Yes, and God never said “go by Scipture Alone!”
Scriptures are the Word of God.
Did you forget Jesus is God?
BTW, I didn’t see the movie.
I can send you the clip I’m talking about to your notebox, but they curse in it.
Go ahead and send it.I can send you the clip I’m talking about to your notebox, but they curse in it.
It’s “funny” though.
How many Protestants are going to be impressed by objections to their beliefs which show only that the objector has not the first idea what the doctrine he objects to even means ?By the way…why are all you guys ignoring my quote where Paul teaches us that we are “not” to hold fast to “scripture alone”, but to hold fast to both scriptural teachings AND traditions.
See? Look…
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the …Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
The Holy Bible is both supreme among rules of faith, & **sufficient **as the rule of our life & faith. All traditions not in it, are to be judged by it. It is the written Word of God - they are not. Jesus couldn’t have quoted from books that weren’t canonized yet. He could only have quoted from books that were canonized.Which he could not have done, if those books - such as Deuterononomy & Psalms - did not exist in writing. He could & did quote Scripture, because those books were already Scripture. The lack of a written NT containing His own words is completely irrelevant. The Bible does not have to be completed, nor does all of it have to be recognised as Scripture, for some of it to be both written & recognised as Scripture.
So the lack of the Gospels containing His words does not affect the status of the books He quoted. His words are in the Gospels because He was tempted - not because the Gospels are inspired & canonical.
What is quoting the Tanakh, if not “using” it ? ## Which has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Is it really expecting too much of people to ask them to become familiar with doctrines before they attack them ?
You can prove that we no longer need traditions…Two points:
- St. Paul was speaking before the finalisation of the canon. Now that all the books have been canonised, we no longer need traditions - for we have Holy Scripture.
Within the NT, there are allusions to NT passages by different authors. There are a a couple of instances where it is debatable if a direct quote is being used.
You do realize that there are direct references to parts of the NT within the NT, don’t you?
That is the position of Rabbinical Judaism. And you can read exactly what Jesus thought of Rabbinical Judaism in the Gospels.
Paul explicitly refers to the practice of exchanging his letters with others. The Non-Pauline Epistles allude to exchanging manuscripts. Revelation alludes to a defined New Testament canon.
There are several processes at work:
That is stated by example. (EG: The Bereans.)
The earliest known list of books that are canonical is from Marcion, whose spiritual grandfather was Paul. Marcion’s list contained Luke, and most of the Pauline Epistles.
When lead by a spirit other than the Holy Spirit, yes.
Allusions are left up to personal interpretation. I like concrete clear scriptures. I understand your belief (if I’m correct in assuming) that the writers may have or have referred to each other’s works. But, none of them were considered “Scripture” until they were canonized.
Well, before the official Christian canon, there is no decisive date. The Scritpures existed, but not “as” Scripture. The Church Fathers had to figure all that out. And they did. 4th Century.
OT: Hosea 11 God’s Love for Israel “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”.
Which translation is this assumption from?
You risk losing credibility with such claims. Tradition (which gave you your bible) clearly taught that Mary had One Child - Emmanuel. Tear her down if you will. I will not stand before God in judgment and explain why I detracted from His chosen.
You mean Mary? The Mary who introduced God in Christ at the wedding feast? Joseph was surely with the Lord at this time, for he was not mentioned. This is likely why Simeon spoke directly to Mary in Luke 2:34-35 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
Well, at least this is supported by both Tradition and proper scriptural interpretation.
Isn’t “Sola Scriptura”
I believe that that’s what one might refer to as a “taditional” belief.
Have you gone protestant on us? :bigyikes: Christ neither mentioned, authorized, recommended or otherwise put forth the concept of a “bible”. He taught orally and sent Apostles forth to do the same. Being God, He knew that man is disobedient and that Luther was coming. We are certainly glad that scripture was assembled, but without Tradition and authority, it becomes meaningless tripe in the hands of the ignorant and unstable.Two points:
- St. Paul was speaking before the finalisation of the canon. Now that all the books have been canonised, we no longer need traditions - for we have Holy Scripture.
- We know of those traditions only through a letter which was - even perhaps in his own lifetime - recognised as Scripture.
So there you are
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
If they’ll admit it!
