Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[justasking4]

guanophore;4204505]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that even though the apostle did teach some things orally we don’t know exactly what they were. The only things we know from the apostles is found only in the NT.

guanophore
If you do not wish to know what they are, you are free to avoid learning that. If you wish to limit yourself to the parts that are found in the NT, you are free to do that also.

You are not justified in believing this if there is no evidence for it. You have yet to demonstrate what this oral teaching was and i’m beginning to think it does not exist today…

This being the case, why are you here?

Off topic…View attachment 4142

 

[Cinette]

The problem is that even though the apostle did teach some things orally we don’t know exactly what they were. The only things we know from the apostles is found only in the NT.

Look at a garden. Without seeing the gardener you KNOW that he planted seeds, nourished the soil, irrigated, weeded, and produced healthy shrubs and blooming flowers!

You see the fruit and you know what went into the creation of the beautiful garden!

Twelve humble, semi-literate fishermen, inspired by the Holy Spirit and possessed with the witness of our Lord Jesus went out into the world and spread the gospel (orally). Through the guidance of the HS they laid the foundation of a Church which is over 2000 years old today.

Now “Thomas” do you need more proof?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Quote=OneNow1
Here’s the real deal !
…that the decision documented in Acts 15 was NOT made by Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura)?
The question which arose in this chapter, was about the Gentile converts and whether or not they had to be circumcised (vs 3-5). The Apostles, in their very first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem, made the decision not to demand circumcision for converts (vs 28-29), and that decision was made by the Apostles and the Holy Spirit alone, and with no mention of Scripture being consulted. There is no doubt that the Apostles knew that this particular circumstance was NOT in Scripture, and that they knew they would have to decide the result by using their own GOD given authority (Matthew 16:19,18:17-18, John 20:21-23), and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Compare that with John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-15.
This is a prime Scriptural example of the Development of Doctrine, which continues to this very day and which others reject.
See! Everything is NOT in the Bible, as the Bible plainly tells us in John 20:30-31 and John 21:25.
The situation is exactly the same today when different circumstances arise. The Catholic Church calls a council, and the Pope, the Magisterium, the Bishops and Cardinals in conjunction with the Holy Spirit make a final decision to resolve the question. Rome has spoken, the issue is settled.

Peace, OneNow1

You miss the point here. Of course the Apostles needed to define the doctrines of the Church at the beginning. Absolutely. But, the question is, “Would they have written anything the had not taught? The answer: NO. Did they teach anything they did not write. Possibly, and many believe they did. However, of what they passed on in spoken word, how much of the is PURE today? We have no assurances that any of it is, only the say so of MEN, and we know that men inheriently(sp) are corrupt. So do we take man’s word for what they say the Apostles taught or do we go to the their writings, of which there is consent as to their accuracy?”

 

[onenow1]

You miss the point here. Of course the Apostles needed to define the doctrines of the Church at the beginning. Absolutely. But, the question is, “Would they have written anything the had not taught? The answer: NO. Did they teach anything they did not write. Possibly, and many believe they did. However, of what they passed on in spoken word, how much of the is PURE today? We have no assurances that any of it is, only the say so of MEN, and we know that men inheriently(sp) are corrupt. So do we take man’s word for what they say the Apostles taught or do we go to the their writings, of which there is consent as to their accuracy?”

Quote= OneNow1 Is it any less important to define the truth today ? And tell me which of the many denominations, preach an absolute truth ?

. SS could not possibly have worked for the first 374 years of Christianity (assuming it began in 30 A.D.), since there was no New Testament at all as we know it until 404 A.D…

This is what has happened to the Holy Scriptures in the other Churchs. Slowly, gradually all of Holy Tradition has been stripped away either because someone didn’t like this or that piece or perhaps the true beauty of a portion was tarnished and it was tossed away without knowing its true value or perhaps a cheap substitute attempting to replace that which was lost, was done away with etc., until all that remains of the Tradition of the Church is the Bible.

So lets get real here , the CC is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And please give me the name of the Church which He did found, since it must still be here, as He did promise that His Church would last forever, did He not? Matthew 28:20. Did Jesus lie?

Paul admonishes those who refuse to accept the authority given it Rom 13:1-2, “Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for THERE EXISTS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FROM GOD, AND THOSE WHO EXIST HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD. Therefore HE WHO RESISTS THE AUTHORITY RESISTS THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; AND THEY THAT RESIST BRING ON THEMSELVES CONDEMNATION.”

Peace OneNow1

 

[Cinette]

You miss the point here. Of course the Apostles needed to define the doctrines of the Church at the beginning. Absolutely. But, the question is, “Would they have written anything the had not taught? The answer: NO. Did they teach anything they did not write. Possibly, and many believe they did. However, of what they passed on in spoken word, how much of the is PURE today? We have no assurances that any of it is, only the say so of MEN, and we know that men inheriently(sp) are corrupt. So do we take man’s word for what they say the Apostles taught or do we go to the their writings, of which there is consent as to their accuracy?”

Don’t forget the role of the Holy Spirit! That is the most important thing. This is no ordinary passing down of stories - it is the passing down of the TRUTH. I believe the HS would ensure that there be no error.:yup: :yup: :yup:

 

[PerryJ]

There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

Many oral traditions were written down. They are just not in the Bible. The Didache shows the mass being performed with the Body and Blood of Christ. The Didache predates the Bible and shows our faith to be correct. Oral tradition written down and yet many Protestants deny the teaching.

You wouldn’t follow the teachings of oral tradition down because you will not even use the correct Bible. We have shown historical evidence that the DCs were 100 percent approved by every Church Father until Jerome and his assumption has been proven wrong.

You claim the DC were not referenced by Christ; however, early Protestant Bibles show they were referenced over one hundred time. Your Bible also has seven other books that were not referenced by Christ yet you keep them.

Your next argumnet if the DCs were disputed. Not until Jerome and this has been proven wrong. Yet many NT books were disputed until the Cahtolic Church canonized them. You accept all of these based upon the Catholic faith.

As I have stated in other posts you are just making up excuses to do what you want. All proof shows you are wrong. As in other posts your response will be vague and without any support. I provide you historical proof to no avail.

 

[guanophore]

You are not justified in believing this if there is no evidence for it. You have yet to demonstrate what this oral teaching was and i’m beginning to think it does not exist today…

I agree. However, your refusal to accept the evidence does not make it cease to exist.

In fact, many examples have been provided for you, and you stubbornly resist them all, including the best example, the Bible which you are thumping on our heads.

It is ironic, I think that you would say “you are not justified in believing this” because the topic “Sola Scriptura?biblical?” is an excellent example of an unjustifiable believe. It is not found in the scripture, and you have admitted that you have embraced it by reason of your own “study and conclusions”. I am not even sure you know the history of this doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

Look at a garden. Without seeing the gardener you KNOW that he planted seeds, nourished the soil, irrigated, weeded, and produced healthy shrubs and blooming flowers!

You see the fruit and you know what went into the creation of the beautiful garden!

Twelve humble, semi-literate fishermen, inspired by the Holy Spirit and possessed with the witness of our Lord Jesus went out into the world and spread the gospel (orally). Through the guidance of the HS they laid the foundation of a Church which is over 2000 years old today.

Now “Thomas” do you need more proof?

Excellent example! thanks

 

[PerryJ]

To add to this thought. Christ is thought to be literate yet wrote down absolutley nothing. If it was supposed to be written down why didn’t Christ write or tell someone to write it. I am sure God could have found a scribe to follow him around. He didn’t. Why because he was creating a Church not a book. Even when he wrote something on the ground when the woman was to be stoned his writings on the ground were not recorded.

Dispute that Christ anywhere wrote one of his sayings down. Yet he was literate. If the Bible was to be the sole rule of faith why did he not write anything down. Why didn’t he have a scribe write down his works? Again because he was building a Church not a book.

 

[guanophore]

You miss the point here. Of course the Apostles needed to define the doctrines of the Church at the beginning. Absolutely.

Not just the beginning. The need for this has not changed.

But, the question is, "Would they have written anything the had not taught? The answer: NO. Did they teach anything they did not write. Possibly, and many believe they did. However, of what they passed on in spoken word, how much of the is PURE today? We have no assurances that any of it is,

I think such a statement is a slander against God.

Isa 55:9-11
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and do not return there until they have watered the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it"

What you are saying is that Jesus, when He founded His church, was too weak to uphold it by the word of His power.

only the say so of MEN, and we know that men inheriently(sp) are corrupt. So do we take man’s word for what they say the Apostles taught or do we go to the their writings, of which there is consent as to their accuracy?"

This denies several truths. One is that Jesus purified people, so that they were no longer corrupt, but sanctified. He cleaned them with the power of the Word He implanted in their hearts.

Second, it denies the power of the implanted word and God’s power to preserve it inside the souls of those He has made part of HIs building.

I agree, if it depended on man, you would be right, but it does not.

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.” Eph 6:10-11

It is His strength and power that upholds and preserves the Church.

James 1:21
welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls."

The power of the implanted word is no less than the power of the written word.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that even though the apostle did teach some things orally we don’t know exactly what they were. The only things we know from the apostles is found only in the NT.

Cinette
Look at a garden. Without seeing the gardener you KNOW that he planted seeds, nourished the soil, irrigated, weeded, and produced healthy shrubs and blooming flowers!

You see the fruit and you know what went into the creation of the beautiful garden!

Twelve humble, semi-literate fishermen, inspired by the Holy Spirit and possessed with the witness of our Lord Jesus went out into the world and spread the gospel (orally). Through the guidance of the HS they laid the foundation of a Church which is over 2000 years old today.

Now “Thomas” do you need more proof?

I have no problem with the apostles or Jesus teaching orally the Word. However the only thing we have from them is found in the written Word of God. There is no such thing today for us a oral teaching by them that is not recorded in the Scriptures. If you claim there is an oral teaching of the apostles not recorded in the Scriptures you are going to need to show that with some clear examples of what that is. Can you do so?

 

[justasking4]

To add to this thought. Christ is thought to be literate yet wrote down absolutley nothing. If it was supposed to be written down why didn’t Christ write or tell someone to write it. I am sure God could have found a scribe to follow him around. He didn’t. Why because he was creating a Church not a book. Even when he wrote something on the ground when the woman was to be stoned his writings on the ground were not recorded.

Dispute that Christ anywhere wrote one of his sayings down. Yet he was literate. If the Bible was to be the sole rule of faith why did he not write anything down. Why didn’t he have a scribe write down his works? Again because he was building a Church not a book.

It true that we have no such specific command from Him to write down His teachings. However, the mere fact the church considers the written Scriptrues to be inspired-inerrant Word of God tells us that He certainly did intend His teachings to be written down. Secondly, He does command John in Revelation 1:11 to write down what he is about to see and to pass it on to other churches.
Secondly, Christianity has always had the written Scriptures since the beginning. Since the time of Christ it accepted the writings of the OT. It would make sense for the church to follow this model in its teachings of Christ and the apostles.

 

[PerryJ]

It true that we have no such specific command from Him to write down His teachings. However, the mere fact the church considers the written Scriptrues to be inspired-inerrant Word of God tells us that He certainly did intend His teachings to be written down. Secondly, He does command John in Revelation 1:11 to write down what he is about to see and to pass it on to other churches.
Secondly, Christianity has always had the written Scriptures since the beginning. Since the time of Christ it accepted the writings of the OT. It would make sense for the church to follow this model in its teachings of Christ and the apostles.

This is high level gobbly goop.

The Church never had the intention that the word of Scripture was it. To make this claim is just historically incorrect. The NT wasn’t canonized for 400 years.

True he does state this and as such if you follow that logic you should only follow Revelation. No one had a Bible or knew what is was. In fact Revelations was one of the most disputed books of the Bible. With the logic you use on the DCs you shouldn’t even being reading it.

Christian did not always have the scriptures. The OT was in dispute by the Jewish faith. There is no contradicting that. The OT was identified by the Church; however, it is not the books you use.

The Church was following the model. It was oral tradition. That is how the Jewish faith was passed on. Few Jewish people could read. They also did not have a set number of books. Their whole life was based upon Jewish tradition.

It wasn’t Christians defining this it was Catholics.

Your statements are in error and do not have any historical support. Do you believe that making blanket statments that are in error is the way to following? Everything in your post can be refuted historically.

I heard a quote that was good:

Faith and reason are part of the life of a Christian.

Faith without reason creates extremisim.

Reason without Faith creates atheist.

Even people that try to defend SS must use some logic. As stated not one of your statements is historically correct.

 

[Cinette]

I have no problem with the apostles or Jesus teaching orally the Word. However the only thing we have from them is found in the written Word of God. There is no such thing today for us a oral teaching by them that is not recorded in the Scriptures. If you claim there is an oral teaching of the apostles not recorded in the Scriptures you are going to need to show that with some clear examples of what that is. Can you do so?

***Have you not read Post #324 which answers your question also.

My example of the garden also illustrates Oral Tradition.

StPaul writing also said “hold on to all the Traditions whether by word of mouth or what is written”

Nowhere were the Apostles told to commit all the truths to writing.

If you are not going to read the posts with attention what is the point in debating with you? I have seen some very good answers but you ignore them and keep asking the same question:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :bigyikes: ***

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4207132]This is high level gobbly goop.

The Church never had the intention that the word of Scripture was it. To make this claim is just historically incorrect.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

The NT wasn’t canonized for 400 years.

This is true. However this does not mean the 27 books were not inspired Scripture before this time.

True he does state this and as such if you follow that logic you should only follow Revelation. No one had a Bible or knew what is was.

They did have the OT since the beginning and the letters of Paul and the 4 gospels.

In fact Revelations was one of the most disputed books of the Bible.

True. However we do accept it as the Word of God.

With the logic you use on the DCs you shouldn’t even being reading it.

They should not be used to base doctrines or practices on.

Christian did not always have the scriptures. The OT was in dispute by the Jewish faith.

Not so. Jesus Himself knew that the OT was Scripture and He uses it as an authority and a support of His teachings.

There is no contradicting that. The OT was identified by the Church; however, it is not the books you use.

Did the Jews in the time of Christ know that Isaiah or Jeremiah was inspired Scripture?

The Church was following the model. It was oral tradition. That is how the Jewish faith was passed on. Few Jewish people could read. They also did not have a set number of books. Their whole life was based upon Jewish tradition.

They also had their Scriptures written down. We see this in Luke 4:16-21. Secondly we know from Romans 3:2 they were entrusted with the oracles of God i.e. the Scriptures.

It wasn’t Christians defining this it was Catholics.

Not so. The Jews knew what there OT canon was. They never accepted the DC’s as Scripture.

Your statements are in error and do not have any historical support. Do you believe that making blanket statments that are in error is the way to following? Everything in your post can be refuted historically.

I have yet to see it done…

I heard a quote that was good:

Faith and reason are part of the life of a Christian.

Faith without reason creates extremisim.

Reason without Faith creates atheist.

Even people that try to defend SS must use some logic. As stated not one of your statements is historically correct.

View attachment 4145

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yet the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Tradition has authority over Scripture, kind of contraditory. I’ve noticed that a lot of Roman Catholic doctrine is implied, yet when a Protestant uses implication as a platform is it ignored.

Gabriel of 12
You falsely accuse what the Catholic church teaches be careful; The Catholic church never teaches that Tradition has authority over Scripture! please get this lie from satan out of your thinking and please refrain from spreading such false accusations.
The Roman Catholic doctrine is implied through Sacred Scripture from Oral Tadition, which is the living Memory of Jesus teachings and the apostles, which are recorded in Sacred Scripture, If a Protestant or non catholic implies Sola Scriptura as a platform, it has been asked prove it through Sola Scriptura? and yet No one for 500 years is able to do so, not even here, as this topic of discussion slowly gets off topic.

Why follow a document that even the Roman Catholic historians admit is a forgery? Why do you think some of the books that were canonized were removed by the protestant reformers, it wasn’t out of arrogance or hatred for the RCC it was because these books were in question as to their validity. Better to remove something that is in doubt then to have error enter into ones beliefs

Gabriel of 12
I dont know where you are getting your information about documents from the first century. For your information it is recorded many times Catholics disagreeing, or others as yourself outside the church making unprovable false accusations about The Catholic church. Sure there was always debate on faith, docrinal issues, history records these events, what you deliberately leave out is the conclusion, how Catholicism defeated and overcame these differences, thus leaving the Apostolic teaching unchanged these 2000 years. What is most telling that these first century documents, and scripture solidified all of Christianity in the Credo Which we believe today as Catholics from the apostles. Please dont pick out historical events without investigating the outcome and victory by many a Martyred Pope and Saint to keep the apostolic teachings today.

You presume too much, not all protestants deny all the above. And some of which you have listed they only take a different stand upon. What is solid is that most, but sadly not all, believe in the divinity of Christ and the Grace that he has brought to us through his sacrificial blood.

Gabriel of 12
You have presumed to much; I did not say “All protestants” you have misquoted me, I stated " Most Sola Scripturalist". If you believe in the sacrifical blood of Jesus as you think, why dont you obey Jesus command to “Drink my blood” so as to have eternal life? You see this is the difference between Oral Teachings direct from the Apostles and Jesus himself which Catholics follow Jesus Command to “Eat and drink his body and blood” Where as Sola Scripturalist, although this belief is recorded in Scripture, yet Most Protestants and non catholics including Sola Scripturalist’s refuse to obey Jesus command, Sola scriptura, Oral Teachings of Apostles. You see it is the Oral Teachings of the Apostles handed down that taught these mysteries of God, and are able to believe them. Sola Scriptura 1500 years after the fact has absolutely no way to come to the accurate knowledge of these mysteries of God, lest they repent and believe the Gospel.

Question, would the Apostles have written anything they had not spoken? of course you would say that Tradition is that which they spoke but did not write, and I can agree to that. But, what I cannot agree to is that it was kept pure for all these years. And therefore, if were are to maintain our path to salvation then we must rely on Holy Writ.

Gabriel of 12
That’s the problem here, we are not taught by the Apostles to rely on Holy Writ. First of all the Written Word of God was inspired by the Holy Spirit recorded by man, thus the Word of God is incarnate, fully human and fully divine. What makes the gospel teachings of Jesus and the apostles pure all these years, is due to the blood sacrifice made by Jesus, Apostles, the first 30 Popes who succeded after Peter not to mention many other Martyrs who died for these Oral Traditional teachings from first century Christians.
In addition to the Saints and Martyrs who kept this Catholic faith intact these last 2000 years had the protection of the Holy Spirit to teach from Error, and the guarantee from Jesus himself who stated to never leave the Catholic church orphans, and will be with here until the end of the age.The Gospel remains intact due to the divine protection and blood sacrifice of the Catholic Saints and Martyrs.

If we rely on Holy Writ how do we determine which is correct and which is not correct? It therefore must be evaluated against other documents during the time of the Apostles as they are the originators of NT writ and then we must look to OT writ, and the has be preserved by the Jews.

Gabriel of 12
Again The Catholic church does not rely on a Holy Writ only. The Holy Writ to which you refer to in the Catholic church, are those things taught to the first century Christians Orally, and then recorded. The Didache, or Credo are direct “Holy Writ” Oral Traditional Teachings from Jesus and the apostles written down for confirmation of the true Christian belief, and what new Christians are to believe in order to remain in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church, not to mention these Oral Tradtiions handed down are to be kept free from Error and Heresies.

**I still have not seen any proof of any Sola Scriptura from any Holy Writ from antiquity, only the Catholic faith exists from here and her doctrines.

Peace be with you**

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4206548]Many oral traditions were written down. They are just not in the Bible. The Didache shows the mass being performed with the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Didache predates the Bible and shows our faith to be correct.

The Didache dated by most scholars to the late first/early second century. This would place it after the apostles died. Secondly it was never accepted as being Scripture. If it was written by the apostles we don’t which if any did. Correct?

Oral tradition written down and yet many Protestants deny the teaching.

We can only know what the oral teachings were if they were written down. The only teachings of Christ and His apostles can be found in the NT. They exist nowhere else.

You wouldn’t follow the teachings of oral tradition down because you will not even use the correct Bible. We have shown historical evidence that the DCs were 100 percent approved by every Church Father until Jerome and his assumption has been proven wrong.

This is not entirely true. Let me quote a Catholic source for you on this:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

You claim the DC were not referenced by Christ; however, early Protestant Bibles show they were referenced over one hundred time. Your Bible also has seven other books that were not referenced by Christ yet you keep them.

There are no direct quotes from them in the NT that i’m aware of.

Your next argumnet if the DCs were disputed. Not until Jerome and this has been proven wrong. Yet many NT books were disputed until the Cahtolic Church canonized them. You accept all of these based upon the Catholic faith.

As I have stated in other posts you are just making up excuses to do what you want. All proof shows you are wrong. As in other posts your response will be vague and without any support. I provide you historical proof to no avail.

We do know that the DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. See my response above. This is a historical fact beyond dispute.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You miss the point here. Of course the Apostles needed to define the doctrines of the Church at the beginning. Absolutely. But, the question is, “Would they have written anything the had not taught? The answer: NO. Did they teach anything they did not write. Possibly, and many believe they did. However, of what they passed on in spoken word, how much of the is PURE today? We have no assurances that any of it is, only the say so of MEN, and we know that men inheriently(sp) are corrupt. So do we take man’s word for what they say the Apostles taught or do we go to the their writings, of which there is consent as to their accuracy?”

The assurances that you seek can be made real by the blood of the Martyred Popes and Saints, who gave testimony of their lives for this Holy Catholic Apostolic faith unchanged. These were learned men, some taught from the Apostles themselves, I dont think they would have went to their Martyrdom for your alleged forged document, or the Catholic belief handed down from the Apostles if this Catholic faith was not authentic teachings from Jesus and the apostles.

Question? has any Sola Scripturalists ever went to their death for believing Sola Scriptura? Would you die for this man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as the early Christian Martyrs died for their Catholic belief’s to which you protest 2000 years later?

**The one assurance that comes to us from antiquity to today is the pronouncement of the “AMEN”. Every Catholic Christian ever lived from the apostles to today have all pronounced the “AMEN” to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The "AMEN’ is pronounced from every baptized Catholic Christian that ever lived. So if you want one word from Oral Tradition Teachings from Jesus and the Apostles, all what was handed down is stated in every “AMEN” in the Catholic liturgies. I dont think any of your Sola Scripturalist can contest the “AMEN” belief pronounced by every Christian for the first 1500 years before Sola Scriptura got invented.

Peace**

 

[PerryJ]

The Didache dated by most scholars to the late first/early second century. This would place it after the apostles died. Secondly it was never accepted as being Scripture. If it was written by the apostles we don’t which if any did. Correct? .

That is my point. When oral traditions are written down you still ignore them.

Many of the Books of the Bible we not written by the Apostles? Even some Gospels were not written by apostles? Your debating without logic again.

Some of the NT was also written later than the Apostles’ death?

This is not entirely true. Let me quote a Catholic source for you on this:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”.

You sidestep the point. All early Church Father’s prior to Jerome believed in the DCs. His argument has been disproven. I guess you still haven’t looked up if this is true or not. Have you spent the time to see why you follow the wrong books of the Bible. Are you content with making mistatements or are you going to spend time and find out the truth and follow the correct Bible?

The Church Fathers in the first three centuries did provide list of books; however, none of them correspond to NT collection agreed to by the Church. (Interesting how Sola Sciptura could have existed for 300 years without a Bible.)

Interesting how you take the Catholic Churches word on the NT; but not on the OT. Note even the Reformers disputed the NT books.

There are no direct quotes from them in the NT that i’m aware of. )

If you use this theory you would have to throw out the books of Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum Esther, The Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes as none of these receive even one single New Testament citation.

Are you smarter than the Reformers that listed them as cross references? Are you more inspired than the Reformers that listed them?

How do you reconcile this with the DCs being accepted for years and NT was not.

We do know that the DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. See my response above. This is a historical fact beyond dispute.

That is because the Church did not have any real disputes prior to this. Jerome submitted to the Church. Did you skip over the part where he submitts to the authority of the Church?

If you read about the Reformation why Luther threw them out. He was losing a debate about purgatory. Did you go back and read his statements concerning this?

Again you will use Jerome’s list of books and ignore his teaching with regard to opposing the Church.

Your statements do not use history or logic. Why?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Didache dated by most scholars to the late first/early second century. This would place it after the apostles died. Secondly it was never accepted as being Scripture. If it was written by the apostles we don’t which if any did. Correct?

Gabriel of 12
The Didache is a direct teaching from the Apostles recorded in the Didache, the apostles are accredited to the Didache just as Moses is accredited to the first 5 books in the bible. The Apostles Orally taught what got recorded in the Didache as instructions to the growing Christian faith to practice what the apostles taught Orally to the Catholic (universal Christian) church.

We can only know what the oral teachings were if they were written down. The only teachings of Christ and His apostles can be found in the NT. They exist nowhere else.

**Gabriel of 12
And the Oral Teachings got written down in the Didache on how to practice and believe in Christianity which is what the Catholic church practices and believes for 2000 years now. The new man made theology of Sola Scriptura can only see the writings in the Canonized books of the Catholic church from the New Testament only, but Sola Scripturalist can not see the faith of the Apostles from a letter only, it has to be believed first, this is the contradiction between Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradtion/ Sacred Scripture. **

There are no direct quotes from them in the NT that i’m aware of.

**Gabriel of 12
There are 300 quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament. The reason the Catholic church did not reject these books as did the first century Jews from Jamnia 100 a.d, and the protestant reformers, is because Jesus and the apostles taught from these books. St. Jerome, St. Augustine, disputed these books because of the popular Jewish rejection of no Hebrew counterparts to these Greek translations. Never the Less, the Catholic church stood by Our Lord Jesus teachings and kept them and canonized them as acceptable to be used in her liturgies. As the untold history confirms that the Catholic church put the new testament together to be used in the Mass liturgies. Not for Sola Scriptura theology. **

We do know that the DC’s were not considered Scripture until Trent. See my response above. This is a historical fact beyond dispute.

Gabriel of 12
The fact is; Trent closed the discussion of the disputed books once and for all. Trent was dealing with attacks on the already canonized books of the bible, Trent heard the arguments, and closed the discussion for all time, and made the statement, if any one refuses these books as inspired let them be anathema, excommunicated.

Peace be with you