/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>547532

>Not the usual baptist 2 tim 3:16-17 andersonpost but something more advanced

Nice, I like it

bump

>>547532

Thank you anon, I like this post.

Actually you inverted It. "Hold the traditions that were passed either by voice or by letter" means that, if it was not passed through word, It was passed by letter. If the same thing was passed by both voice and letter, He would say that this tradition was passed both through Voice AND through letter. Not "or". Obviously you can interpret that way, but it would be only and enourmous mental gymnastics.

>>547532

This verse is certainly relevant to the question of sufficiency of Scripture. Not only does it confirm that the word of God is equally valid being heard OR read and may be transmitted either way, it shows that there was never meant to be a separate "oral tradition," and that the written and oral tradition were one in the same.

>>547649

>He would say that this tradition was passed both through Voice AND through letter. Not "or".

It was "or," depending on if the recipient could read or was illiterate. And 2 Thessalonians does say "or."

Happy Reformation Day!!

vid related but mostly just for poops and giggles

>What are the traditions that St.Paul describes in this sentence? Well, one of the sources of this tradition can be found is in the letters (the Greek word can be expressed in plural) sent by the apostles. Since we have these letters, it can be referred that we have this substance of tradition that 2 Thessalonians is alluding to.

First sentence and lo and behold, logical fallacy.

If we have a letters of Paul, we have at least part of Tradition, written one at least. And we have those letters. This does not mean that we have substance of it, for substance is by definition whole of essentials thing.

>St.Peter calls these letters scriptures in 2 Peter 3:16. Thus Paul telling the Thessalonians to hold firm to the substance in the apostolic letters of the new testament, which is scripture.

And who calls letters of Peter Scripture?

>Thus Paul telling the Thessalonians to hold firm to the substance in the apostolic letters of the new testament, which is scripture.

Paul literally says to hold fast to traditions be it written one or oral one. Written tradition of Paul is as he himself tells, part of it.

>To additionally substantiate the claim that the traditions are identical, I suggest reading 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (note he said preached and delivered)

He literally says here that he preached what he got from Apostles orally (See Acts) and that its first thing he preached.

>in context of 1 Corinthians 11:1 (notice he wrote delivered)

"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ."

???

>& 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (the reference quote is only found in Luke 22).

It's not though. Luke wrote his gospel like 10 years after this letter

>This is the overall argument:

>There is content which Paul calls tradition and he tells the church to hold firm to.

>The content can be found either by oral or written communication

Right

>(but the content is the same in both cases).

No proof given.

>We have the written communication.

>This written communication is the writings of the apostles.

>The writings of the apostles are called scriptures.

Right

>The tradition is part of scripture.

Not according to Paul. Scripture is part of Tradition.

>Paul told the congregation to stand firm and hold to scripture.

And rest of Tradition

>To stand firm and hold to scripture is fundamentally sola scriptura.

No. To stand firm and hold ONLY to scripture AS ONLY SOURCE OF REVELATION is fundamentally sola scriptura. It's White's own defintion.

>Thus 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is affirms the biblical doctrine of sola scriptura

<Sola Scriptura

<Bibilical

And we have this circus for another 500 years. But with such arguments I will give it 250 most.

>>547696

>2 Thessalonians 2:15 request may also an incentive to form what we know as the new testament canon, all the church has to do then is find out which books were apostolic. (Papyrus 45, papyrus 46, quotes from the early church, and the Didache insinuate that's what may have happened.)

And then someone with authority would have to definitely set this canons - this is of apostles, this is not - and that would make not make sola scriptura. It would make scriptura+.

Not to mention that Luke and Mark were not apostels, or were not one of 12+Paul

>No, because St.Paul stated that the same tradition is found in "either the spoken word OR by our letter". (emphasis mine.) So, he must be saying these are the methodologies his audience has to use in order to obtain this tradition. (Remember, 90% of people in the first century were illiterate and they can only receive information vocally.)

This sentence can be used to answer "Doesn't that mean there's no separate tradition that was only passed down orally?" and it would not change a thing.

>Furthermore, St.Paul is not stating there's two different traditions, because he would have written "and" rather than "or" in the verse. If there was two, then the Thessalonians would've been in a position to choose one tradition over the other, which would miss the point of verse 15 if the tradition was different-or even worst, as a result, this could've caused disunity. What we know about St.Paul -from the rest of chapter within 2 Thessalonians and other letters like 1 & 2 Corinthians- is that division within Christian communities is something he critically resents. Then St.Paul is cautious enough to not allow such an opportunity for separation to spawn due to different contents.

And that also does not mean that oral tradition is identical with written one. It's merely states that those traditions are not contradictory

>More importantly those who erroneously say there are different teachings always emphasize that BOTH are necessary for complete understanding and are inextricable-which the verse is clearly in disagreement with if the Thessalonians have the option of either methodology to follow Paul's communiqué. So, no…two distinct traditions doesn't exist, at least according (or that we can derive from) to 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

And no proof was given. Paul says that we are ought to hold fast to tradition passed by him. Further he distinguished two modes of that passing, letter and voice. If in one mode he passed {A,B,C} and in other {B,C,D} that does not mean that one set is above other or that A or D are optionally. We are to hold fast to both. It's simple logic.

>Before I finalize everything, I would like to explain why St.Paul even mention traditions. It's important to see that St.Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 is making a contrast from verse 2: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." to 12 where he explains the requirements that needed before the second return of Christ (which the requirements sounds oddly like the prophecies in the gospel of Matthew). Basically, he's saying 'stop listening to rumors and follow the material we delivered to you.'

<Says while defending novelty

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

St. John Chrysostom

Dispite the weak replies, I find this interesting.

Bump