My answer to you is Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (King James Version) 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
*How do you know what you read is suposed to be in the new testament. The new testament has no list of books that ought be included.
2 Peter 3 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
*Who told you what Paul wrote was scripture? Scripture doesn't. Who said what the First Pope was writing about was included in scripture. There is no evidence there in scripture. You are just making unscriptual assumptions.
16As also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction.
*Ahem...
1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
*What? THe old or the new testament?
Per these verses, one sees that 1)All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righeteousness.
Profitable does not mean the only source. And it does not say what is to be included and excluded form scripture. You can tahnk tghe Catholic Church for deciding what would and wouldn't be included in scripture. The Catholic Church preceeded the New Tsetament.
2)Per Peter, Paul's letters were Scripture.
*Nope. It doesn't identify any particular one - so, again, you are just assuming what we decided would be in scripture is scripture
3)Per Paul, the gospels which contain the account of Christ's rising from the dead were Scripture.
*It does not say that at all....
Considering that the account of the Bereans is getting towards the END of Paul's ministry and the New Testament books circulated widely in the early church,
*It does not say that in scripture
it is not unfathomable that they were also looking at New Testament Scripture when comparing what Paul was verbally telling them in person.
*SCripture does not sdaythat
You have NO Scripture to indicate that they weren't. Likely, they were.
*THAT is sola scriptura? That is like believing the Govt can do whateverr is not prohibited them in the Constitution. Just the opposite is the truth.
10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Scripture does not say they read the new testament
Good Lord, man. THe Scripture says Faith comes by HEARING.Did the bereans have talking books?
Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world
They standard set by the Bereans is that everything is to be tested by Scripture.
*So, the old testament is your sole rule of Faith?
They didn't wait for some church council to interpret it for them. They took the advice of Jesus and "search(ed) the Scriptures).
*Fine. You are stuck with the olfd testament
They didn't have to wait for a church bureaucracy to do anything, for as John said in 1 John. Speaking to the "little children", John said "1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.
*Really? Then why did Jesus establish a Church if it was unnecesary?
But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."
*But, they didn't.
Of course, some still require teaching because they refuse to dig into the word and find out for themselves.
*Then, you are disputing your own Rule of Faith.
They are either too lazy or have been duped into thinking they can not understand it on their own. As the writer of Hebrews said: Hebrews 5 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil
*So, ylur own Sole Rule of Faith contradcits itself.
Thank you for illustrating sola scriptura is non-sensical and self-refuting