quantumfaith
Active Member
Wow, finally, something on which we agree. :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rome and Finished Revelation
- Thread starter Dr. Walter
- Start date
Wow, finally, something on which we agree. :thumbs:
Dr. Walter
New Member
Dr. Walter.. no disrespect here, but it seems to me that you want the readers of this thread to trust your imagination (history not from Rome) more than accepted history.
Please show proof of your view of history. I was raised more or less Landmark, and have always wanted to see proof of history apart from Rome. If you know where this is, please share.
Other wise, it looks like your hate for Rome is forcing you to make up history.
Have you read "The Reformers and their Step children" by Leonard Verduin? Have you read the non-Landmarker historian Thomas Armitage and his "History of the Baptists"? Have you read Foxes book of Martyrs or better yet Martyrs Mirror by Van Braught? Have you read the Luthern historian Mosheim on the Anabaptists? Have you read the Arian Baptist Robert Robinson's "Ecclesiastical Researches"? Have you read "Two Babylon's" by Alexander Hislop??? Have you read Jones and his "History of the Christian Church"?
That doesn't answer the point - did the Holy Spirit take a nap after St John the Divine put down his quill/scribe at the end of Rev 28?Inspiration refers to the scriptures not to the instruments used to convey scriptures. It is the words that are God breathed not the persons.
That doesn't answer the question either. I asked you to be specific, and you have failed to do so.Matthew 28:19-20 is the modus operandi for reproducing churches after their own kind. It is not that any particular historical church is perpetuated until the end of the age but rather it reproduces churches of like faith and order who do the same until the end of the age so that there are always New Testament churches present in every generation until the end of the age. I have posted a thread on the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 and spell it out in greater detail. If interested look at that thread.
And so are you.First, you are guessing at the content of the oral traditions because you don't know what the content was.
How do you know?Paul explicitly tells the church at Ephesus that he teaches the same doctrine in every place he goes. That doctrine is spelled out in his epistles.
Like the Trinity, you mean?If the doctrine of a particular denomination cannot be found in the Old and New Testaments it is because it is not Biblical and therefore not of God but of men.
Sorry, but none of what you've said demonstrates this.This oral body of doctrine IS what written in the New Testament.
So you don't actually know that the Bible on your bookshelf contains the correct Books? And yet you presume to comment on that those Books say? Amazing!Since I reject the vast amount of Ante-Nicene history as legitimate church history but rather view it as the history of the apostate churches, therefore I reject Rome's view of canonization of scriptures. I believe New Testament churches have always been the custodians of the scriptuers and therefore at not point in time were they ever without what was currently written and deposited into the hands of the churches.
So why are Paul's letters to the Corinthians included but not his letter to the Laodicaeans? Why isn't the Epistle of Barnabas there?. However, I think it is silly to presume that the apostles failed to leave the churches without the epistles they had written as even Col. 4:16 commands the churches to share the written epistles of Paul. The churches had all four gospels and all the epistles in hand by the death of John and they were circulating among the churches and churches were making their own copies. It is silly, because where do you think the material for canonization would come from - the heathen???? Hence, the churches had the full New Testament in their possession from the first century.
Dr. Walter
New Member
That doesn't answer the point - did the Holy Spirit take a nap after St John the Divine put down his quill/scribe at the end of Rev 28?
No, the Holy Spirit did not take a nap, but His work of prophetic inspiration ceased (Isa. 8:16).
Dr. Walter
New Member
And so are you. How do you know? Like the Trinity, you mean?
You are confusing a non-biblical term "Trinity" with Biblical teaching. The Biblical teaching of the "Godhead" is inherent in the scriptures regardless of what term you choose to designate it. Tradition did not put it into scriptures.
Dr. Walter
New Member
So why are Paul's letters to the Corinthians included but not his letter to the Laodicaeans? Why isn't the Epistle of Barnabas there?
Barnabas was not an apostle.
The most likely meaning is that the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians was a circular letter to various churches in the province of Asia, one copy going to Laodicea and to be passed on to Colossae as the Colossian letter was to be sent on to Laodicea. This was done usually by copying and keeping the original. - A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures
Dr. Walter
New Member
Sorry, but none of what you've said demonstrates this.
I gave you the Biblical answer and yet you simply ignored it and so I will give it to you again:
What he taught Timothy is what he taught in EVERY PLACE and in EVERY CHURCH. What he taught Titus is what he taught Timothy:
1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
What he taught Titus by oral teaching was the body of doctrine he called "the faith" or "the doctrine" which was taught in every church consistently (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:7; 2 Thes. 2:15; etc.).
This oral body of doctrine IS what written in the New Testament.
Dr. Walter
New Member
So you don't actually know that the Bible on your bookshelf contains the correct Books? And yet you presume to comment on that those Books say? Amazing!
We have sufficient information to believe the whole Bible was complete and translated by A.D. 150 in the Old Latin and Old Syric translations. I have the old Syric translation on my desk. All the critics can say is that "some" copies of these translations were missing four books currently in our King James Version.
The truth is there is not sufficient historical information to deny that the complete canon as we know it today in our KJV was not complete and present in "some" of these most ancient translations. Indeed, for these translations to even occur as early as A.D. 150 the churches must have already possessed copies and regarded them as scripture.
Again, it is silly to think that the early churches prior to A.D. 100 did not have all the New Testament copies in circulation and copied among the churches as the apostles deposited their writings with the churches AS SOON AS they were actually written. To suggest that it took 400 years and apostate Rome to put together the New Testament is absurdly rediculous. What we have is a history of corruption of scriptures within the history of corrupt worldly churches in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Walter
New Member
That doesn't answer the point - did the Holy Spirit take a nap after St John the Divine put down his quill/scribe at the end of Rev 28?
Isaiah 8:14-20 with John 14-17 and Heb. 2:3-4,13; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-20; 3:15-17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19 clearly demonstrates the apostles knew they were completing the Biblical canon.
Peter expressly states in 2 Pet. 1:19 that the scriptures were "more sure" than his own apostolic experience that he conveyed no doubt orally for many years. He recognized all of Paul's epistles equal to "other scriptures."
John with the very precise use of "the testimony" and the very precise seal found in Rev. 22:18-19 was completing the prophecy in Isaiah 8:16,20.
What began as oral "tradition" proceeded to written scripture just as it did with the prophets of old -the same process - and the written scripture superseded all previous oral traditions.
Paul told others and he told Timothy that what he taught orally was the very same thing that he taught all the churches in every place he went and those oral teachings are preserved in all of his epistles UNLESS we are to beleive His epistles are departures from the faith once delivered and that he taught in them things contrary to what he says he always taught the same in all places?????
The early Churches during the New Testament period were founded by Jewish Christians and were very familiar with the process used by the Jews to establish the Old Testament canon (who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha as inspired).
1. Was the book written by an acknowledged prophet/apostle or by someone directly under his supervision (as in the case of Jeremiah).
2. Did the book claim to be from God?
3. Did the contents contain any errors?
4. Did the book have life changing power in the lives of those reading it?
5. Was it accepted by the custodians of scripture (Israel, churches)?
Again, it is silly to believe that the churches did not have copies of the Apostles writings AS SOON AS they were written as the apostles wrote to the churches and the churches were commanded to circulate them among themselves. We do not have any historical evidence that there was a problem with forgeries within the first century. The record of forgeries and non-apostolic apocrypha writings began in the second century and were distributed among gnostic Christianity and worldly churches that eventually became Roman Catholicism.
Dr. Walter
New Member
However, the issue of this thread is not uninspired ecclesiastical history or human traditions but finished revelation.
Even Rome admits that sacred scriptures were finished by the apostles or those directly under their supervision:
"76 --in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing."
This is the essence of Isaiah 8:16,20 and the claims of both Paul and Peter (2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:16) as well as John (1 Jn. 4:5-6 with Rev. 1:2; 22:17-18).
As a clear and undeniable Messanic and apostolic prophecy Isaiah 8:16-20 demands that the finished scriptures by the apostles are final authority, not uninspired oral traditions.
It is plain to see in reading the nine volumes (not counting the tenth index volume) of the Ante-nicene writings that they have been corrupted (short versus long editions) and utter confusion and contradictions and silly superstitious writings abound in these volumes.
The Scriptures have been committed unto the Lord's churches and His people but through the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene histories they have received the most rash handling and corruption.
Even Rome admits that sacred scriptures were finished by the apostles or those directly under their supervision:
"76 --in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing."
This is the essence of Isaiah 8:16,20 and the claims of both Paul and Peter (2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:16) as well as John (1 Jn. 4:5-6 with Rev. 1:2; 22:17-18).
As a clear and undeniable Messanic and apostolic prophecy Isaiah 8:16-20 demands that the finished scriptures by the apostles are final authority, not uninspired oral traditions.
It is plain to see in reading the nine volumes (not counting the tenth index volume) of the Ante-nicene writings that they have been corrupted (short versus long editions) and utter confusion and contradictions and silly superstitious writings abound in these volumes.
The Scriptures have been committed unto the Lord's churches and His people but through the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene histories they have received the most rash handling and corruption.
Dr. Walter
New Member
What you and Rome are ignoring is the natural processes by which the Old and New Testament was completed. In both cases oral teaching preceding putting it into writing.
In the case of the Old Testament the Jews, just like Rome, tried to perpetuate oral teaching preserved as tradition and thus we read of "the traditions of the elders." Jesus repudiated the oral traditions. Jesus NEVER ONCE quoted them or referred to them as a source of authority for anything he taught. However, the Jews used the exact same reasoning and arguments that the traditions of the elders were equally sacred as scriptures just as Rome does:
"ORAL LAW - According to the rabbinical interpretation of Ex. xxxiv. 27, the words indicate that besides the written law——God gave orally to Moses other laws and maxims, as well as verbal explanations of the written law, enjoining him not to record these teachings, but to deliver them to the people by word of mouth (Giṭ. 60b; Yer. Meg. iv. 74a; comp. also IV Ezra [II Esdras] xiv.). The expression "Torah shebe-'al peh" denotes, therefore, "the law indicated in the word ' 'al peh,'" and hence only the law which was given to Moses orally. But even disregarding that Talmudic interpretation, the expression is equivalent to the Torah, which was given orally (), not in writing. Compare (Soṭah vii. 7), used of a recitation of the Biblical text by rote. In a wider sense, however, "Torah shebe-'al peh" includes all the interpretations and conclusions which the scribes deduced from the written Torah, as well as the regulations instituted by them (comp. Yoma 28a, b and Rashi ad loc.), and therefore comprises the entire traditional teaching contained in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the halakic midrashim, since these were taught only orally and were not committed to writing. In later haggadic statements, however, the complete body of rabbinical doctrine is said to have been revealed to Moses on Sinai; so that R. Joshua b. Levi declared (Yer. Peah ii. 17a) that all the rabbinical teachings, even those which the scholars found and promulgated later, were given to Moses on the mountain (comp. also Ber. 5a). - Online Jewish Encyclopedia "Oral Law"
Not only did Christ reject the "oral traditions" but so did the early churches. Yet, Rome takes up the very same line of argument as did the Jews in regard to oral tradition by regarding it equally "sacred" as did the Jews with the "traditions of the elders." Indeed, the "traditions of the elders" became the standard authority for interpreting scriptures JUST LIKE ROME's use of "sacred Tradition" does.
There is no more basis to accept Rome's "sacred traditions" as there was for Christ to accept Israel's "sacred traditions."
Isaiah 8:20 denies that right to any "traditions" not committed in writing as scriptures.
In the case of the Old Testament the Jews, just like Rome, tried to perpetuate oral teaching preserved as tradition and thus we read of "the traditions of the elders." Jesus repudiated the oral traditions. Jesus NEVER ONCE quoted them or referred to them as a source of authority for anything he taught. However, the Jews used the exact same reasoning and arguments that the traditions of the elders were equally sacred as scriptures just as Rome does:
"ORAL LAW - According to the rabbinical interpretation of Ex. xxxiv. 27, the words indicate that besides the written law——God gave orally to Moses other laws and maxims, as well as verbal explanations of the written law, enjoining him not to record these teachings, but to deliver them to the people by word of mouth (Giṭ. 60b; Yer. Meg. iv. 74a; comp. also IV Ezra [II Esdras] xiv.). The expression "Torah shebe-'al peh" denotes, therefore, "the law indicated in the word ' 'al peh,'" and hence only the law which was given to Moses orally. But even disregarding that Talmudic interpretation, the expression is equivalent to the Torah, which was given orally (), not in writing. Compare (Soṭah vii. 7), used of a recitation of the Biblical text by rote. In a wider sense, however, "Torah shebe-'al peh" includes all the interpretations and conclusions which the scribes deduced from the written Torah, as well as the regulations instituted by them (comp. Yoma 28a, b and Rashi ad loc.), and therefore comprises the entire traditional teaching contained in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the halakic midrashim, since these were taught only orally and were not committed to writing. In later haggadic statements, however, the complete body of rabbinical doctrine is said to have been revealed to Moses on Sinai; so that R. Joshua b. Levi declared (Yer. Peah ii. 17a) that all the rabbinical teachings, even those which the scholars found and promulgated later, were given to Moses on the mountain (comp. also Ber. 5a). - Online Jewish Encyclopedia "Oral Law"
Not only did Christ reject the "oral traditions" but so did the early churches. Yet, Rome takes up the very same line of argument as did the Jews in regard to oral tradition by regarding it equally "sacred" as did the Jews with the "traditions of the elders." Indeed, the "traditions of the elders" became the standard authority for interpreting scriptures JUST LIKE ROME's use of "sacred Tradition" does.
There is no more basis to accept Rome's "sacred traditions" as there was for Christ to accept Israel's "sacred traditions."
Isaiah 8:20 denies that right to any "traditions" not committed in writing as scriptures.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Even Rome admits that the natural process began with oral teaching and then proceeded to putting it in writing:
"we can distinguish three stages in the formation of the gospels:
1. The life and teaching of Jesus.....
2. The oral tradition......
3. The written Gospels......" 126 - Catholic Catechism
However, they make the same mistake as the Jews did in the days of Christ. The Jews failed to recognize that the scriptures superseded oral traditions. As all unwritten traditions do, the "the traditions of the elders" had become so corrupted by this form of transmission that they actually had developed into complete distorted intepretations of scripture. Nevetheless, the Jews reasoned and rationalized in the very same way the Catholic Church does. They reckoned "the traditions of the Elders" as sacred as scriptures and necessary to interpret the scriptures correctly.
However, Jesus not only repudiated the oral traditions (Mt. 5:20-48; Mt. 15) but NEVER referred to such for interpertations of the Scriptures but always quote directly from the scriptures - "it is written"
Rome acknowledges the natural order that oral precedes written but makes the same mistake as the Jews in not realizing that written supersedes the oral. This mistakes ALWAYS leads to corruption of oral teaching by transmission just as it did with the Jews even though they argued the very same way that it was conveyed through the "elders" of Israel from one generation to the next.
Just a casual reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers with their "long" versus "short" versions of the Apostolic Fathers and their "psuedo" verus authentic epistles and the contradictory and superstitious statements found throughout demonstrates that what happened to the Jews and their "traditions of the elders" is exactly what has happened to Rome and its so-called "sacred" traditions.
The same error of the Jews is merely repeated by Rome. They both fail to see that the latter written revelation supersedes the oral as the written can be perpetuated better wheres the oral is ALWAYS corrupted.
The fact that Paul said that he taught the same thing in every church in every place demonstrates what he put into writing was the very same things he taught or else he contradicts what he said he always did.
We agree with Peter that the written word is a "MORE SURE WORD" than even the oral testimony of an apostle of his experience on the mount of transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:19-21) and with Isaiah "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20) and "this word" is the word that the apostles did "bind up and seal" in their written ministry.
"we can distinguish three stages in the formation of the gospels:
1. The life and teaching of Jesus.....
2. The oral tradition......
3. The written Gospels......" 126 - Catholic Catechism
However, they make the same mistake as the Jews did in the days of Christ. The Jews failed to recognize that the scriptures superseded oral traditions. As all unwritten traditions do, the "the traditions of the elders" had become so corrupted by this form of transmission that they actually had developed into complete distorted intepretations of scripture. Nevetheless, the Jews reasoned and rationalized in the very same way the Catholic Church does. They reckoned "the traditions of the Elders" as sacred as scriptures and necessary to interpret the scriptures correctly.
However, Jesus not only repudiated the oral traditions (Mt. 5:20-48; Mt. 15) but NEVER referred to such for interpertations of the Scriptures but always quote directly from the scriptures - "it is written"
Rome acknowledges the natural order that oral precedes written but makes the same mistake as the Jews in not realizing that written supersedes the oral. This mistakes ALWAYS leads to corruption of oral teaching by transmission just as it did with the Jews even though they argued the very same way that it was conveyed through the "elders" of Israel from one generation to the next.
Just a casual reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers with their "long" versus "short" versions of the Apostolic Fathers and their "psuedo" verus authentic epistles and the contradictory and superstitious statements found throughout demonstrates that what happened to the Jews and their "traditions of the elders" is exactly what has happened to Rome and its so-called "sacred" traditions.
The same error of the Jews is merely repeated by Rome. They both fail to see that the latter written revelation supersedes the oral as the written can be perpetuated better wheres the oral is ALWAYS corrupted.
The fact that Paul said that he taught the same thing in every church in every place demonstrates what he put into writing was the very same things he taught or else he contradicts what he said he always did.
We agree with Peter that the written word is a "MORE SURE WORD" than even the oral testimony of an apostle of his experience on the mount of transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:19-21) and with Isaiah "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20) and "this word" is the word that the apostles did "bind up and seal" in their written ministry.
glfredrick
New Member
Dr. W., To be fair, I think that we might agree that we do have traditions that stand on a par with Scripture that basically define our existence as Christians.
BUT...
They will never conflict with the written Word, and positively stated, they will always be in accordance with the Word and with the practice described by the Word. These are not "extra-biblical revelations" that stand in the place of existing Scripture.
What are those traditions (and these are but a few that pop into mind readily)?
Of course, each of these -- as I stated above -- has a Scriptural inference or some basis from which we draw our traditions, but none is explicitly held in Scripture as THE proper form or practice.
BUT...
They will never conflict with the written Word, and positively stated, they will always be in accordance with the Word and with the practice described by the Word. These are not "extra-biblical revelations" that stand in the place of existing Scripture.
What are those traditions (and these are but a few that pop into mind readily)?
- The way we gather for what we call church
- The hymns and songs we sing, and the instruments used in the singing
- Our dress code for church
- The altar call
- The "sinner's prayer"
- Liturgy
- Baptismal and Lord's Supper practice
- Language used in church
- Bible versions or translations
- Vestments (or the lack thereof)
- Our entire system of church polity and governance (no matter which system)
- The way we handle the offering and/or giving in a larger context
- Calling pastors/priests "reverend"
- Sunday school
- Publishing houses for church literature
Of course, each of these -- as I stated above -- has a Scriptural inference or some basis from which we draw our traditions, but none is explicitly held in Scripture as THE proper form or practice.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I don't agree that they stand on "a par with Scripture" but rather they are not opposed to Scripture. Traditions that are opposed to scripture we get rid of and repudiate. I drive a car and use a computer but that is not opposed to the Scriptures. Such things fall into Romans 14-15 category.
Some of the things you list "we" don't practice. We don't practice the "altar call" or "the sinners prayer" and it is the Scriptures that call it a "church" not us. We don't call any person "Reverend." We don't have a "dress code" but use Biblical principles for that. Instruments are used in scriptures and so are "hyms" and "songs". I think I would disagree on the vast majority of what you have listed. We stick to the Biblical order and words for baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The command to do all things decently and in order gives biblical room to implement procedures and things that do not conflict with the scriptures.
Some of the things you list "we" don't practice. We don't practice the "altar call" or "the sinners prayer" and it is the Scriptures that call it a "church" not us. We don't call any person "Reverend." We don't have a "dress code" but use Biblical principles for that. Instruments are used in scriptures and so are "hyms" and "songs". I think I would disagree on the vast majority of what you have listed. We stick to the Biblical order and words for baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The command to do all things decently and in order gives biblical room to implement procedures and things that do not conflict with the scriptures.
Dr. W., To be fair, I think that we might agree that we do have traditions that stand on a par with Scripture that basically define our existence as Christians.
BUT...
They will never conflict with the written Word, and positively stated, they will always be in accordance with the Word and with the practice described by the Word. These are not "extra-biblical revelations" that stand in the place of existing Scripture.
What are those traditions (and these are but a few that pop into mind readily)?
- The way we gather for what we call church
- The hymns and songs we sing, and the instruments used in the singing
- Our dress code for church
- The altar call
- The "sinner's prayer"
- Liturgy
- Baptismal and Lord's Supper practice
- Language used in church
- Bible versions or translations
- Vestments (or the lack thereof)
- Our entire system of church polity and governance (no matter which system)
- The way we handle the offering and/or giving in a larger context
- Calling pastors/priests "reverend"
- Sunday school
- Publishing houses for church literature
Of course, each of these -- as I stated above -- has a Scriptural inference or some basis from which we draw our traditions, but none is explicitly held in Scripture as THE proper form or practice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Walter
New Member
Out of the 27 books of the New Testament, 13 are written by the Apostle Paul. Paul's written testimony is that he taught the same thing in every church and in every place he went. Are we to imagine that what he taught in every church and in every place is not found written in those 13 epistles? If not, then do they defend another faith and order from what he taught orally? What Christ taught is written in four gospel accounts. The book of Acts and the epistles consistently teach that "the faith" or "the doctrine" was handed down to all the churches and yet are we to believe that something other than that was conveyed in writing to these same churches???
Are we actually to believe that by the time John wrote the book of Revelation that the churches did not possess copies of the very writings the apostles committed and sent to them and commanded them to circulate? This was before Marcion's gnostic psuedo writings and the psuedo apostolic writings that began in the second century as reported in the Ante-Nicene fathers. Before 150 A.D. the churches had full possession of the entire New Testament canon. What we have recorded for us in the Ante-Nicene accounts is the corruption among churches that embraced pagans into the membership and were corrupted by Gnosticism and worldliness and eventually became Roman Catholocism that needed to determine what is Biblical canon from among all the writings they had collected.
Are we actually to believe that by the time John wrote the book of Revelation that the churches did not possess copies of the very writings the apostles committed and sent to them and commanded them to circulate? This was before Marcion's gnostic psuedo writings and the psuedo apostolic writings that began in the second century as reported in the Ante-Nicene fathers. Before 150 A.D. the churches had full possession of the entire New Testament canon. What we have recorded for us in the Ante-Nicene accounts is the corruption among churches that embraced pagans into the membership and were corrupted by Gnosticism and worldliness and eventually became Roman Catholocism that needed to determine what is Biblical canon from among all the writings they had collected.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Walter
New Member
Anyone who thinks the ecclesiology of Paul's early writings is the same as taught in the later books attributed to him needs to re-read them.
For example??