Question for SS believers:

[bookgirl32]

The Bible make prophesies and those prophesies come to pass. That is how you know the Bible is of divine origin.

So are all the other non-canonical gospels confirming the prophesies of the OT divine too?

And who and/or what made or wrote prophecies about the Old Testament for it to confirm?

 

[SyCarl]

Because he was just talking about what he wrote, and if what he wrote was all that was needed, then why the others? I don’t think that the authors of all of the books of the Bible were all omnicient (sp?) when it came to what was going to be the Bible. I don’t think that is explicit OR implicit, anywhere in the Bible. So if that’s true (and you might disagree with it), then he was, again, only speaking about his own book. So by YOUR definition then he’s negating the need for the other books as well as Tradition.
That’s my point.

And that is exactly what I said. He is talking about his one book being sufficient. (Why would he only write something partially sufficient and then say it will allow us to believe and be saved?) As John says that his one book is sufficient then since it is a subset of the whole Bible, then the whole Bible must be sufficient since a part of it is.

 

[JTBT]

So are all the other non-canonical gospels confirming the prophesies of the OT divine too?

And who and/or what made or wrote prophecies about the Old Testament for it to confirm?

do believer the OT is inspired?

 

[bookgirl32]

And that is exactly what I said. He is talking about his one book being sufficient. (Why would he only write something partially sufficient and then say it will allow us to believe and be saved?) As John says that his one book is sufficient then since it is a subset of the whole Bible, then the whole Bible must be sufficient since a part of it is.

What you said was that he said that his book was sufficient, and that this was enough to define what is and is not sufficient, but you’re admitting he only said it about his book. So, again, by your own argument, you’re claiming that he is saying that NOTHING but his book is sufficient. He had no way of knowing what the rest of the Bible was going to be, or even if there was going to BE a “rest of the Bible” (NT). Unless of course you believe the councils that determined the “whole Bible” as also divinely inspired?

 

[bookgirl32]

do believer the OT is inspired?

Answer my questions first.

 

[JTBT]

So are all the other non-canonical gospels confirming the prophesies of the OT divine too?

Some maybe others probably not, but that is not what sola scriptura is about; what we have in the canon is sufficent.

And who and/or what made or wrote prophecies about the Old Testament for it to confirm?

I’m not sure what you are asking here

…your turn to answer my question

 

[bookgirl32]

Some maybe others probably not, but that is not what sola scriptura is about; what we have in the canon is sufficent.

So if you believe that others, outside of the Bible, may be divinely inspired, how do you know if they are or they aren’t, or if they have something in them that you need to know?

I’m not sure what you are asking here

You claim that your reasoning for believing in the divinely inspired revelation of the Bible is that the NT describes the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. I was just carrying on your argument a little further, is that your reasoning for also believing the OT to be divinely inspired?

…your turn to answer my question

Yes I believe the OT is inspired, but not because it told me it was (it didn’t), but b/c the Council that declared it inspired told me it does.

 

[SyCarl]

What you said was that he said that his book was sufficient, and that this was enough to define what is and is not sufficient, but you’re admitting he only said it about his book. So, again, by your own argument, you’re claiming that he is saying that NOTHING but his book is sufficient. He had no way of knowing what the rest of the Bible was going to be, or even if there was going to BE a “rest of the Bible” (NT). Unless of course you believe the councils that determined the “whole Bible” as also divinely inspired?

There is a difference between saying something is sufficient and saying that nothing else is sufficient. A $1 pack of cards may be sufficient for me to play a game. That would not mean that I could not have extra packs of cards or that if I had a different $25 pack that it would not be sufficient too.

 

[JTBT]

So if you believe that others, outside of the Bible, may be divinely inspired, how do you know if they are or they aren’t, or if they have something in them that you need to know?

if I can establish that the Gospel of John is inspired, then the Gospel of John tells me it is sufficient, then that is how I know.

You claim that your reasoning for believing in the divinely inspired revelation of the Bible is that the NT describes the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. I was just carrying on your argument a little further, is that your reasoning for also believing the OT to be divinely inspired?

pretty much

Yes I believe the OT is inspired, but not because it told me it was (it didn’t), but b/c the Council that declared it inspired told me it does.

how did John the Baptist know the OT was inspired? He had no Council to ask.

and let me put this out there too. how can you not believe that the Bible is sufficient and still believe that protestants are lead to salvation?

 

[bookgirl32]

There is a difference between saying something is sufficient and saying that nothing else is sufficient. A $1 pack of cards may be sufficient for me to play a game. That would not mean that I could not have extra packs of cards or that if I had a different $25 pack that it would not be sufficient too.

Hey, you sound pretty Catholic to me in that statement, that was my point exactly. John’s wording there was not to exclude any other source of “sufficient” divine revelation, only to assert that his is. So I guess that verse doesn’t assert that Tradition is NOT divine revelation after all, does it?

 

[bookgirl32]

if I can establish that the Gospel of John is inspired, then the Gospel of John tells me it is sufficient, then that is how I know.

That’s my point,how do you established that the Gospel of John is inspired?

pretty much

So then what prophecies were made where, before the Old Testament, for you to make sure were fulfilled as your proof?

how did John the Baptist know the OT was inspired? He had no Council to ask.

He was Jewish, he believed the teaching authorities of his faith, correct?

 

[JTBT]

That’s my point,how do you established that the Gospel of John is inspired?

So then what prophecies were made where, before the Old Testament, for you to make sure were fulfilled as your proof?

He was Jewish, he believed the teaching authorities of his faith, correct?

are you going to answer my last question?

 

[bookgirl32]

are you going to answer my last question?

Whoops, yes, I do believe they’re divinely inspired, because my teaching authority told me, not because they did (they don’t).

 

[SyCarl]

Hey, you sound pretty Catholic to me in that statement, that was my point exactly. John’s wording there was not to exclude any other source of “sufficient” divine revelation, only to assert that his is. So I guess that verse doesn’t assert that Tradition is NOT divine revelation after all, does it?

But sola scriptura does not deny that Tradition may have some divine revelation. It asserts that the Bible contains what is necessary.

 

[bookgirl32]

But sola scriptura does not deny that Tradition may have some divine revelation. It asserts that the Bible contains what is necessary.

So by that aren’t you also saying that Tradition is NOT necessary? If you are, then that IS what you’re believing sola scriptura to mean, and if you’re not, then you might be missing some other necessary truth then, correct?

 

[savedsinner]

The Bible make prophesies and those prophesies come to pass. That is how you know the Bible is of divine origin.

First of all, not all the books of the bible make prophesies, and second, there is a prophesy quoted in the bible from the book of Enoch which were is not included in the canon of the bible.

Some maybe others probably not, but that is not what sola scriptura is about; what we have in the canon is sufficent.

The Catholic church teaches that the bible is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient.
That is that everything a Christian needs for salvation is contained in scripture but not in a way that you don’t need an outside source to interpret it.

if I can establish that the Gospel of John is inspired, then the Gospel of John tells me it is sufficient, then that is how I know.

OK… in just a short statement show us how you can establish that the Gospel of John is inspired just from scripture.

Now don’t say that it was accepted by the early Christians as inspired, because that is deferring to Tradition, and not by scripture alone.

 

[SyCarl]

So by that aren’t you also saying that Tradition is NOT necessary? If you are, then that IS what you’re believing sola scriptura to mean, and if you’re not, then you might be missing some other necessary truth then, correct?

It is not missing anything necessary because as I have indicated John says this Gospel is enough. And yes, I am saying that Tradition is not required. That does not mean it cannot contain truth, but what is necessary is in the Bible. The Bible itself contains truth that I don’t think is necessary for salvation. For example, Numbers tells us how many of each tribe of Israel left Egypt. That is contained in divine revelation, but is it necessary that we know it?

Was Mary sinless. Tradition would say she was. People would argue that “full of grace” implies this. However the Bible also says that everyone except Jesus has sinned. She may have been without sin but since it is not clear from the Bible it is also not necessary to believe it.

There is also the question of what would actually be Tradition vs traditions of men. We are warned against traditions of men. Was Mary ever virgin? The Bible contains statements talking about brothers of Jesus. Tradition says that Mary had no other children, However what is the actual Tradition? Up until Jerome it was generally viewed that these brothers were step-brothers; children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. Then Jerome says that they are really cousins. Why the change? What was the actual tradition?

 

[savedsinner]

It is not missing anything necessary because as I have indicated John says this Gospel is enough. And yes, I am saying that Tradition is not required. That does not mean it cannot contain truth, but what is necessary is in the Bible. The Bible itself contains truth that I don’t think is necessary for salvation. For example, Numbers tells us how many of each tribe of Israel left Egypt. That is contained in divine revelation, but is it necessary that we know it?

There is also the question of what would actually be Tradition vs traditions of men. We are warned against traditions of men. Was Mary ever virgin? The Bible contains statements talking about brothers of Jesus. Tradition says that Mary had no other Tradition, However what is the actual Tradition? Up until Jerome it was generally viewed that these brothers were step-brothers; children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. Then Jerome says that they are really cousins. Why the change? What was the actual tradition?

The Catholic church teaches that the bible is Materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient.

First of all, you are assuming that the Gospel of John is an inspired book of God. How do you know this for a fact.

You are confusing Tradition with a capital “T” with tradition with a small case “t”.

The Tradition which is of the capital “T” is that Mary had not other children besides Jesus, she was an ever virgin.
The tradition which is of the capital “t” is that of the relations of the brothers. The Church doesn’t infallibly define the exact relations of the kindred of Jesus, only that Mary was ever virgin.

 

[bookgirl32]

It is not missing anything necessary because as I have indicated John says this Gospel is enough. And yes, I am saying that Tradition is not required. That does not mean it cannot contain truth, but what is necessary is in the Bible. The Bible itself contains truth that I don’t think is necessary for salvation. For example, Numbers tells us how many of each tribe of Israel left Egypt. That is contained in divine revelation, but is it necessary that we know it?

John says HIS gospel is enough. Is this a statement, in and of itself, that anything else is not enough? You’ve said no. So is this a statement, in and of itself, that anything else is not necessary?

Was Mary sinless. Tradition would say she was. People would argue that “full of grace” implies this. However the Bible also says that everyone except Jesus has sinned. She may have been without sin but since it is not clear from the Bible it is also not necessary to believe it.

It is necessary to believe God, period. What I’m trying to discuss with you is where is God’s total and complete revelation contained?

There is also the question of what would actually be Tradition vs traditions of men. We are warned against traditions of men.

Just as you trusted the Church to define scripture for you (as in what books are in it), it would be the same for Tradition vs. tradition, if you were to come to a point where you would believe that Tradition is necessary truth along with scripture, both being under the interpretative (is that a word? ) authority that God placed over it. So just as the Church defined what scripture was truth, it also defines what tradition is truth.

Was Mary ever virgin? The Bible contains statements talking about brothers of Jesus. Tradition says that Mary had no other Tradition, However what is the actual Tradition?Up until Jerome it was generally viewed that these brothers were step-brothers; children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. Then Jerome says that they are really cousins. Why the change? What was the actual tradition?

The first is actual, documented dogma of the Church, declared openly by the Church as a truth revealed through God’s orally communicated word (Tradition).

The second is pointless, it doesn’t matter. Cousins or stepchildren are still not biological children, which in effect leaves Mary still a virgin, neither changes this state.

 

[JTBT]

Whoops, yes, I do believe they’re divinely inspired, because my teaching authority told me, not because they did (they don’t).

sorry I was refering to this question.

how can you not believe that the Bible is sufficient and still believe that protestants are lead to salvation?

I don’t see how the Catholic Church can say that sola scriptura (not solo scriptura) doesn’t work and still say that those in reformed churches are breathern and in imperfect communion with Rome.