[Akoue]

That was what I was driving at, hoping Tom would admit that. It was the Church that pulled together all those mss. and letters and writings to make what is called the Bible.

For whatever it's worth, this isn't even controversial among academics, be they Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, or secular/atheist. Scholars love to disagree, but on this point one doesn't find scholarly disagreement. The only people I know of who take a contrary view are non-academic polemicists. But their work has been just obliterated by academic historians.

[Akoue]

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.

Right. One finds precisely the same view in the early Fathers, and among the Eastern Orthodox. Scripture is one, indispensable, part of Tradition. But it isn't, and was never intended to be, the whole of it.

[Tj3]

Here's what you provided:

Then why did you ask?

Notice that it doesn't say that Scripture is complete, it says "that the man of God may be complete".

If scripture tells you all trhat you need to know about the goispel and to be completrely, thoroughly equippped, then what else do you need? In what way do yopu think scripture is inadequate?

[Tj3]

Do you find this in Scripture or is this just your own personal opinion?

The omniscience of God is in scripture.

Why, do you doubt it?

[Akoue]

Then why did you ask?



If scripture tells you all trhat you need to know about the goispel and to be completrely, thoroughly equippped, then what else do you need? In what way do yopu think scripture is inadequate?

I asked because 2Tim.3.14-17 doesn't say, nor even intimate, that Scripture is complete, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had some other Scripture in mind.

Notice that the passage from 2Tim. That you quote doesn't say that Scripture "tells you all that you need to know" in order to be "completely, thoroughly equipped". It says that Scripture--and the Scripture to which it refers is, of course, the OT--is "profitable", i.e. useful. Scripture is useful in matters of doctrine and discipline (something no one here has denied). Usefulness is a long, long way from sufficiency: The passage you have offered says only that Scripture is useful, not that it is sufficient. The same goes for your frequent mention of the episode with the Bereans: That shows the usefulness of Scripture (again, the OT), not that Scripture is by itself the sole standard. Paul commends the Bereans for studying and searching the OT--the Septuagint, which includes books which you reject. Again, everyone who has so far posted here agrees about the usefulness, the importance, of Scripture. What you haven't nearly shown is that Scripture itself endorses your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole standard. Therefore, your claim is itself un-Biblical.

And you seem to be ignoring those many passages, several of which I have cited, which indicate the authoritativeness (and hence usefulness, to say the very least) of oral Tradition. You also haven't given any Scriptural grounds for choosing the canon you use. So I think it's fair to say that I don't find Scripture do be inadequate. It is your understanding of Scripture that it inadequate. You have misunderstood 2Tim.3, you have failed to take any account of the fact that Scripture repeatedly affirms the authoritativeness of oral Tradition, and you have failed to provide any Scriptural justification for both your canon of Scripture and your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Taken together, these more than adequately demonstrate that you are not a Biblical Christian, that your claims and the views you espouse are not grounded in Scripture. In fact, the canon of Scripture you use is itself a product of Tradition, the very thing you claim to eschew.

[Akoue]

The omniscience of God is in scripture.

Why, do you doubt it?

As usual, what I doubt is not Scripture but the veracity of your claims. Where in Scripture is it said that the canon of Scripture was determined by God before the foundation of the world? (This is what you asserted. My question called for you to provide Scriptural evidence for this claim.)

And, if it were determined by God before the foundation of the world, where in Scripture are we told which texts are part of Scripture?

Kindly provide Scriptural validation for your claims.

[JoeT777]

Tom, et al:

Assuming that ‘Standards’ are critical in our faith, that we must conform to some ‘Standard’ which Standard is Scripturally demonstrated? Why wouldn't Catholic 'Standard' work?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Tom, et al:

If 'Standards' are critical for assessing truth, then why must there only be One 'Standard'. I say this considering that In the past you've asserted that one faith was as good as another (excluding Catholicism of course). Why not Catholicism as the One Faith. After commissioning Peter and the Church Christ prayed “And not for them only do I pray…That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”(John 17:20 seq) Is it not the prayer of Christ that we be ONE. If we were ONE after Christ rose from the dead, after the Temple was destroyed, after Constantine made Catholicism the state religion, after St. Thomas and after several hundred Vicars of Christ why then do we need to be the Tom's one standard?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Tom, et al:

You have stated the Bible is the only source of revelation of cosmic truths (paraphrasing your comments). This makes the Bible worthy of worship. Do you 'worship' the bible? Is your bible worthy of to receive sacrifice, did your bible hang on a cross, and does a BOOK give your unmerited grace of redemption, salvation, and justification?

JoeT

[Tj3]

I asked because 2Tim.3.14-17 doesn't say, nor even intimate, that Scripture is complete, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had some other Scripture in mind.

Keep repeating it enough times and maybe some people will start believing it.

And you seem to be ignoring those many passages, several of which I have cited, which indicate the authoritativeness (and hence usefulness, to say the very least) of oral Tradition.

No, I am not ignoring them. We have discussed them so many times, that I am choosing not to waste my time on some of your responses. You seem to ignore my answers in any case, constantly repeating the same things over and over even after they have been answered.

[Tj3]

Tom, et al:

Assuming that 'Standards' are critical in our faith, that we must conform to some 'Standard' which Standard is Scripturally demonstrated? Why wouldn't Catholic 'Standard' work?

JoeT

Do you mean why won't adding man's words (denominational teachings, adding books to the Bible, etc.) to God work? Because they are man's words not God's.

[Wondergirl]

No, I am not ignoring them. We have discussed them so many times, that I am choosing not to waste my time on some of your responses. You seem to ignore my answers in any case, constantly repeating the same things over and over even after they have been answered.

You never responded to my question last night about how we got the Bible (the canon) as it is today.

[Tj3]

Tom, et al:
If ‘Standards’ are critical for assessing truth, then why must there only be One ‘Standard’.

Because, unlike the New Age teachers, Christianity believes that there is one truth, not many conflicting truths.

I say this considering that In the past you’ve asserted that one faith was as good as another (excluding Catholicism of course).

Not only have I NEVER said that, I also have frequently spoken against such a belief. Interesting how people choose to mis-represent when the facts don't go their way.

[Tj3]

You never responded to my question last night about how we got the Bible (the canon) as it is today.

I did respond to that issue (post 63, 65 and 70).

[Tj3]

Tom, et al:

You have stated the Bible is the only source of revelation of cosmic truths (paraphrasing your comments).

No, I never said that. You are not paraphrasing, you are choosing to mis-represent once again.

[Wondergirl]

I did respond to that issue (post 63, 65 and 70).

No, you didn't. You said God inspired men to write the Scriptures. That wasn't my question.

How did the OT and later the NT end up with the books that are in them and in the order they are? Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not to be included? Who decided Revelation was to be included?

[Tj3]

No, you didn't. You said God inspired men to write the Scriptures. That wasn't my question.

Read again. God chose what was included in scripture.

How did the OT and later the NT end up with the books that are in them and in the order they are?

You think order is important?

Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not to be included? Who decided Revelation was to be included?

God. You think God could inspire what was written in the Bible but didn't know what books would be in it?

[Wondergirl]

Read again. God chose what was included in scripture.

Whom did He tell? How did we get the Bible with the books that are in it?

[Tj3]

Whom did He tell? How did we get the Bible with the books that are in it?

Ever heard of prophetic revelation? Must we keep going around in circles?

[Wondergirl]

Ever heard of prophetic revelation? Must we keep going around in circles?

The books have been inspired and written. That part is done. Who then decided which books and mss. of all that were floating around, were the inspired Scriptures?