The Rationale of Bible Believing/Sola Scriptura Christians?

[FabiusMaximus]

13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits** to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

The Greek word word for tradition means instruction. So Paul was telling them to hold fast to the teachings(instruction) that he gave them. Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel and that is what he was doing. It was passed on by word of mouth or by letter.

I think that the oral instruction will never contradict what is in the written Word.**

Well instructions are a form of tradition. A tradition is something that is handed down.

However, Paul here spoke of oral and written. Clearly this means there is a distinction between the oral and the written. Some things he said orally, some things he wrote down in his episltes.

But he clearly said that they are both traditions.

 

[mackbrislawn]

No, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.

This is the way it happened, the way the early Christians were taught:

Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave teachings and instructions to the apostles. The apostles in turn handed the teachings on to the early Christians. That is why the teachings and instructions are called traditions, because they were handed down to the people by the apostles and disciples.

At first the teachings or traditions were strictly oral. The people would listen to the apostles preach. The Christian evangelists would tell the people directly. Congregations wojuld be founded in dfferent cities, and the members would be taught verbally. That is, by the apostles simply telling the people of the good news. This spoken teaching is what is meant by “word of mouth tradition.”

Later, as questions in the congregations came up, the apostle could either return to the congregation and straighten them up, or he would write to them. This writing is what is meant by “letter tradition.”

So when 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says to stand firm to the traditions you were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter, it means no matter which way you received the particular tradition, you had to hold to it.

Paul is here informing the Thessalonians that they had to pay attention to both modes of handing down the Christian teachings. Both ways, oral and written, were to be adhered to. It is dangerous and anti-scriptural to pay attention to only the written mode.

Being taught in the spoken tradition is important because it is within the spoken tradition that the written tradition is understood. See 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Paul is not speaking about two seperate things.

Please quote book, chapter, and verse where scripture says Paul is not speaking about two separate things.

Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you are basing your statement upon an extra-biblical tradition.

Please note: nothing else but a quote from the Bible will do.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Please quote book, chapter, and verse where scripture says Paul is not speaking about two separate things.

Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you are basing your statement upon an extra-biblical tradition.

Please note: nothing else but a quote from the Bible will do.

No one has shown its referring to two seperate things. Have they? Where are the extra biblical traditions shown to come from Paul?

 

[Kay_Cee]

No one has shown its referring to two seperate things. Have they? Where are the extra biblical traditions shown to come from Paul?

1. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
2. You haven’t proven your point. Where is the Bible verse I asked for? If you cannot produce one, I will be forced to conclude that you are basing your statement upon an extra-biblical tradition.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Paul does not indicate two seperate things.***<—Yes he does. *** He taught them orally. He wrote them down. Are you aware of any proof that something Paul taught orally but did not write down is part of your authentic traditions?

Sorry……but again you’re clearly wrong.

Paul indicates two different methods of learning tradition (Word and Epistle) and says to hold fast to traditions whether they are learned by either or those two things. So traditions are accepted whether you learn them orally if they aren’t written down, or by documentation if they are written down.

2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle<–That’s two things…one thing is word and the other thing is epistle.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
2. You haven’t proven your point. Where is the Bible verse I asked for? If you cannot produce one, I will be forced to conclude that you are basing your statement upon an extra-biblical tradition.

Possibly. Except you have not proved your point either. It starts with a assumed presupposition that has not been proven. Sound familiar?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sorry……but again you’re clearly wrong.

Paul indicates two different methods of learning tradition (Word and Epistle) and says to hold fast to traditions whether they are learned by either or those two things. So traditions are accepted whether you learn them orally if they aren’t written down, or by documentation if they are written down.

Yes. I never said there were not two methods. In fact, right after your blue print, I do say that. Right? We are discussing whether or not the oral traditions differed from the written epistles in content. At least I thought we were.

Paul does not indicate two seperate things.<—Yes he does. He taught them orally. He wrote them down.

Now, how do you know that oral traditions differed from what was written in his epistles? You do not. Break out some Ante-Nicene writings that show apostolic traditions from Paul not contained in his epistles if you are correct.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes. I never said there were not two methods. In fact, right after your blue print, I do say that. Right? We are discussing whether or not the oral traditions differed from the written epistles in content. At least I thought we were.
.

Did the different (name removed by moderator)uts, oral and written, to tradition differ in content? Well, the very fact that Paul thinks it is necessary to mention the two different kinds would indicate that for Paul at least, there was a difference in content. If Paul thought the two contents were identical, why would he bother distinguishing between the two? Why would he remind them to hold to both traditions?

Let’s say the contents of both were similar; nevertheless the content of the word of mouth tradition would be more explicit, in a more easily understood form, and shed light on how to interpret the written tradition. Without the oral teachings, the letters of Paul are hard to understand, which the untaught twist to their own destruction.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Possibly.

It’s not possibly at all. You have given a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. See this website if you are still unsure: williamjhudson.net/evolution/logic.html

Except you have not proved your point either. It starts with a assumed presupposition that has not been proven. Sound familiar?

Uh . . . in case you haven’t noticed, the only point I’ve made is that you haven’t proven your point. Re-read my posts if you don’t believe me. All I have done is ask you to show where in the Bible you are getting your claim that “Paul is not speaking about two seperate things.”

Trying to shift the burden of proof can in no way whatsoever be construed as proving your point.

I’m still waiting for that Bible quote. If it’s actually in the Bible, it should be a piece of cake for you to quote it. So where is it? Or should I take your mention of an “assumed presupposition” to mean it’s an extra-Biblical tradition?

P.S. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof or change the subject. It’s not working.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It’s not possibly at all. You have given a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. See this website if you are still unsure: williamjhudson.net/evolution/logic.html

Uh . . . in case you haven’t noticed, the only point I’ve made is that you haven’t proven your point. Re-read my posts if you don’t believe me. All I have done is ask you to show where in the Bible you are getting your claim that “Paul is not speaking about two seperate things.”

Trying to shift the burden of proof can in no way whatsoever be construed as proving your point.

I’m still waiting for that Bible quote. If it’s actually in the Bible, it should be a piece of cake for you to quote it. So where is it? Or should I take your mention of an “assumed presupposition” to mean it’s an extra-Biblical tradition?

P.S. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof or change the subject. It’s not working.

They are the same thing. No one can prove otherwise.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Did the different (name removed by moderator)uts, oral and written, to tradition differ in content? Well, the very fact that Paul thinks it is necessary to mention the two different kinds would indicate that for Paul at least, there was a difference in content. If Paul thought the two contents were identical, why would he bother distinguishing between the two? Why would he remind them to hold to both traditions?

Let’s say the contents of both were similar; nevertheless the content of the word of mouth tradition would be more explicit, in a more easily understood form, and shed light on how to interpret the written tradition. Without the oral teachings, the letters of Paul are hard to understand, which the untaught twist to their own destruction.

I believe that it means that some people have heard it and some,probably very few, have read a copy of his epistle. There is no logical reason to seperate stories, events, teachings into one or the other. I think it is perfectly logical to acknowledge how people are obtaining information.
It does not say “both traditions”…does it?

 

[Kay_Cee]

They are the same thing. No one can prove otherwise.

So, once again, your response is a fallacy in logic.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM: An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as “appeals to ignorance.” This fallacy has two forms:

• P is true, because it has not been proven false.
• P is false, because it has not been proven true.

(Source: williamjhudson.net/evolution/logic.html)

Yet you persist in sticking to your statement because no one has proven it false.

Look, someone could claim that orbiting around Sirius is a planet with a mountain the exact same height as Mount Everest. Just because no one can prove that claim wrong doesn’t mean it’s true.

You have given no support whatsoever for your claim. (A fallacy in logic is not support.) Why should anybody believe you?

For crying out loud, what on earth are you basing your claim on? Where did you get your idea? It sure must not be scripture or I would think you would have given us chapter and verse by now.

Rightlydivide, either show us where your claim is in the Bible or have the honesty and integrity to admit it is not in the Bible.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I believe that it means that some people have heard it and some,probably very few, have read a copy of his epistle. There is no logical reason to seperate stories, events, teachings into one or the other. I think it is perfectly logical to acknowledge how people are obtaining information.
It does not say “both traditions”…does it?

Probably only the reader of the congregation had actually read the epistles, but, the point is, he would have read the epistle to the congregation. The purpose of the epistles was to be read aloud to the assembly. So, even if only a few had read it for themselves, they nevertheless had heard it read, so they were familiar with the contents of the epistle.

No, he does not say “both traditions,” he says traditions, plural. Paul figures people can count for themselves and come up with two, the tradition handed by preaching, and the tradition handed by the congregation reader reading it to them.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Probably only the reader of the congregation had actually read the epistles, but, the point is, he would have read the epistle to the congregation. The purpose of the epistles was to be read aloud to the assembly. So, even if only a few had read it for themselves, they nevertheless had heard it read, so they were familiar with the contents of the epistle.

No, he does not say “both traditions,” he says traditions, plural. Paul figures people can count for themselves and come up with two, the tradition handed by preaching, and the tradition handed by the congregation reader reading it to them.

Or traditions (plural and I do mean plural, Paul wrote about a lot of things), that are found in his epistles and when he preached.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So, once again, your response is a fallacy in logic.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM: An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as “appeals to ignorance.” This fallacy has two forms:

• P is true, because it has not been proven false.
• P is false, because it has not been proven true.

(Source: williamjhudson.net/evolution/logic.html)

Yet you persist in sticking to your statement because no one has proven it false.

Look, someone could claim that orbiting around Sirius is a planet with a mountain the exact same height as Mount Everest. Just because no one can prove that claim wrong doesn’t mean it’s true.

You have given no support whatsoever for your claim. (A fallacy in logic is not support.) Why should anybody believe you?

For crying out loud, what on earth are you basing your claim on? Where did you get your idea? It sure must not be scripture or I would think you would have given us chapter and verse by now.

Rightlydivide, either show us where your claim is in the Bible or have the honesty and integrity to admit it is not in the Bible.

They are the same thing. You cannot prove otherwise or you would have. So I say that he did not seperate his teachings into some that were just oral and some that were just written…some rather mean to do it that way. If you missed the oral, tough luck. If you missed the epistles, tough luck. No, its much more logical. I believe I am basing this on the same thing you are. The Catholic Church has never said that there are authentic Pauline traditions that are seperate from his epistles. So aside from your private interpretation of scripture, you really have nothing else to go on.

 

[Kay_Cee]

They are the same thing. You cannot prove otherwise or you would have. So I say that he did not seperate his teachings into some that were just oral and some that were just written…some rather mean to do it that way. If you missed the oral, tough luck. If you missed the epistles, tough luck. No, its much more logical. I believe I am basing this on the same thing you are. The Catholic Church has never said that there are authentic Pauline traditions that are seperate from his epistles. So aside from your private interpretation of scripture, you really have nothing else to go on.

In other words, you have no proof at all that they are the same thing.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that just because a thing is not disproved doesn’t make it true.

What you also seem incapable of grasping is that I have made no claims in this thread about scripture, tradition, or the interpretation of scripture. I have merely asked you for proof of your claim. My posts are about your lack of logic in proving your claim, not about what Paul wrote or didn’t write. It’s not about me proving anything whatsoever about Paul. You are the one who made the claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Got that?

Look, I’ll make it easy for you. Is your claim that “Paul is not speaking about two seperate things” in the Bible?

Please note: This is a yes/no question. Nothing besides yes or no will do as an answer. It’s either in the Bible or it isn’t, so all you need give is a one word answer.

 

[fred_conty]

No, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.

Hi,

Paul wrote his letters starting around the year 50 and He completed them around the year 62.

The 4 Gospels, Acts, and Revelation, were not started until around the year 70 and were not concluded until the 2nd century. These were started only after Paul’s letters had already been completed.

When Paul wrote his statement about believing his writtings and tradition, He may well have been thinking of the teaching and knowledge of Jesus circulating that had not yet been written out as the 4 Gospels. Paul’s writtings had not included many of the ideas and teachings contained in the Gospels especially in any given letter. And so the teachings or traditions of Jesus were orally handed on to other Christians so they might have a better understanding of the faith, along with Paul’s letters.

There were encouraged to hold them both.​

“The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement…”, C. K. Chesterton

 

[Rightlydivide]

In other words, you have no proof at all that they are the same thing.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that just because a thing is not disproved doesn’t make it true.

What you also seem incapable of grasping is that I have made no claims in this thread about scripture, tradition, or the interpretation of scripture. I have merely asked you for proof of your claim. My posts are about your lack of logic in proving your claim, not about what Paul wrote or didn’t write. It’s not about me proving anything whatsoever about Paul. You are the one who made the claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Got that?

Look, I’ll make it easy for you. Is your claim that “Paul is not speaking about two seperate things” in the Bible?

Please note: This is a yes/no question. Nothing besides yes or no will do as an answer. It’s either in the Bible or it isn’t, so all you need give is a one word answer.

People always get so personal. Calm down. Be less emotional.
So Paul teased his audience in the epistle with some kind of oral tradition they did not know? No Paul says to not go beyond what was written.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hi,

Paul wrote his letters starting around the year 50 and He completed them around the year 62.

The 4 Gospels, Acts, and Revelation, were not started until around the year 70 and were not concluded until the 2nd century. These were started only after Paul’s letters had already been completed.

When Paul wrote his statement about believing his writtings and tradition, He may well have been thinking of the teaching and knowledge of Jesus circulating that had not yet been written out as the 4 Gospels. Paul’s writtings had not included many of the ideas and teachings contained in the Gospels especially in any given letter. And so the teachings or traditions of Jesus were orally handed on to other Christians so they might have a better understanding of the faith, along with Paul’s letters.

There were encouraged to hold them both.​

“The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement…”, C. K. Chesterton

I understand your theory about the dates of the gospels. They are based upon a presupposition that Mark wrote first and that the destruction of the Temple could not have been known by Jesus and so liberal scholars date them post 70 AD. Otherwise there is no reason to date anything past 70 AD. You should read John Robinson on this topic.