It's written throughtout their letters, so you will know.

Not sure what that has to do with what we were discussing???

Like I posted earlier, there were many letters being used in the church and up until the 4th and 5th century all those letters were being used to some extent. Letters like the Didache and Clement and more. Outside of some writings pointing out the four gospels there was no real definition. The NT as we know it was not even compiled and agreed on.

 

[Standing Up]

Not sure what that has to do with what we were discussing???

Like I posted earlier, there were many letters being used in the church and up until the 4th and 5th century all those letters were being used to some extent. Letters like the Didache and Clement and more. Outside of some writings pointing out the four gospels there was no real definition. The NT as we know it was not even compiled and agreed on.

We know from Thessalonica that there was at least one false letter, but Paul quickly clarifies how to tell his from the false.

Montalban apparently still doesn't believe the written letter is from Paul. Apparently you think the same.

2ths 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

You folks must think that Thessalonica letter in our bibles is the fake one and they tossed the real one and circulated the fake one. Crazy getting crazier. But hey, we have a Council and Teaching Magesterium to tell us that it is the real Paul. I mean, Paul didn't say it. 3:17 isn't in there, but the Council and TM added it, but even if it were in there, you can't understand it. Look at all these authorities unable to agree that it is written.

 

[Standing Up]

For those who apparently can't seem to simply believe scripture without some sort of later tradition coming first, I thought to help you out. Here's from The Muratorian Fragment c170ad:

As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent.
The Muratorian Fragment

Now that tradition does say "those desiring to understand", so you folks will at least have to provide that for yourselves. Maybe that later tradition saying what Paul himself first said will help. That's all I'm saying.

Hope that helps.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Although JacktheCatholic's answered this I'd like to add that if you go to Early Christian Writingsyou'll see some books such as Epistle of Barnabas are dated to before some of the other books in the NT were completed.

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: http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm

 

[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

No one's denying that there were other letters, although the quantity may be in question. The point (right now) is simply that Paul left a token on his letters. It's how we differentiate between true and false.

But some say that that is not really Paul, but rather that we don't really know. It could be Joe Suchabanana who wrote them, but the Church and/or the Council decided that Joe is really Paul

 

[Montalban]

No one's denying that there were other letters, although the quantity may be in question. The point (right now) is simply that Paul left a token on his letters. It's how we differentiate between true and false.

So there's no such thing as forgeries in the ancient times! Simply saying "This is from Paul" was enough

When the Corinthians got a letter they didn't ask the person bringing it who it was from because the 'token' was enough, and they all knew what it was?

This also misses several points:
Did all the writers of Epistles do this? (I thought you were arguing that Peter's Epistles backed up Paul - so the token wasn't enough???)

Did this mean that when collecting the books into a bible it should be included? Does the token say "Include me in any future collection - the bible?"

 

[Montalban]

waiting for an answer

I already mentioned the Councils, but you're more than welcome to keep asking what I've answered.

 

[Montalban]

You seem to think you have something with the word circular.

2 Ths. 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

If you don't believe it, simply say so.

You miss the point again. I believe it. You believe it 'cause it's in the Bible so it must be authentic, because it's in the bible.

You can expand the circle by saying "It had a token" so we know it's from Paul because it had a token which means it must have been from Paul because it had a token

 

[Montalban]

What monte was saying. With trinity and theotokos and ect..

It was I who mentioned this. I don't know who monte is

 

[Standing Up]

When the Corinthians got a letter they didn't ask the person bringing it who it was from because the 'token' was enough, and they all knew what it was?

I believe it. You believe it 'cause it's in the Bible so it must be authentic, because it's in the bible.

You can expand the circle by saying "It had a token" so we know it's from Paul because it had a token which means it must have been from Paul because it had a token

I know you said, "I believe it", but I know how these things go.

2 Ths. 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

 

[Montalban]

That's interesting and reminds me of the Jewish culture.
And I am not going to suggest that they were taught some things that did not
make it to the written record.
However... You ask "why"?
I answer because God's way was/is "It is written"

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.

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

If the prophets had been sufficient enough then we'd not need a NT

Heck.. Why not pass down the ten commandments?
EASY to memorize those ten things.
HE chose to put them in stone...

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?

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

Heck no.
I put Him on the throne,

You confine him to a book

exalted and high and lifted up.
In fact, His written word rocks and teaches

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

 

[Montalban]

I know you said, "I believe it", but I know how these things go.

That list of books JacktheCatholic gave you, did they have dating on them?

 

[Standing Up]

That list of books JacktheCatholic gave you, did they have dating on them?

When do you think Paul wrote this? Or perhaps Joe Suchabanana wrote this?

2 Ths. 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.