St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Standing Up]

Nice dodge. Back to the original request: prove the canon by way of Sola Scriptura. This includes the names of the authors.

You've drifted off the definition of SS.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 3rd? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If the Truth could be had and proven by Scripture then there wouldn't be division on nearly every single line of doctrine that can exist. Modalism, for example, is a big part of Charismatic denominations, despite its rejection in the Council of Chalcedon.

That is both a fallacious argument as well as fallacious statement, as if SS can be disallowed due to division over it then so can your church, as people also interpret it differently. And RCs and EOs both differ on what Tradition teaches.

In addition, while your definition of SS churches must be so wide as to fly [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, not only is a comparison of one church with so many of such invalid, but the reality is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the wholly infallible and accurate word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism! [/FONT]

However, the Canon, which stands in authority over the Scripture, is Tradition, and not a Sola Scriptura fact. It cannot be derived by way of Sola Scriptura, with Scripture being the highest authority.

You seem to like repeating comforting delusions in response to what refutes [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]them [/FONT], which i just did in the post you are sppsd to be interacting with. As explained, a canon can indeed by derived under SS, since even OT Scripture affirms/provides for Godly souls ascertaining men as well as writings as being of God, even in dissent from magisterial authority, and thus it provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon.

Repeating your propaganda will not change that.

The Church compiled the Bible, because the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and is therefore in charge of its contents.

Well that is impressive, and RCs invoke the same text, (1Tim. 3:15) , each amazing deriving out of "church living God pillar and ground the truth" that it is their own church is that one true one infallible church, not the living God being that ground, or perhaps the church supporting and grounded in it, but having authority over Scripture!

Yet your logic effectively nukes the NT church, for while you place your church in charge of its contents, as being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and thus dissent from it must mean rebellion against God, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

The Church was created for the sole purpose of spreading the gospel by ALL means. In a land of high illiteracy, Oral Tradition is the only way in which the gospel can be reliably spread.

The purpose of the church is not simply to function as a evangelist, but that the members, "speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ," ' (Ephesians 4:15) to the glory of God.

However, Oral Tradition by its very nature is supremely susceptible undetectable errors over time, and while at the beginning God expressly communicated to only a very few persons in a very limited manner, and which was passed on orally, when He chose to reveal himself to an entire nation (and by them to the world) then He provided quite comprehensive written revelation, which by nature lent itself to preservation.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua... (Exodus 17:14) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)

And which became the well-evidenced standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, (Is. 8:20) and to which conflative and complementary writings would be added.

And thus Scripture is what was invoked as the authoritative basis for preaching by the Lord, from the beginning of His ministry in defeating the devil (Mt. 4:4) to opening up the understanding of the disciples. (Lk. 23:44)

For what was preached was "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)

Even Peter while unknowingly writing in Scripture what He heard, states what prophets wrote as being "the more sure word of prophecy. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

Yet while the record of the gospels and some of Acts was passed on orally and into print, the rest was written directly.

Moreover, this could included new revelation, such as the nature of the church, though conflative with and complementary to what was written, to which all preaching was subject to examination by, as exampled by the noble Bereans.

Thus we have Oral Tradition in the sense of the oral preaching of the gospel and accompanying Truths, which rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the mere veracity of the speakers or as if oral tradition itself was a protected, substantive body of Truth.

And then we have Oral Tradition of the Catholic church which claims to be of the same body that passed on the word of God in Acts etc., but which gives the Catholic a license to preach as the word of God things utterly unseen in Scripture, from pastors distinctively titled "priests" to prayers to created beings in Scripture. The veracity of which rests upon the premise of an infallible church, particularly in its magisterial office.

While it is argued that Oral Tradition is not the same thing as anything that may be passed on orally, it effectively maybe, which is more manifestly the case with Rome. Which can declare as binding the belief in an event the allegedly occured close to 1700 years before, though it is so lacking in early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition. But which is justified under the premise that the church can "remember" such things despite the critical absence of warrant.

What we are being asked to do its to trust the church as if they were apostles, but its leaders fail of both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostols. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

Also, it isn't the magisterium that is infallible, it is the Christ, Who is the head of the Church, which is infallible. There isn't some esoteric magisterium. There is simply the Church, as a whole. The decisions of a council are not authoritative because some bishops were there. They are authoritative because the Church herself lifts them up, while robber councils are not authoritative because the whole of the Church discards them

Infallibility by consensus of the faithful is at least that is better than under Rome, but it is still means that due to Scripture not being supreme then mere traditions of men are perpetuated, as the multitudes will have it so.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No it isn't. Not in the Orthodox Church. You call it a blanket cover out of ignorance. Because you refuse to actually follow the Traditions or even believe that they are neither completely in Scripture nor completely outside of Scripture.

When you have an argument rather than a rant, i can respond.

The only Tradition which truly falls outside of Scripture is the Canon of Scripture, because Scripture wasn't delivered to a publisher when John finished writing the Apocalypse.

Refuted, or do you not read responses but just vent assertions? Again, even OT Scripture shows and sanctions souls discerning both writings and men as being of God and authoritative, even in dissent from the powers that be, and without an infallible church, and thus the church began with writings of Scripture being heavily invoked as authoritative.

And as this discernment took place on a smaller scale under which many writings were held to be of God, thus the same could continue to take place, and did. And thus Scripture provides for a canon, as well as reason, the guidance of the Spirit, the light of even nature, and the magisterial office of the church (which even Westminster affirmed).

Also, You pray to someone EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A REQUEST. Any request of another person is a prayer. You pray to the cashier at McDonalds when you order a Big Mac. You pray to the teller when you ask her to deposit a check. You pray to the tech support guy when your computer needs troubleshooting. I have been a recipient of many of those prayers, as I am a tech support guy.

That is a desperate extrapolative absurd attempt compelled by the inexplicable absolute absence of even one prayer among the approx. 200 in Scripture for what is a basic practice. Reducing prayer to Heaven as mere asking as in tech support to contrary to how Scripture describes it, as well as being akin to reasoning that since the tech support man can hear you than you can mentally communicate anyone you address in another galaxy.

Praying is a spiritual (usually mental) exercise across two different realms, and in which only the Lord is ever addressed, and shown to be able to simultaneously hear and respond to all such, with believers having direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of the Lord Jesus. (Heb. 10:19) And with the only heavenly intercessor mentioned being the Lord Jesus, who is uniquely qualifies to be that intercessor (Heb. 2:19; 4:15,16) and who ever lives to do so. (Heb. 7:25) And is directly accessible.

Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial before the final judgments ion the earth are not that of being heavenly postal workers. Moreover, personal communication btwn heavenly created beings and those on earth required both to somehow being in the same realm.

You simply do not have a valid argument for the utter absence by the Holy Spirit of even one prayer to any created being in Heaven from earth, while instructing believers to address the Lord, and providing approx. 200 prayers of them so doing. But Caths careless essetuially add to the word of God to fulfil their psychological needs.

And Scriptures don't forbid it,

What kind of argument is that?! With that rational angelic Bingo could be supported. But when you have a common practice being abundantly described, and instructions on prayer only addressing the Lord, and only pagans offering incense and making offerings to someone else in the heavens, and with Christ being the only heavenly intercessor mentioned, and pointed to, then you have no real case for engaging what pagans alone are basically shown to do.

and if you use the canon of the Old Testament used by the early Church,

You mean some of the early church, with a canon that saw doubt and disagreement down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther. Who had scholarly Catholic support for his non-binding judgment, which Protestantism did not following completely.

they even show it happening and being responded to.

Wrong, as i only see 2 Maccabees 15:14 and Baruch 3:4 only speaks of saints praying in Heaven, not addressing them in prayer.

The problem is that Protestants have traditions they use, and 95% of Protestants trust more in the traditions they have been taught than the Scriptures they supposedly trust

You are resorting to your bare rants again. Prots can have traditions if they are Scriptural and non binding. Scripture does not describe a wedding liturgy for example, and the ceremony of the ring is non binding and finds Scriptural support in its intent.

So when I say you are lying, I say it is because you are no longer ignorant against your will, but choosing to remain ignorant and wail upon your pretty little strawman that isn't Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition....he problem is, you aren't willing to debate what it is, but rather the propaganda spread by people who haven't spent a single day in an Orthodox or Roman Catholic parish.

You have yet to show me that what i described was actually a strawman of Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition, while it is you who are lying, as for one i was a weekly mass going RC when i became manifestly born again, and realized the profound transformative difference btwn what i had and real regeneration, and yet remained a serving RC for about 6 years after in the heavinly RC area, before the Lord led me out.

Thus i know well the difference, as well as what RCs claim is church teaching, versus what it is in reality.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That is both a fallacious argument as well as fallacious statement, as if SS can be disallowed due to division over it then so can your church, as people also interpret it differently. And RCs and EOs both differ on what Tradition teaches.

In addition, while your definition of SS churches must be so wide as to fly [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, not only is a comparison of one church with so many of such invalid, but the reality is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the wholly infallible and accurate word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism! [/FONT]



You seem to like repeating comforting delusions in response to what refutes [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]them [/FONT], which i just did in the post you are sppsd to be interacting with. As explained, a canon can indeed by derived under SS, since even OT Scripture affirms/provides for Godly souls ascertaining men as well as writings as being of God, even in dissent from magisterial authority, and thus it provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon.

Repeating your propaganda will not change that.



Well that is impressive, and RCs invoke the same text, (1Tim. 3:15) , each amazing deriving out of "church living God pillar and ground the truth" that it is their own church is that one true one infallible church, not the living God being that ground, or perhaps the church supporting and grounded in it, but having authority over Scripture!

Yet your logic effectively nukes the NT church, for while you place your church in charge of its contents, as being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and thus dissent from it must mean rebellion against God, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)




The purpose of the church is not simply to function as a evangelist, but that the members, "speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ," ' (Ephesians 4:15) to the glory of God.

However, Oral Tradition by its very nature is supremely susceptible undetectable errors over time, and while at the beginning God expressly communicated to only a very few persons in a very limited manner, and which was passed on orally, when He chose to reveal himself to an entire nation (and by them to the world) then He provided quite comprehensive written revelation, which by nature lent itself to preservation.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua... (Exodus 17:14) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)

And which became the well-evidenced standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, (Is. 8:20) and to which conflative and complementary writings would be added.

And thus Scripture is what was invoked as the authoritative basis for preaching by the Lord, from the beginning of His ministry in defeating the devil (Mt. 4:4) to opening up the understanding of the disciples. (Lk. 23:44)

For what was preached was "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)

Even Peter while unknowingly writing in Scripture what He heard, states what prophets wrote as being "the more sure word of prophecy. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

Yet while the record of the gospels and some of Acts was passed on orally and into print, the rest was written directly.

Moreover, this could included new revelation, such as the nature of the church, though conflative with and complementary to what was written, to which all preaching was subject to examination by, as exampled by the noble Bereans.

Thus we have Oral Tradition in the sense of the oral preaching of the gospel and accompanying Truths, which rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the mere veracity of the speakers or as if oral tradition itself was a protected, substantive body of Truth.

And then we have Oral Tradition of the Catholic church which claims to be of the same body that passed on the word of God in Acts etc., but which gives the Catholic a license to preach as the word of God things utterly unseen in Scripture, from pastors distinctively titled "priests" to prayers to created beings in Scripture. The veracity of which rests upon the premise of an infallible church, particularly in its magisterial office.

While it is argued that Oral Tradition is not the same thing as anything that may be passed on orally, it effectively maybe, which is more manifestly the case with Rome. Which can declare as binding the belief in an event the allegedly occured close to 1700 years before, though it is so lacking in early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition. But which is justified under the premise that the church can "remember" such things despite the critical absence of warrant.

What we are being asked to do its to trust the church as if they were apostles, but its leaders fail of both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostols. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)



Infallibility by consensus of the faithful is at least that is better than under Rome, but it is still means that due to Scripture not being supreme then mere traditions of men are perpetuated, as the multitudes will have it so.

That was good

 

[BobRyan]

" here is a paraphrase of "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea," (Ex. 20:11) and "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7) parallels other texts which speak of worship of "unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. (Psalms 136:2-6)" "Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise ...By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:3,5,6 ) "In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker." (Psalms 95:4-6)

This wording is unique and signature to the Ten Commandment's -- Sabbath Commandment

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This Bible fact is admitted to by all Bible scholars regardless of what they may think about that Commandment continuing or not.

By contrast "Do not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain" --

Is an example of unique - signature language for a Commandment never quoted - even in part - in the NT.

A of course - not quoting it - means nothing because there is no such thing as a Bible doctrine saying "whatever is not constantly repeated can be deleted" -- as most of us know.

Therefore the SS argument for God's Ten Commandments is pretty clear - no matter if one is in favor of the Bible 7th day Sabbath or in favor of bending it to point to week-day-1.. .both sides agree to this one basic Bible fact (As that signature line below references)

 

[BobRyan]

Act 13:14 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. (the 7th day of the week. Because week-day-1 is not called the "Sabbath" by NT authors)

Acts 13
26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him

Acts 13
42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Paul Turns to the Gentiles
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the Word of the Lord.

Both Jews AND Gentiles gather "Sabbath after Sabbath" for Gospel preaching in Acts 13.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

Act 15:21 simply refers to Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day as part of thea solution to the problem about gentile Christians being raised in the early Christian NT church. As Chapter 13 shows - BOTH gentiles and Jews were hearing scripture weekly.

Act 17:2 another example of Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath with BOTH gentiles and Jews coming back again and again to hear gospel preaching.

Acts 17:Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men

The Jews were not very happy with this - but the result was that gentiles are being converted in Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel preaching.

Nothing here about "week-day-1 after week-day-1 gospel preaching to gentiles in a worship service" -- not one word of it.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Nothing here about "every week day 1 meeting with Greeks to preach the Gospel as part of worship services" -- not even one such cycle in all of the NT - no not one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

Wrong, none of those examples are of the church meeting for gospel teaching,

On the contrary - even James points out in the discussion about gentiles in the Christian church that this pattern of scripture being heard every Sabbath in the synagogues is part of the solution.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7, Mark 16:2, 9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1).
2. Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).

It is agreed by all groups pretty much that we have a one time event of crucifixion on Friday and a one time event of resurrection on week-day-1. And that the week-day-1 event was not a case of weekly gathering for worship service.

1. Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
   (John 20:26).

John 20
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

This text does not say they were gathered for worship service - or that they were expecting Christ would appear to them on this day or that they had a command from Christ to meet weekly on this day - or that this day was week-day-1. An interesting way to introduce the idea of week-day-1 weekly services. Inserting that would take a lot of eisegesis.

It is a one time event of the physical appearing of Christ to them.

1. The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16, Acts 2:1).
2. The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
3. Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
4. The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).

Those are 4 references to the same day - a single event - a one time event.

What I have been showing is weekly cycle "Sabbath after Sabbath" and even "every Sabbath" as the pattern in the NT.

For which we have not one "week-day-1 after week-day-1" gathering for the purpose of worship and gospel preaching - by comparison in all of the NT - no not even one - which again brings us to the point they keep raising about SS - and how only tradition can provide the missing reason/authority for the change.

1. The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
2. The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days but the Roman system.

• Acts 2 they broke bread every day.
• 1 Cor 11 the communion services was to 'remember the Lord's Death until He comes".
• The Acts 20:7 event - was another one time event where Paul gives a sermon prior to all-day-travel which you seem to claim is an all-day travel on week-day-1.

And still shows no week-day-1 after week-day-1 practice/pattern for worship as well as no command for week-day-1 practice or pattern for worship.

And yet on the other hand we have texts chastising believers for observing days, months, times and years, (Gal. 4:10)

Gal 4 refers to pagan days -- and condemns observance of any one of them. If misapplied to weekly worship of the One True God - then it would also condemn week-day-1 services.

Romans 14 refers to Bible holy days - and condemns anyone who would condemn someone for observing them.

Context matters.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also, You pray to someone EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A REQUEST. Any request of another person is a prayer. You pray to the cashier at McDonalds when you order a Big Mac. You pray to the teller when you ask her to deposit a check. You pray to the tech support guy when your computer needs troubleshooting. I have been a recipient of many of those prayers, as I am a tech support guy.

For one, prayer to others is possible because we have a connection to them. Just because they are not on earth does not remove them from the Body of Christ. Any part of the Body of Christ can communicate with any other part of the Body of Christ.

In the example you give - even the RCC does NOT allow its members to "pray to the living". Should they burn incense, burn candles get on their knees - and actually pray to the living - even the RCC would condemn it.

You are equivocating.

There is a Sola Scriptura Command in Isaiah 8
19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light

 

[sculleywr]

You've drifted off the definition of SS.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 3rd? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.

No. I said you couldn't make Scripture the highest authority in creating the Canon. In point of fact, Scripture has no authority in this matter, as it contributes nothing but the raw data of being a text. So by what authority does the canon stand? It isn't Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

That is both a fallacious argument as well as fallacious statement, as if SS can be disallowed due to division over it then so can your church, as people also interpret it differently. And RCs and EOs both differ on what Tradition teaches.

In addition, while your definition of SS churches must be so wide as to fly [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, not only is a comparison of one church with so many of such invalid, but the reality is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the wholly infallible and accurate word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism! [/FONT]

Yes, it is that wide because the application seen in Protestant churches is exactly that wide. Don't like it? Narrow it down in reality, and then maybe I'll think of narrowing the definition I am going to respond to. But you aren't going to narrow the reality of SS application down in reality because, due to the way SS is used, you have no authority by which to do so. Also, with Tradition, only one definition can be correct, and Orthodox and Roman Catholic, contrary to the practice of Protestant relativism, do not consider the other to be equally valid. They see themselves as the one Church, while Protestants think the Church can somehow be a divided morass of disorganized people who profess many different faiths.

And do not try to sell me the lie that Protestants have any real unity. When you get down to the dogma of Soteriology, the most key doctrine of the Faith, there is no unity to be had.

You seem to like repeating comforting delusions in response to what refutes [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]them [/FONT], which i just did in the post you are sppsd to be interacting with. As explained, a canon can indeed by derived under SS, since even OT Scripture affirms/provides for Godly souls ascertaining men as well as writings as being of God, even in dissent from magisterial authority, and thus it provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon.

Repeating your propaganda will not change that.

Repeating the claim that the OT Scripture affirms the New Testament doesn't remove the Tradition from the picture, because the Canon of the Old Testament stands in authority over it. And there are even two disparate traditions to choose from, the Masoretic Canon of the 5th-6th century and the Septuagint canon of the first few centuries. The Church used the Septuagint for more than a millenia before Protestants decided that somehow a very well read set of books filled with fulfilled Messianic prophecies and holidays which the Messiah participated in were somehow hidden. Roman Catholics didn't help the situation by referring to their own canon as the second canon, when it was truly the first canon. The canon stands upon the Authority of the Church, or else the authority of post-Resurrection Jews that rejected the Christ. Guess which one I stand on.

Well that is impressive, and RCs invoke the same text, (1Tim. 3:15) , each amazing deriving out of "church living God pillar and ground the truth" that it is their own church is that one true one infallible church, not the living God being that ground, or perhaps the church supporting and grounded in it, but having authority over Scripture!

Yet your logic effectively nukes the NT church, for while you place your church in charge of its contents, as being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and thus dissent from it must mean rebellion against God, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Nice, you twist Scripture to prove that Christ's prophecy failed and therefore Christ deserved the Cross. You do know that the Church is the one to which the adjective is referring. In Greek writing, that is the only thing to which it can refer, since it is not grammatically attached to God. Changing the grammar of the verse to match your doctrines, rather than changing your doctrines to meet the grammar of the Scripture, is quite deceptive. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. It is not arrogant to make that claim. It is, in fact, hopeless if it isn't. If the Church is not the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, then there is no hope for man to know God with CERTAINTY. If you cannot say your church is teaching the whole Truth, then you cannot say that you have access to the Truth.

The purpose of the church is not simply to function as a evangelist, but that the members, "speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ," ' (Ephesians 4:15) to the glory of God.

However, Oral Tradition by its very nature is supremely susceptible undetectable errors over time, and while at the beginning God expressly communicated to only a very few persons in a very limited manner, and which was passed on orally, when He chose to reveal himself to an entire nation (and by them to the world) then He provided quite comprehensive written revelation, which by nature lent itself to preservation.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua... (Exodus 17:14) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)

And which became the well-evidenced standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, (Is. 8:20) and to which conflative and complementary writings would be added.

And thus Scripture is what was invoked as the authoritative basis for preaching by the Lord, from the beginning of His ministry in defeating the devil (Mt. 4:4) to opening up the understanding of the disciples. (Lk. 23:44)

For what was preached was "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)

Even Peter while unknowingly writing in Scripture what He heard, states what prophets wrote as being "the more sure word of prophecy. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

Yet while the record of the gospels and some of Acts was passed on orally and into print, the rest was written directly.

Moreover, this could included new revelation, such as the nature of the church, though conflative with and complementary to what was written, to which all preaching was subject to examination by, as exampled by the noble Bereans.

Thus we have Oral Tradition in the sense of the oral preaching of the gospel and accompanying Truths, which rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the mere veracity of the speakers or as if oral tradition itself was a protected, substantive body of Truth.

And then we have Oral Tradition of the Catholic church which claims to be of the same body that passed on the word of God in Acts etc., but which gives the Catholic a license to preach as the word of God things utterly unseen in Scripture, from pastors distinctively titled "priests" to prayers to created beings in Scripture. The veracity of which rests upon the premise of an infallible church, particularly in its magisterial office.

While it is argued that Oral Tradition is not the same thing as anything that may be passed on orally, it effectively maybe, which is more manifestly the case with Rome. Which can declare as binding the belief in an event the allegedly occured close to 1700 years before, though it is so lacking in early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition. But which is justified under the premise that the church can "remember" such things despite the critical absence of warrant.

What we are being asked to do its to trust the church as if they were apostles, but its leaders fail of both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostols. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

You seem to have a problem here. Not a single one of the verses quoted here raise Scripture to being supreme authority over the Church. Because there is only one supreme Authority: Christ. A person does not need to be infallible. Also, Mark and Luke fail the test of being Biblical Apostles. You like using Rome as a foil against the East. That's called Strawman argument. Since the definition of Tradition is different, every argument you make against Rome's definition is you bowling in a bowling alley that has been turned off and had the pins removed so the maintenance crew can wax the lane. Please, let the men wax that lane and come bowl in the same alley I am in. You can only find evidence of change in Rome because of the doctrine of Dogmatic Development. Orthodox do not have that. And there is the greater problem: the Holy Spirit is active in the Church, and He leads into all truth.

This is a claim the Protestants cannot honestly make. By making the claim that the Spirit leads all Protestants who faithfully and sincerely study the Bible into the Truth, they claim that the Spirit leads one man to Calvinism and the other to Arminianism. And yet another is led into Synergism, and another is led into Eternal Security.

You may claim that there is possibility of error, but I ask, if Christ is truly part of the Church, and Christ is inerrant, then how can it err and still somehow be the Body of Christ? That's like saying that the body can exist without the Head. This is the job of the Spirit, to preserve ALL of the Truth. God isn't happy to just preserve the Scripture. He preserved the Scripture and the proper interpretation thereof. It was delivered once. It was no redelivered or rediscovered in the Reformation. If it disappeared from the Church in any meaningful way, then Christ deserved the Cross, and we have no purpose for discussing ANY of this.

 

[sculleywr]

In the example you give - even the RCC does NOT allow its members to "pray to the living". Should they burn incense, burn candles get on their knees - and actually pray to the living - even the RCC would condemn it.

You are equivocating.

There is a Sola Scriptura Command in Isaiah 8
19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light

Wrong. We are also not CONSULTING with the dead. We are not asking them for advice, or requesting their physical presence. None of what necromancy is can be found in prayers to those living in Christ. Death has been defeated.

I was using YOUR teaching to show that you would be praying to people all the time. We are not replacing Christ, and we are not worshiping them. We do the same to them as we do to the others at our parish. And yes, we do bow to each other in submission to one another. You should come for Forgiveness Sunday in an Orthodox Church. Be sure to wear knee pads. You will need them. It's the day before Lent begins on the Eastern calendar.

 

[sculleywr]

When you have an argument rather than a rant, i can respond.



Refuted, or do you not read responses but just vent assertions? Again, even OT Scripture shows and sanctions souls discerning both writings and men as being of God and authoritative, even in dissent from the powers that be, and without an infallible church, and thus the church began with writings of Scripture being heavily invoked as authoritative.

And as this discernment took place on a smaller scale under which many writings were held to be of God, thus the same could continue to take place, and did. And thus Scripture provides for a canon, as well as reason, the guidance of the Spirit, the light of even nature, and the magisterial office of the church (which even Westminster affirmed).



That is a desperate extrapolative absurd attempt compelled by the inexplicable absolute absence of even one prayer among the approx. 200 in Scripture for what is a basic practice. Reducing prayer to Heaven as mere asking as in tech support to contrary to how Scripture describes it, as well as being akin to reasoning that since the tech support man can hear you than you can mentally communicate anyone you address in another galaxy.

Praying is a spiritual (usually mental) exercise across two different realms, and in which only the Lord is ever addressed, and shown to be able to simultaneously hear and respond to all such, with believers having direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of the Lord Jesus. (Heb. 10:19) And with the only heavenly intercessor mentioned being the Lord Jesus, who is uniquely qualifies to be that intercessor (Heb. 2:19; 4:15,16) and who ever lives to do so. (Heb. 7:25) And is directly accessible.

Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial before the final judgments ion the earth are not that of being heavenly postal workers. Moreover, personal communication btwn heavenly created beings and those on earth required both to somehow being in the same realm.

You simply do not have a valid argument for the utter absence by the Holy Spirit of even one prayer to any created being in Heaven from earth, while instructing believers to address the Lord, and providing approx. 200 prayers of them so doing. But Caths careless essetuially add to the word of God to fulfil their psychological needs.



What kind of argument is that?! With that rational angelic Bingo could be supported. But when you have a common practice being abundantly described, and instructions on prayer only addressing the Lord, and only pagans offering incense and making offerings to someone else in the heavens, and with Christ being the only heavenly intercessor mentioned, and pointed to, then you have no real case for engaging what pagans alone are basically shown to do.



You mean some of the early church, with a canon that saw doubt and disagreement down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther. Who had scholarly Catholic support for his non-binding judgment, which Protestantism did not following completely.



Wrong, as i only see 2 Maccabees 15:14 and Baruch 3:4 only speaks of saints praying in Heaven, not addressing them in prayer.



You are resorting to your bare rants again. Prots can have traditions if they are Scriptural and non binding. Scripture does not describe a wedding liturgy for example, and the ceremony of the ring is non binding and finds Scriptural support in its intent.



You have yet to show me that what i described was actually a strawman of Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition, while it is you who are lying, as for one i was a weekly mass going RC when i became manifestly born again, and realized the profound transformative difference btwn what i had and real regeneration, and yet remained a serving RC for about 6 years after in the heavinly RC area, before the Lord led me out.

Thus i know well the difference, as well as what RCs claim is church teaching, versus what it is in reality.

like I said before, playing the strawman game of redefining Tradition to something you can respond to is deceptive. You are now blocked, however, so I will not need to read rubbish that goes on and on about a manmade fictional tradition. Good riddance. You obviously have no interest in furthering the discussion.

 

[Standing Up]

No. I said you couldn't make Scripture the highest authority in creating the Canon. In point of fact, Scripture has no authority in this matter, as it contributes nothing but the raw data of being a text. So by what authority does the canon stand? It isn't Scripture.

And I already said we can use your canon. Now can you be SS? Here to help you.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 1st? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.

 

[sculleywr]

And I already said we can use your canon. Now can you be SS? Here to help you.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 1st? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.

How many languages do I have to say no in before it sinks into your skull?

There is not a single generation in the world that can practice SS and be practicing according to how the Apostles practiced. it matters not what canon they have. SS is innovation. It is a NEW teaching that is less than half a millenia old.

And yes, if the letters of the Apostles are of equal value, then the acquisition of only part of their writing is problematic for SS, because it means there are documents of equal value that God didn't preserve. In other words, God didn't preserve all of the Apostle's teachings in written form. We know that as fact.

It is of no problem for Traditional churches. It is a problem for churches that depend on the Scripture rather than Christ's indwelling Spirit for the guidance of the Church.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is of no problem for Traditional churches. It is a problem for churches that depend on the Scripture rather than Christ's indwelling Spirit for the guidance of the Church.

Traditional churches confuse tradition with the Holy Spirit.
They are confused about what it is they depend on.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Traditional churches confuse tradition with the Holy Spirit.
They are confused about what it is they depend on.

Thats true they often displace the big S with the big T and use that the same way.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This wording is unique and signature to the Ten Commandment's -- Sabbath Commandment

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This Bible fact is admitted to by all Bible scholars regardless of what they may think about that Commandment continuing or not.)

That is an absurd desperate defense grasping: All Bible scholars see "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Rv. 14:7) as being a unique and a signature to the Ten Commandment's "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them" because of the almost identical use of a short phrase, and thus Rv. 14:7 refers to Sabbath keeping, but in which it fails to even mention?

Then according to that hermeneutic no doubt whenever we see a short phrase being repeated then it denotes the exact same thing it originally referred to, since your example once again conspicuously fails to mention the sabbath, but which you must force it to refer to.

And thus, "Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever," (Psalms 146:6) "Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is," (Acts 4:24) "turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein," (Acts 14:15)

all refer to sabbath keeping though they utterly fail to mentioned it. As said, that is desperate.

<p><font color="#800000"><i>there is no such thing as a Bible doctrine saying "whatever is not constantly repeated can be deleted" -- as most of us know. </i></font></p>

Once again you are misrepresenting the argument as needed, for it is not a matter of something not
being constantly repeated and thus its literal observance being abrogated, but again (and again and again) it is the absence of even one reiteration of the 4th commandment to the church, or mention of the church as a church specifically keeping the 7th day, while meeting on the first day is mentioned, and the ritual observance of days, months, times and years" is criticized, and the sabbath along with holy days, dietary laws and temple rituals are said to be typological shadows, as aspects of the new covenantal being "not according" to the Old.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Act 13:14 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. (the 7th day of the week. Because week-day-1 is not called the "Sabbath" by NT authors)

Acts 13
26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him

Acts 13
42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Paul Turns to the Gentiles
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the Word of the Lord.

Both Jews AND Gentiles gather "Sabbath after Sabbath" for Gospel preaching in Acts 13.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

Act 15:21 simply refers to Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day as part of thea solution to the problem about gentile Christians being raised in the early Christian NT church. As Chapter 13 shows - BOTH gentiles and Jews were hearing scripture weekly.

Act 17:2 another example of Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath with BOTH gentiles and Jews coming back again and again to hear gospel preaching.

Acts 17:Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men

The Jews were not very happy with this - but the result was that gentiles are being converted in Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel preaching.

Nothing here about "week-day-1 after week-day-1 gospel preaching to gentiles in a worship service" -- not one word of it.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Nothing here about "every week day 1 meeting with Greeks to preach the Gospel as part of worship services" -- not even one such cycle in all of the NT - no not one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

On the contrary - even James points out in the discussion about gentiles in the Christian church that this pattern of scripture being heard every Sabbath in the synagogues is part of the solution.

Have you no shame? As shown before, absolutely none of those texts are about the NT church meeting on the sabbath, but all refer to evangelizing souls in Jewish synagogues! And while Gentiles could go to synagogues, the council makes the distinction btwn them by writing to the churches, and (once again) utterly fails to include your all-important 7th day sabbath keeping as one of the basic requirrement.

You are finished, as you have continually insist on reading into Scripture what cultic devotion requires.

 

[BobRyan]

Fine. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

Not even one such statement of that form - for any other day of the week.

But which is another argument against you

Just not an argument against the Sabbath in the actual Bible.

, as this refers to a future rest, which the 7th day is typolgical of, and this text is not a reiteration of the 4th commandment

"Remains" as in -- "Remains the same since the time of David" in context. So the Sabbath of today "remains" as it was in the time of David according to Heb 4. The obvious point being that it was not deleted in the time of David and continues in that same way to this very day according to Heb 4.

There is no command of that type in the NT for week-day-1. Which is what that RCC document also notices.

This is not a commandment for the church to keep week day 1, nor a commendation of them for so doing, nor a censure of them for not doing, of which things we have for the other 8 commandments excepting the command to 'not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain".

Which further evidences you lack of a valid argument, for again, a direct quote, full or part, is not necessary to qualify as an expressing confirmatory of a command,

And we have nothing of that kind for the 3rd commandment -- which of course is a fluff-detail because it means nothing about not keeping the 3rd commandment.

By contrast in Heb 10 we have a law taken away "He takes away the first to establish the second" when it comes to animal sacrifices - but in Heb 4 we have "there REMAINS" for the Sabbath.

hence the argument that you find against SS for those who prefer tradition over SS when it comes to this week-day-1 replacement for 7th day practice.

 

[BobRyan]

Act 13:14 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. (the 7th day of the week. Because week-day-1 is not called the "Sabbath" by NT authors)

Acts 13
26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him

Acts 13
42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Paul Turns to the Gentiles
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the Word of the Lord.

Both Jews AND Gentiles gather "Sabbath after Sabbath" for Gospel preaching in Acts 13.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

Act 15:21 simply refers to Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day as part of thea solution to the problem about gentile Christians being raised in the early Christian NT church. As Chapter 13 shows - BOTH gentiles and Jews were hearing scripture weekly.

Act 17:2 another example of Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath with BOTH gentiles and Jews coming back again and again to hear gospel preaching.

Acts 17:Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men

The Jews were not very happy with this - but the result was that gentiles are being converted in Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel preaching.

Nothing here about "week-day-1 after week-day-1 gospel preaching to gentiles in a worship service" -- not one word of it.

Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.

4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Nothing here about "every week day 1 meeting with Greeks to preach the Gospel as part of worship services" -- not even one such cycle in all of the NT - no not one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.



On the contrary - even James points out in the discussion about gentiles in the Christian church that this pattern of scripture being heard every Sabbath in the synagogues is part of the solution.

Have you no shame? As shown before, absolutely none of those texts are about the NT church meeting on the sabbath

As shown before they are ALL about both gentiles AND Jews meeting Sabbath after Sabbath with an Apostle of the Christian church and not ONE reference of the form "hey my gentile friends come back tomorrow to our regular week-day-1 service that one day in the future we will call the LORD's Day just not now" -- nothing of that kind there at all. Not even for the believing gentiles that are accepting the Gospel message.

No not even one.

And while Gentiles could go to synagogues, the council makes the distinction btwn them by writing to the churches, and (once again) utterly fails to include your all-important 7th day sabbath keeping as one of the basic requirrement.

Acts 15 -
Nor does it include "Do not take God's name in vain"
Nor does it include "honor your Father and Mother"
Nor does it include "Love God with all your heart"

Because this is NOT a "downsize of the Bible" rather it is resolving a specific issue with gentiles who accept the Gospel.
Gentiles not being told in the Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 examples of weekly Sabbath worship service - to start attending service on week-day-1.

And in Acts 15 - James points out that this Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 fact of believers hearing scripture every Sabbath is solving part of the problem raised up regarding Gentile Christians.

But which is another argument against you, as this refers to a future rest, which the 7th day is typolgical of, and this text is not a reiteration of the 4th commandment for the church to keep, nor a commendation of them for so doing, nor a censure of them for not doing, of which things we have for the other 9 commandments.

Which further evidences you lack of a valid argument, for again, a direct quote, full or part, is not necessary to qualify as an expressing confirmatory of a command, as even a condemnation or commendation regarding the keeping of it would do. And as shown, there are many NT texts condemning profaning/blaspheming the name of the Lord, but none for the NT church not keeping the Sabbath, nor commending them for so doing, despite numerous examples of sins being rebukes and faults being found and obedience being commended.

The same could be said of the 3rd commandment.
the same could be said of the Sabbath in the book of Malachi or Nahum.
You are arguing "out of the void" of the text saying that the showing of continued Sabbath after Sabbath gospel meetings with believing gentiles proves nothing in the NT and so also the Acts 15 appeal to scripture being read every Sabbath -- should all mean nothing since the Ex 20:8-11 commandment is not repeated in total in the NT - only quoted in part.

To quote you "You are finished, as you have continually insisted on reading into Scripture" a Mark 7:6-13 style replacement for one of God's commandments -- as if we would not notice.