Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[larry_m]

I keep reading from some that the NT wasn’t written for many years. That is true. But what does that have to do with anything? Paul stated that the exact same gospel he was preaching was given to the Hebrews. The only difference was, one was type, the other antitypical. One was the shadow, the other the substance. Do you really think Paul or any disciple would have gotten away with anything they couldn’t prove from the holy oracles given the Hebrews? Remember, every Sabbath,Saturday, they reasoned with the Hebrews in the synagogue. What was their argument? All the things written in the Law & Prophets & Writings concerning the Messiah. No commentaries, mans tradition or doctrine or commandments of men. It was a, thus saith Scripture. No more or less. May the Spirit give us His insight to the Truth as it is in our Savior.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I keep reading from some that the NT wasn’t written for many years. That is true. But what does that have to do with anything? Paul stated that the exact same gospel he was preaching was given to the Hebrews. The only difference was, one was type, the other antitypical. One was the shadow, the other the substance. Do you really think Paul or any disciple would have gotten away with anything they couldn’t prove from the holy oracles given the Hebrews? Remember, every Sabbath,Saturday, they reasoned with the Hebrews in the synagogue. What was their argument? All the things written in the Law & Prophets & Writings concerning the Messiah. No commentaries, mans tradition or doctrine or commandments of men. It was a, thus saith Scripture. No more or less. May the Spirit give us His insight to the Truth as it is in our Savior.

I might be the only one who feel this way.
IMHO you (larry m) and **justasking4, **did not come seeking knowledge nor understanding of the Catholic Church. IMHO you are trying to preach here. May God and the Holy Spirit open your heart and mind to the teaching of the one true church THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[JRKH]

I keep reading from some that the NT wasn’t written for many years. That is true. But what does that have to do with anything? Paul stated that the exact same gospel he was preaching was given to the Hebrews. The only difference was, one was type, the other antitypical. One was the shadow, the other the substance. Do you really think Paul or any disciple would have gotten away with anything they couldn’t prove from the holy oracles given the Hebrews? Remember, every Sabbath,Saturday, they reasoned with the Hebrews in the synagogue. What was their argument? All the things written in the Law & Prophets & Writings concerning the Messiah. No commentaries, mans tradition or doctrine or commandments of men. It was a, thus saith Scripture. No more or less. May the Spirit give us His insight to the Truth as it is in our Savior.

So what you are saying is that the Apostles and other disciples argued in the synagogues based upon the OT Scriptures. These were, of course Oral Discussions and thus any conclusions were Orally arived at.

Later, certain persons took it upon themselves to write letters and testaments to the truths as they understood them, and/or as the Spirit moved them - literally hundreds of these were written and known by the end of the first century.

Of course, at the time these would not have been necessarily considered Scripture. Scritpure would have continued to be the OT writings. These letters and/or testaments, unevenly divided across the Church, were used in teaching along with the “Sacred Scripture” of the OT. Since the NT writings had not been “evenly” distributed, different Churches (Diocese if you will) were using different books and or different copies. Some of which were later NOT included in the Bible.

So when the subject of SS comes up the natural question is raised as to how one can prove the Bible has the correct books if one denies the authority by which the books were determined and codified.

Peace
James

 

[larry_m]

To Kathleen. Being a Protestant I do not wish to be a Catholic. This thread is not about Protestants becoming Catholics. As far as preaching, you might as well tell everyone else that. So far the only two people I have a personal controversy with is you now, with your negative response which was personal. Also Meaculpa whom I have been in conversation with. If giving Scripture to a brother who asks a question on a certain subject is preaching then we are all guilty. I am not trying to convince or convict anyone on any subject. That is the sole job of the Spirit. I also am not trying to get Catholics to become a Protestant. I am just conversing as my other brothers & sisters in both communions are doing here, sharing our thoughts. Please have the right idea of where I am coming from. Thankyou.

 

[larry_m]

To James. What do you mean Orally? Are you saying when they reasoned with the Pharisees & Saducees they didn’t use the Torah? If so, I find that hard to believe, concerning how they were & still are very strict on the teachings of the Holy Oracles, the Law, Prophets & Writings. Thankyou for your insightful comments I have been reading. Peace to you also, my brother In Our Savior.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Quote:
Secondly, where did Jesus promise that He would protect the church from error?

---

Matthew 16:18
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 20:18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

---

So by your estimation Jesus founded a Church capable of teaching error
Jesus Gave Authority to that Church to bind and loose error. - In heaven?

**There’s also John 16:12-15:

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth**, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it toyou. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Jesus is here talking to his apostles, who will go on to build His Church, the Catholic Church.

It’s kind of funny that the people that profess sola scriptura as a doctrine don’t seem to know Holy Scripture very well.

Also, in this thread, one group of sola scripturists comes in, try to defend their false doctrine, see that it is impossible to defend an unscriptural, false doctrine, and then leave. Then a new group of sola scripturists comes in, and they say the exact same things as the group that just left.

Actually, this new group has an important new part of the doctrine of sola scriptura. chosensinner has declared that the reason sola scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible is because it’s not necessary for salvation!

Did I miss something?

I never asserted that a precise understanding of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura was essential for salvation- did I? So where did you get that idea? :ehh:

**Really, this is an admission that sola scriptura is not taught in Holy Scripture, so now they’re saying, well, the reason it’s not taught in Holy Scripture is that it’s not necessary for salvation.

Wow, the bedrock doctrine of protestantism - sola scriptura - is not necessary for salvation! That’s quite an admission. So, I guess sola fide is also not necessary for salvation?

What, then, is necessary for salvation, according to the sola scripturists?**

 

[Mea_Culpa]

To James. What do you mean Orally? Are you saying when they reasoned with the Pharisees & Saducees they didn’t use the Torah? If so, I find that hard to believe, concerning how they were & still are very strict on the teachings of the Holy Oracles, the Law, Prophets & Writings. Thankyou for your insightful comments I have been reading. Peace to you also, my brother In Our Savior.

**Weren’t they talking about different interpretations of the Old Testament? Didn’t some of the Jews accept the interpretations of the apostles, and some (most) of them reject these interpretations?

If, as sola scriptura teaches, Holy Scripture interprets itself, how could there be differing interpretations? (Both back then and now.)

Oh yea, as one of the sola scripturists on here already said, the people who agree with the sola scripturists are letting the scripture interpret itself, all the other people who disagree with them are not letting scripture interpret itself.

If the Jews were searching the scriptures to verify the Gospel proclaimed by Paul - where can I search the scriptures and verify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Where is it taught in the Bible? **

 

[chosensinner]

**

Really, this is an admission that sola scriptura is not taught in Holy Scripture, so now they’re saying, well, the reason it’s not taught in Holy Scripture is that it’s not necessary for salvation.**

Wow- you assume too much.

Let me just say this: TO ALL WHO ARE READING

I did not say that Sola Scriptura was not taught in the Bible.

I was just wondering how someone came to the conclusion that a precise understanding of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was necessary for salvation. That was a "logical"leap, that I did not assert.

NOW- if you ask me whether Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible, I will say- YES it is. And let me remind you that Sola Scriptura (as you may wish to define it is but a straw man).

However- Sola Scriptura- as it is properly defined in Historic Protestantism is certainly made plain in Scripture. Would you all like to begin a discussion of this?

I originally thought that this thread was on whether or not Protestants truly keep this teaching and practice it- not whether it is true or not. But I am willing to discuss either. I began with a proper definition of the Doctrine- and now maybe we can look at a few simple passages: Fair enough?

Let’s begin with 2 Thes. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

I love this passage! Because from a plain and simple reading of it- Sola Scriptura is easily established.

He who has ears to hear- Let him hear!

 

[larry_m]

To Mea culpa. Question. Where in Scripture can you show me that the Catholic Church is even mentioned? I keep reading from my Catholic friends that the Catholic Church is the original Church or the Church spoken of by the disciples & our Savior, is the Catholic Church. Give me Scripture please. The disciples were mistaken in their belief that our Saviors first coming was when He was to set up His Kingdom. They, as we all know, & they later realized, because of Scripture, that they had it backwards. On the road to Emmaus He opened ALL the Scripture concerning Himself. Please show me that He didn’t use SS. Good luck. Any person or church that says they are the only true church smells of bigotry. If that is the case our Savior lied when He stated He had sheep in other folds. Paul talks about even heathens who will recieve eternal life. I sure am glad He is the final Judge. Not you, me, my church, your church or any other person or church. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Let’s begin with 2 Thes. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

I love this passage! Because from a plain and simple reading of it- Sola Scriptura is easily established.

You didn’t say how this passage teaches sola scriptura. I don’t see it.

It actually is one of the Bible verses usually used to refute sola scriptura. It says “hold fast to the traditions” - not to the scriptures - “which you were taught by (spoken) word (λόγος) or our epistle.”

Seems from a plain and simple reading that Paul is not speaking of scripture at all, but oral and written traditions. λόγος means “something said or spoken” - so he’s talking about oral tradition here.

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition:

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 honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[larry_m]

To my friend, Chosensinner. I take it you are a Protestant. If so, please explain how the Protestant world lives by SS when it was disproven at the council of Trent concerning them keeping a spurious Sabbath set up by the Papacy, which they agreed with in their article of faith. Please google, Romes Challenge; Why do Protestants Keep Sunday. Please look up Romes own writings, A Doctrinal Catechism, by Rev.Stephen Keenan,p.174, Rev. Dr.Butlers Catechism, revised,p.57, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, by Msgr. Segur,p.213, The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, by Peter Geiermann,p.50. Please notice that the fourth commandment was changed to the third & all it says is, Remember the Sabbth day to keep it holy. It completely leaves out the rest which tells you which day. These are but a few of Catholic writings concerning the un-Scriptural change of the Sabbath. If you are not a Protestant, all this information probably means nothing to you. Please get a blessing in your search for truth, as we all here are endeavoring to do.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

To Mea culpa. Question. Where in Scripture can you show me that the Catholic Church is even mentioned? I keep reading from my Catholic friends that the Catholic Church is the original Church or the Church spoken of by the disciples & our Savior, is the Catholic Church. Give me Scripture please.

First of all, Catholics don’t follow the false doctrine of sola scriptura - we have the fullness of the Truth as revealed in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.

So, the fact that the word “Catholic” doesn’t appear in the Bible doesn’t violate any rule of faith or morals for us.

In fact, “Catholic” was first used in about 110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his “Letter to the Smyrneans”:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church… Not is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid

Is it interesting that it a man of Antioch who first writes the term Catholic Church, for it was at Antioch, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles (11:26), that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, p. 25-26)

St. Ignatius of Antioch is accounted an Apostolic Father by reason of his having been a hearer of the Apostle John.

This is part of what the above post is talking about with “Sacred Tradition” - what was handed down by Jesus to his apostles, and from the apostles to their successors.

The disciples were mistaken in their belief that our Saviors first coming was when He was to set up His Kingdom. They, as we all know, & they later realized, because of Scripture, that they had it backwards. On the road to Emmaus He opened ALL the Scripture concerning Himself. Please show me that He didn’t use SS.

There’s a lot here. The Kingdom of Heaven is a subject for a while different discussion. As far as Jesus on the Road to Emmaus, that’s already been covered in this thread.

Luke 24:27: And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:32 Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?

It has been stated in this thread that sola scriptura teaches that the scriptures interpret themselves. If this is true, why does Jesus have to interpret the scriptures for the disciples on the Road to Emmaus? (I’m talking about in terms of the doctrine of sola scriptura - I believe in the teaching authority of the Church - The Magisterium - which is a continuation of what Jesus himself is doing here.)

Good luck. Any person or church that says they are the only true church smells of bigotry. If that is the case our Savior lied when He stated He had sheep in other folds. Paul talks about even heathens who will recieve eternal life. I sure am glad He is the final Judge. Not you, me, my church, your church or any other person or church. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6

Was Jesus a bigot?

Jesus founded a Church - the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches that separated brethren in protestant churches have part of the truth. They just don’t have the fullness of the Truth - the Real Presence, the sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, etc.

 

[KathleenElsie]

First of all, Catholics don’t follow the false doctrine of sola scriptura - we have the fullness of the Truth as revealed in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.

So, the fact that the word “Catholic” doesn’t appear in the Bible doesn’t violate any rule of faith or morals for us.

In fact, “Catholic” was first used in about 110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his “Letter to the Smyrneans”:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church… Not is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid
Is it interesting that it a man of Antioch who first writes the term Catholic Church, for it was at Antioch, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles (11:26), that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, p. 25-26)

St. Ignatius of Antioch is accounted an Apostolic Father by reason of his having been a hearer of the Apostle John.

This is part of what the above post is talking about with “Sacred Tradition” - what was handed down by Jesus to his apostles, and from the apostles to their successors.

There’s a lot here. The Kingdom of Heaven is a subject for a while different discussion. As far as Jesus on the Road to Emmaus, that’s already been covered in this thread.

Luke 24:27: And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:32 Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?

It has been stated in this thread that sola scriptura teaches that the scriptures interpret themselves. If this is true, why does Jesus have to interpret the scriptures for the disciples on the Road to Emmaus? (I’m talking about in terms of the doctrine of sola scriptura - I believe in the teaching authority of the Church - The Magisterium - which is a continuation of what Jesus himself is doing here.)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6

Was Jesus a bigot?

Jesus founded a Church - the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches that separated brethren in protestant churches have part of the truth. They just don’t have the fullness of the Truth - the Real Presence, the sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, etc.

Holy Mother church has the whole truth.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

So, the fact that the word “Catholic” doesn’t appear in the Bible doesn’t violate any rule of faith or morals for us.

Actually, the word Catholic is in Acts. In English it is translated, “The churches throughout all…” but the Greek is ekklesia kataholos, literally, Church Catholic (universal).

In fact, “Catholic” was first used in about 110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his “Letter to the Smyrneans”:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church… Not is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid

And don’t you suppose that if St Ignatius used the word “Catholic” in writing, those who got his letter had heard the word in use before? Otherwise it would have been meaningless to them. Safe to say the word was common in conversational usage, well before Ignatius wrote it down.

 

[JRKH]

To James. What do you mean Orally? Are you saying when they reasoned with the Pharisees & Saducees they didn’t use the Torah? If so, I find that hard to believe, concerning how they were & still are very strict on the teachings of the Holy Oracles, the Law, Prophets & Writings. Thankyou for your insightful comments I have been reading. Peace to you also, my brother In Our Savior.

Thank you for your kind words, but I can only credit the Holy Spirit for I am nothing and He is All.

As to what I mean by “Orally”, I will ask you to review my post and yours previous upon which it was based.
When the disciples were arguing the case for Christ with in the synagogues were they speaking to each other or writing to each other?
Speaking of course!!
Hence my reference to oral discusions and oral conclusions. Just as we would be having if we were in the same room instead of in cyberspace.

Peace
James

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou for your reply Meaculpa. I take it interpreting, expounding Scripture means He used common sense, or extra-biblical source. I don’t want to misunderstand your reasoning, because the disciples said they came to an understanding of truth from the Scriptures He opened up to them. I still do not see any outside source, other than Scripture He opened up to them. Please remember what assuming does. I see it as it reads, not what I think it says. It is written,“Mans wisdom is foolishness unto God”.“There seems a way that is right unto man that leads unto death”. Not to sound sarcastic but maybe me using Scripture to defend my beliefs to a Catholic is in vain. That is where I stand. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou James. My question is, were the disciples not using Scripture to prove to their unbelieving brothers the Messiahship of Our Savior? There are over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah & 60 major ones in the Torah, Law, Prophets, Psalms, & writings. It doesn’t make sense that they would use extra Scriptural evidence to prove who Yeshua was. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut my brother.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I take it interpreting, expounding Scripture means He used common sense, or extra-biblical source. I don’t want to misunderstand your reasoning, because the disciples said they came to an understanding of truth from the Scriptures He opened up to them. I still do not see any outside source, other than Scripture He opened up to them.

He, Christ Himself, was the “outside source” who had to point to the Scriptures that pointed to himself. He didn’t just quote them chapter and verse (especially since chapter and verse numbers were still a millenia and half in the future!) but He explained how the Scriptures testified of Him. Also, He talked about the Pharisees who are on the “Seat of Moses” - the phrase is not found in the OT, it’s a Jewish oral tradition to call the position of religious authority the Seat of Moses.

I see it as it reads, not what I think it says. It is written,“Mans wisdom is foolishness unto God”.“There seems a way that is right unto man that leads unto death”. Not to sound sarcastic but maybe me using Scripture to defend my beliefs to a Catholic is in vain. That is where I stand. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Catholics love the Scriptures. It was Catholic monks who painstakingly copied the manuscripts before the printing press was invented, by a Catholic, to print the Scriptures. It’s not the Scripture we disagree with, but your personal interpretation.

 

[JRKH]

To Mea culpa. Question. Where in Scripture can you show me that the Catholic Church is even mentioned? I keep reading from my Catholic friends that the Catholic Church is the original Church or the Church spoken of by the disciples & our Savior, is the Catholic Church. Give me Scripture please.

How about we do this from the other direction.
You wish to know from Scripture where it proves The Catholic Church is the original. Yet when the Bible (scripture) was assembled there was but one Christian church, and it was Catholic. It was simply “The Church”.
Of course since we can’t really show “Cahtolic Church” in Scripture How about if we Show Scripture in the Catholic Church.

The NT books as we have them today were determined by THE ONLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT THE TIME, The Universal Catholic and Apostolic Church. These books were determined in council by the Church leadership under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

From Wikipedia
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canon together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In circa 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”

The disciples were mistaken in their belief that our Saviors first coming was when He was to set up His Kingdom. They, as we all know, & they later realized, because of Scripture, that they had it backwards. On the road to Emmaus He opened ALL the Scripture concerning Himself. Please show me that He didn’t use SS. Good luck. Any person or church that says they are the only true church smells of bigotry. If that is the case our Savior lied when He stated He had sheep in other folds. Paul talks about even heathens who will recieve eternal life. I sure am glad He is the final Judge. Not you, me, my church, your church or any other person or church. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

All I can say is that you should maybe trace the histories of various Churches. Then ask yourself whether Jesus Founded a Church or a plethora of conflicted denominations. Then ask, based on historical evidence, which Church He founded.
Did Jesus envision a whole series of Churches when He admonished the Bretheren to “Take it to the Church” for the resolution of issues?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thankyou James. My question is, were the disciples not using Scripture to prove to their unbelieving brothers the Messiahship of Our Savior? There are over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah & 60 major ones in the Torah, Law, Prophets, Psalms, & writings. It doesn’t make sense that they would use extra Scriptural evidence to prove who Yeshua was. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut my brother.

Of course they used OT Scripture. I never intended to say otherwise.
I was simply commenting on your reference to the Apostles “Oral Scripture” prior to the NT being written down.

The disciples of Jesus attempted to sway the Jews using Scripture just as we do to try to sway our protestant Brothers to return home to the Catholic Church.
And Often we do it through Oral Argument.

Peace
James