How does 2 Timothy 3:16 support Sola Scriptura?

[kipperjl]

Sorry what I meant was the community (some of them apostles who had not been martyred) began talking about putting together the writings of the apostles around the year 50 AD The writings came from the first 50 yrs of the church. The church did not want to lose those writings. So they began to put together the NT from 50- around 325 and then finalized the Bible at the Council of Trent. The apostles were not around at this time but all of the writings had been put together in the NT and some other disciples writings were added during these years after 50 AD final approval given at the Council of Trent.

Get the books of above These former protestant pastors have done a lot of research on this subject before they decided to convert. The can give better information.

 

[spina1953]

Sorry what I meant was the community (some of them apostles who had not been martyred) began talking about putting together the writings of the apostles around the year 50 AD The writings came from the first 50 yrs of the church. The church did not want to lose those writings. So they began to put together the NT from 50- around 325 and then finalized the Bible at the Council of Trent. The apostles were not around at this time but all of the writings had been put together in the NT and some other disciples writings were added during these years after 50 AD final approval given at the Council of Trent.

Get the books of above These former protestant pastors have done a lot of research on this subject before they decided to convert. The can give better information.

Hi kipper: I am not to sure where you are getting your information but so far as I have read early Church history it was not the Apostles who were collecting their writings, though some of the Churches Paul founded kept his writings and copied them and passed them on to other Churches. The Apostles as well as the writings of St. Paul did not think their writing were Scripture nor did they think it inspired. As I stated, very few Apostles wrote anything and that was long after Paul wrote his letters to the various Churches he founded. matt. mark wrote sometime between the 70’s and 80’s Ad and John wrote sometime around 90 to 100 AD so while some of the Churches had some of the writings of the Gospels by 100AD, they also has various other writings that they used in their Churches that later were rejected and did not become part of any canon. A list was made in Africa about 397AD but it was not official canon till Trent. As I said none of the Apostles made anything that could be remotely called a NT and as a matter of fact what they preached and taught was oral just as Jesus taught orally.

 

[kipperjl]

I said the church or the community of Christians and any apostles that might have been around just plain didn’t want to lose the writings so they began to put them together.

Here is the Bible History from the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

This will explain it all.

 

[kipperjl]

Here is something I found that might help
37 B.C.–4 B.C. - The reign of Herod I, a Roman client king of Israel
27 B.C.-14 A.D. - The reign of Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire
c. 6 B.C. - The birth of Jesus
26-36 A.D. - Pontius Pilate the Prefect of the Roman Empire’s Judaea Province
c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation

Dates for books of the bible are taken from the book introductions in the English Standard Version Classic Reference Bible. Some dates for the life of Paul were gleaned from this Catholic Encyclopedia article. Some other dates came from Wikipedia.

newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

 

[spina1953]

Here is something I found that might help
37 B.C.–4 B.C. - The reign of Herod I, a Roman client king of Israel
27 B.C.-14 A.D. - The reign of Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire
c. 6 B.C. - The birth of Jesus
26-36 A.D. - Pontius Pilate the Prefect of the Roman Empire’s Judaea Province
c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation

Dates for books of the bible are taken from the book introductions in the English Standard Version Classic Reference Bible. Some dates for the life of Paul were gleaned from this Catholic Encyclopedia article. Some other dates came from Wikipedia.

newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

Hi kipper: Not bad most seem to be right on. However, one must remember that historians have different dates for the writings of Paul and the Apostles and some of the events you mentioned. So it really depend on which historian one want to accept or not. remember most historians are bias and want to promote their own viewpoint.

 

[Erich]

Remember that St. John’s Gospel was not even written till about 90-100 AD and the other three Gospels were not written till around the 70-80’s AD.

matt. mark wrote sometime between the 70’s and 80’s Ad and John wrote sometime around 90 to 100 AD

A bit off-topic for this thread (it’s actually been discussed in other threads), but since you mention it, I have to respond.

The Markan Priory theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was written between 65-80 AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 90-110 AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written between 95-140 AD.

Yet, Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 140 AD for Luke, and as few as only 40 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 110 AD for Matthew), records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:"So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

In particular (assuming Matthew was written as late as 110 and Luke was written as late as 140), the authors of the gospels themselves (or, at least, their pupils, if the authors themselves were no longer living) did not dispute his evidence. So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)

A much more detailed exposition can be found here.

 

[spina1953]

A bit off-topic for this thread (it’s actually been discussed in other threads), but since you mention it, I have to respond.

The Markan Priory theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was written between 65-80 AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 90-110 AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written between 95-140 AD.

Yet, Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 140 AD for Luke, and as few as only 40 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 110 AD for Matthew), records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:"So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

In particular (assuming Matthew was written as late as 110 and Luke was written as late as 140), the authors of the gospels themselves (or, at least, their pupils, if the authors themselves were no longer living) did not dispute his evidence. So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)

A much more detailed exposition can be found here.

Hi Erich: I Think it depends on which historians ones want to go with. What you have given I have also read and it may or may not be correct depending on whichever Historian one accepts. it seems to me that the Gospels and Epistles have dates all over the place, so it is difficult to know with any certainty which dates are correct and which one’s are not. One can at be sure that they were written somewhere along the various dates that have been given. That being said, it was my point that it was not the Apostles who compiled the NT which was I was referring to originally by a poster who stated it.

 

[bmonk]

This verse says that ALL Scripture is useful. It does not say that ONLY Scripture is useful.

Then there is 2 Thess 2:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (emphasis added)

This shows that not all they believed was written down at that time–why do the Protestants insist that it was ever all written down? Much was, of course–but some was not written.

 

[bmonk]

And it’s not the King James Version. Someone actually said, “The King James Version was good enough for the apostles, so it’s good enough for me!”

Shades of the Father at Vatican Council II who proclaimed, “We’ve been saying the “Kyrie Eleison” in Latin for 2000 years, and we aren’t going to change it now!”

 

[spina1953]

Then there is 2 Thess 2:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (emphasis added)

This shows that not all they believed was written down at that time–why do the Protestants insist that it was ever all written down? Much was, of course–but some was not written.

Hi bmonk: I think as to your question why do the Protestants insist it was all written down is because Scripture became the final and only authority when they decided that the CC was no longer the authority they accepted and needed some type of authority and need something to replace that authority and the Bible became that authority, IMHO

 

[bmonk]

Hi bmonk: I think as to your question why do the Protestants insist it was all written down is because Scripture became the final and only authority when they decided that the CC was no longer the authority they accepted and needed some type of authority and need something to replace that authority and the Bible became that authority, IMHO

That’s true–but who did the writing and collecting? And what of lines like 2 Thess 2:15 (above) or John 20:30 and 21:25, that speak of the many other signs and things that Jesus did? These all point to other good traditions.

 

[spina1953]

That’s true–but who did the writing and collecting? And what of lines like 2 Thess 2:15 (above) or John 20:30 and 21:25, that speak of the many other signs and things that Jesus did? These all point to other good traditions.

Hi bmonk: I agree. We know that Paul wrote most of the Epistles attributed to him. we Know that Luke wrote a Gospel and that John mark wrote for Peter the Apostle, and John the Apostle also wrote, but we do not know with certainty who wrote Matthew though it is attributed to him, This true also of the other Epistles found in the NT. They may have had scribes to write for them is my guess. One needs to remember that Jesus taught orally and did not write anything and did not command the Apostles to write but to preach the Good News

            Also Christianity existed before there was a NT and those who became Christians did so long before there was any written NT. So how did they become Christians in the years right after Jesus died and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and the Apostles did not start preaching the Good News till Pentecost? and there was not writings at that point? This is a case in point that refutes SS as any authority without the Catholic Church since it was the Catholic Church who compiled and decided what books of  writings were inspired therefore Sacred Scripture.

           And what of the Gnostic's who wrote and many of the Churches thought them to be inspired or sacred? The CC had to at some point decide what was inspired and which book or writings were not. John 20:30 also refutes SS as does 20:25. The problem lays in the fact that  many pick and chose what verses that seem to fit their preconceived notions they want to interpret to it to mean.

I would like to point out that the thought was the furthest from the mind of the writers was that they should ever be collected into one volume and made to do the duty as a complete and all sufficient statement of Christian faith and morals. It was intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, and devotion, and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church’s doctrines and divine authority; but as a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of every man, it was never was and never meant to be. The Bible in the Church; the Church before the Bible; the Church the maker and interpreter of the Bible, that is correct. The Bible above the Church; the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible and the Bible only, the religion of Christianity that is incorrect. the one is the Cc position and the other is the Protestant.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Shades of the Father at Vatican Council II who proclaimed, “We’ve been saying the “Kyrie Eleison” in Latin for 2000 years, and we aren’t going to change it now!”

That must have been one embarrassing moment!