True. I think Paul probably intended for his letters to be more than just letters. I don't think he intended them to be scripture. However, as they formed a part of christian communal texts which were copied, transmitted, and passed along very early, they were obviously held to be somewhat "scriptural" in nature. Just how, exactly, and how one define's "scripture" makes the problem more complex.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Know the truth about sola scriptura and Catholicism
- Thread starter Chookna
- Start date
True. I think Paul probably intended for his letters to be more than just letters. I don't think he intended them to be scripture. However, as they formed a part of christian communal texts which were copied, transmitted, and passed along very early, they were obviously held to be somewhat "scriptural" in nature. Just how, exactly, and how one define's "scripture" makes the problem more complex.
EIGHT The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
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?
FCFCS ANSWER: The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Pe****to. The "Old Latin Vulgate" was the next Bible to be compiled by the year 157 A.D. The corrupted Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of Constantine, was published in about 380 A.D. The RCC chose the name "Vulgate" or "Common" for Jeromes translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to their hearts. According to Dr. Bill Grady, in his book Final Authority, page 34:
"For the Syrian people dwelling northeast of Palestine, there were at least four major versions: the Pe****ta (A.D. 145); the Old Syriac (AD. 400); the Palestinian Syriac (A.D. 450); and the Philoxenian (A.D. 508), which was revised by Thomas of Harkel in A.D. 616 and henceforth known as the Harclean Syriac. True to the meaning of its name (straight or rule), the Pe****ta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Because of the obvious embarrassment caused by this document bearing witness to a text some two centuries older than either X [Codex Sinaiticus]or B [Codex Vaticanus] , modern Nicolaitane scholarship has conveniently assigned the Pe****ta's origin to A.D. 415. The first translation into a purely European tongue is known as the Gothic version. This work was prepared in 330 A.D. by the soul-winning missionary Ulfilas...Once again, the strength of this version is found in its age and agreement with the Textus Receptus. Edward Hills cites F.G. Kenyon's 1912 edition on New Testament criticism that, The type of text represented in it is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Thus, Ulfilas had access to King James Version readings a full two decades before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied. An excellent example of his superior manuscripts is reflected by the Gothic inclusion of the traditional ending to The Lord's Prayer of Matthew 6:13. The familiar words, for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen, are conspicuously absent from both of the two most ancient authorities. There are only eight surviving manuscripts of the Gothic version."
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?
FCFCS ANSWER: The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Pe****to. The "Old Latin Vulgate" was the next Bible to be compiled by the year 157 A.D. The corrupted Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of Constantine, was published in about 380 A.D. The RCC chose the name "Vulgate" or "Common" for Jeromes translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to their hearts. According to Dr. Bill Grady, in his book Final Authority, page 34:
"For the Syrian people dwelling northeast of Palestine, there were at least four major versions: the Pe****ta (A.D. 145); the Old Syriac (AD. 400); the Palestinian Syriac (A.D. 450); and the Philoxenian (A.D. 508), which was revised by Thomas of Harkel in A.D. 616 and henceforth known as the Harclean Syriac. True to the meaning of its name (straight or rule), the Pe****ta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Because of the obvious embarrassment caused by this document bearing witness to a text some two centuries older than either X [Codex Sinaiticus]or B [Codex Vaticanus] , modern Nicolaitane scholarship has conveniently assigned the Pe****ta's origin to A.D. 415. The first translation into a purely European tongue is known as the Gothic version. This work was prepared in 330 A.D. by the soul-winning missionary Ulfilas...Once again, the strength of this version is found in its age and agreement with the Textus Receptus. Edward Hills cites F.G. Kenyon's 1912 edition on New Testament criticism that, The type of text represented in it is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Thus, Ulfilas had access to King James Version readings a full two decades before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied. An excellent example of his superior manuscripts is reflected by the Gothic inclusion of the traditional ending to The Lord's Prayer of Matthew 6:13. The familiar words, for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen, are conspicuously absent from both of the two most ancient authorities. There are only eight surviving manuscripts of the Gothic version."
Smoke
Done here.
That's sheer nonsense. The Pe****ta does not date back to 145, and there was no Syriac Bible of any kind "under one cover" at that date. The same goes for what you call the Old Latin Vulgate. It is not a single translation or compilation, and no manuscript has been found that contains the entire New Testament canon.
I find it interesting, though, that you refer to the contents of the Pe****ta as "the true Bible," since the Pe****ta originally omitted a number of books of the New Testament canon.
A new thread I started http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ates/82947-secret-power-lawlessness-work.html
NINE The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
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.
FCFCS ANSWER: There was no delay. As previously shown, the Syrian Pe****to existed no later than 145A.D. and the Latin Vulgate by 157A.D. FCFCS COMMENT: Romes deception here is in order to pass off as genuine a false bible compiled from corrupt manuscripts, and to cast doubt against the Holy Bible as God's own true testimony.
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.
FCFCS ANSWER: There was no delay. As previously shown, the Syrian Pe****to existed no later than 145A.D. and the Latin Vulgate by 157A.D. FCFCS COMMENT: Romes deception here is in order to pass off as genuine a false bible compiled from corrupt manuscripts, and to cast doubt against the Holy Bible as God's own true testimony.
TEN The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
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.
FCFCS ANSWER: Since several Bibles were already in use by 397, there was no need for anyone to wonder which books were to be included. But due to the fact that the manuscripts that the RCC would come to depend on disagreed with each other in over 3,000 places (Final Authority, Grady, 98), it must have been quite a task to decide which manuscripts they could trust, and without the Holy Spirit, the task proved to be impossible, leaving them with several apocryphal books that contain historical and geographical errors as well as teaching divination and giving false prophecies that never came to pass.
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.
FCFCS ANSWER: Since several Bibles were already in use by 397, there was no need for anyone to wonder which books were to be included. But due to the fact that the manuscripts that the RCC would come to depend on disagreed with each other in over 3,000 places (Final Authority, Grady, 98), it must have been quite a task to decide which manuscripts they could trust, and without the Holy Spirit, the task proved to be impossible, leaving them with several apocryphal books that contain historical and geographical errors as well as teaching divination and giving false prophecies that never came to pass.