/lit/ - Literature

>>19288491
First and foremost, as Timothy was not a child when the NT gospels and epistles were written, it is clear that Paul is talking about the Old Testament, and how it leads one to knowledge of faith in the Messiah - not the New Testament, which did not exist at that time, but which you would say is required for salvation.

That text clearly says that knowledge of scripture (in this case, the Old Testament) can lead one to justification by faith in the Messiah, but it does not say that the scriptures are the only thing that is necessary for salvation. First and foremost, just because the verse says scripture can lead one to being perfected, does not mean that scripture /alone/ can lead one to being perfected. See James 1:14:
"And let patience have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
If we are to be consistent with your method of exegesis, then we should also say that through patience alone, "solo patientia", we can become perfect and complete.
Obviously, this is irrational. So either patience alone is sufficient for perfection (otherwise there is a contradiction in the Bible, which also apparently says that patience alone leads to perfection, by your method of exegesis), or you are misinterpreting the scriptures.

Further, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is irrational because the very New Testament you are using was first compiled by Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome 382, presided over by Pope Damascus I. None of those bishops believed in Sola Scriptura - that belief arose 1500 years later - but they did believe in the power of tradition and apostolic succession, which is what gave them the authority to compile your New Testament canon. If there is no power in tradition or apostolic succession, why do you use the New Testament, which was compiled by people who claimed that very power?

>>19135883
>If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title then each subsequent manuscript would have copied the title in the same place: they didn't.
If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title, then we would expect that all subsequent manuscripts would be entitled "the Gospel of Matthew", which they were. This suggests that the original manuscript was correctly attributed to Matthew, who was its original author.
>1 Corinthians is written by Paul sometime in the 50s, so about 20 years after the death of Jesus, yes.
Most biblical scholars, including liberal and non-Christian ones, agree that the Corinthian Creed is relating an oral traditional creed composed within 5 years after the death of Christ. Surely you knew this, though?
>Matthew is dependent on Mark, which is post-70AD
Besides the fact that Markan priority is not a consensus, let's grant it for the sake of argument - there is still no definitive reason to believe that Matthew had to have been post-70AD, unless one implicitly rejects the existence of prophecy. It is entirely possible that the original manuscript was composed far earlier than 70AD.

>If there are any recollections of Jesus in the gospels they are in a language he didn't speak generations after the events of his life.
The fact is that the Gospels contain explicit Aramaic phrases and transliterations, as well as preserving statements which preserve salience and word-play when translated back into Aramaic. There is also no reason to believe that the early Christian community did not adopt Koine Greek as a sort of lingua-franca between the communities of early believers - indeed, this seems to be the case, especially considering its prominence in the Roman territories - and as such, the original Gospels could have been dictated by Aramaic speakers (such as the apostles) to Greek scribes (which is exactly what Paul explicitly states is happening many times in his epistles, for example). Not to mention the fact that bilingual people existed in the early community, and therefore it is plausible that the apostles themselves came to speak the language of the communities they evangelized.

>And I wanted to know, from a complete stranger, why are you/aren't you religious Anon?
I am religious because I know experientially and rationally that God is real, and I know rationally and epistemologically that Christianity is the True religion.
>Don't you think there is something more?
Yes.
>What do you believe life's about?
To glorify God, spread love, and perfect our souls through the imitation of Christ, in preparation for the beatific vision of Heaven.

>>18821896
>And I wanted to know, from a complete stranger, why are you/aren't you religious Anon?
I am religious because I know experientially and rationally that God is real, and I know rationally and epistemologically that Christianity is the True religion.
>Don't you think there is something more?
Yes.
>What do you believe life's about?
To glorify God, and perfect our souls in preparation for the beatific vision of Heaven.