Sola scripture from satan

[w_stewart]

First of all, you must prove it (sola scriptura) to be definitely false (which I doubt you can do).

No apostles ever taught that it is the Bible that should be the sole rule of faith. History tells us that it was the rebellious Martin Luther who introduced this doctrine.

And even if it were to be be false, you still must prove it to be inspired by satan (not everything false is satanic).

False teeth are not satanic .

Seriously, whatever teachings contrary to those of God are definitely from Satan.

God teaches us that aside from the Scriptures, there is Tradition that we must hold on to.

If any, even an angel coming from heaven, introduces doctrine contrary to what God teaches, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).

And even if it were to be inspired by satan, you still must prove it to be satan’s greatest tool.

It is safer to say that the Sola Scriptura, a doctrine inspired by Satan, is ONE of his greatest tools.

 

[w_stewart]

So then rather than “sola Scriptura” you adhere to "sola ecclesia."So you’re saying anything contrary to or other than the teachings of your church is Satanic.Because they’re not “sola ecclesia?”

Define what is “sola ecclesia”.

Jesus said that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church.

He promised to the Church to send the Holy Spirit to abide her forever.

Paul said the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

These promises are given to the Church but not given to the Bible.

But remember, “excaliber’s,” original rationale was that because Satan used Scripture to temp Jesus, “sola Scriptura” was invented by Satan. Is that sound reasoning to you?

The Sola Scriptura doctrine is inspired by Satan. That I am definite.

 

[mozart-250]

Definition, according to Wikipedia:
“Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”

I see no exception to the Canon by this definition, nor have I ever seen that definition anywhere except by you, Mr.Mozart.

Yup. Wikipedia is sure the definitive source for theological knowledge.

I will let you in on something…Wikipedia simplifies. Why don’t you let those who believe in Sola Scripture tell you what it means and how the canon fits into it.

A better question for Sola Scripturists would be: What invalidates oral tradition?

Separate issue

Yep. I was saying as far as the revisionists (i.e., the "reformers) were concerned, they had the burden of proof when they broke away from the Catholic Church.

Yup as I said, if one want to say it is definitively true, they have the burden of proof.

But you are saying it is definitively false. Therefore you have the burden of proof.

This, my friends, is an example of fleeing the arguement, by throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "well, it can’t be difinitively proved either way, so we might as well live in peace and cut the “inflammatory rhetoric.” A-ha! But then he goes on to use inflammatory rhetoric, saying “others” say it, when he himself probably agrees with them and wants to sling mud:

Just a hint…I give great weight to ability to show charity to those who disagree when evaluating a faith that is not mine. Your assuming the worst of motives in my comments and sarcastically mocking me is not casting your denomination in good light in my estimation.

But it is obvious that you don’t understand the rules of logic and unprovable assertions. That’s ok…just something you might want to educate yourself about.

Then he goes on with the “Oh, poor, persecuted me! Woe is me! The moderators would kick me out but they won’t kick out these vile Catholic swine! Woe is me!” Lame. Really lame.

See my comments above sarcasm and assuming the worst.

If Catholicism is really the one true church that it claims for itself, I think I have a right to expect this to be reflected in how they interact with others. You are reinforcing my beliefs that you claims of superiority lack substance.

For the record I think the moderators here do a fine job. They actually show less bias than a couple of non-Catholic forums I have been on.

But if you want to believe that I think you all are “vile Catholic swine”, go right ahead. You just reflect very poorly on your denomination, that’s all.

I count it as a one-“church” denomination, because the only difference is that others have more communities in them.

If you want to redefine the word denomination over and above what the dictionary says, go right ahead. I will stick to the dictionary thank you.

 

[ryanoneil]

I cobbled together this response from the book “Jesus of Nazareth” pages 34-38

The devil cites Holy Scripture in order to lure Jesus into his trap. He quotes Psalm 91:11. “For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.” The devil proves to be a bible expert. The fact is that scriptural exegiesis can become a tool of the Antichrist.

The theological debate between Jesus and the devil is a dispute over the correct interpretation of Scripture, and it is relevant to every period of history. Jesus answers (Duet 6:16) “You shall not put the Lord you God to the test.”

Satan is like the Israelites in (Ex 17:7) “They put the Lord to the proof by saying, ’ Is the Lord among us or not?” So, God has to submit to experiment and is tested like a product. This implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him. To think like that is to make oneself God. ***This is the real issue. The danger is making God what we want Him to be, through the use of scripture, instead of submiting to who He really is. ** *(my own words)

Jesus didn’t jump for Satan and didn’t tempt God. He leaped as an act of God’s love for men onto the cross. He knew that when He leaped He could only fall into the kindly hands of the Father. This is the real meaning of Psalm 91. If you follow the will of God you know that in spite of all the terrible things that happen to you, you can go on trusting in the One who loves you, and you will never lose a final refuge.

Yet this trust, which we cultivate on the authority of Scripture and at the invitation of the risen Lord, is something quite different from the reckless defiance of God that would make God our servant.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[mozart-250]

No apostles ever taught that it is the Bible that should be the sole rule of faith. History tells us that it was the rebellious Martin Luther who introduced this doctrine.

Now I believe it is Catholics who (correctly) claim that just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean that it is false.

Siimilarly just because there is no record of apostles teaching it doesn’t mean that it is false.

Using the word “rebellious” prior to Martin Luther is making a one-sided judgement that I believe even your own denomination doesn’t believe. I think more temperate posters here have said there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

False teeth are not satanic .

Seriously, whatever teachings contrary to those of God are definitely from Satan.

I understand where you are coming from but I am not sure this is true. I can’t find in the Bible any statement that definitively says that everything that is not true theologically is satanic. Now ifyou can show negative cause and effect from false teaching, that would bolster your case I think.

But step one is to prove an assertion false.

God teaches us that aside from the Scriptures, there is Tradition that we must hold on to.

Yup…but there are two issues with Tradition
(1) Identifying true unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus something else.
(2) The weight of unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus the written word of God.

If any, even an angel coming from heaven, introduces doctrine contrary to what God teaches, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).

Hmm…my Bible uses the words “preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you”. I think that is different from your translation in that not all doctrine is a part of the gospel.

It is safer to say that the Sola Scriptura, a doctrine inspired by Satan, is ONE of his greatest tools.

By saying Sola Scriptura is satanic, you really give the impression of not holding the written word of God in that high regard. Particularly when you can’t even prove it false.

But I do comment you for showing a more-even tempered spirit than the previous guy I responded to.

 

[Harpazo]

Catholics AND Orthodox Christians must have really missed the boat somewhere, considering, Sola Scriptura was never an issue in all of Christian history until 1517…

Would God have allowed His people to stray for 1500 years? I think that would go against the very nature of God.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

As you know, I am an Ahmadi a peaceful Muslim. I respect your religion.

We understand from Quran/Islam/Muhammad that Sola Scripture is never sufficient for guidance of the human beings, it must be accompanied by Sunnah ( the acts of the Prophet) and Hadith ( the sayings of the Prophet), but these must be interpreted within the purview of the Scripture, never against it.

Quran

[4:153] And those who believe in Allah and in all his Messengers and make no distinction between any of them, to such He will soon give their rewards. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[4:154] The people of the Book ask thee to bring down upon them a Book from heaven. They asked Moses a greater thing than this. They said, ‘Show us Allah openly.’ Thereupon a destructive punishment overtook them because of their transgression. Then they took the calf for worship after clear Signs had come to them, but We pardoned even that. And We gave Moses a manifest authority.
[4:155] And We raised high above them the Mount while making a covenant with them, and We said to them, ‘Enter the gate submissively,’ and We said to them, ‘Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath.’ And We took from them a firm covenant.
[4:156] So, for their breaking the covenant, and their denial of the Signs of Allah, and their seeking to slay the Prophets unjustly, and their saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers,’ - nay, but Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not but little -

[17:91] And they say, 'We will not believe in thee until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth;
[17:92] 'Or, thou have a garden of date-palms and vines and cause streams to gush forth in the midst thereof in abundance;
[17:93] 'Or, thou cause the heaven to fall upon us in pieces, as thou hast claimed, or, thou bring Allah and the angels before us face to face;
[17:94] ‘Or, thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a Book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am but a mortal sent as a Messenger.’
[17:95] And nothing prevents people from believing when the guidance comes to them save that they say, ‘Has Allah sent a man like us as a Messenger?’
[17:96] Say, ‘Had there been in the earth angels walking about in peace and quiet, We would have certainly sent down to them from heaven an angel as a Messenger.’
[17:97] Say, 'Sufficient is Allah for a Witness between me and you; surely, He knows and sees His servants full well.’

Unquote

Thanks

 

[anthony022071]

Well, Jesus did answer Satan back with Scripture. He didn’t say, “tradition says,” but “it is written.”

Also, after His resurrection Jesus explained all the things concerning Himself in the Scriptures beginning with Moses and all the prophets (Lk. 24:27). And then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (verse 45).

Christ was infallible in the interpretation of scripture,and he gave that infallibility to the Church that he founded,not to protestants outside of the Church.

 

[chet]

Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t think so. So then “excaliber” doesn’t speak for all Catholics here. Right?

His rationale is that since Satan used Scripture to to tempt Jesus, Satan then invented “sola Scriptura.” Do you also believe that’s a correct conclusion? Do you believe, then, that all Protestants who adhere to the idea of “sola Scriptura” are Satanic or Satanically deceived? Are you concluding that Protestants are Satanic?Are you referring to 2 Pet. 1:20-21? Peter isn’t prohibiting individuals from interpreting the Scriptures in those verses, but rather stating a fact about the prophetic Scriptures. That they did not originate with the prophets themselves, not by an act of their own will (no Scripture was), "but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."Certainly you’re not contending that the Scriptures didn’t officially exist until the council of Carthage, are you?

In my post I referenced Lk. 24:27 where it says Jesus began with Moses and with all the prophets explained the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. Now we know that the Jews never had a council to determined which writings were Scripture. Yet at the time of Christ, they knew which writing were. In the same vain, we see that Irenaeus who lived in the second century quoted most of the N.T. books, as Scripture, in his writings. They were known in his day as “The Gospel and the Apostles,” as the O.T. books were called “The Law and the Prophets.” Tertullian in his writings spoke of the Christian Scriptures as the “New Testament.” And in his extant writings we find around 1800 quotations from the N.T. books. Even Origin quoted from them extensively and accepted the 27 books of the N.T. as Scripture And when Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to put together fifty “Bibles” for his kingdom, he traveled extensively to the various churches and found out what books they, corporately, accepted as Scripture. In the end, the books that constituted his N.T. were exactly the same 27 that are in our Bibles today. All of this occurred before the Council of Carthage. So, in respect to the N.T., Carthage only ratified what was already accepted amongst the churches.

As the Jews recognized their Scriptures, so did the early Christians. But it’s not men who, traditionally, made them “Scripture.” They are inherently. They stand alone by their own divine Authority.

Not even having a high position in the church guarantees one’s understanding of the Scriptures. Remember, Jesus even had to explain the prophetic Scriptures concerning His suffering, death and resurrection to His own Apostles. And for several centuries the biggest controversy amongst the high ranking Bishops within the empire, east and west, was Arianism. Even after the Council of Nicea. Ultimately, the deity of Christ wasn’t settled by “tradition,” but by what was revealed of Him in the Scriptures. Blind reliance on Bishops proved to be dangerous. Can Scripture be misinterpreted and abused? Certainly! But that’s a testimony against men. So today, even as in Christ’s day, it’s the teachings and traditions of men that must be tested by the Scriptures.

Regards,
MD

St. Paul the Apostle on following Apostolic Tradition 1 Thessalonians Ch 2 Vs 13

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

2 Thessalonians Ch2 Vs 15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11 Vs 1-2

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

 

[w_stewart]

Now I believe it is Catholics who (correctly) claim that just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean that it is false.

Similarly just because there is no record of apostles teaching it doesn’t mean that it is false.

Sir, excuse me. The teachings of the apostles were passed through writings and oral traditions. The Sola Scriptura could not be traced neither of the two, leading us to the conclusion that the Sola Scriptura is not apostolic, not from God, but an invention inspired by Satan.

Using the word “rebellious” prior to Martin Luther is making a one-sided judgement that I believe even your own denomination doesn’t believe. I think more temperate posters here have said there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

I used the word loosely sir.

I understand where you are coming from but I am not sure this is true. I can’t find in the Bible any statement that definitively says that everything that is not true theologically is satanic. Now ifyou can show negative cause and effect from false teaching, that would bolster your case I think.

Neither could you find in the Bible that Sola Scriptura is not Satanic.

Yup…but there are two issues with Tradition
(1) Identifying true unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus something else.
(2) The weight of unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus the written word of God.

You seem to underestimate the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will abide by the Church forever.

By the way, why are you so fixated in pitting oral tradition against the written scriptures? That distrubs me.

Hmm…my Bible uses the words “preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you”. I think that is different from your translation in that not all doctrine is a part of the gospel.

Oh I did not say that. Your interpretation is incorrect.

By saying Sola Scriptura is satanic, you really give the impression of not holding the written word of God in that high regard. Particularly when you can’t even prove it false.

Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. If I hate the doctrine Sola Scriptura, it is nun sequitur that I also hate the Bible.

 

[chet]

It started as a house church but that was before I was around.
Who cares where I go to church??

What year was the church started and by who?

 

[chet]

When people become “uncomfortable” with what the inspired Word of God really means, they tend to invent their own interpretation to meet their needs. This is how false concepts, such as sola scriptura and salvation by faith alone, come about.

D317You are right Sola Scriptura and and Sola Fida are both unscriptural!

 

[anthony022071]

Yup…but there are two issues with Tradition
(1) Identifying true unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus something else.
(2) The weight of unwritten oral apostolic tradition versus the written word of God.

St. Basil:

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [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]).

Vincent of Lerins:

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” (Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 [A.D. 434]).

 

[chet]

How can the bible be the final authority? It dose not explain itself?
It is the PERSON that interprets it
that ends up being the authority.

excaliber,Exactly Wright!!

 

[chet]

=mozart-250;3004229]First of all, you must prove it (sola scriptura) to be definitely false (which I doubt you can do).

St. Paul can! 1 Thessalonians Ch 2 Vs 13

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

2 Thessalonians Ch2 Vs 15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11 Vs 1-2

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. **Now I praise you **because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Final proof;Give us one single Bible quote book and verse that states that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of truth.

 

[chet]

when we compare some protestant communities (all of them regard Sola Scriptura as a dogma) it will be seen that they have one Scripture but different teaching
eg.
1.
one celebrate sunday
others sabat (saturday)
2.
one belive that human has free will
others dont
3.
glosolaria - gift of language is still actuall
nope - it;s passed away
4.
baptism in the name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
bapitism in the name of Jesus

etc… etc
as we see, Scripture is a gift for Church and only Church can explain it. When we acknoladge that Sola Scriptura is true then everyone can fill as a Pope but we know, Church has one Revelation - in Jesus Christ -** Solum Verbum** - this Verbum is Jesus (John 1:1), and this Revelation is present in Scripture and Tradition.

You forgot the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit!!!

 

[mozart-250]

Very simple. Catholics are fond of saying that just because say the assumption of Mary is not explicitely in the Bible and there is no record of the apostles having taught it does not necessarily mean that it is false. Catholics btw are correct in their logic here.

Sir, excuse me. The teachings of the apostles were passed through writings and oral traditions. The Sola Scriptura could not be traced neither of the two, leading us to the conclusion that the Sola Scriptura is not apostolic, not from God, but an invention inspired by Satan.

If I use the exact logic you use I can say with confidence that the assumption of Mary can not be traced to either the apostles or Scripture. Therefore it is not from God but an invention inspired by Satan.

Neither could you find in the Bible that Sola Scriptura is not Satanic.

Neither can you find in the Bible that the Assumption of Mary is not Satanic.

See the exact same logic you are using to say Sola Scriptura is satanic, I can use to say the assumption is.

BTW I don’t say the assumption of Mary is satanic. Sheesh, I don’t even know that it is false. To me it is just an unprovable assertion.

BTW I will say now for the record I am not sure I even believe in Sola Scriptura. I guess it depends on what definition is used and whether it is technically Prima Scriptura or Sola Scriptura. But I will defend those who believe more definitely in Sola Scriptura against charges their belief is somehow “satanic”.

You seem to underestimate the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will abide by the Church forever.

Well now you are touching on different issues on what is “the Church” and what is the promise of the Holy Spirit in regards to the church. Just because I may disagree with you somewhat theologically does not mean that I underestimate it. I only underestimate it if I can be proven false.

By the way, why are you so fixated in pitting oral tradition against the written scriptures? That distrubs me.

Umm. just because I point out real issues with oral tradition does not

If I hate the doctrine Sola Scriptura, it is nun sequitur that I also hate the Bible.

I know that. Which is why I was careful to use the words “give the impression”.

 

[mozart-250]

St. Paul can! 1 Thessalonians Ch 2 Vs 13
2 Thessalonians Ch2 Vs 15
1 Corinthians 11 Vs 1-2

Now you are touching on the issues of oral communication of the gospel prior to the writing and canonization of the gospel.

Now remember…Sola Scriptura is just a title…and it may not be a particularly good title on at that…depending on what the underlying belief system is.

What you have to do is ask how this phenomenon fits into the theology and whether at least the explanation could possibly be true. But at any rate the oral transmission of the gospel could hardly disprove Sola Scriptura unless it is a very extreme variant.

Remember, there is no unified definition of Sola Scriptura. The best you can do is to prove the definition that a particular adherant uses is false. For me personally, if I do believe in Sola Scriptura it is only in a very limited sense and I personally have no problem with oral communication of the gospel in the times of the apostles.

	       Final proof;Give us one single Bible quote book and verse that states that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of truth.

That would be important if I wanted to prove Sola Scriptura as definitely true. That I have no interest in doing since it is unprovable either way (as is your system of authority). The best I can do is state what I believe and why.

However I will note that the reason why I don’t believe there are any other sources of truth that are incapable of error is that the Bible does not identify any. Otherwise you could just as easily get me to believe in the book of Mormon.

 

[mozart-250]

St. Basil:

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [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]).

Vincent of Lerins:

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” (Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 [A.D. 434]).

Just some quick comments since I have to run.

The Early Church Fathers while important are still capable of error. At best they are substantiating evidence. Since they are capable of error, they hardly constitute proof.

One would expect a difference in the accuracy of the transmission of oral truth over 300-400 years as opposed to 2000 years.

Most important though any references in this time period to the “Catholic church” are problematic because the “Catholic church” had not divided upon itself yet. You see these references are subject to rules of inheritance that occur when an entity divides upon itself.

Simply stated these rules are unless I have specific knowledge otherwise, when an entity (call it A) subdivides into two (call them A’ and B), both entities inherit equally from B.

Gotta run.

 

[XPICTIANOC]

η δοκειτε οτι κενως η** γραφη** λεγει προς φθονον επιποθει το πνευμα ο κατωκησεν εν ημιν

Greek word grafE means scripture, and James is saying “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain” but this quote is not from OT or NT! James is using word “grafE” in broad meaning. I’ll give next example

38ο πιστευων εις εμε καθως ειπεν η** γραφη **ποταμοι εκ της κοιλιας αυτου ρευσουσιν υδατος ζωντος

Here is similar situation. John is saying that Scripture said but as in James as here, this quote is not from OT or NT!
So what they thought saying “Scripture” ?

The last example is from Jude’s latter:

δε και τουτοις εβδομος απο αδαμ** ενωχ λεγων** ιδου ηλθεν κυριος εν αγιαις μυριασιν αυτου

As we see, Jude quoting book of Henoch (1:9), we know that this book is not in canon of OT. But Jude had to know this book.