Sola Scriptura and the early church fathers

http://www.tms.edu/preachersandpreaching/sola-scriptura-church-fathers/

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in church history, early church history, Sola Scriptura. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Sola Scriptura and the early church fathers

  1. θ says:

    It is the Historical fact that the council that decreed the number of Scripture, that is 1545 AD Council of Trent, is not attended by the Reformed, hence from where have they claimed a thing termed as “Scriptura”?

    Equally worse, it is also the Historical fact that the so-called “Tradition” of the Catholics is so indecisive. It had so much lazily waited for more than 1,500 years to hold a council for canons.
    No one knows why the Tradition fails to get inspired by the Ghost to canonise the books after the 1st generation of the early Apostolic Fathers ended in 200 AD.

    It is like a dilemma of unsolvable chicken-egg riddle.
    Canonical books for the Christian Scripture were vetted thru the changing moods of Tradition of the early Catholics even though the Non-canonical books were also written by the Catholic writers.
    No one knows for certain why the early Catholics lost their moods by excluding some 50-100 AD traditional books such as Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas.

    Tradition “from us, taught by us” has written both the Gospels and epistles, and many Non-canonical books:
    1 Thess.2:13
    When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.
    2 Thess.2:15
    Then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

    Tradition is a final authority of someone’s fate:
    Mt 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.

    Tradition is as much as Scripture in offering salvation.
    Mt 18:18
    Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    The so-called “Sacred writings” is defined by who?
    2 Tim 3:16
    But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

    Church with its Tradition is a pillar of truth? Which church?
    1 Tim 3:15.
    If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    It is the Historical fact that the council that decreed the number of Scripture, that is 1545 AD Council of Trent, is not attended by the Reformed, hence from where have they claimed a thing termed as “Scriptura”?

    Your first question here is hard to understand. Can you word it differently and explain more of what you are getting at?

    I find a lot of your comments difficult to understand, because of your assumptions, presuppositions and cumbersome wording.

    “Scriptura” is just the Latin word for Scripture – which means the holy and inspired (God-breathed) writings. For the Protestant, it means the 66 books of the Bible.

    Both the OT and the NT was already established long ago by the Jews for the OT (before Christ – as the Jews themselves attest.)

    The NT was discerned – but a few books were questioned by some (the little ones like 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, etc.) And some areas questioned Revelation and some questioned Hebrews)
    But other clearly affirmed Revelation and Hebrews very early.

    Origen, around 250 AD, is the earliest extant evidence of a list of all the 27 books of the NT (Origen wrote that around 250 AD). See here: (lots of info there, as I don’t have time to re-hash lots of things I have written on before.) The Athanasius list in his Festal Letter 39 is more famous, in 367 AD. But Irenaeus and Tertullian in 180-200 AD already listed most of the books of the NT as inspired Scripture. Before them, there is no one who we have as extant as writing very much. Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, the Didache, Hermas – these earliest writings of the 2nd century are just not large enough to make the case that they did not believe in all or most of the books of the NT. Papias – most of his writings were lost to history – they rotted and have not been found. We have some fragments of Papias and quotes, but not his whole library of writings.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/sola-scriptura-the-canon-and-roman-catholicism/

    The verses that mention “tradition” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6), and all the other issues that it touches on, are dealt with here, in these 3 articles; which you need to study all of the content to get a handle on the subject.

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/04/tradition.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/05/rod-bennett-on-marcus-grodis-coming.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/07/be-careful-way-you-communicate-issue-of.html

  3. Ken Temple says:

    You misquoted 1 Timothy 3:14-15.
    You left out an important part – “these things I have written to you”. That is Sola Scriptura in principle. He says to the church leaders – resort to the Scriptures, what I have written.

    Local church authority is not infallible; but the church leaders must always keep going back to the only infallible rule for the church – the Scriptures.

    The verses in Matthew 18 are not about “tradition”, but church authority.

    Protestants have no problem with oral teaching of the apostles during the first century being infallible, because eventually, all of that content was written in the 27 books of the NT. when the last apostle died (John, around 100 AD), there is no more revelation and all the 27 books were already in existence. Even 2 Peter and 1-2 Tim. and Titus were written before 67 AD; yes. (conservative, believing dating)

    Churches are local – there is no heirarchy of a mono-episcopate (“one-bishop”) of one man leader over the college of elders in each church (see Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-4 = each church had a college or team of elders who did the pastoring and teaching), and no area bishop over other churches and bishops in a city or larger area, Archbishop, etc. (bishop over many churches in an area) or so called “Pope” (the bishop of Rome as the bishop over all other bishops in all the world.) Those things were slowly developed over centuries and were wrong – the result was the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. (Pope, purgatory, Transubstantiation, exalting Mary too much, etc.)

  4. Ken Temple says:

    1 Timothy 3:14-15 –
    Paul is exhorting Timothy as the leader of the local church in Ephesus.

    Local churches are pillars and buttresses / bulwark of the truth, not the truth itself. They are to teach and proclaim and uphold the truth of God’s word, the Scriptures. The buttress and strengthen the truth by defending it and teaching it properly. “foundation” is not an exact translation of that word.

    The verse is saying what the local churches should do (uphold, proclaim, teach the truth); it is not saying the church IS the truth; it is not saying the church is some kind of infallible institution like the way the Roman Catholic church takes that verse.

  5. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Origen, around 250 AD, is the earliest extant evidence of a list of all the 27 books of the NT (Origen wrote that around 250 AD). See here: (lots of info there, as I don’t have time to re-hash lots of things I have written on before.) The Athanasius list in his Festal Letter 39 is more famous, in 367 AD. But Irenaeus and Tertullian in 180-200 AD already listed most of the books of the NT as inspired Scripture. Before them, there is no one who we have as extant as writing very much. Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, the Didache, Hermas – these earliest writings of the 2nd century are just not large enough to make the case that they did not believe in all or most of the books of the NT. Papias – most of his writings were lost to history – they rotted and have not been found. We have some fragments of Papias and quotes, but not his whole library of writings.”

    Your response by referring to the later churchgoers such as Origen and Athanasius is a standardised answer of the Catholics that the Tradition – not the Scripture itself – vetted the canons. Why the did Ghost inspire the canonical listing (of the Festal Letter) to Athanasius or that extant listing to Origen, instead of Paul’s, or Luke’s, or lastly John’s?
    After all, is not Origen anathematised by the Tradition as a heretic who believes in the pseudo-Arian theology “Subordinationism” of Son?

    Therefore the Tradition itself is too flawed. It remains unsolved mystery why the Tradition took time so long about 1.5 centuries (Origen;s writing) or 2.5 centuries (Athanasius’s Festal) after the end of the 1st generation of Apostolic Fathers, to decide which one the real canons are.

    “Ken Temple says: You misquoted 1 Timothy 3:14-15. You left out an important part – “these things I have written to you”. That is Sola Scriptura in principle. He says to the church leaders – resort to the Scriptures, what I have written. ”

    Now, your statement is truly a circular absurdity like Chicken-egg riddle: What and when has Paul written his epistles?
    How can the *early* churchgoers know of what Paul has written before 100 AD if the complete list of canons would be produced *later time* by Athanasius in his Festal Letter in 367 AD?
    Do they have a time machine? Confusing, right?

    After all, four writings of Paul didn’t get enlisted in Athanasius’ Festal Letter.
    The humiliating loss of Paul’s writings is the gravest error of Tradition that fails to preserve the so-called “Word of God”.
    Paul’s missing writings: the 1st epistle to Corinth, the 3rd epistle to Corinth, the earlier epistle to the Ephesians, the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
    Do you believe the Words of God and the Tradition fail?

    “Ken Temple says: 1 Timothy 3:14-15 – Paul is exhorting Timothy as the leader of the local church in Ephesus. Local churches are pillars and buttresses / bulwark of the truth, not the truth itself. ”

    Alright, semantically the truth is not its own pillar.
    But the question remains: which ones are the-so-called “Sacred writings” when Paul refers them to the early churchgoers, in either 1 Tim 3:14-15 or 2 Tim 3:14-15?
    Are they including 4 missing epistles of Paul ( the 1st epistle to Corinth, the 3rd epistle to Corinth, the earlier epistle to the Ephesians, the Epistle to the Laodiceans)?
    2Tim 3
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

    • Ken Temple says:

      You forget that earlier Christian writers do quote from and affirm the NT writings.

      Clement – 96 AD – referrs to some of the NT books as inspired.

      Didache – some scholars say written as early as 70 AD, maybe 90 or 120 AD. The Didache quotes Matthew 28:19. Confirms Matthew written sometime between 50-60 AD.

      Ignatius – 107 AD
      Polycarp- 155
      Justin Martyr – 165

      These refer to many of the NT writings as inspired Scripture. But these guys didn’t write whole treatises on all the NT books. What we have in existance (extant) does not give up enough information until

      Irenaeus (180-200 AD)
      and
      Tertullian (190-220 AD)

      both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm most of the NT writings. Just because they don’t mention for example, the letters of 2-3 John does not mean those little letters were not around. They just don’t mention them.

      • θ says:

        Are you a Catholic, Ken? Your answer sounds very Catholic, you rely on the later Tradition after Paul, to answer an earlier question of the list of canons during the time of Paul.
        (i) Is the later Tradition including 4 missing epistles of Paul as canons?
        (ii) Why does Tradition start with some later names such as Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Tertullian, but not begin from Peter, or Paul, or Luke, or lastly John?
        (iii) Did the earlier churchgoers have a time machine to solve the Chicken-Egg riddle?

  6. θ says:

    Addendum:
    Can anyone of the Reformed or the Catholics show the chain of transmission from the early Apostolic Fathers which could a bit validate the Festal Letter that Atahansius wrote?

  7. Ken Temple says:

    To confirm the content of the Athanasius before his letter of 367 AD back to the NT :
    You have to know and read the early church fathers before Athanasius to see that. It is basic church history standard knowledge. This would be the basic equivalent to the “isnad chains” of your Hadith method of confirming tradition.

    see
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

    Your question is to confirm the history of it afterward. that is so much, and asking the question, framing it an Islamic way; your question assumes doubt and skepticism about Athanasius’ letter. It was so established from that time onward, one would have to give you a whole library.You are putting an Islamic method of Isnad onto Christian History. The fact that so many have books on that confirm that letter.

    The Provincial Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), under Augustine, came after Athanasius’ festal letter 39 of 367 AD, and confirm his NT list. Just research a good church history work beyond that – these things were common knowledge all the way up through Reformation to today.

    One way to get a handle on the canon and early church issue, from a believing Protestant view, is to read an entire book that is credible on that subject, such as:
    The Canon of Scripture, by F. F. Bruce
    Canon Revisited, by Michael Kruger
    Holy Scripture: The Pillar and Ground of our Faith; 3 volumes, by David King and William Webster.
    Early Christian Doctrines, J. N. D. Kelly

  8. Ken Temple says:

    Therefore the Tradition itself is too flawed. It remains unsolved mystery why the Tradition took time so long about 1.5 centuries (Origen;s writing) or 2.5 centuries (Athanasius’s Festal) after the end of the 1st generation of Apostolic Fathers, to decide which one the real canons are.

    Also, you forget that Christianity was persecuted (off and on) for 312 years and that each NT book was an individual scroll send to a specific area in the first century. (45 AD – 96 AD)

    It took a while for all the churches to collect all the letters/books under one book cover.
    There was no such thing as a “book” with a tie and / or binding that led to codex that lead to modern book with binding of today. (until around 250 AD – time of Origen’s list).

    They were individual scrolls before then, rolled up and sealed with wax. That is the original meaning of the Greek word, “Biblos”, where we get modern English word “bible” or “book” from. Biblos was a scroll of rolled up papyrus leaves.

  9. θ says:

    It means it is the later Tradition that chose the canons.
    By the way, the Tradition is proven too flawed: Why is it starting from some later names such as Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, but why does it not begin from Peter, or Paul, or Luke, or lastly John?
    How can the early churchgoers know what has been written by Paul if none knows the complete NT list yet?
    Why is the Festal Letter not including 4 missing epistles of Paul as the NT canons?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Your question is asking something that history does not address because it did not happen that way. Your question is framing things from an Islamic Isnad-chain demand that is anachronistic.

      You are assuming and demanding that God put the final list in the final book, like demanding that Athanasius letter 39 of 367 AD or Origen list of 250 AD has to be in Revelation 23:1 or Jude chapter 2 or 2 Peter chapter 4 or 2 Timothy chapter 5.

      • θ says:

        The Sola Scriptura supposed that it is Scripture itself or at least the early Apostolic Fathers to choose the NT list.
        Shamefully to both the Catholic Tradition and the Reformed Sola Scriptura, yet Athansius lists the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, but he excludes the Book of Esther.

      • Ken Temple says:

        It is not “shameful”; it is just history; it was Athanasius opinion as to the OT. There is no infallibility of people’s writings after the Scriptures. Jerome (400 AD) knew Hebrew and proves the Jews (in agreement with the Protestant position) of first century AD did not consider OT apocrypha books as inspired Scripture.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Papias and Clement and Didache are right after Revelation and Jude were written. If Revelation was written in 96 AD; Clement at the same time.

      Jude 3 indicates the NT was completed – “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.

      • θ says:

        Since Clement is one of the early Catholic, why doesn’t the Tradition choose his writing as canon itself?
        The weakness or error of the Bible on this topics is, it just mentions “writing” very loosely, without specifically listing the names, hence it opens contradictions, multi-interpretation, confusion and unclear vetting.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Because Clement was not an apostle, nor writing under apostolic authority.

  10. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Also, you forget that Christianity was persecuted (off and on) for 312 years and that each NT book was an individual scroll send to a specific area in the first century. (45 AD – 96 AD)”

    The time of persecution is the same generation of Paul when he wrote 1 Tim 3:14-15 and 2 Tim 3:14-15 which mention the “Sacred writings”.
    The time of persecution doesn’t stop the early writers to write the inspired literary works.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Your question still has an anachronistic demand.

      • θ says:

        Suppose you live during the time of Paul, would not you ask him which canons does he write for the church?
        Would Paul answer you, wait about some centuries until Athanasius shall produce the NT list?

      • Ken Temple says:

        We have to trust that God knows best in the way He allowed and ordained history to happen in His sovereignty. Your skepticism and anachronistic way of asking questions is just your Islamic demand that is just that – a demand that you come along 2000 years later and make.

        As you Muslims also say:

        “And Allah knows best.”

        God’s sovereignty is true.

        But Islam proves itself wrong since it denies the Crucifixion and Allah didn’t know what the Trinity is in 630 AD. Also the whole morality of taking sex slaves, Mohammad getting Zayd to divorce and then marrying Zaynab Bint Jahash, and the evil of Surah 9:5 and 9:29 and the whole history of Islam, Dhimmi – ism, Jiziye, and aggressive warfare and conquering, etc. – discredits Islam.

  11. Ken Temple says:

    (i) Is the later Tradition including 4 missing epistles of Paul as canons?

    What in the world are you talking about? There is only one possible missing Pauline letter (the letter of questions that the Corinthians wrote to Paul, mentioned in I Corinthians). That is lost to history. The “sorrowful letter” of 2 Cor. 7:8-12 is probably the content in 1 Cor. 5, where Paul exhorts the church to excommunicate the guy who has committed fornication with his mother in law. “remove the evil doer from your midst” – 1 Cor. 5:1-13.

    the other ones are theoretical and speculative and no one has found them.

    The mention of a letter written to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16 was probably a circular letter that later became the Epistle to the Ephesians, as the textual data on verse 1, “to the Ephesians” confirms. It was probably circulated to many churches, and scribes put the specific church in that space.

    • θ says:

      “Ken Temple says: There is only one possible missing Pauline letter (the letter of questions that the Corinthians wrote to Paul, mentioned in I Corinthians). That is lost to history. ”

      Are you certain that you aren’t a Catholic, Ken? To say “That is lost to history” you prove that either the Catholic Tradition or the spirits can’t preserve the Words of God. History is more dominant than the Ghost’s inspiration to Paul.
      Isaiah 40:8
      The grass withers, the flower fades: but the Word of our God shall stand forever.

  12. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: It is not “shameful”; it is just history; it was Athanasius opinion as to the OT. There is no infallibility of people’s writings after the Scriptures. ”

    This becomes more confusing. Firstly you refer to Athanasius for the list, then you retract from him after I showed that his list is different from yours. You choose and reject in accordance to the changes of your mood?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Athanasius was right on the NT; but made a mistake on the OT.
      Jerome was right on the OT; Jerome knew Hebrew and traveled to Palestine and lived with the Jews for many years and learned what the OT Tanakh was. Augustine and others who thought apocrypha books were also inspired, spoke out of lack of knowledge.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Athanasius was right on the NT; ”

        The list of Athanasius doesn’t include four (but you just admit one only) lost epistles of Paul.
        Athanasius’ Festal Letter just proves that either the Catholic Tradition or the spirits can’t preserve the Words of God. History is more dominant than the Ghost’s inspiration to Paul.
        Isaiah 40:8
        The grass withers, the flower fades: but the Word of our God shall stand forever.

  13. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: We have to trust that God knows best in the way He allowed and ordained history to happen in His sovereignty. Your skepticism and anachronistic way of asking questions is just your Islamic demand that is just that – a demand that you come along 2000 years later and make.”

    God knows best. Very Islamic.
    By the way you admit that God allows certain writing of Paul to be missing in History. How can the church alongside Tradition fail to keep the Word of God?

    • Ken Temple says:

      “And Allah knows best.”

      God’s sovereignty is true. We Reformed Calvinistic Christians have a similar understanding of God’s Sovereignty. (not totally equal, but similar)

      But Islam proves itself wrong since it denies the Crucifixion and Allah didn’t know what the Trinity is in 630 AD. Also the whole morality of taking sex slaves, Mohammad getting Zayd to divorce and then marrying Zaynab Bint Jahash, and the evil of Surah 9:5 and 9:29 and the whole history of Islam, Dhimmi – ism, Jiziye, and aggressive warfare and conquering, etc. – discredits Islam.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: We Reformed Calvinistic Christians have a similar understanding of God’s Sovereignty. (not totally equal, but similar)”

        You are a Calvinist who sometimes approves the Catholic Tradition but sometimes admits the gravest failure of Tradition to keep the Pauline epistle.

    • Ken Temple says:

      By the way you admit that God allows certain writing of Paul to be missing in History.
      How can the church alongside Tradition fail to keep the Word of God?

      I don’t understand your question.

      Do you mean:

      Since that letter of Paul’s is lost to history, How can the church alongside tradition be certain that is has kept/ preserved all of the Word of God, in the Scriptures today?

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Do you mean: Since that letter of Paul’s is lost to history, How can the church alongside tradition be certain that is has kept/ preserved all of the Word of God, in the Scriptures today?”

        My question just asks the validity of all Paul’s writings as the Words of God. Since the Word of God can’t be lost whereas Paul’s writing is lost, hence he also lost all credibility as the inspired writer.

  14. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Because Clement was not an apostle, nor writing under apostolic authority.”

    If so, how can his writing be considered serious or authoritative in choosing several canonical books?

    • Ken Temple says:

      It is historical and true. Something can be historical and true and not be “God-breathed” Scripture. Something can be true; but not infallible.

  15. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: It is historical and true. Something can be historical and true and not be “God-breathed” Scripture. Something can be true; but not infallible.”

    From where do you get certain that there’s a man named Clement who is not historically an apostle – just a layman person – from any evidence of History?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Other historical history books confirm all of these things. Get some good church history works.

      one is Philip Schaff at http://www.ccel.org

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1

      free on internet.

      I mentioned others in previous post about canon and history.

      Others that are pretty good:
      Church History in Plain Language, by Bruce Shelly
      2000 years of Christ’ Power – by N. R. Needham (4 volumes)
      History of Christianity in Asia, volume 1, by Samuel Moffat
      A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Lattaourette
      The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster

      The other works I mentioned above about the Canon and church history.

      You have lots of homework my friend!

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Other historical history books confirm all of these things. Get some good church history works.”

        Alright, suppose that Clement is not an apostle, now my humble question is: how can a layman Clement *know* better some canons of the NT Bible more than Paul, Luke or even lastly John?
        Did Clement get a more higher inspiration from the Ghost to mention what Paul, Luke, John themselves never mentioned?

  16. Ken Temple says:

    My question just asks the validity of all Paul’s writings as the Words of God. Since the Word of God can’t be lost whereas Paul’s writing is lost, hence he also lost all credibility as the inspired writer.

    No; because we have all we need in 1 Corinthians, as he keeps saying in 1 Corinthians, “concerning the things about which you wrote”; and “concerning . . . (this issue or that issue) (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) – the whole letter is structured around issues and questions that they wrote to him and send the letter by way of Cloe ( 1 Cor. 1:11-12) – chapters 1-4 deal with that disunity question of factions that Chloe delivered to Paul. Chapter 5-6, he is answering the issue that was written, reporting to Paul about the sins that have happened since he left. 5:1 – “It is actually reported that . . . ” and 6:1ff – writing about the issue of people taking each other to court. chapters 7-16 are about other specific questions.

  17. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: No; because we have all we need in 1 Corinthians, as he keeps saying in 1 Corinthians, “concerning the things about which you wrote”; and “concerning . . . (this issue or that issue) (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) – the whole letter is structured around issues and questions that they wrote to him and send the letter by way of Cloe ( 1 Cor. 1:11-12) – chapters 1-4 deal with that disunity question of factions that Chloe delivered to Paul. Chapter 5-6, he is answering the issue that was written, reporting to Paul about the sins that have happened since he left. 5:1 – “It is actually reported that . . . ” and 6:1ff – writing about the issue of people taking each other to court. chapters 7-16 are about other specific questions.”

    You’ re just guessing.
    How do you know exactly the contents of a missing epistle if you never read it?
    If the crux of matter were particular things which you need, you should have outlawed the book of Levi entirely which the NT Bible has deemed unnecessary.

  18. Ken Temple says:

    You are a Calvinist who sometimes approves the Catholic Tradition but sometimes admits the gravest failure of Tradition to keep the Pauline epistle.

    the original term “catholic” – from “kata holicos” κατα ‘ολικος (according to the whole) was the early church from AD 0 to 500 AD.

    The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Cranmer, Knox, Bucer, Beza, Chemitz, etc.) all agreed with the early first 500 years. All historic Protestants considered themselves “catholic” with a little c. But not Roman Catholic. It was later that the church devolved into Roman Catholicism, with bishop of Rome claiming authority over all other bishops and false doctrines like Purgatory (600 AD onward); Transubstantiation (developed from 800 AD to 1215 AD), Marian Dogmas and practices, especially praying to her, statues, Perpetual Virginity (500s onward), Sinlessness and Immaculate Conception (1854), and bodily assumption ( 1950 proclaimed as dogma); and Papal Infallibility ( 1870 proclaimed as dogma; developed from 1100s onward, especially Innocent III, who called for massive Crusades, and Boniface VIII who in 1302 wrote Unam Sanctum – “we proclaim that every living creature, in order to be saved, is required to submit to the Pontif of Rome.”

  19. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: the original term “catholic” – from “kata holicos” κατα ‘ολικος (according to the whole) was the early church from AD 0 to 500 AD.The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Cranmer, Knox, Bucer, Beza, Chemitz, etc.) all agreed with the early first 500 years. All historic Protestants considered themselves “catholic” with a little c. ”

    Those who considered themselves “catholic” with a little c don’t have a solid answer why their OT list differs from Athanasius’ Festal Letter. Hence, they are just a bunch of liars then.
    Those who considered themselves “catholic” with a little c don’t have a solid answer why their NT list doesn’t canonise four lost epistles of Paul.
    Even they just ought to shrug off in silence if they are asked how can they considered Paul as the inspired writer if the Words of God to Paul are lost?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Jerome confirmed the OT canon.

      Volume 2 of William Webster’s “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith” has a whole chapter on the OT canon that is very good.

      also: (I think most of the info there in that book is also here, free on internet)
      http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html

      Beyond all my answers, you just keep asking anachronistic type questions that never occur to those who study history as history and understand how the Christians understood the canon and books and the nature of the scrolls, first century, persecution, etc.

  20. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Also the whole morality of taking sex slaves, Mohammad getting Zayd to divorce and then marrying Zaynab Bint Jahash, ”

    Story of Zaynab is actually a redemption for David’s story of Bathheba, but with a non-violent process. In David’s story, Bathsheba was a wife of Uriah whom David sent to die in a battle. In Zaynab’s story, Zayd was a freed slave of Prophet Muhammad.
    Zaynab is as attractive as Bathsheba. It proves that in Islam woman’s beauty is appreciated as God’s masterpiece. In the NT Bible, it is a curse, bad omen, Satan’s handiwork, even a defilement which ended or violated someone’s sacred fellowship with Jesus.
    Rev 14:4
    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.

    Unlike one full month process of automated annulment of marriage in the Torah, the regulation in Islam is: any married female slave can choose to end her marriage by accepting the new marriage with a Muslim master, or to remain with her existing husband.
    Tabaqat, 8:1554; Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 140.
    Ibn Abbas narrated: Muhammad proposed to Safiyya Bint Bashama Ibn Nadhla al-`Anbari, who was taken captive. The Messenger of God gave her the choice and said, Whom do you desire: me or your husband? She said, Nay, my husband, So he sent her away and Banu Tamim cursed her.
    According to Q.4 v.24, the married slave (not widow) whose husband is still alive is forbidden to be married by Moslem, hence Prophet Muhammad does not marry one married slave from the region of Mesopotamia, Safiyah bint Bashshama.

  21. Ken Temple says:

    The passages in the Qur’an “whom your right hand possess” and the Hadith are still very ugly and shocking, no matter how you or Bassam Zawadi or Paul Williams or Hamza yusuf spins them and justifies them.

    Islam still promotes having sex with captured concubines.

    It seems that Yasir Qadhi even admits this in his lecture and one of the phrases in the title is “sex maids” – and if one listens carefully, Qadhi admits that all or most of the
    Abassids
    and
    Uthmaniye (Ottomans) are descendants of the children of concubines or “sex-maids” – meaning that the men of conquered areas were mostly killed and the Muslim warriors took the women as their “sex maids” .

    that is very immoral. It seems that Islam conquered areas, killed most of the men, and took the women as sex-slaves. There were small “Dhimmi” communities of poor Christians and Jews, but the economic hardship of the jiziye tax and being second class citizens caused most to eventually convert to Islam and Islam just won those areas by brute force. That history should trouble honest Muslims.

    • θ says:

      Yes, in the Torah after one full month any existing marriage of any married slave comes to an end automatically. Worse, she has to agree to enjoy a forced marriage.
      In Islam, the Married slave can freely choose her existing marriage or a new marriage with Muslim man, hence it is something that is not synonymous to the forced sexual victims in the Torah.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Nope; no force is there in Torah.

        Your texts seem to imply force – the soldiers who were worried about the sex slaves and their pagan husbands, etc. – and they were performing Azl (extracting their penises right before climax) – etc. – what a sick and nasty details in your holy texts !!

  22. Ken Temple says:

    David sinned by his adultery and getting Uriah to be killed on the frontline, and the deception plot, lying, getting him drunk, etc. It is recorded by God in Scripture, but not approved by God.

    David’s repentance is great in Psalm 32 and 51.

    Muhammad’s getting Zaynab – terribly immoral. Your Qur’an approves of it, along with Hadith. Terrible and disgusting.

    Bible never denigrates beauty. But women should not be exploited.

    • θ says:

      Due to her beauty, any attractive woman can be forced to enjoy a forced marriage after one full month.
      Beauty causes a suffering of the forced marriage.

  23. Ken Temple says:

    FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 3, #432:
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s messenger we said, “Oh Allah’s messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

    (also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)

    FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 9, #506:
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection”.
    Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, “No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.””

    (also ref. Bukhari 5:459).

    FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 5, #637:
    Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.”

    FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: “O Abu Said, did you hear Allah’s messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?” He said, “Yes”, and added: “We went out with Allah’s messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: “We are doing an act whereas Allah’s messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?” So we asked Allah’s messenger and he said: “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born”.

    FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432
    Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran – 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

    FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
    Abu Said al-Khudri said: “The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” [The Quran verse is 4:24].

    FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, #2167:
    Muhaririz said: “I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: “Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?” So we asked him about it. He said, “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.””

    • θ says:

      Where do you indicate from those Hadiths of al-Khudri that the married slave * does not * agree to end her existing marriage before choosing by her consent to accept a wedding dowry (even a garment) given by her Muslim master?

  24. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: David sinned by his adultery”

    What a lie in the name of God, Does God forget what punishment for adultery is?
    If it were adultery, why don’t Jews stone David along with Bathsheba on the spot if he were an adulterer?
    The sin of David for the matter is that he had consensual sex with a virgin Bathsheba who still has a betrothal agreement with Uriah. But as sexual consequence they (David and Bathsheba) have to marry.

    “Ken Temple says: Muhammad’s getting Zaynab – terribly immoral.”

    Making your own laws, then? Even Secular law doesn’t prohibit it.
    Do Christians forget what category of adultery is?

    Where does the Bible deem it immoral sin for a beautiful widow to choose new marriage by her consent?
    Marriage by consent is holy.

    • Ken Temple says:

      2 Samuel chapter 11-12 and Psalm 32 and 51 are clear that David sinned and committed adultery.

      It is obvious you have never read 2 Samuel chapters 11-12 all the way through verse by verse.

      Where do you get the idea that Bathsheba was a virgin and not already married to Uriah the Hittite?

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: 2 Samuel chapter 11-12 and Psalm 32 and 51 are clear that David sinned and committed adultery.”

        Which verse? please be specific in your accusation?

        On the contrary, When Nathan the prophet presented David with a parable of the rich man who stole the poor man’s sheep, he alluded to theft, but neither to murder nor adultery.
        Had David been guilty of murdering Uriah, Nathan would have given a story of killing a poor man. Had David been guilty of committing adultery, Nathan would have given a story of hurting the sheep.

        “Ken Temple says: Where do you get the idea that Bathsheba was a virgin and not already married to Uriah the Hittite?”

        Uriah has taken a celibate vow of not having sex with any woman as long as the war does not end, hence it invalidates any marriage, Bathsheba remains an untouched virgin, even Uriah does not know of her pregnancy.
        2Sam 11:11
        And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.

      • Ken Temple says:

        ridiculous interpretation – they were already married before – read the whole 2 chapters.

        She was already the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

        3 And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2 Sam. 11:3

  25. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: soldiers who were worried about the sex slaves and their pagan husbands, etc.”

    By choosing to accept a wedding dowry (even a piece of garment) given by her Muslim master, the married slave *agrees* by her consent to end her existing marriage. That’s it.

    Annulment of marriage of a wife doesn’t happen because of slavery.
    Tabaqat, 8:1554; Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 140.
    Ibn Abbas narrated: Muhammad proposed to Safiyya Bint Bashama Ibn Nadhla al-`Anbari, who was taken captive. The Messenger of God gave her the choice and said, Whom do you desire: me or your husband? She said, Nay, my husband, So he sent her away and Banu Tamim cursed her.

    According to Q.4 v.24, the married slave (not widow) whose husband is still alive is forbidden to be married by Moslem, hence Prophet Muhammad does not marry one married slave from the region of Mesopotamia, Safiyah bint Bashshama.

    Marriage is a mutual consent:
    Nasa’i Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3365
    It was narrated that Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq said: The Prophet passed judgment concerning a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave woman: If he forced her, then she is free, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement; if she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to him, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement.

    Nasa’i Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3366
    It was narrated from Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq that a man had intercourse with a slave woman belonging to his wife, and was brought to the Messenger of Allah. He said: If he forced her, then she is free at his expense and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement. If she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to her mistress, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as well.

    Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 130.
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said: Shall we get ourselves castrated? He forbade us that and then allowed us to *marry* women with a temporary contract and recited to us: O you who believe, Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.
    Arabic: An nankiha almar-atan (to marry a woman).

    Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 139.
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said: Shall we castrate ourselves? But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to *marry* a woman by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.
    Arabic: An natazawwaja almar-atan (to marry a woman).

  26. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Jerome confirmed the OT canon. Volume 2 of William Webster’s “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith” has a whole chapter on the OT canon that is very good. also: (I think most of the info there in that book is also here, free on internet)
    http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
    Beyond all my answers, you just keep asking anachronistic type questions that never occur to those who study history as history and understand how the Christians understood the canon and books and the nature of the scrolls, first century, persecution, etc.”

    History makes some epistles of Paul lost. It is a proof that he is not an inspired writer.
    You, the Reformed, and the Catholics alike can’t be sure what the meaning of “writing” mentioned by the Bible is, either:
    i) NT canon + lost writings of Paul, or
    ii) NT canon + apocrypha, or
    iii) NT canon + Non-canons (such as Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Clement, et cetera), or
    iv) NT canon + apocrypha + Non-canons, or
    v) NT canon + apocrypha + Non-canons + the OT canon.
    Bear in mind, Paul didn’t know of the complete list of the OT canons because Jews held the canon council of Jamnia in 90 AD after his death.

  27. Ken Temple says:

    I am already sure. Only the 27 book NT canon. All your additions have already lost the debate along time ago.

    For the OT, the Jews and Protestants are correct. the Roman Catholics are wrong. Jesus (Luke 11:51-52; Luke 24:44), Jerome, Josephus (Against Apion 1:8); and the Jews proved that already.

    History makes some epistles of Paul lost. It is a proof that he is not an inspired writer.

    What a stupid statement! His 13 letters already proven to be “God-breathed” for almost 2000 years.

    • θ says:

      “Ken Temple says: I am already sure. Only the 27 book NT canon. All your additions have already lost the debate along time ago.”

      Biblical Scholars conclude that there are other 4 lost epistles of Paul, even you admit just time ago that there is at least one missing epistle of Paul.
      How can a God-breathed word be lost, except to prove that Paul is not a God’s inspired writer?

      Moreover, you exclude so many “writings” that circulated before 100-200 AD, such as Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, whereas Paul commands you to accept *all writings* the early chuchgoers have read, known, and acknowledge.
      1Cor 4:6
      Ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,
      2Cor 1
      13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge;

      • Ken Temple says:

        Nope; those books
        Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas,

        were proven to not be apostolic, therefore they are not God-breathed Scripture.

      • Ken Temple says:

        There are not 4 lost letters of Paul. I already proved that.
        Sorry, there was not a “1 Corinthians” before the 1 Corinthians that we have.
        I was not thinking earlier.
        Cloe wrote a letter of questions to Paul, as clear from the 1 Corinthians we have. (1 Corinthians 1:11-12; 7:1 – about the issues you wrote to me”

        So there are no other letters of paul.

  28. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: I am already sure. Only the 27 book NT canon. All your additions have already lost the debate along time ago.”

    “Ken Temple says: What a stupid statement! His 13 letters already proven to be “God-breathed” for almost 2000 years.”

    Says who? where and which part of the Bible do you think to say that? Your statement is another circular opinion, even it is against the Bible.
    Peter just scolded the writings of Paul as something hard to be understood, whereas the Word of God is pure, simple and understandable (Ps 119:130, Ps:119:40). Peter also belittles all Paul’s epistles just as a typical wisdom God gives for all men (James 1:5).
    Jam 1:5
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    Ps 119:130
    The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
    vs.
    2Pet 3
    15 Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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.

    • Ken Temple says:

      So you accept 2 Peter as “God-breathed Scripture”.

      Peter is not “scolding” Paul’s epistles, nor “belittling them”; rather he is saying they are profound, deep, and from God; Peter calls them Holy Scripture, same as the Scriptures in 2 Peter 1:19-21 – “men moved by God by the Holy Spirit” to write the Scriptures. You just destroyed Islam as a valid religion and the Qur’an as Revelation by affirming 2 Peter and James and Psalms.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Peter calls them Holy Scripture, same as the Scriptures in 2 Peter 1:19-21 – “men moved by God by the Holy Spirit” to write the Scriptures.”

        Peter just refers to the *old time*, not his generation.
        2Pet 1:21
        For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

      • Ken Temple says:

        no; it is not only the “old time”, but also includes the NT as the illustration he gives in verses 17-18 is about the transfiguration of Jesus on the Mountain, and that was written down in matthew, Mark, and Luke. Then in verse 19 he says, “and we have the prophetic word made more sure” – more sure because of his eyewitness testimony AND because it was written down in Scripture.

        boom! Your argument destroyed.

  29. Ken Temple says:

    says who? God, through the voice of the Holy Spirit in the believers (My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me” John 10:27; and “the spiritual person is able to discern all things” – 1 Cor. 2:14-16; “we have the mind of Christ” = we have the discernment and access to the mind of Christ through the Spirit speaking in the written text) , and through the weight of evidence and the providence of history, established the NT and OT – they are self-authenticating.

    • θ says:

      “Ken Temple says: My Sheep Hear My Voice: Canon as Self-Authenticating”

      Is not Peter God’s sheep?
      It is Peter himself who degrades all Paul’s epistles to be just a wisdom that God gives for all men (James 1:5).
      Jam 1:5
      If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
      2Pet 3
      15 Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

      Later Christians are guilty of rejecting so many writings whereas Paul commands them to accept *all writings* the early churchgoers have read, known, and acknowledge.
      1Cor 4:6
      Ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,
      2Cor 1
      13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge;

  30. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: ridiculous interpretation – they were already married before – read the whole 2 chapters.She was already the wife of Uriah the Hittite.3 And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2 Sam. 11:3”

    Bathsheba’s marriage is null and void because the celibate vow of Uriah. You certainly can’t argue against this.
    Deut 20:7
    And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”

    Moreover, Jewish law doesn’t recognise any validity of the marriage of non-Jew. Hittite is not the ethnicity of Hebrews. There’s no indication that Uriah has converted to Judaism.
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
    The Hittites were an Ancient Anatolian people who established an empire centered on Hattusa in north-central Anatolia around 1600 BC. This empire reached its height during the mid-14th century BC under Suppiluliuma I, when it encompassed an area that included most of Asia Minor as well as parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia. After c. 1180 BC, the empire came to an end during the Bronze Age collapse, splintering into several independent “Neo-Hittite” city-states, some of which survived until the 8th century BC.

    • Ken Temple says:

      No, Uriah converted to the true God. Uriah’s noble character was not to take a break from the battle and enjoy his wife while the others were busy suffering and fighting hard. He respected his troops and was a good model. But they were already married before the battle.

  31. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Uriah’s noble character was not to take a break from the battle and enjoy his wife while the others were busy suffering and fighting hard. ”

    Do you argue against what is written at Deut 20:7?
    The celibate vow of Uriah makes his marriage null and void.
    Deut 20:7
    And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”

    • Ken Temple says:

      Deut. 20:7 has nothing to do with Uriah and Bathsheba’s circumstances. It was not a celibate vow. they were not betrothed; they were MARRIED. There is a difference you know.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Deut. 20:7 has nothing to do with Uriah and Bathsheba’s circumstances. It was not a celibate vow. ”

        Do you think Uriah is more holier than God who doesn’t allow a man to commit a celibacy for the war in His name?
        Uriah vowed in 2Sam 11:11 by saying :”as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.”

        The celibate vow of Uriah makes his marriage null and void.
        Deut 20:7
        And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”

      • Ken Temple says:

        A ridiculous take on those verses!

  32. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: no; it is not only the “old time”, but also includes the NT as the illustration he gives in verses 17-18 is about the transfiguration of Jesus on the Mountain, and that was written down in matthew, Mark, and Luke. ”

    I don’t say Peter refers to the OT time, he just refers to the prophesies of old time. Peter just considers Paul as a brother, not a Prophet.
    Moreover Peter just considers Paul’s writing as a wisdom which God gives to all men.
    Jam 1:5
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    2Pet 3
    15 Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

  33. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Sorry, there was not a “1 Corinthians” before the 1 Corinthians that we have.
    I was not thinking earlier. Cloe wrote a letter of questions to Paul, as clear from the 1 Corinthians we have. (1 Corinthians 1:11-12; 7:1 – about the issues you wrote to me” ”

    My question is the whereabouts of the lost writings of Paul that answered the question, not just someone’s question.
    Let me repeat what you said earlier: “There is only one possible missing Pauline letter (the letter of questions that the Corinthians wrote to Paul, mentioned in I Corinthians). That is lost to history.”

    • Ken Temple says:

      I made a mistake. the questions written by the Corinthians and delivered by Cloe – 1 Cor. 1:11-12, were not written by Paul; so there are no “lost letters”. The sorrowful letter in 2 Cor. 7 is talking about 1 Cor. and the Laodicea one is Ephesians. hint: you need to study the textual variant data of Ephesians 1:1.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: the questions written by the Corinthians and delivered by Cloe – 1 Cor. 1:11-12, were not written by Paul; so there are no “lost letters”. ”

        On the contrary, in 1 Cor 5:11 Paul contrasted his written letter (containing his answer) to the church of Corinth from a written question delivered by Cloe to him in 1 Cor. 1:11-12.
        1Cor 5
        9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

        Hence the 1st Corinthian Letter is really lost.
        //www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=66
        Paul’s First Corinthian Letter
        Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Paul’s missing previous Corinthian letter. Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians could be called more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually did write an earlier letter to the church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.” While some would argue that Paul is referring to a previous section of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1-8) rather than referring to a previous epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to explain exactly what he meant by that statement, which is not what is said in 5:1-8. After explaining what the statement from the previous letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by showing the contrasting point, “But now I have written to you…”—explaining the difference between the statement from the previous epistle and the one from our 1 Corinthians.
        What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul, and nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. With this book, and with the other “lost books,” we now must ask the question…

      • Ken Temple says:

        You are right about 1 Cor. 5:9-11; that is what I was originally referring to; but got it mixed up with the Chloe’s writing letter of questions, and then realized that, wait, Chloe’s writing a letter of questions to Paul is not another letter of Paul. I am getting old; I knew there was somewhere where he said, “I wrote to you” (before) and that there was a missing letter. I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder and challenge.

        However, that does not mean anything at all as to discrediting his other books/letters. All it means is that in God’s Sovereignty and Providence of controlling history, apparently, we did not need that letter. We have his other 13 and other of the 27 books of the NT. God knows best. that is just not problem for us at all, that we would think that one being lost would somehow effect the others ones that we have.

  34. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: The mention of a letter written to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16 was probably a circular letter that later became the Epistle to the Ephesians, as the textual data on verse 1, “to the Ephesians” confirms. It was probably circulated to many churches, and scribes put the specific church in that space.”

    Is there any Historical or Apostolic source that informs you that the Laodicean is the Ephesian? or is it just your own speculative probability?

  35. Ken Temple says:

    Lots of historical evidence and textual variant evidence. It was a circular letter sent to both Ephesus and Laodicea and other places. You have to have Greek textual books for the info.

    • θ says:

      “Ken Temple says: Lots of historical evidence and textual variant evidence. It was a circular letter sent to both Ephesus and Laodicea and other places. You have to have Greek textual books for the info.”

      There is indeed the Letter of Laodiceans (in Latin), hence it is not a circular letter.
      There is indeed the 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians (in Greek), hence it is not the content in 1 Cor.5.
      There is a logical evidence that showed the 1st Corinthian Letter is not the 1st Corinthian epistle, as Paul contrasted the letter from the existing 1 Cor 5:11 “But now I have written to you…” as a proof of the difference between the letter and the epistle. Hence the 1st Corinthian Letter is really lost.

      //www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=66
      Paul’s First Corinthian Letter
      Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Paul’s missing previous Corinthian letter. Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians could be called more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually did write an earlier letter to the church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.” While some would argue that Paul is referring to a previous section of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1-8) rather than referring to a previous epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to explain exactly what he meant by that statement, which is not what is said in 5:1-8. After explaining what the statement from the previous letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by showing the contrasting point, “But now I have written to you…”—explaining the difference between the statement from the previous epistle and the one from our 1 Corinthians.
      What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul, and nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. With this book, and with the other “lost books,” we now must ask the question…

      //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Laodiceans
      For centuries some Western Latin Bibles used to contain a small Epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans.[14] The oldest known Bible copy of this epistle is in a Fulda manuscript written for Victor of Capua in 546. It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, notably by Pope Gregory the Great,

      //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians
      The Third Epistle to the Corinthians is a pseudepigraphical text under the name of Paul the Apostle. It is also found in the Acts of Paul, and was framed as Paul’s response to the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. The earliest extant copy is Bodmer Papyrus X. In the West it was not considered canonical in the 4th century AD, becoming part of the New Testament apocrypha. In the East, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphrahat (c. 340) treated it as canonical

      • Ken Temple says:

        the Latin so called “epistle to the Laodiceans” is discredited because there is no Greek extant manuscript of it; the dating is late; and it appears to have been created in order to answer the question of Colossians 4:16.

  36. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Nope; those books Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, were proven to not be apostolic, therefore they are not God-breathed Scripture.”

    Not proven? How and why?
    Do you argue the apostleship of Barnabas and Clement?
    Epistle of Barnabas was written by Barnabas, named an apostle in Acts 14:14, he and Paul undertook missionary journeys together and participated in the Council of Jerusalem. Barnabas and Paul came to various Hellenised cities of Anatolia. Barnabas’ story appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul mentions him in some of his epistles.

    The book of 1 Clement was written by Pope Clement I, also known as Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99. He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Barnabas did not write the so called “Epistle of Barnabas” – it is usually called “Pseudo-Barnabas”. Scholars and dating have already proven that.

      But Barnabas probably did write the Epistle to the Hebrews, as he was called an apostle as you pointed out, in Acts 14:4 and 14:14, and he was a Levite (Acts 4:36) and therefore knew a lot of details of the book of Leviticus and has lots of those details in Hebrews; and his nickname was “son of Encouragement” or “son of Exhortation” and he gives a hint of that in Hebrews 13:22 (letter of encouragment/exhortation) and he knows Timothy (13:23), who was one of Paul’s missionary team, and some of the contents are also close to the apostle’s Paul’s content. It makes perfect sense. Also Tertullian wrote that he thought Hebrews was written by Barnabas.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Barnabas did not write the so called “Epistle of Barnabas” – it is usually called “Pseudo-Barnabas”. Scholars and dating have already proven that.”

        So many scholars conclude the author is indeed Barnabas a companion of Paul.
        Epistle of Barnabas illustrated both the events before destruction of Jerusalem Temple and aftermath (Chapter 13:14-15), hence the writing perfectly matches the individual of Barnabas. No one else is known to have the same name during that generation.
        Moreover, there’s only one historical Barnabas who knows of both the teaching of Moses (building of Temple) and teaching of Jesus (human as Temple) as being explained in detail for the main literary theme by the epistle.

        http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob17.htm
        Barnabas was a companion and fellow-preacher with Paul. This Epistle lays a greater claim to canonical authority than most others. It has been cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, and many ancient Fathers. Cotelerius affirms that Origen and Jerome esteemed it genuine and canonical; ….Dodwell supposed it to have been published before the Epistle of Jude, and the writings of both the Johns. Vossius, Dupuis, Dr. Cane, Dr. Mill, Dr. S. Clark, Whiston, and Archbishop Wake also esteemed it genuine: Menardus, Archbishop Laud, Spanheim, and others, deemed it apocryphal.

  37. θ says:

    The Shepherd of Hermas, written by Hermas whom Paul in Rom 16:14 saluted amongst other early Christians (“Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them”), considered a canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Do you know the reference where Irenaeus says that the Shepherd of Hermas is Scripture?

      some did think it was Scripture, but this idea did not continue, as Hermas was not an apostle nor under apostolic authority, and the dating is too late to be part of the NT. (around 140 -155 AD) But the Shepherd of Hermas is good evidence for the church at Rome having a council or team or college of elders. there was no mono-episcopate (one-bishop) over the college of elders.

      • θ says:

        “Ken Temple says: Do you know the reference where Irenaeus says that the Shepherd of Hermas is Scripture?”

        //www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml
        Irenaeus writes in Adversus Haereses:
        Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence. He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.” [Book 2, First Commandment, of the Shepherd of Hermas]. Rightly also has Malachi said among the prophets: “Is it not one God who hath established us? Have we not all one Father?” (4.20.2. of Adversus Haereses)
        This passage, where Irenaeus calls the Shepherd of Hermas ‘scripture’, is mentioned by [Grant] p. 153 and [Metzger] p. 155.

  38. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: You are right about 1 Cor. 5:9-11…However, that does not mean anything at all as to discrediting his other books/letters. All it means is that in God’s Sovereignty and Providence of controlling history, apparently, we did not need that letter. We have his other 13 and other of the 27 books of the NT. God knows best. that is just not problem for us at all, and we think that that one being lost would somehow effect the others ones that we have.”

    Now I return again to the earlier statement I made.
    To say “That is lost to history” you prove that either the Catholic Tradition or the spirits can’t preserve the Words of God. History is more dominant than the Ghost’s inspiration to Paul. Hence, from Scriptural perspective Paul just lost his credibility as an inspired writer.
    Isaiah 40:8
    The grass withers, the flower fades: but the Word of our God shall stand forever.

    Paul’s writing should be degraded to be a usual wisdom just like God-given wisdom to all men. Paul is not a Prophet, he is just a brother according to Peter
    Jam 1:5
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    2Pet 3
    15 Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

    • Ken Temple says:

      “the spirits ” ??

      God controls history, just like God the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of OT and NT. 2 Peter 1:19-21. Not a problem. The kinds of issues you bring up most of the time are just not problems for us at all.

      Paul is an apostle رسول الله , (an apostle of God) and apostle of Jesus Christ (verse 1-2 of all his letters) and the church is built upon the prophets (OT writings) and apostles (NT writings). Ephesians 2:19-20

  39. Ken Temple says:

    Peter calls all of Paul’s writings “Scripture” – 2 Peter 3:16 – “which the unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures”

    Peter puts Paul’s writings equal to the other Scriptures. Peter is disciple and eyewitness of jesus ministry, etc. and confirms Paul as inspired apostle.

    15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

    2 Peter 3:15-16

    • θ says:

      “Ken Temple says: Peter puts Paul’s writings equal to the other Scriptures. Peter is disciple and eyewitness of jesus ministry, etc. and confirms Paul as inspired apostle. ”

      Your opinion is too ambiguous.
      As more stronger interpretation, Peter just puts the other Scriptures equal to some *difficult issues* Peter has discussed before in 2Pet 3:13-14 , which the ignorant twisted.

      Firstly, Peter uses the words “some things” to refer to “these matters” in 2Pet 3:16 (“…of these matters”), not to Paul’s letters.

      Then, Peter previously discussed in 2 Peter 3:13-14 two messages: “such things” (issues of new heavens and new earth) and some goodly characters accordingly (peace, without spot, and blameless).
      2Pet 3
      13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

      Hence Peter is not equating Paul’s letters to the Scriptures, but “these matters” to the written Scriptures.

      • θ says:

        Correction (rephrase)
        As more stronger interpretation, Peter just puts the other Scriptures equal to some *difficult issues* Peter has discussed before in 2Pet 3:13-14, which the ignorant twisted.

        Firstly, Peter uses the words “in them” to refer back to “these matters” in 2Pet 3:16 (“…of these matters. There are some things in them…”), not to Paul’s letters.

        Peter reminded the readers of his previous discussion in 2 Peter 3:13-14, in which he employs two messages by using the directive wording “such things”: a theme of new heavens and new earth, and some goodly characters accordingly (peace, without spot, and blameless).
        2Pet 3
        13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

        Hence Peter is not equating Paul’s letters to the Scriptures, but “these matters” to the written Scriptures.

  40. Ken Temple says:

    No; it is clear that Peter is calling all of Paul’s letters holy and inspired Scripture

    “all his letters” = all of Paul’s letters
    “just as they do the rest of the Scriptures”

    Peter is saying that false teachers – the ignorant/untaught and unstable distort all the Scriptures, which includes all of Paul’s letters.

    • θ says:

      Is Paul’s writing a book of Tanach? No. The NT Scripture has not been vetted during the time of Peter, hence he just refers to the Tanach.

  41. Ken Temple says:

    The gospels and the law are both called Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.
    Paul quotes from Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 with Deuteronomy 25:4
    Gospel and law are both holy Scripture.

    Jesus laid down the principle for the NT in John 17:8
    God the Father gave the words to Jesus.
    Jesus gave the words to the disciples/apostles.
    The apostles preached and wrote down what was God-breathed.
    The Holy Spirit lead them into all the truth. John 16:13; John 14:26
    Peter confirms all of Paul’s letters. 2 Peter 3:16

  42. θ says:

    According to Biblical pattern, 1 Tim 5:18 just refers to *one* Scripture (not two or many Scriptures), that is, Deuteronomy 25:4 only. Nowhere does the Bible use a singular word “Scripture” for two or many books. On other hand, there’s a simple pattern for using the plural word “Scriptures” for many books of many Prophets.
    For example, when making a reference to many books of Prophets, Jesus uses the plural word “Scriptures”. Also on a topic of the “corner stone”, Jesus uses the word “Scriptures” (not Scripture) because he refers to at least two books: Psalms and Isaiah.

    The use of word “Scriptures” for two or more books:
    Lk 24:27
    And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    The use of word “Scriptures” for two or more books:
    Mt 21:42
    Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    Jesus refers to two books by using the plural word “Scriptures” (rather than Scripture):
    Psalm 118:22
    The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone.
    Isaiah 28:16
    Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Your own interpretation does not matter, when the NT has already been established for centuries, even centuries before Islam; and the Qur’an affirms that very same NT, (though ignorant of what exactly it was, which proves Qur’an is not from God), by calling the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, “Gospel” ( Injeel), Surah 5:47; 10:94; 5:68; 2:136; 3:3-4 – The Qur’an also affirms the NT, since it was the official “Gospel” and book of the Christians, (with the OT), the people of the book.

Comments are closed.