1. 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!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    Mostly because it wasn't necesary at the time; the Apostles were living, or had just recently passed away. The Church had just gotten started, there was no reason to clear up discrepancies that didn't yet exist. It wasn't until the issue of what writings were inspired became more prevalent and divisive that the Church authoritatively stepped in and made the declaration of the Canon.

    FGS
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,136
    Ratings:
    +669
    Which Apostles were living until 382 AD?
     
  3. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    Katz asked, "Why not immediately after the last of the writings was completed?" Obviously at least one Apostle was alive when the last of the writings was completed, or else...well, the last of the writings wouldn't have been completed, lol.

    FGS
     
  4. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    "382" 202.
    He mistook your 201's "at the time" for 382 AD, rather than what you wrote: "immediately after [John wrote his works]." Another thing about these councils "formally" recognizing the NT: they generally, merely (and accurately) purported to formally recognize what had been recognized already by churches and Christians generally from the start
     
  5. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Writer,Wow, Writer There are many many problems with your remarks writer. I shall begin with he first problem. You think that all revelation of God was written down. This is a mistake. You also think that Tradition is a separate form of revelation. Its not. God has given us all revelation but he chooses to do so under 2 different media or forms. 1)Scripture and 2)Tradition. Both are the word of God and both are binding on us. Again I point you to (2 Thess 2:15) to clearly see this. One cannot contradict the other but both come from the apostles teaching that was handed on to the next generation of Christians. Your mistake is to wrongly believe that every tradition that the aposltes taught is written down. It wasn't and we are to hold fast to both the traditions that were written down in the bible and the ones that were orally spoken and not writen down. This is what St Paul simply says to the Thessalonian Christians. Take another look at (2 thess 2:15). He says "therefore bretheren , Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth(orally spoken not written) or by letter of ours(written epistles or scripture). Nowhere does Paul say that all of the tradition he gave was written down as a matter of fact he says quite the opposite. We are to hold to ALL traditions that the apostles left us both in scripture and orally passed down. What passage in the Bible says that ALL the tradtions Paul spoke were written down in the bible? Not one!! So if you judge the view you hold(that all Pauls traditions were written in scripture) by scripture itself, it simply refutes itself. None in History ever believed this until Martin Luther came on the scene. The early Fathers of the apostolic age such as Irenaeus were unanimous in thier teaching on the Authority of Oral Apostolic tradition . So there is a historical black mark for the protestant on this issue. I will paraphrase another mistake you make; you said "Scripture itself is the best interpreter of itself and is always clearly written in a straightforward, readable way". This is incorrect. Your theory about this simply doesn't work biblically, historically, or practically. St Peter(Our first Pope historically) would dissagree with you. In Peters epistle's(2 Peter 3:15-16), Peter warns the congragation that there are some things in St Pauls writings that are "hard to understand" that the untaught would twist to thier own destruction. If all scripture was so easy to understand and if it could interpet itself and be easily understood by all christians and prospective converts who were just untaught, then Peters message would be in vain. As a matter of fact in the bible we see that, not only do we need the scriptures and tradition , but we also need a Authoritative interpeter or teacher to show us the proper meaning of scripture and tradition(In the Latin this word for teaching Authority=Magisterium). This comes out clearly in the Book of acts (Acts 8:30-32) where a Eunich is reading the book of Isaiah. Phillip, ask him if he understands what he is reading. the eunich responds by saying "How can I unless someone guides me". Then Phillip(a teaching Authority who has had first hand experience being taught by a apostle) begins to instruct him on what Isaiah meant and leads the eunich to baptism(salvation). Now think to yourself for a moment. If scripture could be the ultimate source and so easily readable and understandable and if it it could explain itself and interpet iself, then why do we need a someone to show what it means?? Can't it interpet itself as you say??? Of coarse it cannot, it needs a Magisteruim or teaching authority as Peter and Acts both show. Again this concept of a teaching authority was quite biblical and has always been believed by all the fathers of the church. Read athanasius whom you think believes in sola scriptura. In A.D. 359 he says "but what is also to the point, let us note that the very Tradition, teaching, and Faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian". Augustine also spoke of this authority of the Catholic church and Rome too, and so did Irenaeus back in the 180's A.D and Ignatius in 110A.D. Ignatius was taught by the apostle John himself. We Catholics don't just make these things up. The ancient Christians taught this plainly, to believe otherwise would simply be a novelty and not in line with historic Christian teaching. Of coarse one of the biggest problems for the those who hold to Sola scriptura(Besides the biblical and historical problems) is the practicle problem. If scripture alone is so easy to read and understand and if scripture alone is ultimate source of infallible authority alone for the christian on all issues of faith, then hasn't it proven itself to be. Example, The Lutheran goes by Scripture alone and believes in infant baptism and baptismal regenration. The Baptist also goes by Scripture alone but he says the Lutheran is wrong and you cannot baptise babies and no baptismal regeneration according to the bible alone. Who's right? What does the bible teach? Can the bible alone give me those answers? If it can why hasn't it yet? And if you can then on what authority can you? The baptist believes on biblical authority alone the Lords supper is just symbolic. The Lutheran on that same authority believes the Lords supper to be the Real Body and Blood of Christ(With bread and wine) and not just symbolic. They both would use the same authority and prayer and would come to 2 totally different conclusions. What does the bible teach? So the logic in your argument simply doesn't work out practically. Which leads us to the point I have been trying to bring home earlier to you Mr Writer. You had challenged me to to show you one apostolic tradition that is not found in scripture that must be observed by all Christians. I accept the challenge. The CANON of the new testament is that one apostolic tradition thats not found in the in the bible(NO inspired table of contents written by any biblical writer) that you must and do hold to. You wrongly confuse the Idea that just because the authers of Scripture may have finished writing the scripture by the year 100l, that the CANON was complete by that year. It wasn't. Yes once John died the last book of the bible had been written. But, it would take years before some of Johns writings were ever considered inspired and centiries before they were formally recognised as scripture(382 Ad Council of Rome, Hippo 393, Carthage 397). For example if you lived in the early 100's (100-160) you would not have ever considerd the book of Revelation written by John to be scripture. While some books like the Gospels were accepted into the canon at that time still other books were not! Also they considerd some books to be inspired scripture that you would not. For example the Apocalypse of Peter or the epistle of Barnanbus, you wouldn't consider these books scripture would you? They did, even after the death of John. The muratorian canon also shows this in 190 ad, that the early christians didn't consider Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter to be inspired scripture. Once again although all the Bible writers had finished writing arouhnd 100 ad, that doesn't mean that the Christians knew the complete canon of the new testament. Athansaius was the first to suggest the new testament canon but even then it was disputed and They wouldn't know the canon until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. This is important Writer because it took a Catholic Council under a Catholic Pope(Damasus I) using Catholic Apostolic tradition to decide what the canon was. If you hold to your new testament canon your essentially kneeling at the feet of the Authority of the Roman Magisterium, her Councils(Rome 382 Hippo 393, Carthage 397), and Papal decrees and Apostolic tradition. Thus the protestant by trusting in the new testament they have is really picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant. Thus also by having to adhere to a outside source; the apostolic tradtions and the authority of the Catholic church, they nullify as history shows the false protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I realize that this is the nail in the protestant coffin. So I understand why some may want to avoid it, but it simply shows that all Protestants and LDS have to rely on Catholic tradition and magisterial authority if they believe in the new testament! Amen. You have not answered the historical or practicle or scriptural problems I raised Writer i am going to Hold you to that. Where does the bible teach sola scriptura? Where is the passage that does? Where is the new testament canon listed in the bible and in what book and by what biblical author list the canon? Was it in Peters writings? Pauls??? Where does Paul say all the tradtions he orally spoke wewre written down? How do you answer the fact that he says we need to hold to all oral tradition to(2 thess 2:15). How do you get passed the historical fact that you must rely on Catholic apostolic tradition and Papal and Catholic councils to arrive at the new testament you have? And If the bible can interpet itself, then why hasn't yet? Remeber is the Lutheran right or the Baptist when speaking about Communion or baptism? These are hard questiuons i know but you need to face up to them. Many many protestant ministers have and as a result have come home to Christ Catholic church. I look forward to hearing from you again Writer....God Bless
     
  6. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    God gave us the blessings of paragraphs.

    Use them.
     
  7. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    205 You think that all revelation of God was written down.
    Nope. (Mebbe that's your 1st mistake.) If u rilly think i do: would u care to show me which of my words make u think so? Thanx

    You also think that Tradition is a separate form of revelation.
    Rite after this u wrote: "2 different media or forms." Why, dear sir A, blame me for what u yourself believe? All i asked, in my post 199, 5th para, was: WHAT 'traditions'? Care to specify even 1? Half a one?

    all revelation but he chooses to do so under 2 different media or forms. 1)Scripture and 2)Tradition. Both are the word of God and both are binding on us.
    Thank Dios a) personal revelation to one is in One form: By the Spirit. In one's personal, own, human spirit (Eph 3:5; 1:17; 1 Cor 2:4, 10-3:1; Mt 22:43; 16:17). This is the same essence as Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; 1 P 1:10-12). Because God made us with a spirit (Gen 2:7; Job 32:8; Zech 12:1; 1 Thes 5:23; Heb 4:12). God is Spirit (Jn 4:24). And the last Adam, Jesus Christ, consummately became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 7:37-39; 14:3, 17, 23; 1 Jn 3:24; Rv 5:6). To breathe Himself into any and all who believe into His name (Jn 20:22). Thus making them members of His Body and one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17; Rm 8:10, 16; Jn 3:6). Ontologically and eternally. For Him then to saturate their soul and body (Rm 8:6, 11, 13, 19, 23). Thus transforming and conforming us into His own image (2 Cor 3:18). Fulfilling, ultimately, as the 4th cent. Athanasius said: God became man to make man God (in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead).
    And also thank God that b) nonscriptural, and especially antiapostolic, religious, and nongodly tradition and Tradition is not binding on anyone whose ever lived or ever will live. 'Specially not on me (thank the Lord)

    Again I point you to (2 Thess 2:15) to clearly see this.
    Thanx, graciously. Again, i graciously and kindly point u to my post 199 which dealt with your, or your teachers', apparent misuses of 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Thes 2:13. Furthermore, my offer in 199 and above still ever stands: Care to specify any tradition(s) you're speaking of? For ease of discussion or debate?
    Thanx

    One cannot contradict the other but both come from the apostles teaching that was handed on to the next generation of Christians.
    To the contrary: any tradition that contradicts the Scripture is best to throw in the garbage. Where it belongs and belonged from the start

    Your mistake is to wrongly believe that every tradition that the aposltes taught is written down.
    Your mistake, based on your comment, i'd say is to believe that the apostles or God Xcluded any significant tradition or teaching of theirs from the New Testament, Scripture. In any case, traditions you're thinking of ARE written down. Somewhere. Just not in Scripture. So, effectively, it looks to appear you are saying, like Mormons do (for instance), dear friend, that: you're simply adding other writings to what we both agree is Scripture. Or r u saying that your 'traditions' r nowhere written down? R merely oral tales in the air, or kept in certain persons' memories (kind of like some Native American traditions)? Last of all, in any case: Care to specify any tradition you have in mind? How bout jus one?

    Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth(orally spoken not written) or by letter of ours(written epistles or scripture).
    Az mentioned above: Paul did not only write to the Thessalonians. Nor was he the only author in and of the New Testament. In fact, he wrote 12 other letters. In any case: What nonbible traditions would u like to give me? (U can be assured, both personally and for purposes of any debate of ours, i'd compare them with what the apostles actually taught. Thanx)

    What passage in the Bible says that ALL the tradtions Paul spoke were written down in the bible? Not one!!
    Is that why u wrote, in 198: "scripture itself contains all that is needed to do proper theology and bring someone to Christ and his truth"?

    So if you judge the view you hold(that all Pauls traditions were written in scripture) by scripture itself, it simply refutes itself.
    To contrary, it duzn't in the least. Since, matching your comment above: "all Scripture's God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (complete), fully equipped (fully equipped) for every good work. This is the same principle as the OT Scriptures: ...from a babe you've known the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through the faith which's in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15-17). Paul also wrote: to Him who's able to establish you according to my gospel, that is, the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which's been kept in silence in the times of the ages but now's been manifested, and through the prophetic writings, according to the command of the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for the obdience of faith (Rm 16:25-26). Paul also wrote to the Colossians that it was "given to me for you to complete the word of God...(Col 1:25). Which he did. John and Peter's later writings only confirming and amplifying and transmitting the identical essence. Paul's letters are Scripture. Like Peter recognized and stated a long time before 382 AD (2 P 3:15-16). R u saying, or implying, dear sir and mr. friend A: that you or your Catholic Church has MORE writings, letters, or teachings of Paul?
    Then pray-tell: What are they? That your pope's infallible? That i should worship or venerate statues? Can you see how heinous, evil, and self-serving that is (Mt 13:33; Rev 2:20-24)? Thanks

    So there is a historical black mark for the protestant on this issue.
    State-churches, Catholicism, and Protestantism, r all "black marks." As Christ says: Come out of her [and her daughters] My people (Rv 17:5; 18:4, 20; 2:22-23)

    St Peter(Our first Pope historically) would dissagree with you.
    i, and Peter, and Christ, and God, and His Spirit, disagree, and would disagree, that he was, or is, a "pope" (Mt 23:9; 16:15-18; Eph 2:19-22; 1:17-18; 3:5; 1 P 2:4-8; 1 Cor 3:10-23; Jn 20:31; Rv 2:17; 3:12; 21:11-21; Genesis 2:10-12)

    If all scripture was so easy to understand and if it could interpet itself and be easily understood by all christians and prospective converts who were just untaught, then Peters message would be in vain.
    Thanks. That shouldn't be an excuse to either misteach or deviate from it

    As a matter of fact in the bible we see that, not only do we need the scriptures and tradition , but we also need a Authoritative interpeter or teacher to show us the proper meaning of scripture and tradition(In the Latin this word for teaching Authority=Magisterium).
    Az matter o' fact, in the Bible we see that we need not only the Scriptures (Mt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:15-16); but we need their one, unique, primary, ultimate, authoritative interpreter (2 Tim 3:16; 1 P 1:12). Who is not Jezebel, or any other self-appointed, self-aggrandizing institution or false prophet (Mt 13:33; Rv 2:6, 14-15, 20). But is the very Inspirer of Scripture: the Spirit (1 P 1:10-12; 2 Tim 3:16; Rv 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:1, 6, 13, 22). Who is the consummation of the embodied and processed Triune God (Rv 1:4-8; 2:1, 7; Jn 1:1, 14; Col 2:9; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 4:4-6; Rv 16-21). To be and become man's eternal life and life-supply (Jn 4:14; 3:16; 20:31; 1:4; 6:47, 53, 57, 63, 68)

    Phillip(a teaching Authority who has had first hand experience being taught by a apostle)
    U too, dear Mr Athansious, can be a "teaching authority" who can first-read, and be taught by (if you are open) the first-hand, authoritative, and actual words of the apostles. In the Scriptures. In fact, it already appears you presume to be somewhat of a teaching authority by virtue of the fact u appear to be seeking to teach me. Thanx

    If scripture could be the ultimate source and so easily readable and understandable and if it it could explain itself and interpet iself, then why do we need a someone to show what it means??
    Did i (or anyone else here) say we didn't? If you, for instance, read it and get a 'pope' out of it: then mebbe u do need a teacher to help u. The eunuch understood what he read in that sense. He only asked about Whom Isaiah was writing

    Can't it interpet itself as you say??? Of coarse it cannot,
    To the contrary, in many instances the Scripture's very straightforward. At least it needs no pretend Magisterium either to suppress, contradict, or distort it. And if such an evil organization seeks to do just that, however well-intentioned, then, thank the Lord, Scripture's easily readable, searchable, pray-overable, and translated to compare exactly what such a self-proclaimed authority or Magisterium teaches, versus what the Lord's apostles and He taught
     
  8. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Ok Mr Writer, I have read your position. You said;

    "WHAT 'traditions'? Care to specify even 1? How bout half a one?

    Furthermore, my offer in 199 and above still ever stands: Care to specify any tradition(s) you're speaking of? For ease of discussion or debate?
    Thanx*

    Or r u saying that your 'traditions' r nowhere written down? R merely oral tales in the air, or kept in certain persons' memories (kind of like some Native American traditions)? Last of all, in any case: Care to specify any tradition you have in mind? How bout jus one?*"

    My answer is: Mr Writer, I guess you really never read my reply in my last letter in Post #205. I have answered your challenge; Here it is

    you had challenged me to to show you one apostolic tradition that is not found in scripture that must be observed by all Christians. I accept the challenge. The CANON of the new testament is that one apostolic Tradition thats not found in the in the bible(NO inspired table of contents written by any biblical writer) that you must and do hold to. You wrongly confuse the Idea that just because the authors of Scripture may have finished writing the scripture by the year 100, that the CANON was complete by that year.

    It wasn't. Yes once John died the last book of the bible had been written. But, it would take years before some of Johns writings were ever considered inspired and centiries before they were formally recognised as scripture(382 Ad Council of Rome, Hippo 393, Carthage 397). For example if you lived in the early 100's (100-160) you would not have ever considerd the book of Revelation written by John to be scripture. While some books like the Gospels were accepted into the canon at that time still other books were not!

    Also they considerd some books to be inspired scripture that you would not. For example the Apocalypse of Peter or the epistle of Barnanbus, you wouldn't consider these books scripture would you? They did, even after the death of John. The muratorian canon also shows this in 190 ad, that the early christians didn't consider Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter to be inspired scripture. Once again although all the Bible writers had finished writing arouhnd 100 ad, that doesn't mean that the Christians knew the complete canon of the new testament.

    Athansaius was the first to suggest the new testament canon but even then it was disputed and They wouldn't know the canon until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. This is important Writer because it took a Catholic Council under a Catholic Pope(Damasus I) using Catholic Apostolic tradition to decide what the canon was. If you hold to your new testament canon your essentially kneeling at the feet of the Authority of the Roman Magisterium, her Councils(Rome 382 Hippo 393, Carthage 397), and Papal decrees and Apostolic tradition.

    Thus the protestant by trusting in the new testament they have is really picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant. Thus also by having to adhere to a outside source; the apostolic Tradtion and the authority of the Catholic church, they nullify as history shows the false protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I realize that this is the "nail in the protestant coffin". So I understand why You may want to avoid it.

    But it simply shows that all Protestants and LDS have to rely on Catholic tradition and magisterial authority if they believe in the new testament! Amen. You have not answered the historical or practicle or scriptural problems I raised Writer i am going to Hold you to that.

    Heres my Questions you ignored.
    "Where does the bible teach sola scriptura? Where is the passage that does? Where is the new testament canon listed in the bible and in what book and by what biblical author list the canon? Was it in Peters writings? Pauls??? Where does Paul say all the tradtions he orally spoke wewre written down? How do you answer the fact that he says we need to hold to all oral tradition to(2 thess 2:15). How do you get passed the historical fact that you must rely on Catholic apostolic tradition and Papal and Catholic councils to arrive at the new testament you have?

    If scripture alone is so easy to read and understand and if scripture alone is ultimate source of infallible authority alone for the christian on all issues of faith, then hasn't it proven itself to be. Example, The Lutheran goes by Scripture alone and believes in infant baptism and baptismal regenration. The Baptist also goes by Scripture alone but he says the Lutheran is wrong and you cannot baptise babies and no baptismal regeneration according to the bible alone. Who's right? What does the bible teach? Can the bible alone give me those answers? If it can why hasn't it yet? And if you can then on what authority can you?

    The baptist believes on biblical authority alone the Lords supper is just symbolic. The Lutheran on that same authority believes the Lords supper to be the Real Body and Blood of Christ(With bread and wine) and not just symbolic. They both would use the same authority and prayer and would come to 2 totally different conclusions. What does the bible teach? So the logic in your argument simply doesn't work out practically.

    These are all the questions you refused to answer. I can understand why. Because if you did you would have to admit you are really kneeling to the God given Catholic churhes authority and Tradition on the new testament canon and you would have to admit the doctrine of sola scriptura is false. Many Baptist and pentecostal born again ministers began to study history and have reralized this to be true. they have come back to the Church jesus founded, the Catholic church. Amen. I look forward to hearing from you again.
     
  9. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    208 I guess you really never read my reply in my last letter in Post #205.
    'm not guessing that you're mistaken. No offence

    The CANON of the new testament is that one apostolic Tradition thats not found in the in the bible(NO inspired table of contents written by any biblical writer) that you must and do hold to.
    To the contrary: Scripture needs no explicit table of contents to be Scripture. In any case, there's effectively one in 2 P 3:15-16: all Paul's letters (i include Hebrews). Duz Roman Catholicism claim to have another one of Paul's letters that no one else has? Additionally there's the apostles. They themselves, and 'the prophets,' are Jesus' 'table of contents' (Eph 2:20; Rv 21:14, 12). Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and on them the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Matthew (Levi) was one. Mark, Peter and Paul's coworker, transmitted in the main Peter's words in his Gospel. Luke, the apostle Paul's faithful coworker, attributes his sources in Lk 1 and also records Peter's and Paul's ministries in Acts of the Apostles. John Zebedee was an apostle. Who also wrote 3 letters and a big one: Revelation. James and Jude were sons of Mary and younger flesh-brothers of the Lamb. Peter authored two letters toward the end of his life

    You wrongly confuse the Idea that just because the authors of Scripture may have finished writing the scripture by the year 100, that the CANON was complete by that year. It wasn't.
    To the contrary: the 'canon' of Scripture Is Scripture. In other words, the New Testament and the Bible are the New Testament and the Bible

    it would take years before some of Johns writings were ever considered inspired and centiries before they were formally recognised as scripture(382 Ad Council of Rome, Hippo 393, Carthage 397).
    m very happy some believers would have councils in the 300s to promote, delineate, and recognize what's Scripture and what isn't. And I suppose that's only natural. But with or without councils, with or with formality, with or without informality, even with or without any readers on the entire planet whatsoever, ever: Scripture still is, and always was, Scripture from the second it wuz written down

    For example if you lived in the early 100's (100-160) you would not have ever considerd the book of Revelation written by John to be scripture.
    To the contrary, if you want to talk about hypotheticals: given that i consider and recognize it so now; i trust and hope i would have then. In any case, also to the contrary: merely because some saints might have failed to respect, benefit from, or recognize the authority of Revelation in the 100s (just like some people do today), that's a totally separate concern from what Revelation is and was in fact. Lastly, are you or Catholicism daring to claim that all or most or even any of the direct recipients of Revelation (the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea), which concerned immediate and spiritual concerns in their churches and Christ's and His Spirit's direct warnings, disregarded it, disbelieved it, or made light of it?

    While some books like the Gospels were accepted into the canon at that time still other books were not!
    This is also a gross, thus inaccurate, gen'ral'zation

    Also they considerd some books to be inspired scripture that you would not. For example the Apocalypse of Peter or the epistle of Barnanbus, you wouldn't consider these books scripture would you? They did...
    This is another gross generalization. Considering something not-Scripture Scripture duzn't make it so. Nor duz it make even close to being so

    The muratorian canon also shows this in 190 ad, that the early christians didn't consider Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter to be inspired scripture. Once again although all the Bible writers had finished writing arouhnd 100 ad, that doesn't mean that the Christians knew the complete canon of the new testament.
    To the contrary, the 'earliest' Christians, i.e. direct recipients of Hebrews, and 1 and 2 P, among others, surely included many who received the benefit, and were aware of the authority of, these letters addressed to them, which is the essence of Scripture; regardless if they called them Scripture or not. In any case, if Hebrews's written by Paul as i'm persuaded it is, wasn't Peter himself an 'early Christian,' and explicitly, early, called Paul's letters 'Scripture' (2 P 3:15-16)?

    They wouldn't know the canon until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I.
    This statement (the 3rd time u 'peated it) may've been true for some extremely immature or young Christians in Damasus' generation. But it's absolutely ridiculous if attempted to apply to all believers 60s-360. In other words, if Damasus and some with him were halfway faithful to the church preceding them: they had no CHOICE but to recognize what had been true from the start (2 P 3:15-16; Matthew-Revelation). Especially from the start as to the original recipients of those books

    it took a Catholic Council under a Catholic Pope(Damasus I) using Catholic Apostolic tradition to decide what the canon was.
    To contrary: Catholicism did not come, and start to come, into existence as we recognize it today until Gregory's consolidation of his political-religious power around the year 600 and the time of Justinian. Nor was the earliest church Roman Catholicism by any stretch of the imagination

    If you hold to your new testament canon your essentially kneeling at the feet of the Authority of the Roman Magisterium, her Councils(Rome 382 Hippo 393, Carthage 397), and Papal decrees and Apostolic tradition.
    To the contrary: i utterly and completely (if you haven't noticed already) rebuke, disregard, reject, and would never "kneel at the feet of" any despicable Roman Magisterium and/or Papal decrees. Which, for the most part in her shameful and ugly history, have been precisely unapostolic, even antiapostolic; and competely deceitful of her to claim that Christian, or Western Christian, activity up to 400 AD, and even to 600 AD, are hers

    the Church jesus founded, the Catholic church.
    To the contrary: the church Jesus founded, dear one,'z His one, unique, mystical Body. The oneness and reality of the church duzn't depend now, never has, and never will require or depend on Rome or an arrogant, ludicrously self-proclaimed-infallible false prophet head clergyman, for its oneness. Her oneness is her Head: Christ alone.
    Thanx
     
  10. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,541
    Ratings:
    +6,180
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Come on... Who's going to say, "My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandma just recently passed away" three hundred 382 years after the fact?

    You call thirteen generations "just getting started"?

    Since it was the Church's position that revelation ceased with the deaths of the Apostles, it seems to me that it would have been a lot easier to handle the job before it got out of hand.
     
  11. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,541
    Ratings:
    +6,180
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Athanasius, you can go back and edit a post you previously entered. Just click on the edit button to retrieve it. It might be a good idea to do on that one long, long, long post. I didn't even bother to read it, and probably a lot of other people didn't either. You may very well have made some good points, but it would be a lot more readable with paragraphs. If you can't figure out how to edit it, ask a mod to help you. :)
     
  12. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    208 Thus the protestant by trusting in the new testament they have is really picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant.
    What's a protestant?
    A noncatholic?

    Thus also by having to adhere to a outside source; the apostolic Tradtion and the authority of the Catholic church,
    Genuine Christians are not outside one another. They're in the same Body of Christ. Where there is no Jew nor Greek, Protestant nor Catholic, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all

    they nullify as history shows the false protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
    U mean prima Scriptura? That's not false. That's true, as far as written documents go

    I realize that this is the "nail in the protestant coffin". So I understand why You may want to avoid it.
    Since i'm neither 'Protestant' nor 'Catholic', and since i'm not 'avoiding' it: i'm not avoiding it. Rather, i'm engaging you in dialogue

    all Protestants and LDS have to rely on Catholic tradition and magisterial authority if they believe in the new testament! Amen.
    To the contrary: to 'believe in' the New Testament one neither need be Catholic, nor need rely on Catholicism, Catholic tradition, nor Catholicism's self-pretentious 'magisterial authority.' Amen

    You have not answered the historical or practicle or scriptural problems I raised Writer i am going to Hold you to that.
    Thanks. I'm under the impression that i have. Whether u want to hold to it or not

    Heres my Questions you ignored. Where does the bible teach sola scriptura? Where is the passage that does?
    Post 170 dint ignore your question. It sought to clarify it. What's sola scriptura?
    197 clarified the inventors' positive meaning of their phrase 4 u: 'prima scriptura.'
    In 198 u seemed to acknowledge and agree with that. Even claimin Catholicism feels the same way.
    199 acknowleged, or sought to reinforce, your acknowledgement.
    So, am i correct in guessin that your current question in your 208 can b written: Where does the Bible teach prima scriptura? Is that fair, Mr A?
    The answer is in the very reference to Scripture: the prophets, the law, the psalms; or the words 'Scripture,' 'holy writings,' where they appear in the Bible. And the very practice of the Savior and of His apostles and church in the NT. In John He said that Scripture "cannot be broken." And that it all testified concerning Him. The very designation "Scripture," in the Scripture, implies and proves its superiority, or infallibility, or authority over all other writings, both worldy and religious, and Christian or Jewish, or interpretations. It, by definition, occupies the top-most, prima, tier. Roughly analogous to the US Constitution among US laws

    Where is the new testament canon listed in the bible and in what book and by what biblical author list the canon?
    Az mentioned several times before now by me: 2 P 3:15-16 lists "Paul's letters." Additionally, the NT IS its canon. It duzn't need any table of contents to be the NT. It's the NT regardless of whether it has a table of contents, or if Christians hold/held councils about it, or not. Its status as Scripture comes from its authors inspiration by its heavenly 'Author': God. This is totally something separate and apart, both in time and in everything else, from how any various readers receive it or not. The books themselves 'list' themselves. There they are. It's like asking for a list, or table of contents, for the words i'm using in this thread. There they are. By apostles, or directly under them (eg Peter-Mark)

    Was it in Peters writings?
    It not only's in Peter's writings (2 P 3:15-16); it INCLUDES his writings

    Pauls???
    Not only Paul's, but also those about him: eg 2 P 3:15 and Acts

    Where does Paul say all the tradtions he orally spoke wewre written down?
    Since God places such a premium on Scripture, writing-down, both in the OT and the N (as does God Incarnate, as a man, on earth): everything important of Paul's ministry is in Paul's written ministry (eg: the Scriptures). That's why God even 'forced' Paul into a situation (prison) where he had to write down his highest, most profound, and consummate ministerings (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). Even many of Paul's speakings are recorded (Acts). Are you suggesting, dear Mr A, that Jesus too, for instance, left out things necessary to His Christian life in us, from His 4 little biographies--the Gospels? No doubt not every speck of things Paul and Jesus said and did's recorded. John says as much concerning the Lord. But your question's totally moot, from my perspective, until and unless you specify (specify) WHAT nonbiblical thing you may claim is so important that you have to share w/ me. What?

    How do you answer the fact that he says we need to hold to all oral tradition to(2 thess 2:15).
    By asking u (again): Then pleze tell me what it is?
    Earlier u said that your Decision of a Canon is one example of your tradition. Yet in the same breath you've written that that wasn't until 382! But neither Paul nor 2 Thes 2:15 was 'until 382'! So what on earth do you purport to be talkin about?
    Thanks

    If scripture alone is so easy to read and understand and if scripture alone is ultimate source of infallible authority alone for the christian on all issues of faith, then hasn't it proven itself to be.
    Why not? Do u mean to suggest that becuz some, or many, Christians might sin, or reject, or disagree w/, Scripture: therefore Scripture itself is deficient or to blame?
    If many Christians are in division, in contradiction of God's command and provision for Christians to be one: would that mean, according to your logic, that God's a failure or 'proved' HImself to uninfallible?

    Example, The Lutheran goes by Scripture alone and believes in infant baptism and baptismal regenration. The Baptist also goes by Scripture alone but he says the Lutheran is wrong and you cannot baptise babies and no baptismal regeneration according to the bible alone. Who's right?
    "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith. Meaning, if you yourself want to practice it on your babies, that's okay. Just don't let it divide you from other Christians. There IS a regeneration in baptism. But that does not mean that there is no regeneration at all before baptism. Nor does it mean that water, rather than God, is the element of sonship, regeneration. So, according to your exact words above: i guess u can say that both are "wrong" abuv

    What does the bible teach?
    What i wrote above. I can cite you the portions

    Can the bible alone give me those answers?
    Yep. I can cite, or quote, you the Lord's and His apostles' portions if you'd like

    If it can why hasn't it yet?
    Haz. Beginnin from about 1960 years ago. But jus like in school: jus cuz a teacher's teachin, duzn't necessarily mean a student's learnin

    And if you can then on what authority can you?
    The Lord's, in me and in His apostles' writings

    The baptist believes on biblical authority alone the Lords supper is just symbolic. The Lutheran on that same authority believes the Lords supper to be the Real Body and Blood of Christ(With bread and wine) and not just symbolic. They both would use the same authority and prayer and would come to 2 totally different conclusions. What does the bible teach? So the logic in your argument simply doesn't work out practically.
    To contrary: i find the apostles' writings, and the Scripture, extremely logical. And, more importantly: spiritual. For instance: Christ's actual physical body is not bread and wine. But that duzn't mean Christian keeping of His Table is "merely symbolic." Rather: Christ's real presence is Christ Himself. As the apostle Paul wrote: The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. And: He who's joined to the Lord is one spirit. And Matthew recorded the Lord's words at His ascension: Look, I'm with you all the days even until the end of the age. Christ doesn't need, and in fact can't, create God by turning dead, inanimate bread into God. Or into man. Christ Himself is both God and man, Spirit and body, present and absent. Real and living. He's not a dead, motionless, speechless, inanimate idol. As His apostles and prophets, in His Bible, teaches

    These are all the questions you refused to answer. I can understand why.
    Iz it the same reason i think: that i dint 'refuse' to answer them? Becuz u asked most of them only just now (208)?
    Take care dear A
     
  13. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Handle what job? Everything we know of Christianity started off orally. Asking it to prepare for future clarifications is like asking the Church of 100 AD to define their stance on stem cell.

    Christianity always took issues as it came to them. It’s just the way it was.
     
  14. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr Writer
    You said
    on the contrary: Scripture needs no explicit table of contents to be Scripture. In any case, there's effectively one in 2 P 3:15-16.

    My answer:
    Please read that passage again my dear Mr Writer. While it does mention Some of Pauls writings on justification, it never specifies which one of his writings. It also nowhere gives a list of what what books belonged in the bible and what didn’t( hence the New testament Canon).

    It also wouldn’t matter because no one before 382 A D was even certain this 2Nd epistle of Peter was scripture. It was disputed in the 300’s and In fact it wasn’t believed at all in any Christian community in the year 190 A.D. as the mutorian canon shows. Ahhh Church history is so important to learn mr Writer.

    So once again how do you come to know what books belong to the inspired canon of scripture and what books didn’t? Do you give it the old college try? Actually you rely on the tradition of the Catholic Church you just won’t admit it to yourself but its a historical fact.

    You said
    To the contrary: the 'canon' of Scripture Is Scripture. In other words, the New Testament and the Bible are the New Testament and the Bible

    My answer:

    The word Canon means “Measuring Stick” In this case what were the books that “measured up” to being sacred scripture historically? It would take Catholic Tradition and Councils to decide this and proclaim it so all christians would know what made up the new testament.(Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397).

    You said

    Scripture still is, and always was, Scripture from the second it was written down*

    My answer;
    Yes your right, it is. But how would we know what writings were inspired and came from the aposltes? We needed to use tradition and Gods given Catholic authority. Just a historical fact!!!

    You said

    To the contrary, if you want to talk about hypotheticals: given that i consider and recognize it so now; i trust and hope i would have then. In any case, also to the contrary: merely because some saints might have failed to respect, benefit from, or recognize the authority of Revelation in the 100s (just like some people do today), that's a totally separate concern from what Revelation is and was in fact.

    Lastly, are you or Catholicism daring to claim that all or most or even any of the direct recipients of Revelation (the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea), which concerned immediate and spiritual concerns in their churches and Christ's and His Spirit's direct warnings, disregarded it, disbelieved it, or made light of it?*

    My answer:

    I am just saying , as history shows that no-one in the early 100’s believed the Revelation of John to be scripture. And the book was still disputed by many in the church until the council of Rome at 382. Some fathers gradually accepted it in the early 3rd century but it was not universally accepted until Rome’s Council 382.

    What does this tell us? It tells us that it took A Catholic council to settle the issue. All protestants believe this book to be true so they are borrowing this from the Catholics. Again no table of contents in the old testament to tell us that revelation is inspired. Once again just another historical fact!




    When I said that some books of bible historically were not accepted into the canon of scripture ( such as 1 Peter 2 Peter. Revelation, James Hebrews) until centuries after the apostles died, you answered me by saying:

    “This is also a gross, and thus inaccurate, generalization*”
    Ok. Since this is just a historical fact, use history and prove me wrong. Scholars seem to be on my side. Facts are just facts. I feel you are afraid to study the canon.

    A good book written on this issue is called “Where we got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church” by Rev Henry Grahahm. He wrote this as a protestant and eventually had to become Catholic. I challenge you to do the same.


    When I showed you that many communities in the early christianity believed and used books like “Apocalypse of Peter” or the “Shepherd of Hermas” or the “Epistle of Barnanabus” and believe them to be inspired scripture you simply beat around the bush and answered:

    “This is another gross generalization. Considering something not-Scripture Scripture duzn't make it so. Nor duz it make even close to being so*”

    Your response in no way answers any of my questions. Again read the fathers and the early canons like the Mutorian canon early Chrsitians used, this is a indisputable fact. I would like to see you prove me wrong historically go ahead put your money where your mouth is. even protestant Scholarship doesn’t deny this


    You said

    Genuine Christians are not outside one another. They're in the same Body of Christ. Where there is no Jew nor Greek, Protestant nor Catholic, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all*

    my answer

    You misunderstood me, I didn’t say that christians were outside of one another, I said you had to use a outside source(Catholic oral apostolic tradition and her Councils) to know what the new testament canon was. You had to use something ouside of Scripture alone tp even know what scripture was. thus disproving sola scriptura, and yes the reformers said “Sola not Prima”! Again prove me wrong historically. Show me the money. I can show you historically if you will listen.

    You said

    U mean prima Scriptura? That's not false. That's true, as far as written documents go*

    my answer

    Prima scriptura is not what the reformers said. Sola Scriptura or scripture alone is what they taught. Have you ever heard of the solas” Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia etc. It wasn’t Prima Scriptura, Prima Fide etc. Catholics may teach prima scriptura. Hence scripture has a certain sense of primacy but not a ultimate one.

    Tradition is needed too and so is the Church becuase it took the church and tradition to give us Scriptura. Athanasius is a great example of a person who believed in prima scriptura(as Catholic may) but he also held to the authority of Catholic tradition and the Catholic church, hence not sola scriptura. Ok your confused.



    You said

    It duzn't need any table of contents to be the NT. It's the NT regardless of whether it has a table of contents, or if Christians hold/held councils about it, or not. Its status as Scripture comes from its authors inspiration by its heavenly 'Author': God.

    My answer

    Your right scripture come from God and is isnpired. But, you have to first know which books are inspired and which are not. The early church didn’t. they had to eventually rely on a Catholic council and Catholic tradition outside of scripture to know what was inspired by God. Hence Sola scriptura goes out the door historically. And obedience to the magisterium is what protestants really do without knowing it by believing in the new testament.



    You told me the Canon of Scripture was in Peters writings in 2 Peter 3;15-17. But when I read that it nowhere gives a list of what books belong to scripture and what books didn’t. Again you must rely on the authority of Catholic traditons and councils to give you that. These councils recognized what books belong to the bible and what books didn’t and infallibly declared them to be so.

    Your histroically borrowing from Catholics wether you admit to it or not, history clearly shows it, but for some reason you will not even look to history. Thats sad but pretty common in fundamentalist protestantism(Which you are unaware your part of).

    You said

    "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would dissagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture implicity and is a matter of faith. So whos right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you dissagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions. Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    Im sorry Mr writer but you really need to study history and canon closer. You will be surprised by Catholic truth
     
  15. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Plus, the early Church believed in an imminent parousia -- there would have been no need, in their eyes -- even in the eyes of Jesus -- to prepare for the future. The future was going to be very, very short until the world saw the return of Jesus and the establishment of his kingdom, thereby negating the need for anything to be written down for future generations. That's why the canon took so long -- it wasn't seen as necessary.
     
  16. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    We know of several letters of Paul that did not previously exist in oral tradition.
     
  17. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    FWIW, I don't subscribe to this theory. It's an anachronistic interpretation that defies history. The ancients didn't have a concept of linear time like the German historians that came up with this theory. Besides, Paul wrote his letters during his missionary journeys believing that the Lord was coming very soon, and committed the Gospel to writing and formed the earliest canon at a time when the earliest oral traditions of the Gospels were still in their earliest stages. There is no time lapse.
     
  18. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    214 it does mention Some of Pauls writings on justification, it never specifies which one of his writings.
    Count the long-suffering of our Lord to be salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
    2 P 3:15-16 never mentions 'justification.' 2 P 3:16 specifies 'all' (not some) of Paul's letters as 'Scripture'

    no one before 382 A D was even certain this 2Nd epistle of Peter was scripture.
    Pleze forgive me, but it's not only ridiculous to suggest that a group in 382 decided out of the blue 2 P was certainly Scripture; but it's also a falsehood. As much a falsehood as suggesting no human thought exists except that which's written down. 2ndly, about 315 years before 382, Peter, the apostle, was certain that all Paul the apostle's letters were Scripture (2 P 3:15-16)

    it wasn’t believed at all in any Christian community in the year 190 A.D. as the mutorian canon shows.
    To the contrary, the muratorian canon shows one writer's (Caius?), and at most his immediate group's, understanding. In addition, you yourself contradict your earlier outlandish statements about 382 by mentioning the muratorian canon. At most u should recognize that your own 382 argument amounts to claiming that 382 canonized Hebrews, James, 1 P, 2 P. 4/27. And mebbe excluding 2 other things. 4/27's alot less than 27/27 and 23/27. In any case, as i mentioned b4, your, or Catholicism's, apparent argument that the original recipients of Hebrews, James, 1 P, or 2 P did not benefit from Heb, Jm, 1+2 P as Scripture or as authority is both insulting (to them) and 'bsurd

    Ahhh Church history is so important to learn mr Writer.
    In which case, dear sir, i'd humbly recommend u learn it, or learn it more

    So once again how do you come to know what books belong to the inspired canon of scripture and what books didn’t?
    Once again, by reading. For instance, if you've ever read the New Testament (and Old), you should notice a difference between them and any other human writing. May i ask: do u? (If not, please don't be afraid or political. I won't condemn u. Simply say u don't. Not a problem.) If you've ever read the NT it's superior to any other Christian writing. No? Altho 'Barnabas' is good, it's nowhere near the level of the NT. The Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James, etc r manifestly poor. In addition: i have the church preceding me. For instance, the church who wrote the NT (Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Jude, James). And the church who received, recognized the apostolicity and authority of, and benefitted from those writings: the church throughout Judea (Matthew, Hebrews), the scattered saints of Judea (James, Peter, Hebrew, Jude), the church in Rome (Romans), the church in Corinth (Corinthians), the churches in Galatia (Galatians), the church in Ephesus (Ephesians), the church in Philippi (Philippians), the churches in Colossae and Laodicea (Colossians), the church in Thessalonica (Thessalonians), Timothy and the churches he was serving then (Timothies), Titus and the churches he was serving then (Titus), Philemon and the church in Colossae (Philemon), the saints in their churches to whom John wrote his letters (1, 2, 3 John), the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea and their messengers (Revelation), the churches in existence at the time throughout the world (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts), the churches and their members throughout the whole world, historically (Matthew-Revelation), and the Christians and churches since the completion of the NT canon around 100 up to the present

    you rely on the tradition of the Catholic Church you just won’t admit it to yourself but its a historical fact.
    I appreciate any and all real believers and their positive contributions to the spread of the faith whether they call themselves, or consider themselves Catholic, or Roman Catholic, or not. However, i also admit the historical fact that the Catholic Church as we know it today is neither the church in the NT; the church of God, Christ, and the Spirit; nor a church that historically formed similar to today's until around 600 AD under Gregory 1.
    Thanx
     
  19. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic
    How you can have a any letters without having it orally first is beyond me. Do share?
     
  20. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    How you can have a/any letters without having it orally first is beyond me. Do share?
    Wouldn't it be by writing it down?
     
Loading...