Tradition of Scripture?

[Montalban]

Dude, last time, he's telling you what was already done, already decided. He's not dumb enough or proud enough or blind enough to claim that he did it.

Who decided?

How does this relate to you misquoting him by leaving off the bit about other books?

 

[Rick Otto]

I already explained how I know what I know about scriptures with a lengthy response to you regarding holy tradition post #51

The church holds these traditions true.

You simply repeat the mistake of post #51:

Then this is where 'tradition' kicks in. Timothy telling you is the guarantee that the document is genuine. Not the document itself... UNLESS you know what Paul's writing is already like. But even then tradition kicks in because if you know the writing is Paul's and you go to your Christian brethren and say "I bring you good news, I have this letter of Paul" then the people hearing you believe you because of YOU not the document itself. Whilst it might have satisfied you, unless EVERYONE in your congregation knows Paul's writing then the document itself is not an authority!

The authenticated document itself is what gives Timothy the authority, Timothy is only an authoritative witness, and that is what makes HIM, not the document trustworthy. THe documewnt was made trustworthy by it's author upon publication. That wheel doesn't need to be re-invented by investing some magical authority generated soley by some skewed concept of "succession".

The authority of the document becomes invested in Timothy so that only trustworthy men in the congregation need know HIM, not Paul's handwriting. Succession doesn't guarantee authenticity. The truth has to be present.

 

[Rick Otto]

Can't handle my questions in post #158?

 

[Montalban]

It doesn't seem to keep you from trying to use them.

That's the sum of your rebuttal. I particularly like the "You just don't understand it" as well.

 

[Standing Up]

Who decided?

How does this relate to you misquoting him by leaving off the bit about other books?

How does what Chrysostom says about Jews impact his theology? Or Constantine?

 

[Montalban]

Can't handle my questions in post #158?

Personalising this doesn't help your case

 

[Montalban]

How does what Chrysostom says about Jews impact his theology? Or Constantine?

How does that relate to your misquote of Athanasius, or using him as an authority EVEN IF he's saying someone else made a canon - all that does is move the problem to whomever it was you think authorised it... if not Athanasius.

 

[Montalban]

You simply repeat the mistake of post #51:

You simply repeat these claims. The bulk of your argument is 'just-so'.

The authenticated document itself is what gives Timothy the authority, Timothy is only an authoritative witness, and that is what makes HIM, not the document trustworthy.

You don't know that - except working back from the fact it's NOW in the Bible.

THe documewnt was made trustworthy by it's author upon publication.

When did they publish it? Who published it?

That wheel doesn't need to be re-invented by investing some magical authority generated soley by some skewed concept of "succession".

I've no idea what that means

The authority of the document becomes invested in Timothy so that only trustworthy men in the congregation need know HIM, not Paul's handwriting.

If you're talking about the person Timothy here then he'd authorise the letter by saying "Yes, this is from Paul". The letter itself doesn't authorise itself.

Succession doesn't guarantee authenticity. The truth has to be present.

Simply missing the point about how you know what 'truth' is.

 

[Standing Up]

You simply repeat the mistake of post #51:

The authenticated document itself is what gives Timothy the authority, Timothy is only an authoritative witness, and that is what makes HIM, not the document trustworthy. THe documewnt was made trustworthy by it's author upon publication. That wheel doesn't need to be re-invented by investing some magical authority generated soley by some skewed concept of "succession".

The authority of the document becomes invested in Timothy so that only trustworthy men in the congregation need know HIM, not Paul's handwriting. Succession doesn't guarantee authenticity. The truth has to be present.

That is a great point. Thank you for mentioning it because it provides greater insight into how things unfolded, even to the present day with "weird priests and pastors".

That is exactly what was supposed to happen and we saw it in the appointment of the first "deacons" at Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. v4 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

With Sixtus I of Rome c115ad, it looks completely different. Rome (holy see) had to provide authentification letters for the bishops. " that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Sixtus I

No wonder folks believe men made scripture scripture and divine and God breathed.

 

[Montalban]

That is a great point. Thank you for mentioning it because it provides greater insight into how things unfolded, even to the present day with "weird priests and pastors".

The odd thing is you're congratulating someone for making a statement that's meant to be in favour of sola scriptura, that isn't.

It rests on the 'authority' of Timothy to say "This letter is genuine" not on the letter itself.

 

[Montalban]

It seems some sola scritpura advocates don't seem to understand their own argument

 

[Standing Up]

The odd thing is you're congratulating someone for making a statement that's meant to be in favour of sola scriptura, that isn't.

It rests on the 'authority' of Timothy to say "This letter is genuine" not on the letter itself.

Last post to you Montalban, until you get the concept that Paul marked his letters with his own hand to prove they were genuine to the recipients. Speak clearly; either accept that they are verified by the apostle Paul or say they are false.

 

[Standing Up]

For those who missed the OP---

This question keeps popping up around GT about the NT scripture. Since no one book lists a table of contents, how do we know we have the right canon? Did a council of men or tradition or something else put the NT together?

Here's one way to look at 16 or 17 of the 27 books---

As the apostles wrote epistles and passed them around, so did imposters. Sheep attract wolves. Tares and wheat grow together. How do we tell the true from the false? We want to know. Our brothers and sisters of old wanted to know too. Here is Paul's answer to his authenticity:

The Thessalonians had received a letter claiming authorship to be from Paul.

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.

Paul dismisses it as false and at the end of the true Thessalonian letter reminds them of his authentication, his token, of every one of his epistles.

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

From Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words.

Token--
(a) of that which distinguished a person or thing from others, e.g., Mat 26:48; Luk 2:12; Rom 4:11; 2Cr 12:12 (1st part); 2Th 3:17, "token," i.e., his autograph attesting the authenticity of his letters;

That is how they knew. Not by a table of contents or tradition or council, but by a token.

Now, do we have those original letters? No. But they did. And they passed around the letters and copied them. Those first elders were faithful men who accurately preserved those things. They knew they were dealing with things God-breathed.

Here's a bit more on tokens and their importance---

The rainbow is God's token to us. (Gen. 9:12)

Circumcision (applied to the heart) is a token (Gen. 17:11)

The blood of the lamb (Jesus Christ) is a token (Ex. 12:13)

Aaron's rod was a token (Num. 17:10)

Judas betrayed Jesus with a token, a kiss (Mark 14:44)

Paul signed his name as a token (2 Th. 3:17)

They just didn't "mess around" with tokens. So, it wasn't tradition, nor a council who authenticated Paul's letters that are in our Bibles. Jesus raised up Paul from the road to Damascus. After awhile, the Spirit worked through Paul as a token of Paul's authority (Acts 14:3, Rom. 15:19). Paul then authenticated his letters with his token, his signature. These are the same that have come down to us today.

God bless you ---

 

[Standing Up]

In the OP, I mention those first elders (see post above). I've mentioned Polycarp before in the thread, but this just came up, so I want to tie it together to give Christians a sense of how things unfolded in parts of the Body and in other parts of the Body.

That is a great point (to Rick Otto a page back). Thank you for mentioning it because it provides greater insight into how things unfolded, even to the present day with "weird priests and pastors".

That is exactly what was supposed to happen and we saw it in the appointment of the first "deacons" at Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. v4 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

With Sixtus I of Rome c115ad, it looks completely different. Rome (holy see) had to provide authentification letters for the bishops. " that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Sixtus I

No wonder folks believe men made scripture scripture and divine and God breathed.

A disconnect took place. From pick the men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost out from among you to we'll pick the bishops out for you. The problem, besides whether or not its scriptural, is answering the question how well are they known?

As far as the OP goes, the same issue arose. Paul marked his letters, yet some today and no doubt hundreds of years ago, cast doubt on that. You can't trust what he says, even though you know him and his token at first; no, we have to do the appointing, the approving. We are the ones to "God-breath" the scriptures and your leaders.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Last post to you Montalban, until you get the concept that Paul marked his letters with his own hand to prove they were genuine to the recipients. Speak clearly; either accept that they are verified by the apostle Paul or say they are false.

Hey, if only Paul foreknew about DNA testing he could have marked his letters with his own blood. That way those who love to cast doubt upon his letters could have nothing to dispute.

It seems to come down to needing blood (even today) so nothing has changed too much

 

[Fireinfolding]

Isaiah 44:45 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars...

Theres one too

 

[Rick Otto]

It seems some sola scritpura advocates don't seem to understand their own argument

It seems nothin' but traditionolotry makes sense to some of its advocates.

 

[Standing Up]

Isaiah 44:25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars...

Theres one too

Thanks---

Is. 44:24-26 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise [men] backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:

Praise God.

 

[Standing Up]

Hey, if only Paul foreknew about DNA testing he could have marked his letters with his own blood. That way those who love to cast doubt upon his letters could have nothing to dispute.

It seems to come down to needing blood (even today) so nothing has changed too much

Yes, but he knew scripture.

Gen. 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It seems nothin' but traditionolotry makes sense to some of its advocates.

I may try using that word in a Scrabble game with my wife and daughter and see what happens

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

Search Multiple Dictionaries (including Easton's Bible Dictionary) :

traditionolotry- no dictionary results

Did you mean traditionality?
Dictionary:
traditional ira
traditionality's