Did Jesus Care about the New Testament?

[in_servitude]

SURE

Mark 16: 14-15 & Mt. 28:16-20:thumbsup:

Mark 16: 14-15

14 [But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. 15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.

This does not say, “write the NT - here’s what I want in there.” To me, it does not imply writing anything but rather a physical action of physically moving to other people and then proclaiming verbally.

Mt 28: 16-20

16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

I suppose this is similar. As I read it, I don’t see how the NT is foreseen.

 

[Spencerian]

I probably will not be able to go much further with this thread since I’m totally lost due to my lack of understanding of the hypostatic union. I intend to spend some time studying the concept. I need to have a better understanding than I do now, anyway. I’ve read some links, but the issue rapidly becomes a very deep one if we want to say that Jesus did or did not care about one thing or the other.

I did want to follow up and say that I do agree that Jesus made the choice to give his life over. He had the right to do so since it was his to give. This is very different than any other human because their body is not their own but rather a gift that must be cared for.

Sure. It’s a lot to study. Since this is not only a matter of theological study, Christ’s nature is also a matter of faith. It’s why the Church teachings are quite specific about Christ’s nature and have defined it so as a result of many heresies.

Take a breather from this thread and come back to it in a bit once you take it all in. God bless.

 

[bmonk]

No, Jesus had anticipated it. For the New Testament to come alive it first needs to be lived. The NT would have never had been written unless it was first lived. This can be said of the Old Testament. It has to be lived first. When Moses had written the first five books of the OT there is no way they can be written unless these events had first occurred. Jesus came so that the NT will be available for us. It is the cornerstone of our Faith. It was very apparent that the NT would be written by Jesus as His prophecies from the OT had pointed to. There is no way the Church would have existed after the Apostles have died if there was no written NT.

You say, “There is no way the Church would have existed after the Apostles have died if there was no written NT.” How do you account for the death of the last apostle occurring near the end of the 1st century, but the Church pulling together the NT in the 4th century? Remember that the Gospel of John, among other books, was contested even in the 4th century. Therefore, there was not a generally agreed upon NT for the 2nd and 3rd century.

There was not, perhaps, a universally agreed New Testament until the 4th century, but there were many texts that were generally accepted. Yes, the Revelation of John was problematic–but the Gospels and the Letters of Paul were accepted quite early on, and formed the core of the New Testament. Others were on the margin for a while, but there was pretty much general agreement, certainly by the time of Iranaeus in 180 or so–only a few books were still in dispute. And for most of those, the dispute would eventually exclude them–the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas come to mind.

So, while the Apostles were still alive, the texts were written. Then, and after their deaths, they began to be collected. The final decisions were made after long reflection, but it was not long before general consensus led to something we would recognize as substantially the New Testament.

 

[fnr]

Sure. It’s a lot to study. Since this is not only a matter of theological study, Christ’s nature is also a matter of faith. It’s why the Church teachings are quite specific about Christ’s nature and have defined it so as a result of many heresies.

Take a breather from this thread and come back to it in a bit once you take it all in. God bless.

I’d also say that it’s a fundamentally historical question. Christ’s nature was not clearly laid down in scripture. Paul, writing in the late 40s-mid 50s, made use of older hymns that suggest that Jesus was adopted as son of God (Roman 1) and preexisting creation (Philippians 2).

John was not written until around 90, and that’s the work that most definitively includes “high Christology” (though I think you can see a high Christology the earliest gospel Mark – in the setting aside of Law on marriage, for example, which is a divine prerogative).

So it’s obvious that scripture was in evolution, even the Christian understanding of the OT (compare Jude and 2 Peter on the use of Enoch, for example).

The Church predates scripture because these references to pre-Pauline language and the redaction of OT references, plus the systematization of Christology, took time. That being said, the Bible is written for particular audiences and we have ample evidence of extrabiblical oral tradition as early as Galatians 1 at the meeting of Peter and Paul.

 

[PJM]

=in_servitude;11439017]Mark 16: 14-15

This does not say, “write the NT - here’s what I want in there.” To me, it does not imply writing anything but rather a physical action of physically moving to other people and then proclaiming verbally.

Mt 28: 16-20

I suppose this is similar. As I read it, I don’t see how the NT is foreseen.

The terms dear friend :
“New testament” & “Old Testament” are modern and recent additions.

Mt. 28:16-20 Jesus TELLS His Apostles “QUOTE”

YOU!

Go out the the “ENTIRE WORLD”

Teach them ALL; that I taught YOU [End quote]

It had either to be written down to accomplish this OR the Apostles would have to live FOREVER:shrug:

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Della]

The terms dear friend :
“New testament” & “Old Testament” are modern and recent additions.

Mt. 28:16-20 Jesus TELLS His Apostles “QUOTE”

YOU!

Go out the the “ENTIRE WORLD”

Teach them ALL; that I taught YOU [End quote]

It had either to be written down to accomplish this OR the Apostles would have to live FOREVER:shrug:

God Bless you!
Patrick

No, it didn’t have to be written down nor would the Apostles have had to have lived forever. Everyone seems to be forgetting apostolic succession–as if it didn’t exist until after the NT was compiled. Again no. The Apostles themselves laid hands on others who became bishops, who in turn appointed priests. If not a single word had ever been written down we would still have the Gospel and the Sacraments because they were entrusted to men who in turn entrusted them to other men down to our day.

It’s great that we have the NT and the whole Bible, of course, but it wasn’t necessary for the passing down of the faith. Remember, the NT and indeed the whole of the canon was put together primarily so all the dioceses would be using the same texts for the liturgies. I sometimes wish no one had written anything because it’s divided Christians from each other more than united them, sad to say. But, that wasn’t my call, so there ya go…

 

[PJM]

=Della;11441849]No, it didn’t have to be written down nor would the Apostles have had to have lived forever. Everyone seems to be forgetting apostolic succession–as if it didn’t exist until after the NT was compiled. Again no. The Apostles themselves laid hands on others who became bishops, who in turn appointed priests. If not a single word had ever been written down we would still have the Gospel and the Sacraments because they were entrusted to men who in turn entrusted them to other men down to our day.

It’s great that we have the NT and the whole Bible, of course, but it wasn’t necessary for the passing down of the faith. Remember, the NT and indeed the whole of the canon was put together primarily so all the dioceses would be using the same texts for the liturgies. I sometimes wish no one had written anything because it’s divided Christians from each other more than united them, sad to say. But, that wasn’t my call, so there ya go…

Interesting reply

However here’s the weak link [IMO] in this idea.

But Luke 4:4 makes clear that “Every WORD” from the mouth of God is important. In order to assure a consistency of “One Faith” Teaching; it was extremely important that God’s Teachings be written down. Further; 2nd. Tim 3:16 assures us that this is indeed God’s Teaching.

Word of mouth over 2,000 years would very likely distort the teachings of Christ drastically.
Evidence of this is the numerous non-catholic understandings of the Written word.

ALSO, it’s not the written word in the bible that is the REAL-Problem; it’s man’s desire to make it fit his-own ideas of what the One true Faith OUGHT to be.

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[TimothyH]

The word of God is a weapon.

*in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. (Revelation 1:16)

Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth. (Revelation 2:16)*

Peter has two swords.

And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 2:38)

Two swords are the Old and New Testament. The two swords are the Torah lawand writings of the prophets which pointed to Christ in the Old Testament and the law of love and fulfillment of prophecy in Christ in the New Testament.

-Tim-

 

[chimo]

I think that this depends on how much a person trusts the Spirit to lead the Church. Was it really up to human decisions to write things down for the Church to survive? I think most people would say, “no.”

I do disagree that I am forgetting this fact. Rather, I add to this fact that there was other garbage texts floating around along side what would eventually become the NT texts.

I do doubt that it was the copies of NT texts that kept the Church going. Is there any evidence of this whatsoever?

If the NT texts kept the Church going, then how could the Church possibly be in the position to decide what the NT texts were? It sounds circular to me. However, if the Church was sustained by the Spirit and not the NT texts, then it would make much more sense that the NT texts were a consequence of the actions taken by the Church as led by the Spirit.

I don’t understand what you are trying to find out. You are a Catholic right. What is it that you are searching for? It seems you are trying to figure something out that is not there. You are saying that the Holy Spirit had helped write these texts and that is what I was saying as well. The NT was not going to be written by those who knew not Jesus personally. If you check every author of the NT, he had to be personally known by Jesus and vice versa. It was certain it was these group of believers that helped composed what is now the NT. It was certain that people contacted each other so that these texts would be sure what Jesus had spoken. And yes it is by the Holy Spirit where this could had happened or it is by our Lord, who knows. Even Paul received quite a lot of revelation personally by Jesus. Could not the rest of them also have these encounters with the Lord so that the texts would be to what He desired. It really doesn’t matter who since the texts were what God wanted. But to say that the Church had not known about them after the death of the Apostles doesn’t make sense. Of course they knew about them. The Church was not as big as you think it was. It was pretty small. It remained that way until the persecution ended. But remember that the Church was mostly contained into one area at first so that it was easier to transmit the words of the apostles and of our Lord into many places.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t understand what you are trying to find out. You are a Catholic right. What is it that you are searching for? It seems you are trying to figure something out that is not there. You are saying that the Holy Spirit had helped write these texts and that is what I was saying as well. The NT was not going to be written by those who knew not Jesus personally. If you check every author of the NT, he had to be personally known by Jesus and vice versa. It was certain it was these group of believers that helped composed what is now the NT. It was certain that people contacted each other so that these texts would be sure what Jesus had spoken. And yes it is by the Holy Spirit where this could had happened or it is by our Lord, who knows. Even Paul received quite a lot of revelation personally by Jesus. Could not the rest of them also have these encounters with the Lord so that the texts would be to what He desired. It really doesn’t matter who since the texts were what God wanted. But to say that the Church had not known about them after the death of the Apostles doesn’t make sense. Of course they knew about them. The Church was not as big as you think it was. It was pretty small. It remained that way until the persecution ended. But remember that the Church was mostly contained into one area at first so that it was easier to transmit the words of the apostles and of our Lord into many places.

It is generally accepted that St. Mark and St. Luke never knew Jesus personally.

The authorship of Hebrews is also open to debate and it is likely that whomever wrote it (Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Apollos, etc) also never met Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles covers the first 37 years of the Church. In this time the Church had spread from Jerusalem to Syrian Antioch, Asia Minor (Turkey), Macedonia, Greece, the island of Cyprus, Italy and Egypt. Paul was planning a trip to Spain. St. Thomas the Apostle took Christianity to India. This was in the first 37 years after Pentecost. The persecutions however, lasted several hundred years, at least until 325 AD.

-Tim-

 

[Della]

Interesting reply

However here’s the weak link [IMO] in this idea.

But Luke 4:4 makes clear that “Every WORD” from the mouth of God is important. In order to assure a consistency of “One Faith” Teaching; it was extremely important that God’s Teachings be written down. Further; 2nd. Tim 3:16 assures us that this is indeed God’s Teaching.

Word of mouth over 2,000 years would very likely distort the teachings of Christ drastically.
Evidence of this is the numerous non-catholic understandings of the Written word.

ALSO, it’s not the written word in the bible that is the REAL-Problem; it’s man’s desire to make it fit his-own ideas of what the One true Faith OUGHT to be.

God Bless,
Patrick

I respectfully disagree, although you make some good points.

Jesus never commissioned that anything be written down (apart from the Revelation to St. John to the Churches). He placed his words and mission into the hands of men–fallible men. But, the reason the Church would not have gone off the rails even without the NT is because he promised the Apostles (and so naturally their successors) that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” and that he would give them the words to speak in Jesus’ name. No written work was necessary for this promise to be kept.

Certainly the written word of God is not to blame for people wanting to make of it whatever they wish. We know that heresies had already arisen when St. Paul was writing his Epistles–long before anyone even thought of compiling any writings of any kind. It is the authority that Christ gave his Church that keeps the Church faithful to the truth, not the Bible, although it is right and good that it be there for confirmation of what the Church teaches.

So many people have the mistaken notion that the Bible is supreme when, in fact, it is only part of Sacred Tradition, and would not have existed without it. The Church is the determiner of what is and isn’t part of Sacred Tradition, not the Bible, per se. Having this inside out and backwards is how the break up of the Western Church happened, in the first place. No fault to the Bible nor to the Church for that, only to the sinfulness of men on both sides.

 

[TimothyH]

I respectfully disagree, although you make some good points.

Jesus never commissioned that anything be written down (apart from the Revelation to St. John to the Churches). He placed his words and mission into the hands of men–fallible men. But, the reason the Church would not have gone off the rails even without the NT is because he promised the Apostles (and so naturally their successors) that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” and that he would give them the words to speak in Jesus’ name. No written work was necessary for this promise to be kept.

Certainly the written word of God is not to blame for people wanting to make of it whatever they wish. We know that heresies had already arisen when St. Paul was writing his Epistles–long before anyone even thought of compiling any writings of any kind. It is the authority that Christ gave his Church that keeps the Church faithful to the truth, not the Bible, although it is right and good that it be there for confirmation of what the Church teaches.

So many people have the mistaken notion that the Bible is supreme when, in fact, it is only part of Sacred Tradition, and would not have existed without it. The Church is the determiner of what is and isn’t part of Sacred Tradition, not the Bible, per se. Having this inside out and backwards is how the break up of the Western Church happened, in the first place. No fault to the Bible nor to the Church for that, only to the sinfulness of men on both sides.

The Bible is one of the greatest gifts God has ever given man.

Creation, life, the Church and its sacraments, himself in the person of Jesus and the Eucharist, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sacred Scripture - these are God’s greatest gifts to us.

Scripture is how the Jews knew that Jesus was the Messiah, the divine Son of God. Paul used scripture to convert Jews and Pagans and countless numbers of people have been converted to God through Scripture. Scripture is a treasure to be venerated and cherished. It is a gift from God to man. Scripture is the creator of the universe kneeling down and talking to his children in a language they can understand. Scripture is a love letter from God to his beloved Church.

Of course God wanted his word to be written down. Why would God have inspired the authors to write if he didn’t want us to have his written word?

-Tim-

 

[Della]

The Bible is one of the greatest gifts God has ever given man.

Creation, life, the Church and its sacraments, himself in the person of Jesus and the Eucharist, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sacred Scripture - these are God’s greatest gifts to us.

Scripture is how the Jews knew that Jesus was the Messiah, the divine Son of God. Paul used scripture to convert Jews and Pagans and countless numbers of people have been converted to God through Scripture. Scripture is a treasure to be venerated and cherished. It is a gift from God to man. Scripture is the creator of the universe kneeling down and talking to his children in a language they can understand. Scripture is a love letter from God to his beloved Church.

Of course God wanted his word to be written down. Why would God have inspired the authors to write if he didn’t want us to have his written word?

-Tim-

Before going off on a tangent, here, you should reread the exchange between myself and PJM. But again, my point isn’t that God didn’t want us to have the Bible, OT or NT, rather I was simply refuting the odd notion that the NT was necessary for the Church to have had the authority to speak in Jesus’ name and decide matters of faith and morals. Period. And that’s all.

And I stated, more than once, please do read what I actually write, that we are blessed to have the Bible, that it’s wonderful that we have it, and that’s all I’m going to write on the topic. :tiphat:

 

[chimo]

It is generally accepted that St. Mark and St. Luke never knew Jesus personally.

The authorship of Hebrews is also open to debate and it is likely that whomever wrote it (Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Apollos, etc) also never met Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles covers the first 37 years of the Church. In this time the Church had spread from Jerusalem to Syrian Antioch, Asia Minor (Turkey), Macedonia, Greece, the island of Cyprus, Italy and Egypt. Paul was planning a trip to Spain. St. Thomas the Apostle took Christianity to India. This was in the first 37 years after Pentecost. The persecutions however, lasted several hundred years, at least until 325 AD.

-Tim-

It is to my understanding that Luke and Mark knew Jesus. There are many icons that were painted by Luke that still exists today. I don’t know where you receive your information from but from what I read and knew about these two men is that they were very well connected with the Lord. Hebrews has a lot of Paul’s instruction in it that is the same as in the other letters he had written but it was the Catholic Church that had this doubt whether it was Paul or not who had written the letter. The East favored Paul since it was conformed much to his own teaching. The difference of opinions however do not reject that the book was inspired. The difference in the Greek from Paul’s letters to this book of Hebrews were different and this led many scholars to think it was not Paul however the teaching in it is very much like Paul. The growth you gave to the Church is still quite small. I am referring to the Church today in my other post that actually needs something printed down that needed the rest of the Church to know of its contents. The Catholic Church is one of those Churches. But back in the early days of the Church the numbers and size of the Church was very limited because of one thing, the great persecution and secondly the Laity were not that involved within the ministry of the Church that is to go on missions. It was easier back then for Christians not to maintain a formal NT but more a verbal NT. The greatest function of the early Church was the celebrating of the Eucharist.

 

[TimothyH]

Before going off on a tangent, here, you should reread the exchange between myself and PJM. But again, my point isn’t that God didn’t want us to have the Bible, OT or NT, rather I was simply refuting the odd notion that the NT was necessary for the Church to have had the authority to speak in Jesus’ name and decide matters of faith and morals. Period. And that’s all.

And I stated, more than once, please do read what I actually write, that we are blessed to have the Bible, that it’s wonderful that we have it, and that’s all I’m going to write on the topic. :tiphat:

I did read what you wrote. Maybe I misunderstood. I’m sorry if I have offended you. That was not my intent.

-Tim-

 

[Della]

I did read what you wrote. Maybe I misunderstood. I’m sorry if I have offended you. That was not my intent.

-Tim-

No offense taken. I simply wanted to make clear that authority to decide matters of faith and morals lies in the Magisterium, with or without the Bible. So many think we base our faith on the Bible, but we don’t–not on it alone, that is. The Bible is the witness to the truths taught by Christ’s Church, not vice versa.

 

[bmonk]

The Bible is one of the greatest gifts God has ever given man.

Creation, life, the Church and its sacraments, himself in the person of Jesus and the Eucharist, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sacred Scripture - these are God’s greatest gifts to us.

Scripture is how the Jews knew that Jesus was the Messiah, the divine Son of God. Paul used scripture to convert Jews and Pagans and countless numbers of people have been converted to God through Scripture. Scripture is a treasure to be venerated and cherished. It is a gift from God to man. Scripture is the creator of the universe kneeling down and talking to his children in a language they can understand. Scripture is a love letter from God to his beloved Church.

Of course God wanted his word to be written down. Why would God have inspired the authors to write if he didn’t want us to have his written word?

-Tim-

Yes–the Bible is one of the greatest gifts of God to humanity. How much sadder is it when it is used as an idol, when it replaces the human pastors God gave us?

 

[Della]

Yes–the Bible is one of the greatest gifts of God to humanity. How much sadder is it when it is used as an idol, when it replaces the human pastors God gave us?

Indeed. It’s why there are so many “Bible churches” and why disaffected people simply start their own churches when they don’t agree with the pastor. All they need is two folding chairs and a Bible and bam! they have a new church. That’s not what Jesus envisioned when he founded his Church on the Apostles. Authority lies in men’s hands, not in a document. If this were not the case no one could assume to know what the Bible means in order to start their own churches. They’ve simply elected themselves their own Magisterium.

 

[TimothyH]

My point is, and it is my experience that scripture itself has power to move hearts and convert people.

Yes, it is dangerous to approach scripture apart from the Church but I think many Catholics underestimate and/or minimize the importance of scripture to the point where they are passive - sitting idle waiting for it to be read to them and explained to them. Some claim it as organically and exclusively Catholic while at the same time they don’t read it, study it or pray it and that is a shame.

There is much to be learned by simply opening it and reading it in a spirit of prayer and humility.

-Tim-

 

[Della]

Absolutely! I get in some Bible passages every day, if I can. The Holy Spirit definitely works through God’s written word. No doubt about that, and thank God for it!

The danger lies in people determining doctrine apart from the authority of Christ’s Church by picking verses out of context–the context not only of the passages, but of Sacred Tradition.

Someone claimed that without the Bible Christianity would have died after the Apostles. That’s simply not the case, as we have been at pains to demonstrate.