Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[ebb tide]

Bible Only is dumb

ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE

Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

.

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

.

TWO

How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

.

THREE

Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

.

FOUR

Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

.

FIVE

Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

.

SIX

What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

.

SEVEN

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

.

COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

.

EIGHT

When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

.

NINE

Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

.

TEN

What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

.

ELEVEN

Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

.

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

.

FIFTEEN

Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.

.

COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.

.

SIXTEEN

Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ).

.

COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).

.

SEVENTEEN

Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources, there are 73 different organizations of Methodists, 55 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 17 organizations of Mennonites, 128 of Lutherans and thousands of other denominations.

.

COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.

.

EIGHTEEN

In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

.

COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.

.

NINETEEN

Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.

.

2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 3-16: As 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.

Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

.

TWENTY

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.

.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

.

TWENTY-ONE

What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.

.

COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.

.

TWENTY-TWO

Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

.

COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

.

TWENTY-THREE

Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.

.

COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."

.

TWENTY-FOUR

Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.

.

COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

.

TWENTY-FIVE

During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

.

COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.

.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similar words:

.

Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran, founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of the some 33,800 sects have been created since then.

.

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

.

Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.

[RoosterRedux]

Way over my head theologically, but thanks for pinging me to your comment.

I am smarter for reading it (and more confused at the same time...but that confusion might pass).;-)

[Tell It Right]

Wow! So many posts! LOL

1 Corinthians specifically seems to be pretty much against personal interpretation as in Chapter 1 “10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Please read on. If anything it's against the belief in apostolic secession. Here's 1st Corinthians 1:10-17:

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Obviously Paul's wish in v. 10's is not against personal interpretation of Scripture but against what Catholics call apostolic succession. Paul told them to end their division by quitting lifting themselves up on which of the church leaders each person claimed being discipled by or baptized by. Paul even humbly excludes himself from being one to claim succession of (verse 13). Last but not least, Paul said to not make a big deal on succession from some guy named Cephas (verse 12). (I'm sure you know who that is.) Wow! Something to think about the next time someone tells you his teaching is more authentic than others because of some imagined apostolic succession from X apostle. (Hint, you only hear it from people who claim to be Cephas' successors -- the RCC leaders.)

1 Cor 1:16 validates infant baptism and baptism as a sacrament

For one, the context is in the Bible verses I posted above and it's clear that Paul was making a larger point that he's glad he didn't baptize a bunch of folks so they wouldn't all claim apostolic succession from him. So what to make of verse 16's "baptized the household of Stephanas"? Let's see.

"Baptized" in the Greek is baptizo, which means:
1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

Are you sure you want to use verse 16's argument about baptism? That verse makes it sound like you're making an argument for baptism by dunking, not sprinkling. LOL As to what is meant by baptizing the "household" I honestly don't see an argument for or against infant baptism. There's not enough there there to know if it includes the adults only or all ages.

1 Cor 1:18 “but to us who are being saved “ contradicts the “just say I’m bjorn again and you will be saved”

I guess you're suggesting it means salvation by works instead? Let's read it in context. You point to me where it's talking about salvation by works. And I'll point to you where it's talking about salvation by faith (declaring). Here's 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (obviously bold-faced is mine):

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

So let's look at that. The verse you referred to (v. 18) associate salvation with God's power (which I bold-faced, and remaining reference to power). I paid particular attention to the next verse (v. 19) because Paul used it to explain verse 18 ("for"). He referenced Isaiah 29:14's teaching on wisdom of God vs wisdom of the world (even those who call themselves wise). Therefore I bold-faced both wisdom and power in the rest of the verses, obviously those two points were important in Paul's teaching on the matter. And this section begins and ends on salvation (v. 18) and redemption (v. 30), including what I believe to be a related step (v. 31). What do I include verse 31? Because verse 31 begins with "therefore". And what does verse 31 say? Does it say to therefore wisely earn salvation with works? Nope. It says to therefore boast in the Lord. That to me it seems to be that Paul is associating salvation with making a statement of faith.

[Cronos]

When we read the passage about Lydia in Acts 16:13-15, there are certain things we know about Lydia and her household.

Things we know about Lydia:
1. She was a seller of purple and she lived in Thyratira.
2. She worshipped God (and therefore is Jewish or a Jewish proselyte?)
3. She heard Paul/Silas speak when she was by the river side.
4. God opened her heart, that she attend to the things Paul said.
5. She was baptized.
6. She besought Paul/Silas saying, “If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there”.
7. Paul/Silas stayed at her house, therefore they judged her to be faithful to the Lord.

Things we know about the household:
1. They lived in Thyratira.
2. They were baptized.

The household would not be an atomic family of today’s but larger. It would contain children for the same reasons I’ve stated above.

The fact that they are not mentioned by name and age says nothing but the fact that they were part of the household.

The fact that the UK isn’t mentioned in the Bible is not relevant to the fact that exists.

you says “assumptions outside the Word of God” — first, the WORD OF GOD is JESUS.

Secondly, your assumption that there weren’t kids is an assumption outside the Biblical text. Nowhere does it explicitly say no kids

[Cronos]

You referred to Ambrose first in post #34 “ (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).”

Which work of Ambrose are you referring to?

[lasereye]

I do not understand how this relates to the Bible being the only source of doctrine. How did they know what the correct teachings were? Obviously they knew about some things, like the resurrection, by word of mouth. There were witnesses of that. Did they know things for which there were no witnesses?

[Cronos]

“Christ’s and the apostles’ teachings should be the see-all do-all. Which makes it sound like you’re leaning toward a sola scriptura position.”

Actually Christ’s teachings are not all contained in the Bible - John 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”

Sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone goes against what the biblical books themselves teach

[Cronos]

“”No that is simply not true”

wrong — ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.

You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels.

Sorry, but again, you are wrong

[Cronos]

“”No that is simply not true”

wrong — ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.

You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels.

Sorry, but again, you are wrong —> Jesus said
Mark 16:15
He said to them, “Go into all the world and >preach> the gospel to all creation.

[Tell It Right]

Actually Christ’s teachings are not all contained in the Bible - John 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”

I guess you and I will disagree on if the "other things" Jesus did are teachings.

But you haven't answered the points I brought up. You seem to keep bringing up other things. I'd be interested in what you have to say about post 442.

[Cronos]

” But I was responding to this arguing against the necessity of writing as God’s chosen means of preservation, which the Lord used and opened the minds of disciples to in Lk. 24”

Actually you didn’t.

you went against the point raised by ebb that “ If reading the Bible were a necessary means “ You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that “reading” the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation

Sorry, but you were wrong again and trying to change and interpretation of what you already interpreted is a perfect example of the indictment of personal interpretation.

No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”

[Just mythoughts]

Yeah, that ‘crazy’ guy went and declared Mark 13:23 take ye heed, behold I have foretold you all things.. this was long before any jot or tittle of the so called New Testament got placed on animal skins or plant fibers..

I mean really who did He think He was… At the rate the church is going they will claim the devil is really Jesus!

[Cronos]

There simply is no "fact that they didn't write anything," just that we have no record,

We have no record of them writing and it's also pretty likely that they didn't write - otherwise we would have texts handed down.

So your statement is probable but not very possible

"classic Prot" -- what are those? Luther who believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist? Or Servetus of the Brethrens? You're just using incorrect words as the norm

The fact that Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas didn't write down texts (or they would have been handed down in the churches they founded) is a strike against your contention that one must have a written down scripture to be able to retain adherence to the core tenets of Christianity

It is sophistry to try and prove Sola scriptura by just looking at the 16th century godmen

Next, you dismiss the fact that Acts 17:2 is Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees

You have to have an alternative to SS, -- no you don't -- you have "Not SOLA" scriptura i.e. not scripture ALONE --> just like the pre-tribulation rapture or the inventios of the mormons, Sola scriptura is an invention that says "you need to have an alternative to my new invention"

That is a fallacious statement

"Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD

The fact is that Josephus writes one point of view - whereas other Talmudic scholars differ

Your fingers are stiff with arthritis as you write long posts that are against what Christ Himself has taught

[Cronos]

“Does it say to therefore wisely earn salvation with works”

That’s a strawman argument - no one holds that you can “earn salvation with works”

Jesus saves and is saving us — note what Jesus Himself said — repent, be baptised, eat of His Body and endure to the end. Not just “faith alone”

[Cronos]

Hi - the Church holds that the Bible is the source of doctrine — we use the teachings of the interpretation of the scripture as handed down from Christ through His apostles and down to know the doctrines of the Christian faith.

This holds that the books that were defined as scripture by the Church are the standard against which and the source from which the doctrines originate.

How did they know what the correct teachings were?

By “they” — I assume you mean early Christians.

The early Christians were taught the correct teachings by people who were taught by people who were taught by bishops who were taught by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus Himself.

[Cronos]

Why are you calling "Tell" a "crazy guy"?

Mark 13 talks about Jesus prophesying the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD.

1. As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

... 9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

...22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

...26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

All of these are describing the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 AD

note 9 "“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues."

Christians aren't - and are hardly likely to be "flogged in synagogues" today or in the future.

What Jesus was talking about was when the Jesus-movement was still a sect of 2nd temple Judaism -- while 2nd temple Judaism still existed

The false Messiahs is a clear description of the false "Messiahs" i.e. "anointed ones" i.e. "Jewish warlords who would free them from the outsiders" came - before 70 AD

And the coming in clouds --> I'll describe that in the next post

[Cronos]

The Olivet discourse then talks about the 8 signs that Jesus said would lead to the Temple's destruction that were important for the Apostles to recognize

1. Sign 1: false messiahs - Matt 24:4-5 -- Up to 70 AD there were several supposed messiahs in Judea who led armies against the legions. They were killed with their followers. At the time of the Jewish captivity, there were many leaders who declared themselves to be Christs (Messiahs), so that while the Romans were actually besiegin them, there were three factions within - and Joseph mentions them as "Imposters and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly""
   
   
2. Sign 2: Wars You will hear of wars and rumors of wars Matt 24:6 - there was civil war in Rome itself
   
   
3. Sign 3: famines - during the war the Jews in Jerusalem underwent a severe famine - St. Paul wrote about it in his letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 8)
   
   
4. Sign 4: earthquakes erupted frequently - the city of Colossae was destroyed in an earthquake in the 50s. And Pompeii had one in 63 AD (the same Pompeii that was destroyed by volcano in 79 AD)
   
   
5. sign 5: persecution - Matthew 24:9 - Nero's persecution killed Peter and Paul
   
   
6. Sign 6: Apostasy - Matthew 24:10-12 - this is reflected in Revelations 2 about the Nicolaitians
   
   
7. Sign 7 - the gospel worldwide. What did Paul say in Rom 1:8? First, I give thanks[f] to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world and in Col 1:5-6 First, I give thanks[f] to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world in Paul's mind there was no doubt that the gospel had gone out into the whole world Clement wrote in 73 AD that Peter and Paul had been martyred, but not before they "taught righteousness to the whole world, and they came to the extreme limit of the west" -- the word used for "world" is oikoumene - which specifically means the civilized world i.e. the Roman Empire - the Olivet discourse does not use the world "Kosmos" that designates the entire earth.
   
   Kosmos in Matt 24:21 From the beginning of the world (kosmos) until now"
   
   
8. Sign 8: Daniel's desolating sacrilege. Matt 24:15-19. Note that the Sanhedrin believed that this had been fulfilled in 167 BC, but that did not meet Daniel's prophecy of 3.5 years

   Jesus then mentions in 24:21 the Great Tribulation - which is for the Jesus-movement Jews.
   
   There has never been, nor will there ever be anything rivaling it. The Church was close to being smothered in its cradle if Nero continued and the Jerusalem Christians had not escaped to Pella - this was a tiny community, primarily Jewish and was attacked by both the Roman authorities AND the Jewish authorities. That WAS the great tribulation

THEN, in Matt 24:29 And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved - This is apocalyptic language exactly referring to Isaiah 13:10-13 The stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light... I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place" - Jesus is foretelling the overthrow of nero and the Sanhedrin. He draws a parallel between the shaking of Babylon and the shaking of Jerusalem (and that's the basis of John's vision in the book of revelations)

This is also reflected in Haggai 2:6-7 Thus says that Lord of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts

This splendor is Christ and the house is the Church. The Sanhedrin was uprooted forever, never to be validly re-established again.

==================
I'm finally answering your question, apologies for the background lenght
=============================

Now to Matt 24:30-31 Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds on heaven with power and great glory; and He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other -- and on reading this with Daniel we have

• the sign of the Son of Man in heaven - as Josephus writes in War of the Jews book VI, 5:3

  3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star 20 resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, 21 [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner 22 [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

  
  
  "There was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city of Jerusalem and a comet that continued a whole year
  
  
• The clouds - As in Daniel, the Son of Man is coming towards the Ancient of Days (The Father) not to earth. The "clouds on Heaven" symbolize the majesty and glory of the Son when He judges his enemies
  
  
• The mourning - Matt 24:30 - "all the tribes of the earth - the Greek word used here is ge namely land. So all the tribes in the land
  
  
• the four winds - He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, form one end of Heaven to the other" - Matt 24:31. This four winds is reflected in Dan 11:4 - meaning "scattered everywhere" - and Jesus refers in particular Exek 37:9-10 - and in this jesus predicts the revitalization and reunification of the Jesus-movement the young Christian Church

================

Mara Bar Searpion, a pagan Syrian Gentile who wrote a letter to hsi son around 73 AD wrote "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged"

Only God could make the type of prediction that Jesus made and have it come true. Consider how while Jerusalem was still standing,Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of hte empire. At that time there were no armies around Jerusalem encompassing and besieging it for the siege began three decades after His death

Finally the fig tree - "you know that He is near, at the very gates." - the generation of the fig tree was the people who lived to see the destruction in 70 AD

That is why the Gospel according to john does not include the Olivet discourse because revelations was written before 67 AD but the gospel according to john was written after 70 AD

[Cronos]

“There are dozens of examples of souls being baptized in the Bible; but not one instance was where a baby was baptized.”

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Remember that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

[Tell It Right]

Jesus saves and is saving us — note what Jesus Himself said — repent, be baptised, eat of His Body and endure to the end. Not just “faith alone”

I went there because you said: "1 Cor 1:18 “but to us who are being saved “ contradicts the “just say I’m bjorn again and you will be saved”. So I summarized that Bible text to show that, well actually it says what you say it doesn't say. LOL Am I right?

[Cronos]

No, you aren’t telling it right :)

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

As the Bible says, through baptism and living the life as Christ ordained we are already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), an we are also BEING SAVED (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and we have the hope that we will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).

Like the apostle Paul we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).

[Just mythoughts]

Actually, Matthew 24 , mark 13, and Luke 21. Lay out the seven Trumps of Revelation. The parable of the fig tree originates in the Garden of Eden, in the fig grove. Jeremiah gives more details.. and Christ commanded the parable be learned. That generation did not begin until 1948.

Nero was a tin horn dictator and is only the figment of someone drunken imagination of being the anti-Christ.