Jesus did not write one letter of Scripture

[De_Maria]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

 

[emarc]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

sola scriptura doctrine embraced by evangelicals is flawed and unscriptural. let’s pray for them that they’ll see the fullnes of truth in the Catholic faith.
God bless.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Add to the above, I submit that Jesus did not come to write a book but to found a Church. He did so and that church is called, today, the Roman Catholic Church. And as He promised, it would stand for all time due to His protection. It has done so, just as He promised! THANKS BE TO GOD!

 

[Trishie]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

Jesus did not write the New Testament, but it was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Jesus instructed His disciples, promising that, “When the Advocate comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, He will be my witness. And you too will be my witnesses.” [John 15: 26-27] “**When He comes, He will show the world how wrong it was, about sin…and about judgement” and “about who was in the right: proved by my going to the Father…proved by the prince of this world already being condemned.” **

Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.”
“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but indeed…to the ends of the earth.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13, 15]

Before His ascension, Jesus said, “**All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And know that I am with you always, yes even to the end of time.” **

 

[Steadfast]

You are right, Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

Thus Sola Scriptura.

For the record, I am questioning Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide myself and may be leaving the Lutheran church, but having said that, and even if I do leave, I hope I will retain some recollection of what Protestants actually believe rather than embracing and repeating the caricatures of Catholic ePologists.

This is not directed to the author of the OP specifically. His question does betray a lack of understanding about what Sola Scriptura really is but I have no idea whether he was ever Protestant or not. I am merely pointing out a phenomenon I see all the time around here: The persistence of Catholics in misrepresenting Protestant doctrine IN THE VERY TEETH of better representations given by ACTUAL Protestants.

 

[Ruthie]

Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

That is an odd idea.

It is as if the Apostles had failed to follow His command to go and teach all the nations. The people who were healed never talked about it. The disciples who left Him never said why. Neither did the ones who stayed with Him. Maybe the Apostles and disciples were all walled up in a cave somewhere.

It is as if nobody knew *anything *about Him until, one day, the Bible fell out of the sky, and a great voice said, “This is My Book, in which I am well pleased.”

We would know *nothing *about Jesus, if it were not for the early church. All the writers of the NT were members of the early church. The early church collected and passed around many writings, and later gathered them together, sorted them out, and formed the Bible. It did not fall out of the sky. They also passed around many oral teachings which were not written down, at least, not in a form that was added to the Bible.

And a real study of history will show you that the early church is still here, in the form of the Catholic church.

Your sister in Christ,

Ruthie

 

[planten]

Add to the above, I submit that Jesus did not come to write a book but to found a Church. He did so and that church is called, today, the Roman Catholic Church. And as He promised, it would stand for all time due to His protection. It has done so, just as He promised! THANKS BE TO GOD!

**MelanieAnne, Thanks for the post. You said that Jesus never came to write any book. He came to found a church.

When did he found the church? Before his crucifixion or after it?

Then you do not need any book. Church is everything.???

Let the church stand for ever. We also pray that your church may stand for ever and you pray therein happily as you please. From your post it seems that the church is superceding the bibleNT. Or does the church need the bible? or they both need each other?

It is clear now that bible has been fully separated (distanced) from Jesus as some later development or innovation.**

 

[abucs]

You are right, Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

I think we know about Jesus because of the early Church. The written testimonies that became the bible are part of that, and a very, very, very important part of the early church’s witness to
Jesus.

Of course there are other parts of the early church, noticably their day to day practice such as the sacraments which are also witness.

If there was nothing but the bible then when the bishops of the church met to decide what should make up the canon of the bible they would have nothing to base their decision on. It would be obvious and not need hundreds of bishops from the Middle East, Africa and Europe to have in depth discussions of histories and doctrine).

They had to look at the histories and traditions and writings of the early church to decide which writings should be accepted. If there wasn’t a strong Christian history and tradition at that time then they couldn’t make a decision.

But the bishops did for the very fact that they were the recipiants of the Christian history and tradition. If the early fathers of the church ( say 1st to 3rd centuries A.D.) accepted writings attributed to Mark and Matthew etc as authentic then this was the ongoing history of the church. The same fathers practiced the eucharist and held to the trinity. If they were wrong on the eucharist and trinity what makes them right about Mark, Matthew etc.

I think to take part of the early church tradition and dump the rest, you have to be very careful. I don’t think the protestant reformers were so willing to dump church tradition, but certainly the people who found themselves in that ‘new reformed faith’ and outside of the mainline tradition were very quick to dump tradition in succeeding generations. This makes sense from a successionist point of view because a large part of the historical Christian tradition speaks of one holy catholic church, the sacraments and valid apostolic orders. You can’t hold to that and be outside the church - hence the rejection of that part of the tradition and the acceptance of the bible alone which, like all books, can be interpreted in different ways depending on what you want it to say.

IMHO, If you want to ignore the entirety of early history and tradition and go with the bible alone then you end up inventing your own histories and traditions, which can never be as authentic as the living history and traditions of the continuing church.

 

[Steadfast]

If it were not for the unique Word of God, clearly outlining Jesus as the fulfillment of all Hebrew messianic prophecy and describing Him as the only begotten Son of God, we would know nothing about Him.

We would know some historical facts and we would hear stories about Him identifying Him as the personification of a platonic abstract, but we would not know Jesus and, above all, we would know nothing of what His sacrifice means or what He really means to History.

All the eventual disconnects between the Scriptural record and the revisions of men would have been expedited and very likely expanded such that we cannot even say for certain what we would believe today.

Also the outcome of the contest between the nascent church and the Gnostics would have been very much in doubt since the church would have nothing but hearsay to depend upon for argument, much of it made by men informed by men informed with Greek philosophical ideals they were unable to shake even WITH the bible at hand.

Unless you are saying that the testimony of this “early church” is identical with the Word of God with all the authority, sanction and superintendency pertaining to it. But if you say that you are departing from the Catholic dual stream theory of revelation, effectively subsuming the Bible in the Oral Tradition.

 

[KingAlfred]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

‘Sola Scriptura’ first came from Martin Luther in 1517, the birthdate of the Protestant Reformation. The history of the creation of the Christian Bible clearly shows that it was an outgrowth of Catholic tradition, and was never meant to be excised from the greater body of Church traditions, isolated, and used as the sole authority of Christian thought and worship. Luther even contradicted himself by advancing the concept of 'sola scriptura, in that there were certain parts of the New Testament he loathed and taught his followers to ignore, such as the Book of James, which contradicted his theory of salvation by faith alone.
Luther was a hardcore Paulist, and therefore based his reformulation of Christianity theology almost entirely on Paul. That stood to figure – Paul, Augustine (Luther was also an Augustinian monk) and Luther had all been lawyers or law students before dedicating their lives to Christ. They all had legally trained minds, and conceived of God as a court-room judge. This mentality connected them across the span of many centuries, and caused each to formulate Christian theology in a distinctly legal context.

 

[Steadfast]

But the Bible describes soteriology in a decidedly legal sense:

God is a judge whose condemnation must be mitigated and whose justice must be satisfied.

It also describes God as a loving Father whose favor is enjoyed by His chosen.

In the case of the former, Christ has accomplished the satisfaction of God’s justice and the propitiation of His wrath and, as The Elect, is the One in Whom we, as co-heirs, enjoy mercy, grace and peace.

It’s not accurate to dismiss the juridical approach because it is uncongenial to us today. It happens to be an imminently biblical way of describing God’s dealing with humanity, and not just beginning with Paul.

Protestantism has, historically, taken account of both of these models.

Catholicism has not really, not lately anyway even though this balanced approach is very much a part of it’s legacy.

Indeed, the Reformers wouldn’t even have Augustine if the Catholic Church had not given him to them.

 

[ralphinal]

You are right, Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

Thus Sola Scriptura.

For the record, I am questioning Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide myself and may be leaving the Lutheran church, but having said that, and even if I do leave, I hope I will retain some recollection of what Protestants actually believe rather than embracing and repeating the caricatures of Catholic ePologists.

Mind shooting me a pm to explain what is going on over there? I never thought that you would be on a crossing the elba the other way floatilla.

This is not directed to the author of the OP specifically. His question does betray a lack of understanding about what Sola Scriptura really is but I have no idea whether he was ever Protestant or not. I am merely pointing out a phenomenon I see all the time around here: The persistence of Catholics in misrepresenting Protestant doctrine IN THE VERY TEETH of better representations given by ACTUAL Protestants.

I see this too. At times, I am guilty of it, but it tends to be more localised (such as discussing OSAS). Don’t be too hard on us. There are some things in Protestantism that even Protestants are not sure what they all accept. I for one am too lazy to break it down too far.

Just think about sola Scriptura. There are some on here who think it means “Me and my Bible” and others who think it means “My bible and then that which it supports” and those who think it means “I can make it up as I go.” Granted, the last position is what we generally accuse you of.

 

[MelanieAnne]

**MelanieAnne, Thanks for the post. You said that Jesus never came to write any book. He came to found a church.

When did he found the church? Before his crucifixion or after it?

Then you do not need any book. Church is everything.???

Let the church stand for ever. We also pray that your church may stand for ever and you pray therein happily as you please. From your post it seems that the church is superceding the bibleNT. Or does the church need the bible? or they both need each other?

It is clear now that bible has been fully separated (distanced) from Jesus as some later development or innovation.**

You apparently did not understand the point I was making. I’m not sure why. Your conclusions are not supported by what I wrote, they belong to you.

 

[planten]

You apparently did not understand the point I was making. I’m not sure why. Your conclusions are not supported by what I wrote, they belong to you.

**MelanieAnne; I will go back and try to understand your points. I agree to the topic that Jesus did not write one letter of Scripture. That is true. Muhammad also did not write a word of the Quran.

But Muhammad made the message from God (Allah) known to every one verbatum (word for word exactly). Then he arranged (ordered) it to be memorised and recited in daily prayers. He also made it written by the scribes. That was the Quran, in parchments and peices over a period of 23 years.

Muhammad had memorised the Quran and so did most of his followers. Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel once every years in the month of ramadhan just for the purpose of reminding and reciting the whole revealed part of Quran in the right order. That was done once every year.

In the last year of the life of the prophet MUhammad, the blessed angel Gabiel repeated the whole Quran to Muhammad twice in the month of Ramadhan.

So later the prophet Muhammad told his daughter(?) " The angel used to repeat the Quran to me once in the month of Ramadhan. This year the angel has repeated it twice.

All prophets attained (at least) half the age of the previous prophet (the predecessor prophet). Jesus lived a long life of 120 years. I hope I shall (surely) go at the head of sixty(60)."**

And that was true. The prophet Muhammad died at the age of about 63 years.

Even though he did not write any word of the Quran, yet he did well to preserve the message from God. Similarly, we Muslims believe that Jesus received all messages from God through the holy spirit (angel gabriel). He acted on those messages and passed them on to his friends and followers and even to his foes.

Nevermind Jesus did not write any word of the message. he did well to pass it on to the people very well. That was good enough for us Muslims. WE believe in what he said. All Praise be to Allah.

 

[Eucharisted]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

Jesus did not establish Sacred Tradition, nor did He pass on the Old Testament.

The Apostles are the ones who passed Sacred Tradtion onto their successors, the bishops, telling them everything that Jesus told them (oral tradition).

Jesus Himself is the Old Testament. He is also the New. This is why He is called the Word of God: He Himself is the Torah, He is the Scriptures. He has fulfilled God’s promises in Himself, being the Word Himself.

If you want to refute sola scriptura, than you just got to tell the sola scriptura believers that the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradtion are one, inseperably united as the (written and oral) Word of God, and they’re united because the Bible came from Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church determined which books were inspired by God, and so, would be included in the Canon of the Bible. And if the Bible came from Sacred Tradition, than why would the sola scriptura believers want to reject Tradition? It’d be like throwing out the Bible itself!

 

[jimmy]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

Jesus wrote the divine nature on the human person. Jesus is the Word of God who is God made man. We don’t need something to replace Him.

 

[bpbasilphx]

He did so and that church is called, today, the Roman Catholic Church.

Eastern Catholic Churches are not Roman.

 

[De_Maria]

MelanieAnne; I will go back and try to understand your points. I agree to the topic that Jesus did not write one letter of Scripture. That is true.

**

Correct. Jesus did not write one letter of Scripture. He established a Church. Taught the Church His Traditions and empowered the Church to teach His Traditions to the world.

The Church, by its own authority, wrote the New Testament to ensure a record of the Teachings of Jesus Christ by the original Apostles.

Muhammad also did not write a word of the Quran.

**Big difference. Muhammed is not God. Jesus is God.

But Muhammad made the message from God (Allah)

No, no. The ALLEGED message from an angel. Muhammed said he saw an angel but that was never confirmed by anyone.

Let’s compare. Jesus came and produced miracles which were witnessed by four of His contemporaries and documented in written testimonies.

Muhammed CLAIMED he saw something which no one else saw and claimed to have a message which no one else heard.

known to every one verbatum (word for word exactly).

That isn’t true either. After Muhammed died, there were so many squabbles between the companions about what Muhammed actually said, that one of his companions, Uthman, usurped all originals, burned them and substituted his own copy in their stead.

Then he arranged (ordered) it to be memorised and recited in daily prayers.

No he didn’t. He left a mess. He left little bits of paper here, bits of bark there, and he didn’t compile them nor order them in any fashion. Another reason why Uthman burned the originals.

He also made it written by the scribes. That was the Quran, in parchments and peices over a period of 23 years.

Scribes who did not agree with each other, with the texts nor could they piece together what Muhammed actually said, so Uthman burned all those originals and substituted his own Quran known as the Uthmanic Rescension.

Muhammad had memorised the Quran and so did most of his followers.

No he didn’t. Everytime he was asked to recite the Quran, he recited it differently. That is why so many variants existed between the Scribes.

Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel once every years in the month of ramadhan just for the purpose of reminding and reciting the whole revealed part of Quran in the right order. That was done once every year.

That is what he CLAIMED. But it was never proven. He was the only one who ever saw the angel. It could very well have been a figment of his imagination or just a ploy to get people under his control.

In the last year of the life of the prophet MUhammad, the blessed angel Gabiel repeated the whole Quran to Muhammad twice in the month of Ramadhan.

That can’t be proven. Only Muhammed saw anything. No one else can confirm his visions.

So later the prophet Muhammad told his daughter(?) " The angel used to repeat the Quran to me once in the month of Ramadhan. This year the angel has repeated it twice.

All prophets attained (at least) half the age of the previous prophet (the predecessor prophet). Jesus lived a long life of 120 years. I hope I shall (surely) go at the head of sixty(60)."

And that was true. The prophet Muhammad died at the age of about 63 years.

Even though he did not write any word of the Quran, yet he did well to preserve the message from God. Similarly, we Muslims believe that Jesus received all messages from God through the holy spirit (angel gabriel). He acted on those messages and passed them on to his friends and followers and even to his foes.

Nevermind Jesus did not write any word of the message. he did well to pass it on to the people very well. That was good enough for us Muslims. WE believe in what he said. All Praise be to Allah. No you don’t. You believe the lies and fabrications of Muhammed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Jesus did not write the New Testament, but it was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

That is Catholic Teaching.

Jesus instructed His disciples, promising that, “When the Advocate comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, He will be my witness. And you too will be my witnesses.” [John 15: 26-27] “**When He comes, He will show the world how wrong it was, about sin…and about judgement” and “about who was in the right: proved by my going to the Father…proved by the prince of this world already being condemned.” **

Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.”
“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but indeed…to the ends of the earth.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13, 15]

Before His ascension, Jesus said, “**All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And know that I am with you always, yes even to the end of time.” **

Exactly! The Apostles were the foundation of the Church and they passed on this authority to the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

You are right, Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

Thus Sola Scriptura.

You sound confused. You question Sola below, but you claim Sola above.

For the record, I am questioning Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide myself and may be leaving the Lutheran church, but having said that, and even if I do leave, I hope I will retain some recollection of what Protestants actually believe rather than embracing and repeating the caricatures of Catholic ePologists.

This is not directed to the author of the OP specifically. His question does betray a lack of understanding about what Sola Scriptura really is but I have no idea whether he was ever Protestant or not. I am merely pointing out a phenomenon I see all the time around here: The persistence of Catholics in misrepresenting Protestant doctrine IN THE VERY TEETH of better representations given by ACTUAL Protestants.

I suggest you study Catholic teaching. Your negative attitude towards the Catholic Church is probably only due to habit. You wil find that the Catholic Church is the most logical, systematic and reasonable faith in existence.

Sincerely,

De Maria