1) Was sola scriptura taught by Jesus or His apostles?

[joe370]

** 1) Was sola scriptura taught by Jesus or His apostles? If so, could you please elaborate? 2) How could the practice of “Bible alone” have been the teaching of the early Church and the standard for Christianity?**

Non-Catholic friends, does sola scriptura (bible alone as the Christians only source of authoritative truth) - go back to the beginning of Christianity? If so, did every Christian, from the 1st century to the 15th century, (prior to the invention of the printing press) - have access to a bound codified bible, as is the case today?

Was sola scriptura (bible alone as the Christians only source of authoritative truth) - taught by Jesus or His apostles? If so, could you please elaborate?

How could the “bible alone” have been the practice, teaching and standard for Christianity, from the 1st century to the 4th century, considering the fact that the average Christian did not have access to a bound codified bible?

Thanks…

 

[seeker57]

Actually, just logistically speaking, basing religious tenets solely on the Bible would have been impossible for the first two or three centuries of the growth of the Christian religion.

The Bible, as people know it today, wasn’t compiled until hundreds of years after Jesus was crucified.

There were, of course, the books of the old testament, but, that would not be the same as what most Christians refer to as the Bible.

Some books of the Bible were added later than others, while some were rejected. There were different interpretations of the Bible, including from some people known as Aryans (not the German Nazi kind) and Gnostics.

Anyway, I believe people would be hard pressed to prove that any belief system based on sola scriptura could have existed during those early years which were the formative centuries for Christianity.

Seeker

 

[Norval]

I would suggest that the person posting the question read the bible. Jesus exhorted the apostles, “go teach all nations…”! Besides Mathew did not start writing the first gospel till 62 AD.

Jesus believed in Tradition as well as the spoken word. Can you think of anyplace in the Old Testament where the “chair of Moses” is mentioned? Jesus mentions it in Mt. 23 -3. Jesus marks the “Chair” as a place of authority and that which comes from the chair should be heeded. (could this have anything to do with ex-cathedra?)

The bible came about because there were about 300 books or readings that were being used in the liturgy and some contradicted others. This was trimmed to about 120 and from them our bible was formed and adopted in 425.

If one wishes to know how the church worshiped and functioned in the early days one should read the early church fathers. Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr are two of the best. St. Jerome and St Clement are also informative.
History is always interesting. The early church fathers were the second generation of the church and they had learned directly by word and tradition from the apostles and their appointees though the Didache was completed around 120AD or so. (that was a long time ago).
God Bless!!!

 

[tester]

** 1) Was sola scriptura taught by Jesus or His apostles? If so, could you please elaborate? 2) How could the practice of “Bible alone” have been the teaching of the early Church and the standard for Christianity?**

Non-Catholic friends, does sola scriptura (bible alone as the Christians only source of authoritative truth) - go back to the beginning of Christianity? If so, did every Christian, from the 1st century to the 15th century, (prior to the invention of the printing press) - have access to a bound codified bible, as is the case today?

Was sola scriptura (bible alone as the Christians only source of authoritative truth) - taught by Jesus or His apostles? If so, could you please elaborate?

How could the “bible alone” have been the practice, teaching and standard for Christianity, from the 1st century to the 4th century, considering the fact that the average Christian did not have access to a bound codified bible?

Thanks…

part 1:\Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.

What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?..You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).

It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. -equip.org

part 2) Someone could read it to them ( As Jesus read from the book Isaiah while in the Temple)
How does someone’s reading abilty or “scroll collection” change the nature of God’ Written word?

 

[joe370]

Hey Tester…

part 1:\Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Like the Immaculate Conception; got it, and I agree with you.

But that does not answer the question: Was sola scriptura (which claims that scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness) - taught by Jesus and did Jesus pass on to His apostles the practice/teaching of sola scriptura ? If so, could you please elaborate?

Where does the Bible teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the ONLY infallible basis for faith and practice? 2 Timothy does not use the word ONLY or ALONE. Keeping in mind that I am not saying that the Bible is NOT infallible; quite the contrary! 2 Tim. simply does not say ONLY scripture, or scripture ALONE…It says: ALL scripture…It does not support “scripture alone;” It supports the “all scripture” concept, which is embraced by all catholics.

You said: “This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.” Tester, show me where the Bible says that scripture ALONE is infallible or that scripture ALONE is SUFFICIENT, and I will embrace it as well? By the way, Christians (teacher or otherwise) - belonging to the Catholic church absolutely do not claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition; if the CC does teach that the bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition, please verify:

CCC 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”. 81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

Where in the bible, does St. Paul declare that the God-breathed writings are “sufficient?”

You said: “And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.”

Let’s say that you are right and those apologists are wrong; where is, the word scripture “alone” and the word sufficient used to describe God-breathed inspired scripture, in the bible? If the bible said: only scripture, or scripture alone, is God-breathed or inspired, or infallible, or sufficient, I would agree with you, but it does not. It says: “all (not only scripture , or scripture alone) - scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

And I absolutely agree with Paul!

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

So, based on the preceding statement, you believe that Jesus and the apostles embraced, and taught others, that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was/is the Christians only source of authoritative truth, in spite of the fact that Jesus and the apostles’ contemporaries (and those folks that succeeded the apostles, long after they passed away) - had no access to a Bible, as we do today?

Passages such as Matthew 4:4, in your mind, show Jesus and the apostles appealing to the Bible as the final court of appeal:

*“Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
*

I’m not seeing it, but if you are right, and the bible is the final court of appeal, (not the church) - then it must be via private interpretation, if in fact, no authority lies outside the scope of of the authoritative holy bible; is that what you are suggesting?

Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority.

Agreed!

 

[joe370]

It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today.

The CC does not claim anything outside the the bible, other than the right to interpret the revealed truths found in the bible, just as men like Timothy and Titus did, and men like Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli did, and every church pastor. regardless of denomination, do today.

CCC 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

CCC 104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times.

Agreed.

In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible…

Is because Jesus is God and the source of truth.

…was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5).

So we agree that, prior to this oral revelation being committed to writing, sola scriptura would have been impossible, and therefore could not have been taught by our Savior or His apostles?

 

[joe370]

Continued Tester…

Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.

Non-biblical infallible authority really was not the point of this thread; sola scriptura (bible alone as the Christians only source of authoritative truth) and the questions presented, was the point of this thread. In your opinion, did the apostles entrust the teachings of Jesus Christ (which to you is only scripture) - to their church successors/teachers through the laying on of hands, eg Timothy and Titus, or did the apostles entrust the teachings of Jesus Christ to to each every Christian, via individual interpretation, as each and every Christian is moved by the Holy Spirit?

What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition.

Since you keep mentioning tradition, do you believe that it was by the apostolic Tradition to which the Church turned to discern which writings were to be included in the list of the sacred books? Since this thread is about sola scriptura, could you provide scripture verses that show Jesus making it clear that our present day bible (46 books of the Old testament, or 39 books in some cases, and 27 books of the new testament) - were in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition? Pharisaic traditions notwithstanding… By the way, the CC leaders, do believe that sacred scripture is in a class of its own, for the simple fact that it is the word of God, just as sacred tradition is in a class of its own, because it too is the word of God, and that was why Paul said what he said about paradosis.

Sacred scripture:

CCC 77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

Sacred tradition:

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura

Where does Jesus use the word “alone?” Jesus never uses the phrase “sola scriptura” (scripture alone). Below I see Jesus speaking about the traditions of the pharisees; not apostolic tradition spoken of by Paul.

*Matthew 15:

"Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
*

It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures.

Pharisaic tradition? Agreed!

Apostolic tradition however, is supported by scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

part 1:\Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

The last sentence actually has some serious flaws. First,the fact that the man-made “rule” of Sola Scriptura cannot be found in Scripture proves it to be a “rule made by humans”, and this makes it diametrically opposed to Holy Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ. Second,since Scripture is not self authenticating, and is not self teaching*, and does not specify which books within it are inspired, how can the Protestant know that the book to which he holds is inspired at all?
*Acts 8:30-31, 2Peter 3:16

Second, the Bible **does teach **implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

NO WHERE does the Bible teach: The Bible-Alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. NO WHERE! Where are the words which say “Bible Only”? Show me one chapter or verse mentioning which books should comprise of the OT & NT canons?

Examine the word ‘sufficient’ with a dictionary…‘Being as much as needed. An adequate amount or quantity’.

Does that mean Bible alone? No! Let us see what the Bible itself says:

“Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD, and that believing you may have life in His Name.” John 20:30-31

“There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, NOT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF, I THINK, COULD HOLD THE BOOKS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN.” John 21:25

Obviously Holy Scripture has said very clearly, that everything is NOT in Holy Scripture.

 

[joe370]

There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century.

If you are right then you must be able prove this by using sola scriptura to support your claim. Please do so?

Tester, sola scriptura is not a tradition in your opinion? Where in the bible does the bible say: scripture alone is sufficient and contains all knowledge necessary for salvation? Provide that passage and I will concede my friend?

part 2) Someone could read it to them ( As Jesus read from the book Isaiah while in the Temple)
How does someone’s reading abilty or “scroll collection” change the nature of God’ Written word?

The wrong scroll collection could mean the difference between the word of God and the word of mere men. For example, most non-Catholics believe that the CC has the wrong “scroll collection” when it comes to the 7 books of the OT.

Sure, someone could read the NT to them, if it existed, but it did not exist for the first 50 years of Christianity, and it certainly did not exist as a bound codified book until the 4th century, and very few people would have access to a bible until the printing press was invented in the 15th century. Of course they had access to the truth via the apostles and their successors, but that has nothing to do with “scripture alone” containing all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. For sola scriptura to work in the 1st century, it would entail the apostles to write scripture and then instruct others to defer exclusively to scripture alone. If this was not the case then sola scriptura must not have been a teaching of Jesus or the apostles. The history of the bible shows, very clearly, that the Church (the apostles were the very first members/leaders of the Church) - was the organization that created the Bible and that the Church is older than the Bible. The Bible itself shows that there were Christians before a word of the New Testament was written – the whole of the book of Acts, for example, describes the early life of the Church from the Ascension of Jesus onwards. There is no doubt whatsoever that these people were Christians, and the practice of sola scriptura would have been foreign to those early Christians.

These Christians could not have had a copy of the New Testament for the simple fact that the last book of the New Testament was written around 100 AD. Before that date no Christian could have had a complete Bible, as we understand it today. If the Bible is the sole source of Christian teaching and knowledge as sola scriptura advocates claim, how could these people have been Christians? Peter, Paul, James, John and Andrew never saw a complete Bible; what they had was the Old Testament Scriptures and the preaching and Tradition of the Church.

Today it is still a simple truth that not all Christians have a Bible; in many places in the world, many people simply cannot read, and certainly not everyone can afford a Bible. Historically, this was certainly the case; prior to the advent of printing bibles, which reduced the cost significantly, bibles were very expensive, and few people owned one, and these people were true Christians? Many Protestants, such as myself long ago, simply ignore the historical facts of Christianity and how – for centuries – the Bible simply was not read by the common man because he/she could not afford to buy one or because he could not read.

But let’s say you are right and that every Christian for the first 1500 years of Christianity, would go to church, and the church leaders would read sacred scripture to them. Was it the common practice for those 1500 years, that upon hearing the words of sacred scripture, each individual Christian was urged by the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church to interpret said words of sacred scripture as they were each moved by the holy spirit, or were they urged to defer to the authority of the church leadership just as Paul commanded, as the church leadership was moved by the holy spirit? Which one is historically accurate? Don’t get me wrong; I see no problem with individual interpretation just as long as it agrees with the interpretation of the church, which is the case with most protestant churches as well.

In the end, is the interpretation of sacred scripture up to the individual Christian via his/her own private judgment, as he or she is moved by the holy spirit, or the church leadership, as was the case in the early church, eg the Trinity via the council of the Catholic Church?

 

[algebra]

NO!

Why?

Because they were jews.

I am of jewish heritage.

And the oral Torah has always existed and is considered authentic by all jews.

There is no way that they could have taught Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

I agree…

NO!

Why?

Because they were jews.

I am of jewish heritage.

And the oral traditions have existed and are considered authentic by all jews.

There is no way that they could have taught Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

Tester, just as Nicea touched on, if sola scriptura is true then the list of which books belong in the Bible is of vital importance. Without said list, the sola scriptura advocate could never be sure if he/she has all the books that contain the truth of Christianity, or, if he/she has any books which he/she should not have. This list, (table of contents) - however it was arrived at, in your opinion, was not part of the Bible. There was no list of inspired books in the Bible, and even if there were such a list, how could it be proven this list itself is correct? In all cases, especially this case, an external authority was/is needed to verify the veracity of the Bible as being the God-breathed inspired word of God, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. When Jesus ascended into heaven He did not leave us with said list; nor did the the apostles, upon their demise. It was the Catholic Church that eventually provided every Christian with the table of contents. I am not touting the CC as being better than any other church; I am merely delineating the historical facts. If it was not the Catholic Church, and you can prove it, then I will concede…

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree…

I agree also.

Anyway the teachings by Jesus are in line with Old Testament teaching in all regards. The point of contention with scholars in Judaism is only the Sermon on the Mount. Here Jesus refers to himself as “I” from a Rabbi perspective. This simply means He in fact is God. Which in Christianity we obviously believe He is.

So in essense its not the teaching that is wrong or in fact anything Jesus said throughout the New Testament. The point of contention becomes what the requirements are for the Messiah in Judaism teaching.

In other words in Judaism the Messiah wouldn’t be God, but a human man period. There are also 2-3 other requirements in Judaism for the Messiah which I would have to go back to confirm. But I remember this being the main “bone of contention” so to speak.

 

[Nicea325]

Tester, just as Nicea touched on, if sola scriptura is true then the list of which books belong in the Bible is of vital importance. Without said list, the sola scriptura advocate could never be sure if he/she has all the books that contain the truth of Christianity, or, if he/she has any books which he/she should not have. This list, (table of contents) - however it was arrived at, in your opinion, was not part of the Bible. There was no list of inspired books in the Bible, and even if there were such a list, how could it be proven this list itself is correct? In all cases, especially this case, an external authority was/is needed to verify the veracity of the Bible as being the God-breathed inspired word of God, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. When Jesus ascended into heaven He did not leave us with said list; nor did the the apostles, upon their demise. It was the Catholic Church that eventually provided every Christian with the table of contents. I am not touting the CC as being better than any other church; I am merely delineating the historical facts. If it was not the Catholic Church, and you can prove it, then I will concede…

joe:

That is the entire issue at hand,many people simply do not know church history nor the background of the Bible. Jesus promised the 12 the Advocate,not a nicely compiled Bible tellings us everything we need to know. Finally,Christianity is not a religion of the book,but of the person: Jesus Christ.

 

[simspt]

Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly

 

[tester]

NO!

Why?

Because they were jews.

I am of jewish heritage.

And the oral Torah has always existed and is considered authentic by all jews.

There is no way that they could have taught Sola Scriptura.