Sola Scriptura

On what basis do you assert this?

It's more than a bit of a stretch to assert that Jesus' words about the martyrdom of the prophets are to applied to the limitation of the OT Canon!

 

Not even Rome believes they meet the requirement to be recognized as scriptures.

Remember John was alive after all 27 had been written. Are you saying that there were congregations when John was living that actually rejected his own books as apostolic???? You may be able to claim SECOND generation or POST-apostolic church members had such concerns but I don't see how it is even rational that co-existing congregations with living apostles could entertain those doubts. John was pastoring the congregation at Ephesus after Paul's death and continued for nearly 40 years after the death of Peter and Paul and outlived James. Are you saying that apostolic congregations coexisting with living apostles rejected these letters when apostles were alive and there to defend them just as Peter defended Paul's letters (2 Pet. 3:16-17)???????

You are still missing his argument. He denies that his "whole volume" can be ADDED to by anyone! Your theory demands the very opposite of the very basis of his argument concerning what he calls "the WHOLE volume."

 

I'm saying that there were congregations which did not receive all 27 books - how could they accept them if they never received them? Your contention is that all 27 books were circulated to and accepted by all NT congregations by the time John hung up his pen at the end of Revelation, right? The trouble is there is no evidence that this was the case. For example, we have no evidence that Revelation reached the congregations in Rome prior to John's decease.

Yes, I know that Barnabas and the Didache aren't accepted by 'even' Rome; my question is how do you - not Rome, but you - know that they shouldn't be in there?

 

You have no evidence to suggest they did not receive a copy of them in the first century. The fact that some second generation congregations challenged the authenticity of Revelation and James proves they did receive them or else they could not have challenged them.

You are arguing on the basis of silence and silence can neither prove or disprove anything.

I am not arguing on the basis of silence. I have the statement of Tertullian that speaks of "the whole volume" of "Christian scriptures" that he says cannot be ADDED unto and he is speaking from around 200 A.D. about a "whole volume" existing PREVIOUS to 140 A.D. Hence, there is at minimum 60 year gap between 140 and 200 A.D. he says nothing can be ADDED to that "whole volume" of "Christian scripture." If you read his argument carefully he is really arguing that this "whole volume" was apostolic in origin and existent from the apostolic age so as to be a basis to judge all "LATER" heretics who might arise and "ADD" or "SUBTRACT" from that volume.

I am not arguing from silence because we have Paul commanding that his epistles be passed on to other congregations (Col. 4:16) and we know this is the case with the seven congregations in Turkey (Rev. 2-3) and we know that Paul's epistles were generally known to the congregations that Peter wrote to (2 Pet. 3:16-18).

I have laid down the five common sense and Biblically based principles that we as well as they MUST use in any rational honest evaluation.

 

So you admit that your argument is based on silence.

And so are you

Yes, but - and I state this again so that you can hopefully grasp it this time - neither you nor I know what was in Tertullian's 'whole volume' as he doesn't provide a list.

All congregations?[/quote] and we know this is the case with the seven congregations in Turkey (Rev. 2-3)[/quote] OK, you've got seven there and one NT book - granted; it's a start.

Some were. We don't know whether all were or which ones. And, again, that's only part of the NT to some but not all congregations.

<Shrug> An argument can be made from them for inclusion of the Didache and Barnabas.

 

Like me at times, you respond before you have read the remainder of my post. You would never make such an accusation if you had read the rest of the post before responding.

You still fail to understand my argument. Tertullian is writing this about 200 AD and is really arguing that since the apostolic age there was a "whole volume" of "Christian scriptures" that would forbid "LATER" heretics like Marcion to either ADD or SUBTRACT from it without being exposed. He also claims as the time of his writing that none could ADD to this "whole volume" without being condemned. This very argument about ADDITION to what he calls the "WHOLE volume" destroys your whole argument. Your whole argument depends upon LATER addition to this "volume" does it not???

and we know this is the case with the seven congregations in Turkey (Rev. 2-3)[/quote] OK, you've got seven there and one NT book - granted; it's a start. Some were. We don't know whether all were or which ones. And, again, that's only part of the NT to some but not all congregations.[/QUOTE]

Your position is based upon PURE SILENCE. My position that supports Tertullians claim there is a "WHOLE VOLUME" of "Christian scriptures" existing form the apostolic age that can neither be ADDED unto or SUBTRACTED from by "LATER" heretics, especially those who attempt to form their own canons of scripture (Marcion) has Biblical support.

1. Most all of the New Testament (27 books) was written prior to 64 A.D. The remainder was completed before the end of the first century. Hence, all 27 were received by the congregations they had been addressed unto. Hence, the congregations of Christ did indeed have "THE WHOLE VOLUME" of these 27 "Christian Scriptures" prior to the end of the first century and long before the rise of Marcion.

2. There is Biblical evidence that such letters were circulated among the congregations (Col. 4:16) and had been (2 Pet. 3:16-17; 1 Thes. 5:27; Rev. 1:3). This is supportive evidence that such a "whole volume" could have been recognized and received whereas, your theory has only SILENCE.

3. There is consistent apostolic presence until at least 98 A.D. Surely, the congregations would be cognant of existing apostles and surely John would confirm apostolic writings as much as Peter did (2 Pet. 3:16-17).

My point is the position I take has at least some supportive evidence while yours has NONE!

Apparently, not too many were convinced as even Rome was not swayed by such arguments. How much more orthodox congregations.

 

1. You're still missing the elephant in the drawing room with Tertullian: at no stage does he say what's in this 'whole volume', so all we are left with is your own conjecture.

2. The 'circulation' evidence merely shows that some books were circulated to some congregations, no more, no less; there is no evidence of all books being circulated to all congregations.

 

It does not matter! He denies that anyone "LATER" can ADD to that volume! If you could ADD to it "LATER" then you would be right and Tertullian would be wrong. Your argument with Tertullian not me!

No! It shows that Tertullians argument has at least some supportive substance whereas your denial has NOTHING!

 

GE:

What you have done now, is much more unkind than anything Dr Walter ever did or say on this forum.

Dr Walter never returned my ugly outbursts against him in kind.

Dr Walter believes and proclaims true salvation by grace only. The Calvinist and Protestant doctrine. Which I will always commend him for.

His views on the Sabbath and water baptism I reject and have disproved. He never admitted defeat or confessed improved persuasion; that I must regretfully say.

But he never sunk as low as you have here.

It is really disheartening.

 

This thread is, 'Sola Scriptura' with a question mark.

I place the following with my own question mark over it, as an example of how Dr Walter never foundered ...

Sunday fundi:

BELOW IS THE GREEK WHICH MATTHEW USED FOR MATT 28:1
28:1 oye
opse
G3796
Adv
evening
de
de
G1161
Conj
YET
sabbatwn
sabbatOn
G4521
n_ Gen Pl n
OF-SABBATHS
th
tE
G3588
t_ Dat Sg f
to-THE
epifwskoush
epiphOskousE
G2020
vp Pres Act Dat Sg f
ON-LIGHTING
lighting-up
eis
eis
G1519
Prep
INTO
mian
mian
G1520
a_ Acc Sg f
ONE
one-day
sabbatwn
sabbatOn
G4521
n_ Gen Pl n
OF-SABBATHS
hlqen
Elthen
G2064
vi 2Aor Act 3 Sg
CAME
HERE WE HAVE THE GREEK CONCLUSION OF MATT 28:1
. In the end of the sabbath, as
it began to dawn toward the
first [day] of the week, came
Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary to see the sepulchre.
Then there was a great earthquake:
FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDED and rolled back the stone.....as well as all the graves of the Saints being opened
This occured on the First day of the week
and Jesus confirmed His rise on the 3rd day
which was written in regards to this..Luke 24:46
was witnessed by the two men and Apostles Luke 24:21,33
as well as the Pharisees revealing His death was
on the day before the sabbath, the day of Preparation Matt 28:62
and according to what Jesus said;
"After 3 days I will rise"
which is Sunday


To which I reacted,

I was right, you are PAID to act so foolish.

The LIES of your blackmailer briber BOSS:

opse “evening” NEVER! NOT ONCE!

tE Dt …
… Dative, “TO the” !!! hahahaha A disgrace to the ‘scholar’.

epiphOskousE
“ON-LIGHTING lighting-up” …
… ‘epi’, “on” in the sense of “up”?! A greater even DISHONOUR to the ‘scholar’.
NNE example! Of ‘epi’, “on” in the sense of “from above down onto”, innumerable examples!

eis
“INTO”
The ultimate scandal on the name of the ‘scholar’!
Example(s)? Not a single ONE in the New Testament!
Eis “INTO” with DATIVE in the OLD Testament, many of LOCALITY but NEVER of TIME (in anticipation)!

mian
“ONE” “one-day”
LIE! “_TOWARDS_” because ACCUSATIVE IN THE PHRASE “towards the FIRST (Day) of the week”— “TOWARDS the First DAY of the week” because of Accusative with or without the Preposition ‘eis’.

sabbatOn
“OF-SABBATHS” = “of the week” IN THE PHRASE ‘eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’, “TOWARDS the First DAY of the week”

Elthen
“CAME”, yes, = “WENT” = “SET OUT” … NOT ‘arrived’
Not to be taken on its own, but in functional conjunction with the Infinitive “TO LOOK”.

This undeniably and incontrovertibly was your BOSS and PAYMASTER who instructed you on how to manipulate and rape the Word of God in order to dishonour and trample underfoot God’s Holy and idolize and worship the beast’s unholy LIES and the devil the author of all lies.

Just ask yourself this one question,
How can all these LIES be true, while the same, ‘scholar’, defines
“sabbatwn
sabbatOn
G4521
n_ Gen Pl n
OF-SABBATHS” ---
which is,
“Pl … OF-SABBATHS”-_TIME_ /_DAY_ / _dayLIGHT” … _NOT_, “AFTER the Sabbath” IN THE NIGHT!?! … in the night AFTER "the Sabbath's DAY"!?!

Can "the Sabbath's DAY" be “opse “evening”?
Can “the third DAY” be opse “evening”?

Can "the Sabbath's DAY" be the “ON-LIGHTING lighting-up” the morning OF, the First Day?
Can “the third DAY” be the FOURTH Day?

Can "the Sabbath's DAY" be “INTO” the First Day of the week?
Can “the third DAY” be “INTO” the FOURTH Day?

Can "the Sabbath's DAY" be “one-day” any day or the FIRST Day of the week?
Can “the third DAY … OF THE MORNING AFTER THE PREPARATION” … "the Sabbath's DAY", be “the day AFTER … the Sabbath’s Day”?

On which I was rebuked,

This is not scriptual, this why you don't have any scripture but your retoric
God gave His law to Israel and not the world...Deut 4:8 Ps 147:19,20
God made a covenant with Israel and the token of the Covenant was a sabbath day observance Deut 4:13 Ex 31:16 to be kept by them throughout their Generations of existence...theirs, not the world
for the world, never received it, God made it for the Israeli man
in which He set His love on and no other people Deut 7:6
The token of the Covenant made at Mt Sinai, the sabbath, was a sign to the world, to Israel, that it was the Israeli God who created the Heaven and Earth Ex 31:13
God declared why He commanded them a Sabbath Deut 5:15
and
God declared why He commands them to remember it Deut 5:15
Now I teach by scripture
The scripture is truth
I presented the truth
Now is more truth
The Christian is commanded to remember His shed Blood on the Cross
1 Cor 11;25
The Christian is NEVER EVER commanded to remember a sabbth day that you have placed all your theology.
I speak truth, I use scripture

I told you many times
The Greek Nation supports this conclusion and me
HERE WE HAVE THE GREEK CONCLUSION OF MATT 28:1
. In the end of the sabbath, as
it began to dawn toward the
first [day] of the week, came
Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary to see the sepulchre.
Then there was a great earthquakeon Sunday)
FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDED and rolled back the stone.....as well as all the graves of the Saints being opened
This occured on the First day of the week
and Jesus confirmed His rise on the 3rd day
which was written in regards to this..Luke 24:46
was witnessed by the two men and Apostles Luke 24:21,33
as well as the Pharisees revealing His death was
on the day before the sabbath, the day of Preparation Matt 28:62
and according to what Jesus said;
"After 3 days I will rise"
which is Sunday
GE, God testifies of His rise on Sunday by making His followers witnesses
by thwarting the Pharseeies schemes
by all the risen Saints walking through the City on Sunday
THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN WORLD SUPPORTS ME
go take a nap


Sad to say, this is very much the standard for fake Sabbatharians and anti Sabbatharians, yet Dr Walter never reached these depths in ineptness.

So much for ‘sola Scriptura’; it is a principle the Sunday worshipping Christian world has chosen to forget and despise.

 

Oh come now. I have a Hebrew OT. Zechariah is the last book. I assert this on the powers of my own observation.
Secondly, Jesus reason for saying for saying from Abel to Zechariah was just that obvious--from the beginning to the end, just like Jesus said he was the Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end. The parallel is obvious. I can quote half a dozen commentaries if you like.

Is it. He was going from the first to the last; from the first book to the last book. The parallel is very clear. He didn't have to put it in that order did he?

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:35)

Take note: by this time John the Baptist had already been beheaded. Why didn't he include him? Because he wasn't in the OT.

 

DHK, Jesus was talking about prophetic martyrs, not books of the OT. If He'd meant to comment on the latter, He would have said so.

How do you know that Tertullian was right?

 

Your argument is from silence. I fear this is pure unbelief on your part.
Here is another Scripture where Jesus does the same thing:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
--The OT had three divisions according to the Jews, whereas we divide it into five. They divided it into: The books of Moses (Pentateuch), The Prophets (all the historical books and the prophets together), The Psalms (literally the "writings," or poetical books). These are the three basic divisions of the OT. He recognized it. He used their language to assert that their OT was the canon he was referring to.

 

In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.

It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

 

Nope. Just recognising that your argument is also from silence.

Except that He doesn't list the books within those subdivisions! 1 & 2 Maccabees, for example, being historical texts, could also be included in the 'Prophets' by Him. I find it odd that, given that the LXX was in common circulation at that time, neither Our Lord not any NT writer condemned it.

 

They never advocated it either. It wasn't the duty of Christ to condemn every false book being sold on the market.

 

Jesus quoted from those seven books called the deuterocanonical , Our Lord considered these books as canonical . Jesus often quoted from the Septuagint a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

If he ever quoted from the deuterocanonical books, please provide the quotes. Where is the evidence.
As to quoting from the Septuagint, it is a matter of conjecture and opinion. As I said previously, there is no real proof. He is God. He needed no "translation" to quote from. Even from the age of 12 it was the rabbis, and doctors of the law that were questioning him. He came from a conservative family that taught him from the Hebrew in the synagogue. That is what they read, their sacred language. All the inspired Scriptures were written in Hebrew. The LXX was simply a translation, and a poor one at that.

 

DHK, a couple of well known 'Protestant " authors [ i believe one was Archer ] list around 340 places where the NT cites from Septuagint but only about 30-33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text.
The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. Abbreveviated as LXX, Roman numerals for 70 translators.

Here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, refer to the Web site www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.