Christianity QA

Question:

Bam continues to write: But you changed the subject. The subject is determining theology and religious doctrine solely from scripture, which, (when the term was invented) meant the entire Bible. We know that the Jews were always searching scripture in order to trip up Jesus. But to the gentiles, reconciling the OT with Paul’s preaching meant nothing. Paul was showing the fulfillment of the OT prophecies; explaining the meaning of the OT in light of the life and teachings of Christ. Naturally, it couldn’t contradict the scriptures. If it did, it wouldn’t be from the same God. But early Christianity was not about running around with the Bible – or the OT. Jesus sent 72 disciples to all nations and they weren’t running around with 5,000 sheepskins. When did you come up with the idea that scripture meant the whole bible?? What is the bible, a collection of scriptures. Read 2 Timothy 3: 16 – Paul says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Do you think these scriptures that Paul was referring to, were in some bible?? You forget that Jesus and the Apostles were Jews. They knew the importance of written scriptures. You had apostles who wrote scriptures. Your own church has said that Matthew could have been written as early as 36AD. But you go on and on, how Paul was teaching and reasoning with OT scriptures. There is no indication that they were OT scriptures. That is what you want to believe. Acts 17, clearly says that he was teaching of Jesus suffering, his rising from the dead. Those are new testament topics. It also says in verse That the people he was preaching to, received the word with all readiness of mind. Some translations say with eagerness. But they checked what he said to the scriptures. The point being that in three places in the bible, we are told to check what is being taught to the scriptures. But you want to cloud things and claim the bible didn’t exist back then. Read 2 Timothy as quoted above. What are these God inspired scriptures that Paul is talking about? What are they used for? What does Acts 17: 2,  say. Paul was reasoning OUT of the scriptures. And verse three, Jesus suffering and rising from the dead, etc. I asked what these scriptures in verse 2 were. What does Bam say – Was it old testament scriptures, or was it new testament scriptures? We can’t be sure.

Neither. It was word of mouth. These were current events. Paul would have laughed at the concept of sola scriptura at the time, because there was no NT. Bam says it was word of mouth, when verse 2 clearly says that Paul was resoning OUT of the scriptures. Then Bam asks the following question – Tell me when the writings of the Evangelists or the Epistles were ever referred to as "scripture". Where is the word "scripture" used to refer to any writings of the NT? Where were they pronounced "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or "God’s written word", or anything like that? Bam read the bible, before you ask these questions. Read 2 Tinothy 3: 15-16. Verse 15, Paul tells Timothy that he has known the scriptures, and was made wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Hey, does salvation through faith in Christ Jesus sound NT to you?? Does verse 16, refer to the scripptures as being given by inspiration of God?? How does Sola Scriptura become a 16th century invention, when Paul says that the scriptures are inspired by God, and should be used for doctrine, reproof, correction and for instruction in righteousness. And Bam, I found refernces to scripture in three places in the new testament, that clearly say that scripture should be checked to see if what they were told is correct. It is you, who has decided that these scriptures are OT. Every indication from the bible, is that they were teaching a risen christ, and salvation through Jesus Christ. Very clearly NT stuff. There are ways that seem right to God (scripture, as Paul says Inspired of God), and ways that seem right to man. The teaching of man. So, yes, the teaching of man, should be checked to the scriptures.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bam continues to write: But you changed the subject. The subject is determining theology and religious doctrine solely from scripture, which, (when the term was invented) meant the entire Bible. We know that the Jews were always searching scripture in order to trip up Jesus. But to the gentiles, reconciling the OT with Paul’s preaching meant nothing. Paul was showing the fulfillment of the OT prophecies; explaining the meaning of the OT in light of the life and teachings of Christ. Naturally, it couldn’t contradict the scriptures. If it did, it wouldn’t be from the same God. But early Christianity was not about running around with the Bible – or the OT. Jesus sent 72 disciples to all nations and they weren’t running around with 5,000 sheepskins. When did you come up with the idea that scripture meant the whole bible?? What is the bible, a collection of scriptures.

We’re talking about "sola scriptura". Look it up and get back to me. What does Bam say – Was it old testament scriptures, or was it new testament scriptures? We can’t be sure. Neither. It was word of mouth. These were current events. Paul would have laughed at the concept of sola scriptura at the time, because there was no NT. Bam says it was word of mouth, when verse 2 clearly says that Paul was resoning OUT of the scriptures.

To the Jews. And this was one incident out of gillions in the early Church. Then Bam asks the following question – Tell me when the writings of the Evangelists or the Epistles were ever referred to as "scripture". Where is the word "scripture" used to refer to any writings of the NT? Where were they pronounced "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or "God’s written word", or anything like that? Bam read the bible, before you ask these questions. Read 2 Tinothy 3: 15-16. Verse 15, Paul tells Timothy that he has known the scriptures, and was made wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Correct. Timothy knew scriptures as a little kid – couldn’t have been any part of the NT. Hey, does salvation through faith in Christ Jesus sound NT to you??

Yes. So what. Does verse 16, refer to the scripptures as being given by inspiration of God?? How does Sola Scriptura become a 16th century invention, when Paul says that the scriptures are inspired by God, and should be used for doctrine, reproof, correction and for instruction in righteousness.

Because that does not in any way support the doctrine of  "sola scriptura". As I said, find out what it means before you start arguing. Find out when the term first came into vogue. BAM

Response:

Bam, please read Acts 17: 2 – It clearly reads that Paul reasoned with them OUT of the scriptures. In Acts 17: 11 the people are seaching the scriptures daily. Do you suppose they put oral words on the table and searched them??

Them??????? Who is "them"? This was a synagogue of Jews. Paul was trying to convert these Jews. But the Gentiles didn’t give a hoot about reconciling the OT with the gospel that was preached orally. I know it is hard for you to believe, when you have already made up your mind.

But you changed the subject. The subject is determining theology and religious doctrine solely from scripture, which, (when the term was invented) meant the entire Bible. We know that the Jews were always searching scripture in order to trip up Jesus. But to the gentiles, reconciling the OT with Paul’s preaching meant nothing. Paul was showing the fulfillment of the OT prophecies; explaining the meaning of the OT in light of the life and teachings of Christ. Naturally, it couldn’t contradict the scriptures. If it did, it wouldn’t be from the same God. But early Christianity was not about running around with the Bible – or the OT. Jesus sent 72 disciples to all nations and they weren’t running around with 5,000 sheepskins. Verse 3, has Paul telling them about Christ suffering, and that he is the risen Christ. Was it old testament scriptures, or was it new testament scriptures? We can’t be sure.

Neither. It was word of mouth. These were current events. Paul would have laughed at the concept of sola scriptura at the time, because there was no NT. If you check the piece I posted on the Gospel of Matthew, some experts think it was written as early as 36AD. There are also ideas of 37, 40-45, etc.

So were many spurious gospels. The Church had to separate the two. But certainly indications that new testament scriptures were very early on. So, it is also clear that it could have been new testament scriptures.

Tell me when the writings of the Evangelists or the Epistles were ever referred to as "scripture". Where is the word "scripture" used to refer to any writings of the NT? Where were they pronounced "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or "God’s written word", or anything like that? The truth is, a church would receive "a letter from Paul", and people would believe it because they belived Paul – just as they believed Peter and the Apostles – not because the letter in itself had some supernatural guarantee. Now suddenly instead of probably. You are now saying that Paul WAS

showing. I didn’t check the passage. If I’m wrong, show me. A big difference. But the bottom line is that we don’t know.

Yes we *do* know. "Sola scriptura" is a 16th century invention. And just because you find a couple of passages where the writings of the OT are referred to, does not mean anything close to "sola scriptura" existed. I can hear guys like you asking Paul, "Where is the true presence spoken about in the OT? Where is Paul mentioned in the OT? Where is Sunday worship mentioned in the OT? Where is the Church mentioned in the OT? Where are the Apostles mentioned in the OT? Where does it say Jesus would walk on water in the OT?" BAM

Response:

Bam writes:

That’s ridiculous. There is nothing here that says Paul was working from any written documents. Bam, please read Acts 17: 2 – It clearly reads that Paul reasoned with them OUT of the scriptures. In Acts 17: 11 the people are seaching the scriptures daily. Do you suppose they put oral words on the table and searched them?? I know it is hard for you to believe, when you have already made up your mind. Verse 3, has Paul telling them about Christ suffering, and that he is the risen Christ. Was it old testament scriptures, or was it new testament scriptures? We can’t be sure. If you check the piece I posted on the Gospel of Matthew, some experts think it was written as early as 36AD. There are also ideas of 37, 40-45, etc. But certainly indications that new testament scriptures were very early on. So, it is also clear that it could have been new testament scriptures. Notice the difference even in your own postings. Yes. Paul was probably explaining the fulfillment of OT prophecies – but not formulating Christian doctrine. First you say that Paul was Probably explaining the fulfillment of OT prophesies. And Bam, I will admit that is a possibility. But I have also pointed out another possibility. But what do you then say. As I said, Paul was showing how the OT prohecies were fulfilled. But Paul was not using any NT documents to formulate Christian doctrine. The NT is merely evidence of what all of Jesus’ disciples were already teaching orally. Now suddenly instead of probably. You are now saying that Paul WAS showing. A big difference. But the bottom line is that we don’t know. The fact does remain, that their were scriptures. And we also have in verse 11, that the more noble of the Thessalonians, searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was telling them, was true. Clearly an indication, that we should do the same. If someone tells us something about religion, we should check the scriptures to see if they are telling us the truth. Otherwise, you could have a religious leader, tell us to burn someone at the stake, and that by doing so, we will gain forgiveness of our sins. Now, show me where Jesus told us to do that?? When the people came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of these non-believers. But what did Jesus do. He restored the ear, and told Peter to put away his sword.

Response:

This is such a stupid question, Paul IS a Catholic. What a stupid statement. Paul is/was a Christian, not a catholic.

That’s right he was a Christian and a Catholic – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -BAM

Response:

Bam writes: The scriptures were in existence long before 400AD.

No one is arguing that. But they were not guaranteed to be authentic and inspired by the Holy Spirit, until the Catholic Church said so around the beginning of the 5th century. Secondly, nobody was passing around these "scriptures" as if it were the basis of the Church. Nobody was using the Gospels to formulate doctrine. That didn’t come about for another thousand years. BAM Bam buddy, check the bible. Acts 17 : verse 2. Paul is reasoning with the Thessalonians OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. Verse 3, and what was he reasoning, That Christ suffered, and is risen from the dead, and that Jesus is the Christ. Certainly new testament ideas. Verse 11, The more noble of the Thessalonians, searched the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was teaching them was so. When did this take place?? Very early on. And it gives you a picture of Paul teaching from the scriptures. And his audience seemed to have scriptures to check his teachings to. That certainly indicates that there were scriptures around and that many people had access to them. So, the question is, Did Paul need some Catholic church to guarantee that the scriptures he was using, were authentic or inspired by the holy spirit? I don’t think so.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bam writes: The scriptures were in existence long before 400AD. No one is arguing that. But they were not guaranteed to be authentic and inspired by the Holy Spirit, until the Catholic Church said so around the beginning of the 5th century. Secondly, nobody was passing around these "scriptures" as if it were the basis of the Church. Nobody was using the Gospels to formulate doctrine. That didn’t come about for another thousand years. BAM Bam buddy, check the bible. Acts 17 : verse 2. Paul is reasoning with the Thessalonians OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. Verse 3, and what was he reasoning, That Christ suffered, and is risen from the dead, and that Jesus is the Christ. Certainly new testament ideas.

That’s ridiculous. There is nothing here that says Paul was working from any written documents. Verse 11, The more noble of the Thessalonians, searched the scriptures daily, to see what Paul was teaching them was so.

Yes. Paul was probably explaining the fulfillment of OT prophecies – but not formulating Christian doctrine. When did this take place?? Very early on. And it gives you a picture of Paul teaching from the scriptures. And his audience seemed to have scriptures to check his teachings to.

As I said, Paul was showing how the OT prohecies were fulfilled. But Paul was not using any NT documents to formulate Christian doctrine. The NT is merely evidence of what all of Jesus’ disciples were already teaching orally. That certainly indicates that there were scriptures around and that many people had access to them.

Weren’t we talking about the Bible? You are talking about the Septaugint, which is on;y part of the Bible. So, the question is, Did Paul need some Catholic church to guarantee that the scriptures he was using, were authentic or inspired by the holy spirit? I don’t think so.

This is such a stupid question, Paul IS a Catholic. BAM

Response:

The scriptures were in existence long before 400AD.

No one is arguing that. But they were not guaranteed to be authentic and inspired by the Holy Spirit, until the Catholic Church said so around the beginning of the 5th century. Secondly, nobody was passing around these "scriptures" as if it were the basis of the Church. Nobody was using the Gospels to formulate doctrine. That didn’t come about for another thousand years. BAM

Response:

The scriptures were in existence long before 400AD. No one is arguing that. But they were not guaranteed to be authentic and inspired by the Holy Spirit, until the Catholic Church said so around the beginning of the 5th century. So the Bible wasn’t true until the rcc said it was true? You’re funny Bryan.

Yes. In fact it wasn’t even a Bible until the Catholic Church said so. BAM

Response:

TDP Writes: What I am saying New Prophet is that the Bible is not the sole authority.  Yes, there may be some bias on part because I truly believe in the Churches Teachings.  The Church preceded the Bible by some 400 years and without the Magisterium you have self interpretation. Lets see when the Gospel of Matthew was written. And Tony this is from a Catholic page – VI. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ’s Ascension–i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Iren

Related Posts