Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[Old_Scholar]

So the council of Jamnia is your authority for the OT and the Catholic Church is your authority for the NT?

No my authority for the Bible Old Testament was the same one canonized in 400 AD.

My New Testament is the same one as you have but it was in my church’s hands long before the Catholic Church canonized it.

It was the same books as the ones canonized and what was being taught in my church is from those same books. Nothing has changed except any errors the translators may have introduced but I know of none in the matter of faith and morals. Our church is the apostolic one and our faith is the same as the apostles taught with nothing added or subtracted.

We believe in Scriptural Salvation and Scriptural Baptism. That is Salvation by faith and not by the church and Baptism by immersion and no infant baptism. We are a Sola Scriptura Church, the same as the apostles and the early church taught.

 

[eagertolearn]

You are blaming Luther for something he is not gjuilty of. Luther included the apocrypha books in his Bible but as apocrypha, not canon.

The Jews believed that when a prophet finished writing, his works were canonized. The Jewish Bible was canonized prior to 400 BC, after the last prophet. The argument came after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and many of the Jewish people were speaking Greek and not following their laws as put out in the OT(as we call it). The council in 70 - 90 A.D. at Jamnia was to again canonize the books so that the Jews would not be reading the apocrypha as it was listed in the Septuagint, although even then, they were considered not canonical.

No Old scholar, I am not here to blame anyone. I am regretting that we let human wisdom and pride to stand in our way. We are all in the family, aren’t we? It is important not only for our own but many generations to come. It is important for the unity under our father. It is so sad to read about Luther, however, I strongly believe that The Church was getting stronger and less abusive because of that. The gate of hell will never prevail against it!

I understand very well why Luther did what he did. But I also understand that it is a misplaced compassion on my part. Too much human pride that has let to the downfall of human race over and over again. Christ did not intend to have 40,000 different Ecclesial communities all over the place. Each does his own way! We do not trust Him to take care of us! It is a thin line between human wsidom/pride and true faith.

Have a great day.

ETL.

 

[eagertolearn]

The Jews believed that when a prophet finished writing, his works were canonized. The Jewish Bible was canonized prior to 400 BC, after the last prophet. The argument came after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and many of the Jewish people were speaking Greek and not following their laws as put out in the OT(as we call it). The council in 70 - 90 A.D. at Jamnia was to again canonize the books so that the Jews would not be reading the apocrypha as it was listed in the Septuagint, although even then, they were considered not canonical.

" 14 Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people." John 18:14.

The Jews honestly believed that they were right to condemn Christ to death to save their people. That was human wisdom or political correctness at the time. History judges them differently now, doesn’t it?

They were chosen people! That was good, but what next? They did not respond to Grace! So God had condemned them and took away the Old Covenant and established New Covenant. They didnot have any authority at all after 33 AD, after Christ’s crucifixtion. The Jewish council at Jamnia or any authority at that time was meaningless as far as Christian is concerned. We honor our Jewish root but that is about it, left alone any authority as far as canonical content of the Old Testament.



ETL

 

[mark_a]

No my authority for the Bible Old Testament was the same one canonized in 400 AD.

My New Testament is the same one as you have but it was in my church’s hands long before the Catholic Church canonized it.

It was the same books as the ones canonized and what was being taught in my church is from those same books. Nothing has changed except any errors the translators may have introduced but I know of none in the matter of faith and morals. Our church is the apostolic one and our faith is the same as the apostles taught with nothing added or subtracted.

We believe in Scriptural Salvation and Scriptural Baptism. That is Salvation by faith and not by the church and Baptism by immersion and no infant baptism. We are a Sola Scriptura Church, the same as the apostles and the early church taught.

Alrighty then!!

 

[ziapueblo]

No my authority for the Bible Old Testament was the same one canonized in 400 AD.

-Council of Rome AD 382: 73 book canon
-Council of Hippo AD 393: approved the 73 book canon
-Council of Carthage AD 397: approved the same 73 book canon
-AD 405: Pope St. Innocent I closes the canon of Scripture of 73 books.

My New Testament is the same one as you have but it was in my church’s hands long before the Catholic Church canonized it.

Show me your sources.

It was the same books as the ones canonized and what was being taught in my church is from those same books. Nothing has changed except any errors the translators may have introduced but I know of none in the matter of faith and morals. Our church is the apostolic one and our faith is the same as the apostles taught with nothing added or subtracted.

What church do you belong to?

We believe in Scriptural Salvation and Scriptural Baptism. That is Salvation by faith and not by the church and Baptism by immersion and no infant baptism. We are a Sola Scriptura Church, the same as the apostles and the early church taught.

Where in the Bible does it teach us salvation by faith alone?

Where does the Bible say that we are baptized by immersion only?

Where does the Bible teach us that we are not to baptize infants?

Where in the Bible does it say that the Scriptures are exclusive or sufficient?

 

[Old_Scholar]

ziapueblo

I’ll try to answer your questions but I can’t use the quote feature and answer them all because of space limitations.

My source is the Bible itself. I believe everyone is aware of the fact that nothing that appears in the Bible was written after 100 A.D. That is a fact that no one disputes.

So we must find out how the apostles kept up with the epistles, gathered and distributed them throughout the world. We can find that very easily in Scripture if we will only look.

Paul’s epistles alone being sent to numerous places show that there was a distribution of the Scriptures. Paul even warned the Thessalonians of false writings and told them how to recognize his letters.

Read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, 3:17 and you will see how Paul handled it.

2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Thess 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

It is noteworthy that even enemies of the gospel wanted the power of the written letters of Paul and they wrote many forgeries.

We know also that Paul urged the church at Collssi to exchange letters by Col 4:16.

Coll. 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul wrote letters to all of Asia, Galatia, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. Peter’s letters were sent to Asia and also to Pontus, Cappadocia and Bithynia. (2 Peter 3:15, 1 Peter 1:1). It seems clear that Paul’s letters were intended for everyone and distributed throughout a very large area, according to Peter. No one could say the Scriptures were not being distributed.

Scripture also indicates that someone was keeping records and collecting the writings of the apostles. Sylvanus had a part in writing and worked with both Peter and Paul and must have been keeping the writings of Peter, John and Paul together. Read 1 Peter 5:12, 2 Cor. 1:19, 1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Thess 1:1.

It also seems likely that Timothy as well as Luke, Tertius and Mark collected and distributed the Scriptures as the Scriptures themselves indicate that. Do they say they kept all the letters together? No! But it is evident that the letters were important enough and needed to be read to all that they would have done so.

We know by Peter’s writing that the New Testament was being collected in the first century as 2 Peter 3:15-16 indicates. He says that “all” of Paul’s writings were being collected, even before the NT was complete. It is this collection of Scriptures that constitutes a canon. Peter’s letters were the key to the fact that the NT was being collected and distributed.

Since Peter referred to Paul’s writings and John’s, as well as his of course, the we must also believe that Luke’s gospel was inspired Scripture because we know Paul quoted Luke in 1 Tim 5:18. And if we include Luke, then Acts has to be included as Acts is a continuation of Luke. (Acts 1:1) In addition we learn in 1 Tim 5:18 referred both to Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. That means Luke was added to the Old Testament as well and Jesus certainly referred to the Old Testament as “Scripture.” This implies guidance by the Spirit and collection by the oversight of the apostles.

While it may be true that other writings were also being read in some of the churches, the people of that day knew from Scripture which letters were inspired and it is that collection of letters that is the NT as we know it today.

Now we could go on and on and prove in this manner that all of the NT as we know it was to be Scripture and was inspired, or God-breathed. The fact that the church confirmed these books as the New Testament in the 4th century shows that the books were the ones used constantly by most of the churches, if not all. With the exception of the apocrypha, we have no record or any other books being considered for the New Testament. We do know for sure, however, that the same books as we have in our NT today were being taught in the churches in the 2nd century, even before that, they were being circulated and read and taught.

I have already stated that my church is the same apostolic church that Christ began through the apostles. We teach exactly what the apostles taught and no other doctrine or sacrament that cannot be found in Scripture. The Church of God.

Your next question was how are we saved by faith. Well the best statement of that is Ephesians 2:8-10.

“For by (past tense) grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

You could also read: Rom 5:1; Acts 13:39; Rom 4:25; Gal 3:24. You could read the entire chapters of Romans 4 and Romans 5 and get still more.

I conclude from Scripture alone, that salvation is gained by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. If we deny what Christ said on the cross: “It is finished!” we play the role of the spirit of the anti-Christ that was written about by John. That would be essentially denying that the Messiah has actually come and fulfilled all requirements of the law, and we do not need to add to His finished work. Anything else would be like telling God: “*Oh God, thank you for the gift of your Son. Your atonement on the cross was almost enough to remove the filth of sin on me but I need to do one last thing…” That depends on us to do part of our salvation, at least. * That is not the gospel message!

Do not interpret this to mean that I believe that when one says, “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” that person is “saved.” That is not my belief. It is the faith that I show in my belief of Christ that is the saving grace that God provides; it is a continual faith that never ends. Then the “Grace” of God is what saves you.

As for Baptism, the Bible doesn’t tell us that we must baptize by immersion only. It doesn’t give any other method of baptizing, so why would we want to change it? Even your church baptized by immersion for the first few centuries. Why did they change it?

As for baptizing infants, the Scriptures teach that one has to “believe” for salvation and babies cannot believe. Where in the Bible does it tell us to baptize infants?

Sufficiency of Scripture

I could simply say read Psalm 19, and Psalm 119, and you wouldn’t have any more questions.

In Psalm 19, the first 6 verses conveys to us the significance of God’s revelation. We read how God has revealed Himself to us in nature, and in the heavens. Please read this Psalm.
Verses 7 – 14 gives us a more specific revelation in His Word. The focus her is on special revelation, the revelation of God in holy Scripture. This is where you will find the sufficiency of Scripture. Verses 7-9 read: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous all together.”

This gives us a title for the Word of God, a characteristic of the Word of God and a benefit of the Word of God. The Scripture is called the law, testimony, statute, commandment, fear and judgment. These are synonyms for the Scripture. It is perfect, sure, right, clear, clean and true. It converts the soul, it makes the wise the simple, it rejoices the heart, it enlightens the eyes, it endures forever and it is all together righteous. It provides full spiritual resources.

This is an absolute comprehensive statement on the Scripture in a very few words. If you truly read this, you will see the intent and magnitude.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 further gives us remembrance of the significance of God’s word. Paul reminds us here that the Scripture is able to make you wise into salvation and to make you perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Nothing else is needed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

" 14 Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people." John 18:14.

The Jews honestly believed that they were right to condemn Christ to death to save their people. That was human wisdom or political correctness at the time. History judges them differently now, doesn’t it?

They were chosen people! That was good, but what next? They did not respond to Grace! So God had condemned them and took away the Old Covenant and established New Covenant. They didnot have any authority at all after 33 AD, after Christ’s crucifixtion. The Jewish council at Jamnia or any authority at that time was meaningless as far as Christian is concerned. We honor our Jewish root but that is about it, left alone any authority as far as canonical content of the Old Testament.



ETL

It was only a few “leaders” such as pharisees that condemned Jesus. The population was easy to convince.

And don’t forget there are still over 15,000,000 Jews in the world, even after the killing of over 60,000,000 throughout the last 70 years.

One further note, the Jews are from only 2 of the twelve tribes. The other Israelies are not Jews.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You are blaming Luther for something he is not gjuilty of. Luther included the apocrypha books in his Bible but as apocrypha, not canon.

This does not diminish the fact that these books were considered the inspired word of God and included in the Canon until Martin Luther came along. Martin Luther also removed James and Revelations. But under pressure put them back. Luther dismissed James as “strawey.” If you will examine these books, even skimming, you will see it is because they do not agree with Luther’s new theology of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, which were virtually unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

martinluther.info/

In addition, Martin Luther deliberately altered text, the most famous being the addition of “allein” to Paul’s letter to the Romans. (3:28)

 

[ziapueblo]

Old Scholar,

Thank you for your response. You seem to have over looked 2 Thessalonians 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.”

Oral statement (Sacred Tradition) or letter of ours (Sacred Scripture). St. Paul writes that as Christians the deposit of faith is not only Scripture but what is also passed down orally.

Don’t get me wrong . . . Scripture is a necessity. However, Christianity is much bigger than the Bible alone.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar,

Thank you for your response. You seem to have over looked 2 Thessalonians 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.”

Oral statement (Sacred Tradition) or letter of ours (Sacred Scripture). St. Paul writes that as Christians the deposit of faith is not only Scripture but what is also passed down orally.

Don’t get me wrong . . . Scripture is a necessity. However, Christianity is much bigger than the Bible alone.

Yes and Paul meant every word. However there were no traditions passed down that pertained to the question of faith and morals that weren’t included in the Bible. Everything we needed was written down so that we would have proof of it all. There is no tradition not written down that has anything to do with faith or morals.

If there is, please tell us what it is and show us the proof…

 

[eagertolearn]

Yes and Paul meant every word. However there were no traditions passed down that pertained to the question of faith and morals that weren’t included in the Bible. Everything we needed was written down so that we would have proof of it all. There is no tradition not written down that has anything to do with faith or morals.

If there is, please tell us what it is and show us the proof…

Thank you Old Scholar

Please tell us then: do you believe in the doctrine of Trinity? where does it come from?

ETL.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes and Paul meant every word. However there were no traditions passed down that pertained to the question of faith and morals that weren’t included in the Bible. Everything we needed was written down so that we would have proof of it all. There is no tradition not written down that has anything to do with faith or morals.

 

[anthony022071]

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John [the apostle]. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name and in his writings gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition” (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312])

Irenaeus:
"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

St. Epiphanius of Salamis:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

St. John Chrysostom:
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

St. Augustine:
“The custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes and Paul meant every word. However there were no traditions passed down that pertained to the question of faith and morals that weren’t included in the Bible. Everything we needed was written down so that we would have proof of it all. There is no tradition not written down that has anything to do with faith or morals.

If there is, please tell us what it is and show us the proof*…*John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
John 21:24-25
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Some of these “other things” are described in the Bible:

*Acts 2:42
The Fellowship of the Believers ] They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Luke 24:30-35
30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.*

And some in extra-Biblical history:

St Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, wrote this in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
*
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
*

 

[anthony022071]

Thank you Old Scholar

Please tell us then: do you believe in the doctrine of Trinity? where does it come from?

ETL.

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

“While the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on ‘the mystery of godliness’ is so important, can they refuse us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;–which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;–a word for which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery.” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar;3703280:

How do you know that? Try proving it.

Actually it is your church that makes the claim that there are “oral Traditions”, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I say show me…

John 16,12-13
I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

And the Holy Spirit taught all the apostles the truth but they are all gone now. That is why they wrote down what they knew that pertained to faith and morals.

St. Basil,On the Holy Spirit:
< 66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;-no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. >

So you are going to believe what someone wrote almost 400 years after Christ??? Why didn’t Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement or some of the early ones who knew and heard the apostles write anything down that the later leaders taught???

 

[Old_Scholar]

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John [the apostle]. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name and in his writings gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition” (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312])

O.K. Show us the Traditions that he said was handed down…

Irenaeus:
"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

And Irenæus used Scripture in order to refute the heresies. You can prove nothing by oral tradition. It becomes a matter of "he said, she said."

St. Epiphanius of Salamis:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Same as before. List any traditions handed down not in Scripture.

St. John Chrysostom:
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us. “That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! “Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 9, commentary on 2 Tim 3:16-17)

"For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen." (John Chrysostom, Homily 13, commentary on 2 Cor 7:1)

St. Augustine:
“The custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind.Augustine letter to Faustus the Manichaen, Book 11.5

There are always quotes that show the early church leaders belived in Sola Scripture in matters of faith and morals. How else could they refute heretics? The “Traditions” that pertain to faith and morals came long after Christ but started before he was crucified. They just got worse as time went along. That was the reason for the Reformation; to get the church back on track.

 

[Lampo]

So you are going to believe what someone wrote almost 400 years after Christ???

Why is that an issue for you? You believe what someone wrote 1,500 years after Christ.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There are always quotes that show the early church leaders belived in Sola Scripture in matters of faith and morals. How else could they refute heretics? The “Traditions” that pertain to faith and morals came long after Christ but started before he was crucified. They just got worse as time went along. That was the reason for the Reformation; to get the church back on track.

The problem is you do not interpret certain Scriptures the same as the Apostolic Chuch does.

 

[Old_Scholar]

John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
John 21:24-25
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Some of these “other things” are described in the Bible:

*Acts 2:42
The Fellowship of the Believers ] They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Luke 24:30-35
30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.*

And some in extra-Biblical history:

St Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, wrote this in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
*
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
*

I don’t see anything here against what Scripture teaches. If you are saying that Ignatius is saying that the bread actually turns into the flesh of Christ, then you are reading it wrong. It is a symbolic event and all Christians should celebrate it exactly as Christ told us to do. The wine represents the blood and the bread represents the flesh.

But isn’t it true that the RCC does not do that? It is my understanding that the laity does not get to drink the wine, which represents the blood of Christ. Why is that? Certainly that must be a man-made tradition. The Bible tells us to do both…

Read what Christ Himself called it, AFTER He said this is my blood:

Matt 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29) But I say unto you,* I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,*** until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Notice Christ does not call it His blood, but what it really is: wine. However, it still represents His blood as He said. It just doesn’t really turn into his blood and the bread doesn’t really turn into his flesh.

You must remember that Christ often said He was "the BREAD of life and used this term frequently. He was speaking figuratively.