Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[JonNC]

You are on a very slippery slope, my friend. You could argue that very little is explicit in scripture since so much is misunderstood. And where do you draw the line?. After all, Baptism is explicitly called out in Acts 2 as needed to enter the church and in 1Peter 3, we are told it saves you, (using exactly those words). Yet there are many that deny its efficacy. Does that mean it shouldn’t be doctrine? You see, you absolutely need a trusted infallible authority to define doctrine. In the Catholic Church we have that. Others, not so much.

How did the early Church draw the line? You say here in your example of Baptism, quite rightly, Paul, Acts 2 and 1 Peter. I am willing to accept the teachings of the early ecumenical councils, which includes east and west, as authoritative (not infallible). Of course we need the Church to make determinations regarding doctrine.

JL hit on this above. He says He believes the Holy Spirit brought about these definitions.
And I ask, how did He do this? Why would He make this available to one patriarch, and not the others, when the practice of the early Church was truly ecumenical councils?

Jon

 

[gerard1984]

JL: Yes indeed ALL Scripture IS inspiried as God said. So why do you ingnor Tradition, which inspired Scriptures tell us to HOLD FAST?

Tell me who decides DOCTRINE? Who REPROVES? Who CORRECTS? Who INSTRUCTS in righteousness that the man of God may be FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS. Answer that teaching authority SENT by Christ to TEACH the whole world till the END OF THE WORLD Mt28-16-20. The CHURCH the pillar and ground of the TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH oral Tradition LEARNED, from Paul, as well as written Tradition=scripture.

2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the THINGS that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, ordination, apostolic succession.) It is thru the Holy Spirit that oral apostolic tradition is kept and discerned, by the church, as opposed to a tradition of men. Scripture tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm 3:15. The church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both and ACTIVE IN BOTH, as the council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, Act15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US

[2THESSALONIANS3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **WITHDRAW yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH disorderly, and NOT AFTER THE TRADITION which he RECEIVED OF US

.] Evidently Paul thought holding Tradition was very important otherwise why tell people to withdraw from A BROTHER who will not follow them.

other scriptures tell us, 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH AND the spirit of ERROR

Jn 15:20…if THEY have KEPT my saying they WILL KEEP YOURS ALSO Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone but for them which shall believe on me through their word.] Apostolic tradition was delivered face to face from God (Christ) and is discerned by the help of the Holy Spirit. scripture is inspiried by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the bible was discerned, by the church, thru the Holy Spirit along with Apostolic Tradition.

The burden of proof would be on those who claim ALL Tradition is now written in scripture. They must prove scripture ALONE or produce scripture saying ALL Tradition is now in scripture. Otherwise they follow an oral tradition of men made a doctrine of God. Paul says in 2 Thes, our gospel, brethren, whether BY word=oral or epistle=written.

Mathew 15:3-7 (Not all tradition is Good)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’** 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

I have said before that i do not dispute the oral instruction that the apostles gave. And the reason i do not dispute this is because the Bible says so. But if your CC tradition contradicts the Bible then we have to be discerning about that. That is why i have said before the CC can not defend their doctrine by using Scripture, but a Christian can. If someone asks me what must i do to be saved? I would tell them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and i would share the Gospel with them. The Gospel that i found in the Bible. I would share with them how believers were baptized because they were saved, not to get saved and how God has called us to live as a believer.**

 

[Tomster]

Mathew 15:3-7 (Not all tradition is Good)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’** 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

I have said before that i do not dispute the oral instruction that the apostles gave. And the reason i do not dispute this is because the Bible says so. But if your CC tradition contradicts the Bible then we have to be discerning about that. That is why i have said before the CC can not defend their doctrine by using Scripture, but a Christian can. If someone asks me what must i do to be saved? I would tell them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and i would share the Gospel with them. The Gospel that i found in the Bible. I would share with them how believers were baptized because they were saved, not to get saved and how God has called us to live as a believer.**

Could you give us some examples of CC traditons which you believe contradict the Bible?

 

[gerard1984]

Could you give us some examples of CC traditons which you believe contradict the Bible?

Mary was sinless, the Assumption, Purgatory, Succession of Popes, etc

 

[Tomster]

Mary was sinless, the Assumption, Purgatory, Succession of Popes, etc

Thank you for your response.

Now could you expand on the above and prove your statements.

And, oh, by the way, tell us first of all, and this is very important, by what infallible authority can you prove the your statements.

 

[Vonier]

Sola Scriptura justifies what the Reformers did. It’s been justifiying a wide variety of movements, theologies, doctrines, televangelists, faith healers and spectacular mega churches ever since.

Sure it’s Biblical. And so is absolutely everything else. That’s the beauty of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Tomster]

Mary was sinless, the Assumption, Purgatory, Succession of Popes, etc

I take it from your statement above that you believe Mary was not sinless and that she was not assumed into heaven. Also, I take it that you do not believe in Purgatory and the Succession of Popes.

Am I correct?

Now, did someone in the church you attend tell you these things or did you search the Scriptures by yourself and come to believe these things?

Please be honest in your answers.

 

[Tomster]

Mathew 15:3-7 (Not all tradition is Good)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’** 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

I have said before that i do not dispute the oral instruction that the apostles gave. And the reason i do not dispute this is because the Bible says so. But if your CC tradition contradicts the Bible then we have to be discerning about that. That is why i have said before the CC can not defend their doctrine by using Scripture, but a Christian can. If someone asks me what must i do to be saved? I would tell them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and i would share the Gospel with them. The Gospel that i found in the Bible. I would share with them how believers were baptized because they were saved, not to get saved and how God has called us to live as a believer.**

gerard,

Where do you think the New Testament came from? And by that I mean who authoritatively determined which books were to be included in the New Testament and which books were to be excluded?

 

[Philthy]

I see you still haven’t found time to articulate exactly how SS provides for the communication of the “objective truth” of Scripture when a situation exists where there is legitimate interpretive diversity within “the church”.

[This is such a typically Catholic response in that, once again, it presupposes the idea that in order to know something, some kind of authority has to tell you.

Not at all Miguel. It is a reflection of the historical facts of how God communicated the canon of Scripture to the faithful. Your reaction to the response is typical IMHO: denial of the facts and unsupportable claims, such as this one:

But it overlooks the fact that long before the Catholic Church made any kind of official decision to exclude the Shepherd of Hermas or include any canonical book, the canon was already known.

“Known”? By whom, exactly? And how did they know it, exactly - direct revelation from God? And lastly, how do you know this Miguel? Was it revealed to you somehow?

Try this on for size. Scripture has been revealed by God to his church…but rather the people of God as a whole.

Try this on for size Miguel: this is a meaningless assertion that you wish were true but which you certainly didnt receive through Scripture (ie its a tradition) and which you cannot prove at all. You can’t say when it happened, how it happened or how you know that it did, in fact happen.

So while some books were immediately recognized, others took some time to find their way into the canon.

Are you saying that God chose to create some doubt regarding certain books? If yes, why? If no, then why did he create doubt regarding their recognizability?

The inclusion of Hebrews into the canon illustrates well the principle that scripture is ultimately recognized by the church due to its intrinsic qualities as the word of God.

Where did this “principle” come from Miguel?? I don’t recognize it, and I have no idea what you mean by “the church”. In case you have forgotten there still remain several canon’s of Scripture.

Thus, once again, we can just know.

And we can be mistaken believing that we know.

So why didn’t the Shepherd of Hermas make it into the canon and Hebrews did? Simple: The former isn’t God’s inspired word. The latter is.

This is called begging the question and brilliantly demonstrates the failures of SS.

Get back to answering how doctrinal disputes are resolved in your version of SS…

Blessings!
[/quote]

 

[gerard1984]

Thank you for your response.

Now could you expand on the above and prove your statements.

And, oh, by the way, tell us first of all, and this is very important, by what infallible authority can you prove the your statements.

Let me start by saying this. Does everybody here including myself believe that 2 thesalonians 2:13-15 is talking about oral instruction when it is talking about tradition

 

[PRmerger]

That which we are bound to believe.

It always gives me pause when Christians discuss that which we are “bound” to believe.

Apologist Mark Shea rather cheekily calls it the “Minimum Daily Requirement” question.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.

I view it similarly to the way my children might ask me, “Am I bound to pick up all my socks, or just the ones under my bed?”

Really? You want to do only that which you are **bound **to do, sweet children o’mine? :ehh:

 

[onenow1]

What are we commanded to edify?
1Corinthians 14:12.

Who or what rules the Church of GOD?

Acts 20:28.

What is it that Jesus purchased with His own blood?
Acts 20:28

For what did Christ give Himself up?
Ephesians 5:25.

What is it that Jesus nourishes and cherishes?
Ephesians 5:29

Answers to be found in scripture.

God Bless all

 

[PRmerger]

adiaphora.

Jon

This is an interesting concept. One that I had not considered, until I happened across a newsletter by Catholic apologist John Martignoni.

He proposes that there are some Christians who hold a double standard:

• one one hand, if it’s not mentioned in Scripture, it is forbidden
• on the other hand, if it’s not mentioned in Scripture, it is permissible

Thus, the prohibition/permission of is based, then, not on Scripture but on the opinion/man-made tradition of each individual church/denomination/pastor.

I pondered this as I read his newsletter; now you produce this unfamiliar term: adiaphorism
a tolerance of conduct or beliefs not specifically forbidden in the Scriptures.

I think I’m being called to start a thread on this. Care to join me?

forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

I pondered this as I read his newsletter; now you produce this unfamiliar term: adiaphorism
a tolerance of conduct or beliefs not specifically forbidden in the Scriptures.

I think I’m being called to start a thread on this. Care to join me?

forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14

Yes! This thread appears to have run it’s course.

I do pray for those with hardened hearts and obstinate minds to see the truth within these 1000+ posts.

God bless each and every one of you!

 

[PRmerger]

Yes! This thread appears to have run it’s course.

I do pray for those with hardened hearts and obstinate minds to see the truth within these 1000+ posts.

God bless each and every one of you!

The link I posted was incorrect.

Here is the correct link to the new thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8031727#post8031727

 

[jlhargus]

The link I posted was incorrect.

Here is the correct link to the new thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8031727#post8031727

Quote: =jlhargus;8027709]JL: Well wouldn’t that rule out the Trinity as a doctrine, wasn’t that very divisive.

Divisiveness isn’t the point. Trinity was determined by a truly ecumenical council, and IS supported by scripture.

JL: Hi Jon, if the Trinity is so explicit and clear in scripture why did it take an ecumenical council to define and name it Trinity? Why did it become more divisive even after being defined by an ecumenical council?

Quote: JL: I don’t recall any division on Purgatory, IC, or Assumption.

There is. The east doesn’t accept, in at least Catholic terms, any of these, and none were approved by a truly ecumenical council, including both east and west.

JL: There was no need of an ecumenical council. What little that has been defined about prugatory was defined by a truly ecumenical councils. All ecumenical councils recognized the the Catholic Church have been truly ecumenical. It did not cause division between the east, that happened long before, purgatory was defined. If there are differences now that isn’t the Churches fault, for moving on with her development. Here is a link that states what is defined by the Church on purgatory, four short paragraphs. newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm#I

The east has defined none of those doctrines. They may have theological positions but they have never defined them. The east also prays for the dead. If the dead are in heaven what is the purpose in praying for them, they have no need? If they are in hell what is the purpose in praying for them, they cannot be helped? So they must view those in the process of purgation as being in another state or place. The East hasn’t attempted an ecumenical council, to develop any doctrine authoritatively, that would BIND ALL the east since the schism.
Quote: As a Catholic I believe it was the Holy Spirit who brought about those definitions.

And how did He do this? I think this is the clear difference between our hermeunetics.

JL: the same way the Holy Spirit does it with an ecumenical council. The pope doesn’t wake up one day and define something. He would consult Tradition both oral and scripture, the bishops of the world and prayer. All of these are part of the process of discernment.

JL hit on this above. He says He believes the Holy Spirit brought about these definitions. And I ask, how did He do this? Why would He make this available to one patriarch, and not the others, when the practice of the early Church was truly ecumenical councils?

JL: Jon I would answer. Did a council decide the first gentiles (Cornelius and household) could be brought into the Church without circumcision? Christ named one patriarch Rock, Jn1:42 on which He would build His Church. He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with the right to bind and loose to that one patriarch, Mt16:13-19. Making that patriarch His chief minister, Isa22:19-22, to strengthen his brethren and feed ALL the sheep and lambs in Christ’s flock, Jn21:14-17. Christ prayed the faith of that one patriarch would fail not, Lk22:28-32 and promised that patriarch the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church, Mt16:18.

 

[jlhargus]

Mathew 15:3-7 (Not all tradition is Good)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’** 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:**

JL: No one said ALL tradition was GOOD or BAD. In Mt15:3-7 Christ is condemning traditions of men, made a doctrine of God, that nulifiy the Word of God. Example, heard today; ALL oral Tradition is now found in the Scriptures, yet no one can produce Scripture telling us that. So they go outside their own authority inventing a tradition of men.
gerard1984;8029502:

I have said before that i do not dispute the oral instruction that the apostles gave. And the reason i do not dispute this is because the Bible says so. But if your CC tradition contradicts the Bible then we have to be discerning about that. That is why i have said before the CC can not defend their doctrine by using Scripture, but a Christian can. If someone asks me what must i do to be saved? I would tell them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,

and i would share the Gospel with them.

JL: So you consider Catholics non-Christians. Of course Scripture and Apostolic Tradition cannot be contradictory. That would make it a tradition of men, made a doctrine of God, so as to nullify the Word of God, which Christ condemned. Christ did not even condemn traditions of men so long as they are not made a doctrine to nullify the Word of God.

You gave a perfect example of a tradition of men made a doctrine of God in order to nullify the Word of God, faith alone saves. “’b]If someone asks me what must i do to be saved? I would tell them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,

”]

With your tradition of FAITH ALONE, there is no need to repent, just live the same sinful life as always. No need to be baptized FOR remmision of sin, no to be born again, no need to feed the hungry or clothe those in need. All we need is FAITH ALONE, which is DEAD FAITH. [Jms2:26 For as the **body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.] With that theory we should just have a Holy Leaflet instead of the Holy Bible. James tells us even the demons BELIEVE, with your tradition they are saved and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. You should be more discerning of your traditions which contradict the Bible. By the way you have met you own criteria for a non-Christian.

[ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST **SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS]

Why would Paul ask BELIEVERS, “Have you RECEIVED the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed.” According to you, they should have received the Holy Spirit when they first believed? Why ask, which baptism they received, then baptize them again in water? Because in our Lord’s baptism one is BORN AGAIN by water AND of the Spirit, Jn3:5. Evidently more is needed than belief and faith in Christ, to be born again, because John’s baptism was of repentance, believing or having faith in the one to come, Christ.

 

[jlhargus]

The Gospel that i found in the Bible. I would share with them how believers were baptized because they were saved, not to get saved and how God has called us to live as a believer

JL: According to your tradition Peter was wrong when the gospel was first preached after Pentecost?

[Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, **THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

First the adult hears the Word, the Holy Spirit convects them (pricks their heart) conceiving supernatural FAITH life in them. They accept or reject that faith life, if reject they abort that conception. If accepted they are instructed what they must do. Repent, be baptized, FOR remission of sins, and RECEIVE the HOLY SPIRIT. With baptism they are BORN AGAIN delivered a child of God.

In the sacrament of baptism we receive REMISSION OF SINS the GIFT, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, BORN AGAIN by water AND of the Spirit, Jn3:5. According to your tradition, Peter should have said, well you believe and are now saved, by faith alone, and have the Holy Spirit. If you want you can be baptized as a public symbol of your new life, or you don’t have to be baptized at all.

[Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and **BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

[Rv1:5 And from JESUS CHRIST, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD,]

What do we wash with? Water and a cleansing agent (soap). The Holy Spirit is the cleansing agent in the SACRAMENT of water baptism. By water AND the Spirit we are washed in the blood of Christ, cleansed of our sins. A sacrament produces the grace it signifies.

[TITUS 3:5 NOT by WORKS…we’ve done BUT by **HIS MERCY he SAVED us BY the WASHING of REGENERATION and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT 6 which he POURED OUT ON US richly THROUGH JESUS Christ our Savior 7 SO we might be JUSTIFIED BY his GRACE and become HEIRS…] The Sacrament of Baptism not only remits, washes and cleanses, of sins but regenerates our soul, by POURING OUT the Holy Spirit. That indwelling Holy Spirit, justifies us by his grace making us a child of God and heirs. In baptism the body is now dead to sin, whereas before the soul was dead, and slave to the flesh. Now the body (flesh) is subject to the regenerated soul, by the Holy Spirit indwelling. Now we no longer live in old Adam but are born again into the new Adam.

[Gal 3:26 For YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you **AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

1Pt3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Show me in scripture baptism is only a public witness or symbol of what has already taken place. If you can’t then you hold a tradition of men made a doctrine of God in order to nullify the Word of God on the sacrament of baptism.

 

[JonNC]

=jlhargus;8034896]

JL: Hi Jon, if the Trinity is so explicit and clear in scripture why did it take an ecumenical council to define and name it Trinity? Why did it become more divisive even after being defined by an ecumenical council?

Hi JL,
You are asking me to debate the important role of the Church regarding hermeunetics, which is something I can’t do, because I accept it.

JL: There was no need of an ecumenical council. What little that has been defined about prugatory was defined by a truly ecumenical councils. All ecumenical councils recognized the the Catholic Church have been truly ecumenical.

Well, that’s my point. How can they be truly ecumenical councils without all of the patriarchates?

The east has defined none of those doctrines. They may have theological positions but they have never defined them. The east also prays for the dead. If the dead are in heaven what is the purpose in praying for them, they have no need? If they are in hell what is the purpose in praying for them, they cannot be helped? So they must view those in the process of purgation as being in another state or place.

The problem may be the need to define these things. One can accept the importance of prayer ofr the dead - Lutheran do - and of purgation without saying that there must then be an intermediate state/place.

JL: the same way the Holy Spirit does it with an ecumenical council. The pope doesn’t wake up one day and define something. He would consult Tradition both oral and scripture, the bishops of the world and prayer. All of these are part of the process of discernment.

You’re making it sound like I am treating this lightly, which I’m not. Please do not think I am being disrespectful. All I am saying is that my understanding of the practice of ecumenical councils was all the patriarchates.

JL: Jon I would answer. Did a council decide the first gentiles (Cornelius and household) could be brought into the Church without circumcision? Christ named one patriarch Rock, Jn1:42 on which He would build His Church. He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with the right to bind and loose to that one patriarch, Mt16:13-19. Making that patriarch His chief minister, Isa22:19-22, to strengthen his brethren and feed ALL the sheep and lambs in Christ’s flock, Jn21:14-17. Christ prayed the faith of that one patriarch would fail not, Lk22:28-32 and promised that patriarch the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church, Mt16:18.

I don’t believe He intended for any one patriarch to do it on his own. Christ also said in Luke 22:25 The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Jon

 

[gerard1984]

what is the strongs number for that word.

The reason i could not find the word Kecharitomene is because the CC translated that word using the Latin Vulgate. Did they know that the New Testament was written in Greek?