Sola Scriptura

Yes, and I can find books today that quote from the gospels right alongside Shakespeare. Your logic tells me that you would believe Shakespeare is inspired because it is found next to a Bible verse.

 

All of Paul's epistles contain the addressee! Both of Luke's writings contain the addresee! Peter's witings contain the addressee! All but two (John and first John) of John's writings contain the addressee. The book of Acts give inspired historical and geographical reality to many of the congregations addressed. Hence, we are left with just a few who do not contain an addressee (Matthew, Mark, John, first John).

Your request is based upon silence and silence cannot provide ANY ANSWER for ANYONE and therefore can neither prove or disprove ANYTHING!

 

That is a week argument. For instance. NT quotes other writings it may be the entire work is not inspired. However, the quote for use in the text certainly is. Thus we can say at least 2 Macc. 7 is inspired because that is what we can agree inspired text is referred to Yet you cannot dismiss out of hand the entire book. You must agree btw the NT quotes that passage at least that passage is inspired. As for the rest of the book it is up for debate and the most you can say is that it is partly inspired. But to dismiss out of hand is a mistake. You cannot use this type of reasoning for Paul's Greek philosophy quote because he's not saying his quote is inspired but was a comparitive passage. Hebrews does not refer to 2 Macc. in the same sense. It places the passage in the "hall of faith" of inspired people who did God's will. Even as Jude quotes a text insisting of the disposal of Moses body which the 39 books doesn't even touch. However, since it is in agreed scripture or the book of Jude at least that aspect is inspired.

 

So the pagan quotation used by Paul in Acts 17 was given by inspiration? Thus this pagan was temporarily a true prophet of God and inspired by God while being a false prophet in all the rest of his writings??????? Hence, there is no real distinction between a true and false prophet because the same person may be both a true and false prophet depending upon what phrase, sentence, or paragraph he is writing at the time??????????

 

Because they didn't have any belief not subject to Apostolic Teaching the tradition they passed on Each congregation believed the same thing and held to Apostolic Authority. And a New Testament canon was not established in the first century and as history shows not just the 27 books were used but others as well such as the Didache for liturgical practices. Ignatius were considered edifying and thus were preserved like scriptures. There was at this time no consensus of what was canon. Why because they all held to what the Apostles taught orally. And they were too close to the Apostles that if someone taught otherwise the community would jump on them. At time passed and the apostles and those that knew them passed on there became a need for certainty of the rule determining Canon. Athenasius writes the first listing but there at that time was no consensus it was at Council that consensus was established based on set litmus test of what had always been taught.

Already showed a poor example because of the use of the quote in scripture. Paul does not say or give authority to it unlike hebrews and Jude.

First this quote is a poor one from Clement of Alexandria not Clement of Rome. And probably from a commentary rather than a direct quote. Here is an actual quote from Clement of Rome 3rd in line from Peter

And to off set Your quote of clement of Alexandria (much later than clement of rome) see what he says here.

compare it to your commentary quote. also compare

Both quotes come from his text

So you're having issues with your source text.

Your book or beter commentary - Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, ch. VI (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 215-22.
is off. Yet even if he did believe that the Eucharist was symbolic there are two aspects of understanding here that you miss. In the ancient world Symbolism came from a word that meant seal. You broke a seal and one half would be kept and the other half given away. Thus one is as real as the other but wasn't complete without the other. Symbols in the ancient world reflected the actual thing. Secondly lets say he didn't believe in the Eucharist containing the real presence which in both quotes he asserts but lets say he did look at what else he said.

he very gnostically said Jesus couldn't feel pain. Thus he wasn't totally a man and was beyond men. This is a heresy. So take your pick.

 

The apostles themselves knew which Scriptures were inspired and which were not. They knew when "the Holy Spirit was speaking to them as per the Word of God.
For example, Paul wrote as many as four epistles to the Corinthians. Only two are inspired. Why not the other two. Was it the decision of Paul, or fallible men. It was the decision of God the Holy Spirit who directed Paul's hand in writing down those words. I believe Paul knew which books would be inspired, and I believe Peter knew which ones were inspired, as he refers to them in 2Pet.3:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The apostles were not so naive that they did not know when God was speaking to them. Compare to the OT, when the prophets spoke. They were not so naive that when they stood up and said: "Thus saith the Lord," it was God speaking. And so it was with the apostles.

Also:
Jude quotes Enoch, but that doesn't make the entire book of Enoch inspired, only that portion that is quoted by Jude.
Paul quotes a Greek poet in Acts 17. (Does that mean that all Greek poetry is inspired?)
Paul quotes a Cretian philosopher in Titus 1. Does that mean that all Cretian philosophers are inspired?
Just because a book is quoted or referred to does not make it inspired.

That particular passage is now part of the inspired word of God, and therefore is inspired.

I don't know that Hebrews does refer to Maccabees.

Yes, because it is in the Book of Jude it is inspired. God revealed it to Jude, the half brother of Jesus. Why would that be difficult to believe?

 

See you didn't read what I said. That is often your problem. Look at how Paul uses the quote in Acts 17

This is a comparative quote in the context of debate saying not that their philosophers were right but that a principle existed to build up to the truth of belief in Jesus. That is different than referrencing a book for your "hall of faith" or even like Jude indicating this discussion with the devil is true. Thus the latter two are inspired and the previous one is a step in reason. You cannot compare the two. Read for comprehension please.

 

It is unbelievable that you would simply omit the fact there was present something "MORE STABLE" than oral traditions existing among the congregations that unified them in doctrine and practice!!! It is utterly amazing that you can even imagine that human memory is "MORE STABLE" than black and white scriptures circulating among the congregations (Col. 4:16:1 Thes. 5:27; Rev. 1-3). It is amazing that you are utterly blind to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the word "THROUGHLY and "ALL" in regard to "all scriptures" without inclusion of traditions!!!!!

To say they are profitable for "use" is one thing but to say they are profitable for use in the category of "inspired" is quite another thing.

Nowhere in scriptures do we find the statement "all traditions...are profitable" and nowhere do we find in the Old or New Testament that anything but "all scriptures...are profitable" in regard to what is INSPIRED.

You have just demonstrated why scriptures are "MORE STABLE" than traditions of uninspired men - they are contradictive - and neither you or Rome are inspired by God to correct them. Scriptures do not contradict each other while uninspired writers contradict each other demonstrating why they are LESS STABLE than the scriptures.

 

Ok.

Ah in this you are wrong. What does Peter say?

Your supposition therefore is wrong. Peter doesn't distinguish between letters and thus may not have known, as you say,

I never suggested that however you might in your dissmisal of text they used and worked with.

that is more than you know all you really know is that at least the aspect that Jude quotes is inspired as it is agreed that Jude is inspired. And he indicates this is a truth.

Can't compare the two. Two entirely different context and speach use.

yes read Chapter 11 again and list whom the author is referring to.

 

What you quickly omit is that the "more stable" which needs properly defined from the Greek btw. is that they used it to support their oral tradition. But that fact you often omit. The point is that you can believe them because you have our words and if you don't believe men because they are men then you have something in your mind more accountable the writen word. But the writen word supports their tradition. And that is the point of that discourse by Peter. Not that it is the only thing to believe. That is not what Peter is saying. He is not dismissive of oral tradition but that the writen word supports it. Context.

NO I've demonstrated that you need to know your sources.

 

Luke and Acts, together with 2 and 3 Jn just name individuals, not congregations or their geographical locations.

It's a perfectly valid question - how do you know that your Bible isn't missing an inspired book or three? You have failed to answer it, and that is very telling.

 

Look in other versions:

http://userpages.bright.net/~bkrajcik/itala157.htm


The Itala, The Peshitta, and other ancient versions testify to the same books that we have today.

Although this is from a KJVO site, it still gets its point across, and the facts are not diminished any:

http://www.ambassador4christ.net/brasseaux/googlepages3/103-The-bible-versions-debate-Part-1.html

 

None of those old MSS though contained the whole NT as we now know it, so I can't see how that adds to your and Walter's point about the Canon. And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take seriously any Landmark-style revisionist history site.

 

Prove they did not! You simply do not have sufficient data to make that statement. The fact is, they did have every New Testament book prior to the end of the first century - that can be proved and so your assumption that such well known authenticated writings that were currently held by the congregations and circulated long before the first translations in the middle of the second century is simply unbeleivable!!

 

Aux Contraire Mon Ami. You have to prove the point. Just because a book was complete doesn't meant it accepted everywhere at once and available all at once.

 

It cannot be proved or disproved either way. However, the fact that the whole New Testament admittedly existed among the congregations and the fact that there is an apostolic basis for Paul's epistles to have circulated among the churches he founded (Col. 4:16; 1 Thes. 5:27) and that in Revelation the end of each letter addressed to specific churches "hear what the Spirit saith unto THE CHURCHES" demonstrates the apostolic norm of circulating apostolic letters among the congregations at a very early state within the first century.

Furthermore, the GENERAL epistles had to be circulated by the very nature to whom they were addressed were not in the same geographical location.

Later Tertullian would charge Marcion for using a knife to delete from the scriptures while accusing Valentinus for having "the entire volume" of the scriptures but misinterpreting the scriptures. (Tertullian, On prescriptions against heretics, Chap. XXXVII). He claimed "all interpolation" and introduction of perverted texts "are both later in date and opposed to the scriptures." He speaks as though the canon of scriptures has been settled long ago as he continues to say "Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent the scriptures to square with his own subject matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning...." He speaks of the scriptures as completed so that nothing could be added or taken away - "What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it and contained in the Scriptures." - Ibid. He is talking about the "Christian Scriptures" as he says concerning heretics, "Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian scriptures.....

 

True.

ok

I don't see how that verse necessitatest the other. The churches that John the Revelator is appealing to are not only real churches but also church and people types. He chose the number 7 indicating a wholeness but by addressing just these churches there were many more he ignored. I think you make a logical leap here.

Clearly by 200 AD there was a body of christian work that were generally accepted that grew organically but it doesn't necessitate canon establish just that marcion rejected already generally accepted text and some of those in Tertullians mind may not have made it to canon at a later date. Such as the Sheperd of Hermas, Didache, etc...

 

I believe the number seven simply means these letters were not merely intended for seven specific congregations but for ALL congregations of like faith and order in all generations until Christ returns.

The fact that each specific addressed letter ends with the plural "churches" indicates the subject matter was to be read (Rev. 1:3) at the very minimum within all other six churches (Rev. 22:16 "churches"). This is true of the "General" epistles as well as the prison epistles of Paul (Col. 4:16). Hence, at a very early period apostolic writings were circulated just as much as their oral tradition was circulated.

Tertullian is not speaking of something that just arose during his time or even in the past 100 years but a body of scripture that was settled and PRECEDED "all interpolation" and "misinterpretations" by heretics.

 

Yes I do - we have the MSS and they do not, repeat not contain the NT Canon.

The fact of the matter is that you are severely mistaken - it cannot be proved that the churches at the end of the 1st century had all the NT Canon and in fact the MSS to which you have referred prove that they didn't. You're the one spouting utterly unbelievable assertions and it does no credit whatsoever to your argument. Time to drop it if you want to retain even a scintilla of credibility.

 

The very fact that these were writings were apostolic oral tradition in written form that they were circulated. But no means an indicator that canon was established. writings at this point were growing organically and many then were considered inspired that now are not.

and neither are the works I've submitted as it is supposed the Didache is the earliest text writen. It is clear not all books available to Marcion were included but considered inspired and necissary. But it does not mean canon was established there was a loose idea of what that was.