/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Not getting enough (you)s on /his/ huh

Sola scriptura is the view that scripture is the sole infallible source of authority.

We know the canon of scripture based on historical and internal evidence.

These are separate and independent issues.

There is no more discussion to be made. You're posting an atheist tier strawman.

This has no less than 2 errors

1. That tradition is the only way to know the canon (it isn't)

2. That tradition is determinative of the canon (it isn't)

>>854475

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

John 8:47

>>854475

Man, if disproving a religion was as simple as posting one image, then there would be no protestants today. Same as if the "problem of evil" really was such an infallible argument against Christianity, there would be no Christians.

>this scares the prot

I think it doesn't. I doubt a few words arranged into a diagram will win any protestants over, at least elaborate instead of just saying "You're wrong, retard"

Need only look at the table of contents to refute the doctrine of sola scriptura as nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state what the canon is. The canon comes from tradition; a tradition that was started and enforced by a church authority in the 4th century. In fact, for those first four centuries, most Christians didn't have access to what we now consider the full biblical canon. In an era where books were extremely rare, many of the episcopal sees didn't have all twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It wasn't until the 4th century that it was agreed upon in the Council of Rome. The Old Testament canon was also settled there, modeled after the forty-six books of the Septuagint, as this is what the Jesus and Apostles quoted from. Now most Protestants reject this biblical canon and instead opt for the thirty-nine book, Jewish canon of the Old Testament which wasn't developed and settled until 200 years or more after Christ. But still, this in itself is still an extra-biblical tradition. Though it wasn't started until the Reformation; it's still a tradition nonetheless.

Not to mention, Paul even writes in his letters to the churches that they should keep to the traditions passed onto them from the apostles and commends them when they do. This in itself is a refutation of sola scriptura as it explicitly states that there are apostolic traditions that are to be followed, practiced, and passed on. So unless, you want to step into the territory that the Bible is with error, you must accept that we as Christians are to accept the traditions passed onto us from the apostolic fathers as well as the Word of God. Both are important, and both are necessary for true Christian faith.

>>854476

/thread/

>>856040

>Yes, this is the inspired Scripture. It's not the mormonistic 'tradition of the elders' that was conveniently invented to go along with it later.

No. Paradosis is specifically the word for tradition. He wasn't talking about scripture there. If he wanted to say "scripture", he would have.

You yourself seemingly can't even follow your own rule of Sola Scripture and immediately jump to inventing things that aren't in the text. So why do you expect anyone to follow Sola Scriptura when you can't even follow it yourself?

Just because Jews had bad traditions doesn't mean all tradition is bad. That's not what the text says either. Again, you can't even follow Sola Scripture yourself.

from Wikipedia: Sola scriptura ("by scripture alone" in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that posits the Christian scriptures as the sole INFALLIBLE source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Sure, what is canon is tradition. But that tradition changed over time because it isn't infallible. Some didn't think Jude or Revelation were canon others thought 1 Enoch was canon. The authority of the bishop of Rome might be true, but it isn't infallible.

What Martin Luther meant by Sola scriptura is that everything that isn't in the scriptures is potentially fallible and up to debate including the canon. Martin Luther believed James should not have been canon.

>>856028

> The canon comes from tradition; a tradition that was started and enforced by a church authority in the 4th century.

for the first 300 years the Church was under immense persecution by the Roman State

this means that early Christianity didn't have a centralised seat of authority

instead we see the Church Fathers writing prolifically to each other, quoting so much of the New Testament (which they held to be God-breathed Scripture) that we could piece the NT together seven times over, just from their letters

they did this because they held the Scripture to be the highest authority in deciding doctrine, and in taking this posture, demonstrate their tradition of Sola Scriptura

a tradition that was modelled for them in the Scripture first by Christ Himself with His constant rejoinder of 'have you not read' when facing his pseudo-religious opponents then by the Apostles who constantly referred to Scripture as the highest authority in their epistles to the churches

> In fact, for those first four centuries, most Christians didn't have access to what we now consider the full biblical canon.

this is demonstrably false, since we have the evidence of over 5.8K early manuscripts dating to the 2nd Century, indicating that the early church was incredibly well versed in the Scripture they held in common

the reason we have so many early fragments is a direct result of that Roman persecution mentioned earlier, since belonging to The Way carried a death sentence in many regions, and since possession of Christian Scripture was similarly punishable by death, we find this wealth of texts secreted by the early believers who were then unable to return for them due to having been murdered by Rome

think about it: over five thousand and eight hundred fragments of Christian Scripture dating from between 100-200AD

that's the texts that were only used for a short time before their owners died and their churches purged; a small fraction of the copies that moved around the entirety of the Roman Empire which stretched from Northern Europe as far as Britain, South into the Africas as far as Ethiopia, and East into the Orient with ties to India; and that's not to mention the trade routes which went further afield, those copies being then copied again in each region by each Church and by individual members within those fellowships

there is a reason the Scripture addresses the first advent of Christ as having happened 'in the fullness of time', for when The Lord broke into our time and space there was a huge Empire with excellent communication between each region, due to both the transport infrastructure and the commonly held language of Koiné Greek governing all intercourse

on top of this, the early believers rightly held that these Scriptures contained 'the very words of life', thus they held the texts to be of the highest value and reproduced them at an exponential rate

thus, having demonstrated your ahistorical view of the preservation of Scripture for the error it is, i leave the rest of your argument where it lies; predicated on lies and thus, Satanic - as evidenced by the sheer volume of Muslim apologists who share that devilish view

~

>>854475

low quality bait. The canon is not known through tradition, it was created by decree that ignored tradition. However, that amounts to the point you wanted to prove, that the bible is not the complete and infallible word of God since that decree is not found in the bible.

The protestant church has been dividing like bacteria for 1000k years and the worship of the bible as an idol is the reason why. "You shall know them by their fruits". If modern prots weren't brainwashed along with the rest of society then they could look at the history of that doctrine and realize that it has not had a beneficial effect on the church.

BTW, I'm not a Catholic, I've always been a prot but God filled me in on some things.

>>856086

>use the KJV version, one of the few that does not wrongfully remove the ending of verse 5 there

How do you know it was wrongfully removed and not wrongfully added or perhaps implied either way by the original text? Can you read ancient Greek?

>>856093

>a tradition that was modelled for them in the Scripture first by Christ Himself with His constant rejoinder of 'have you not read' when facing his pseudo-religious opponents then by the Apostles who constantly referred to Scripture as the highest authority in their epistles to the churches

What scripture? The apostles held the book of Enoch to be scripture. There was the book of jubilees, the book of Giants etc. . .there was plenty of scripture that the roman church decided was either apocryphal or heretical. They burned every copy of the book of Enoch they could find, for example. If you believe the bible is the complete word of God then you are rejecting a lot of scripture. And the funny thing about is that you don't even know why. You can't verbalize why the book of Jubilees isn't still considered scripture. Some dude just told you that the bible is the complete word of God and you were credulous enough to believe him.

>Satanic - as evidenced by the sheer volume of Muslim apologists who share that devilish view

>

guilt by association is a cognitive dissonance.

>>856086

>Oh, so you must think Scripture isn't tradition. Strange position to take though, if you think about it.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm not even Orthodox or Catholic, for that matter. It's just that your exegetical skills are weak. You read too many things that aren't in the text. Just like you're reading a whole position about me, just because I criticized your approach. You need to stick to the point and not read more into what is stated. Either in scripture or just interacting with anons. You kind of argue like a woman, tbh.

>>856117

On second thought, I'll help you out. Paradosis is literally "something handed down". Scripture is graphe - a written thing. Paradosis isn't even strictly doctrine (didaskalia), in the philosophical/instructive sense. It's a handed down practice.

Paul was well aware of both the words for scripture and doctrine, and yet didn't use it there. Don't read more into what he said. He said paradosis. He had plenty to say about scripture and teachings elsewhere, and their supreme importance, but he didn't say it there. Deal with it.

On a related note, this is a good example why the NIV is a poor translation.

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you" - 2 These 2:15 NIV

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught" - KJV

Do you see what they did there? They changed the word for paradosis (traditions) for teachings (didaskalia) which isn't at all in the Greek, but also re-entered paradosis at the end of the sentence instead and rendered it as "passed on to you" - but here it's a verb. The Greek is a noun. This kind of trickery is common to the NIV in other places. You should feel ashamed if you find yourself imitating it.

>>856106

>guilt by association is a cognitive dissonance.

when you not only associate yourself with ahistorical lies in regard to the formation and preservation of Scripture, but also promulgate such vile slanders against the Spirit of God; you are guilty in deed

>>856120

you're a phony. I bet you've never even set foot inside a church in your life.

>>856112

> There has been one historical Bible

No there hasn't. There have been and still are a few different versions. The catholic bible has different books than the protestant bibles.

"Matthew 24:35 it says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.""

Because God's words are the basis of reality. They aren't limited to a single book which men invented.

"So you see how superior God's way is to the way men would choose to think."

Totally irrelevant here since you are arguing the traditions of men are the commandments of God. You're making exactly the same error the jews made when they exchanged the torah for the talmud

>>856128

>If "the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" is mentioned and you reply that he cannot be talking about Scripture there, then that means you believe the two are mutually exclusive. If someone talks about the traditions we have been taught, the first reaction of someone who thinks this will be exactly what your reaction is: That the two are mutually exclusive and one cannot be talking of the other.

By word means "in person". What he told them directly. Face to face. As a real, living, breathing person who spent years, day in day out, sharing his time, eating with them, loving them, building the church with them, singing psalms with them, conducting the Eucharist (and how) with them, teaching them, and generally just being present like a real person would be. There's a myriad of things we all might impress upon others that aren't simply words or letters. This was a real man who spent years in communities and saved thousands and ordained dozens. It's immeasurable how much he could have shown them just by simply being around. He or any Apostle. And all others who had such drastic and widespread social engagement like the Apostles did, and built communities all across the Roman world. To think they simply left some letters and only talked in what you recognize as scripture is a little bizarre. The entire worldview of reducing the early church to scripture isn't realistic. The real legacy of the early church is the churches themselves. Both the communities and the elders who oversaw them. Let them be part of the story of Paul too. Not just the scripture alone. It's not an either/or. You can't have one without the other.

As for what specific traditions were handed down or not, I want to make it clear that I don't want you to necessarily be Catholic or Orthodox. I just want you to realize the word paradosis means tradition. What that entails is up to you to investigate (up to all of us really. I think everyone needs to prayerfully discover the early church as best they can, with the Holy Spirit's help). But to write paradosis off as only bad is not going to help you get closer to Paul or the churches he worked with.

For one clear example, take the Didache. This is dated even by skeptical scholars in the 50s AD. There's a minority who think it's in the mid 100s AD (maybe before Irenaeus and Justin Martyr), but even that is early too. And immediately on first glance you'll find that this community already has directives on how to baptize (immersion three times, in name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just like the Orthodox), and rules on who or who can't eat the Eucharist. If this is from the 50s AD, this is before even Paul died. So where did they get these practices from? It's not in the New Testament, but yet, this document is a peer to the Apostles. Someone with authority taught them. It's possibly from a church in Syria that was already familiar with the Gospel of Matthew (which also indicates Matthew is much earlier than skeptics think btw).

>>856133

>The traditions received directly from the apostles

then it becomes important to know who the apostles were.

>Mat 10:2

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

> Mat 10:3

Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

>Mat 10:4

Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

So those were the 12 apostles. Judas betrayed Jesus, so the 11 apostles left chose a 12th-

>Act 1:24

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

> Act 1:25

That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

>Act 1:26

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And in the book of Revelations it says that at the end of our age there will have been 12 apostles total-

>Rev 21:14 14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So where does Paul fit in? If paul was an apostle then there would be 13 apostles, not 12.

?Acts 14:1414 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

And paul made another apostle of barnabus, which brings the total to 14. This can't be true because the number 12 is an important number. the apostles represented the tribes of Israel. Jesus himself chose 12 apostles during his ministry, not 14. Plus, when Judas betrayed Jesus, they didn't just make do with 11 apostles. For some reason they believed there had to be 12. And they believed the new apostle had to be with Jesus since Jesus began his ministry, which definitely doesn't include Paul.

And then there is the contradiction of gospel between Paul and the original apostles-

>Romans 3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

>James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

However, this question is one that you aren't able to consider because your opinion that the bible is complete and infallible prevents you from even thinking about this.

>>856093

>for the first 300 years the Church was under immense persecution by the Roman State

Yes, there were persecutions, but they were not continuous with no breaks. That is to say, there were large periods of time in those 300 years were Christianity was tolerated.

>this means that early Christianity didn't have a centralised seat of authority

This is just blatantly false. The church did have centralized seats of authority. The Early Church often appealed to the Church of Rome when disagreements would arise. This is well-documented even as early as the late-1st century. There were other localized authorities as well such as the Church of Antioch and Alexandria.

>a tradition that was modelled for them in the Scripture first by Christ Himself with His constant rejoinder of 'have you not read' when facing his pseudo-religious opponents

Those verses in no way shape or form come close to relating to the doctrine of sola scriptura, and no seasoned sola scriptura apologist would even tout those excerpts as a defense of the doctrine. The Pharisees prided themselves as masters of the scriptures. Knowing them to the T, but never actually living by them and coming up with man-made traditions of their own, not the traditions passed down from Moses. Jesus and the Apostles passed down traditions of their own. We see them in the Orthodox, Syriac, Oriental, and Catholic churches.

>this is demonstrably false, since we have the evidence of over 5.8K early manuscripts dating to the 2nd Century, indicating that the early church was incredibly well versed in the Scripture they held in common

I think you're missing what I'm getting at. Not every church congregation had access to the full NT canon. This is well-documented, historic fact. That doesn't mean they didn't have parts or even most of it. Some did have the full NT canon. Some even had what most all churches today would consider apocryphal NT books. But everyone did not have the same biblical canon. It wasn't until the Council of Rome when the entire biblical canon was standardized and distributed to the various episcopal sees.

>>856040

>"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

>And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

In Mark chapter 7, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for replacing a good tradition (the Mosaic tradition) for a bad tradition (the Pharisaical tradition). It's not an overall rebuke of all tradition, just the man-made tradition.

The question is who today holds to the tradition passed on from Jesus and the Apostles. Most would recognize that it's the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Protestants are far more in the same line of thinking as the Pharisees. Both groups (Protestants and Pharisees) are/were religious separatists. Protestants get their OT canon from the Pharisees. They both twist the traditional meaning of scriptures to mean whatever suits them. Both reject the traditions given to us by God: Pharisees via the Mosaic tradition, Protestants via the Apostolic tradition.

>>856141

>You mean the "question" of whether the Pauline epistles contradict the rest of the New Testament or not?

not exactly, though that is a related question. The question is whether there were 12 apostles as it states in revelations or 14, which would have to be the case if paul and barnabas were apostles.

>>856145

>In Mark chapter 7, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for replacing a good tradition (the Mosaic tradition) for a bad tradition (the Pharisaical tradition).

No, he's rebuking them for having an entirely different religion than the torah. Jesus was specifically speaking about the talmud. The Jews say that the torah is the written law and the talmud is the oral tradition. Jesus was saying that their oral tradition, i.e the talmud is an apostate religion.

>>856144

>The Pharisees prided themselves as masters of the scriptures. Knowing them to the T, but never actually living by them and coming up with man-made traditions of their own, not the traditions passed down from Moses.

Not exactly true. The pharisees taught that Moses passed down the written law (torah) and the oral traditions (talmud). Jesus was saying that the oral traditions were heretical and evil, that they barred men from God, and had no relation to the torah.

>It wasn't until the Council of Rome when the entire biblical canon was standardized and distributed to the various episcopal sees.

And a great deal of human history magically disappeared from scripture. You ever wonder why the book of Genesis only mentions the giants and the sons of God in passing? It's because the full stories had already been written down in the book of enoch. Both the church and the Jews tried to suppress the book of Enoch but since it was divinely inspired, Enoch's prophecy came to pass

>1.1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, according to which he blessed the chosen and righteous, who must be present on the Day of Distress, which is appointed, for the removal of all the wicked and impious.

Enoch said he wrote the book for those living at the end of the age and the book disappeared until right before the end of the age. Coincdidence? I don't think so.

>>856145

Ok, you're forgetting the baptists though. The independent churches that are free from any denomination continue to exist from the early church era and follow the Bible, which represents the written word of God. I'd say that's better and more in line with what the church was always meant to be than any of the options you mentioned here.

>>856159

What exactly is the relevance of this? Are you saying there is a contradiction somewhere in Scripture? We know who the apostles were. Paul was an apostle, he had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. That means he was one of the original apostles sent to plant churches. Like he said in 1 Corinthians 3,

>10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

>11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

It also says in Ephesians this:

>21 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

>20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Lastly, you yourself even agreed that it was important to know who the apostles were based on what Paul was quoted as writing in 2 Timothy 3:14, where he said: "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" So if you accept that emphasis on knowing who the apostles were, you have already implicitly accepted Paul as being one of them because he wrote that passage of Scripture. Hopefully that helps clarify.

>>856144

in >>856093 i said;

< this means that early Christianity didn't have a centralised seat of authority

you respond with;

> This is just blatantly false. The church did have centralized seats of authority… Rome… Antioch and Alexandria

(emphasis my own)

how you went from seeing me employ the singular 'a' and interpreted it in the plural i don't know…

didn't you see me in the very next line speak of the Church Fathers and their missives to one another – and didn't you recognise that as relating to the 'localized authorities'* as you yourself call them, where Bishops of many seats remonstrated with one another as equals ?

this evidences there wasn't A centralised seat of authority ANYWHERE and this state of affairs lasted for several hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD

(and even thinking that City was a centralised seat is debatable, since the Apostles were peripatetic in the extreme, just as their Lord was)

moreover, how you think listing several localised seats (plural) is an argument for one singular seat of authority, is beyond me

is this what passes for rational thought in your world and are such self-defeating, internally inconsistent statements really what you imagine sound argumentation to look like ?

or should i think the worst and see it as a deliberate act of obfuscation on your part, demonstrating your vast knowledge by listing some historical sites with a design to have the last word and score points against another ignorant prot ?

for the sake of your soul i truly hope it's the former and you really are that foolish, because if it's the latter then you need to remember that we will be judged for every idle word; and what's worse, that liars will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven

i'm quite serious about that: if you are willing to stoop to such levels of prevarication to preserve your reputation, it speaks to the state of your standing before God, for what is in a man's heart overflows from his lips, and if your soul is so degenerate as to think these tactics of worth, then you evidence nothing of the Holy Spirit's work within you

~

now as to the rest of your nonsense*†

< a tradition that was modelled for them in the Scripture first by Christ Himself with His constant rejoinder of 'have you not read' when facing his pseudo-religious opponents

> Those verses in no way shape or form come close to relating to the doctrine of sola scriptura, and no seasoned sola scriptura apologist would even tout those excerpts as a defense of the doctrine.

my friend, i'm saying this as gently as i can, but you are ignorant of Sola Scriptura apologetics if you think its apologists don't go first and foremost to the very words of the Living God as the basis for alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll their arguments

don't you know that about us by now, that we don't value any authority higher than that which is recorded for us in Scripture ?

reason being, that's where the words of Jesus are… y'know, 'the very words of life' as Peter once said*†† ?

not only that, but we also have numerous eyewitness testimonies to His life recorded therein, thus when we seek to model the Lord we follow; we repair to Scripture

and that's where we see Him constantly reproving all argument from false religion in the words 'Have You Not Read', demanding of His interlocutors that they recognise and regard the very words of God recorded for them in Scripture as both the foundation and highest standard of moral law, before they may lay claim to any moral authority themselves

this is Sola Scriptura 101, the very foundation stone to our worldview, and if you aren't aware of that, i don't think you even know what you're arguing against

* plural

*† i don't use that word lightly: you don't make sense of the things right in front of you, delivering bold assertions only to contradict them in the same breath… how one man can be wrong on so many levels amazes me, and has me wonder if the truth isn't in him

*†† y'know… in the Bible ?

>>856181

>how you went from seeing me employ the singular 'a' and interpreted it in the plural i don't know…

He's probably ESL

>is this what passes for rational thought in your world and are such self-defeating, internally inconsistent statements really what you imagine sound argumentation to look like ?

In reading this post I agree with you. But this is the internet, so the ability to generate outrage and make outrageous statements is one strategy you often see employed. Usually they don't bring it to the anonymous boards though, because it doesn't work without that tribalistic tendency of personality cults that you see elsewhere, so I would consider his style the inherited behavior of a net migrant who accidentally left his containment zone and somehow wound up here not knowing that that's not at all how things work around here.

Likely, he is regurgitating phrases and sentences that have been drummed repeatedly from such social circles. It is likely that many or most of the original thoughts are not his own, they are just things he keeps saying over and over in his head and never bothering to verify if any of it is true. Very indicative of a cult like behavior. When encountering something that contradicts it, he begins to repeat the pre-existing narrative like a broken record. The concept of "persuasion" or demonstrating anything that might work to convince another human being is not a thought that crosses the mind in this state. For instance, he talks about what 1st century churches had as if he was personally there, and speaks with an air of confidence to the level that, without exception, he knows what every single church was doing. There is no room for qualifications or nuances. Either you accept his narrative or else you get to hear the robotic repeating of the inner script a repeated time.

That's what you find a lot of on the internet.