Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

[Duane1966]

and you are mistaken about the Greek:
biblehub.com/greek/1006.htm

Am I now? I think not.

The following taken from here: thecatholictreasurechest.com/prim.htm

John 21:15-17…
Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to “Feed My Sheep”, or to “Feed My Lambs”. For proper understanding of these verses it is necessary to refer to the underlying Greek text.
**In verse 16, the Greek word used for “feed” is “poimaino” (second person singular), which means, to act as a SHEPHERD, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. **It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John. In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for “feed” is “bosko”, which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say ‘feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep’. Jesus told Peter alone to be the SHEPHERD of His flock.
In John 10:16, Jesus said, “…and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD.” The Greek word used here is “poimen (masculine, singular)”. Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.

biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/poimaino.html

Definition

to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
    **to rule, govern**
        of rulers
        to furnish pasture for food
        to nourish
        to cherish one's body, to serve the body
        to supply the requisites for the soul's need

 

[cominghome1966]

the Judaizers view was NOT backed by Scripture
The Council’s view agreed with Scripture

v 15 reads
“And with this the words of the prophets agree,”"
The words of Prophets (plural more than one prophet) are found in the Hebrew Scriptures

v16 they quoted Scripture; Amos 9 referencing God’s plans for the Gentiles

v17 Therefore (referencing what just came before: Scripture) a decision is made not to trouble with any obstacle to God’s revealed plan for the Gentiles found in Scripture

There is nothing in Amos 9 that talks about abolishing circumcision.

 

[spina1953]

Hi alwayswill, your post of #211 really does not conform to what was written in Act’s about the council, its more a pick and choose thing it seems to me to fosther your interpretation of that passage. When Peter spoke he was using what Jesus taught him and the rest of the Apostles, why because they were filled with the Holy Spirit to reinfirm Christ’s teachings.

The main reason as to why the council was called was due to Paul and Banabas asking for clarification on what was being taught. Judaizers; converted Pharicees were teaching and preaching that in order to be saved Gentiles had to be circumcised according to the law of Moses. After much debating, finely peter stands up and says what he says and all are quiet and not a word said either way from the council at large. Peter was not quoting Scripture but what he had been taught by Christ Himself. It is James who quotes SCripture but James was talking about something else, which while related to what Peter said was about other things, and not about circumcisum which was why the council was called for in the first place. It was apparent the converted Pharicees were interpreting Scripture according to their own understanding, not to the authority Christ gave to the Apostles by teaching them so that they would continue teaching others what Jesus taught and pass it on to successors the Catholic Church. This when looking deeper into Act’s 15, shows that sola scriptura does not work. Also what Scripture was used was what we call the OT but there was not canon at that time, so there was still debate as to what was considered Scripture and what was not. by the Jews.

 

[cominghome1966]

and if they did not repent?

Then they are like the weeds of Matthew 13.

Jesus said that we can’t pull them out, since that would damage the wheat.

He also said that that the weeds and the wheat need to grow up together until the harvest.

They will be separated at the harvest, not before.

 

[PRmerger]

ok : here is the “Sola Scripturist” view

Let’s be clear: there is no “the” Sola Scripturist" view.

Since there is no authority to speak for Sola Scriptura, there can not be a SS view.

There is only your view, and then there is the view of someone else who holds SS that disagrees with you. And that disagreement is endorsed and encouraged.

(And, again, let’s be clear: there is no parallel with Catholicism. There is the Catholic view–and we know what this is through the teaching authority, the Magisterium, as limned in the Catechism–and then there are those who conform their views to it, and those who divorce themselves from it. The latter is not endorsed and encouraged.)

 

[alwayswill]

Let’s be clear: there is no “the” Sola Scripturist" view.

Since there is no authority to speak for Sola Scriptura, there can not be a SS view.

There is only your view, and then there is the view of someone else who holds SS that disagrees with you. And that disagreement is endorsed and encouraged.

(And, again, let’s be clear: there is no parallel with Catholicism. There is the Catholic view–and we know what this is through the teaching authority, the Magisterium, as limned in the Catechism–and then there are those who conform their views to it, and those who divorce themselves from it. The latter is not endorsed and encouraged.)

1. there are those who conform their views to it
2. those who divorce themselves from it.

what about the third option?

1. Those whose accept the teachings but have different interpretations of the meaning of those Catholic teachings.

I am not talking rejection of the teachings.
I am not talking about the poorly catechized.

I am talking about faithful, knowledgeable Catholics who believe they are fully conforming themselves to the teachings of the Catholic Church
but hold conflicting interpretations than other faithful, knowledgeable Catholics who believe they are fully conforming themselves to the teachings of the Catholic Church…

browse the Catholic news forum and see for yourself

 

[PRmerger]

ALL God breathed writings are Scripture the very moment they were written, regardless of when they were written
do you agree with that?

Yes.

And do you agree that you wouldn’t know whether Hebrews is God-breathed and that the Epistles of Clement are not God-breathed, except that you defer to the authority of the CC to discern this?

And that means…you are NOT Sola Scriptura.

And that also means…you believe that the CC was given the charism of infallibility (at least as it applies to the canon of the NT)…unless you think *the CC got it wrong *somewhere in her discernment of the 27 book canon of the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

the Judaizers view was NOT backed by Scripture

Perhaps it would be helpful if you articulated what you think the “Judaizers view” was?

 

[alwayswill]

Yes.

And do you agree that you wouldn’t know whether Hebrews is God-breathed and that the Epistles of Clement are not God-breathed, except that you defer to the authority of the CC to discern this?

And that means…you are NOT Sola Scriptura.

nope; that’s not what it means
see post 50 for the description / definition Sola Scriptura
I used 2 Catholic sources

And that also means…you believe that the CC was given the charism of infallibility (at least as it applies to the canon of the NT)…unless you think *the CC got it wrong *somewhere in her discernment of the 27 book canon of the NT?

nope: that’s a false dichotomy:
there are more than two choices…
I think the CC got it right:
that doesn’t mean they were ever infallible

Infallible means INCAPABLE of error
you can be correct without being infallible
and you can be fallible without being wrong

 

[PRmerger]

If you consider yourself one of Christ’s sheep, than you are subject to the Roman pontiff, whether you realize it or not.

Yep.

Not to mention, when this statement was made, there were no other Christians, save for Catholics.

And if you left the Roman Pontiff, you left Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

I realize more than you think
I am not rejecting Jesus
that is why I am rejecting the Roman Pontiff

You cannot know anything about Jesus’ revelation, save through your tacit submission to the authority of this Roman Pontiff.

 

[PRmerger]

There is nothing in Amos 9 that talks about abolishing circumcision.

Indeed.

And if it did, would that mean that Jesus and all of his apostles were not circumcised?

And if they weren’t, then why were some folks demanding that new members of the Christian community be circumcised, when its leaders were not?

And if Jesus and his apostles were circumcised, then were they in disobedience to Amos 9?

 

[alwayswill]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you articulated what you think the “Judaizers view” was?

**
Adherence by Gentile Christians to Torah Laws given to the Israelites**
That Gentile Christians should convert to Judaism and obey the Laws of Moses was the assumption of some in the Early Church, as represented by Pharisees who had become believers in Acts 15 (Acts 15:5). This was the Jewish Christian version of the opinion within Judaism that Gentiles should convert to Judaism in order to be right with God. Paul opposed this position, with a Jewish Christian version of the opposite opinion in Judaism, concluding that Gentiles did not need to convert and obey the entire Law of Moses.
. /wiki/Judaizers#Adherence_by_Gentile_Christians_to_Torah_Laws_given_to_the_Israelites

 

[PRmerger]

nope; that’s not what it means

Then, if it’s permissible to believe things not found in the Bible, then why are you against purgatory, praying to the saints, praying the rosary, crowning Mary as queen of heaven?

You can’t have it both ways, friend.

Either Catholicism is fine and dandy with all of its doctrines and teachings not found explicitly in Scripture…or you have to declare that you are not SS.

Which is it?

 

[PRmerger]

I think the CC got it right:
that doesn’t mean they were ever infallible

Infallible means INCAPABLE of error
you can be correct without being infallible
and you can be fallible without being wrong

So do you think that the Church just happened to get it right, or was she guided by the Holy Spirit in this process?

 

[PRmerger]

**
Adherence by Gentile Christians to Torah Laws given to the Israelites**
That Gentile Christians should convert to Judaism and obey the Laws of Moses was the assumption of some in the Early Church, as represented by Pharisees who had become believers in Acts 15 (Acts 15:5). This was the Jewish Christian version of the opinion within Judaism that Gentiles should convert to Judaism in order to be right with God. Paul opposed this position, with a Jewish Christian version of the opposite opinion in Judaism, concluding that Gentiles did not need to convert and obey the entire Law of Moses.
. /wiki/Judaizers#Adherence_by_Gentile_Christians_to_Torah_Laws_given_to_the_Israelites

So you’re saying that Judaizers wanting the early Christians to conform to the Laws of Moses was not found in the Laws of Moses?

 

[alwayswill]

Indeed.

And if it did, would that mean that Jesus and all of his apostles were not circumcised?

And if they weren’t, then why were some folks demanding that new members of the Christian community be circumcised, when its leaders were not?

And if Jesus and his apostles were circumcised, then were they in disobedience to Amos 9?

I was going to give a reasoned response:

but I’m disappointed with this style of apologetic debate

the context is Gentiles becoming Christians: and I’m sure you know that

 

[PRmerger]

I was going to give a reasoned response:

but I’m disappointed with this style of apologetic debate

the context is Gentiles becoming Christians: and I’m sure you know that

Not sure what you’re disappointed with…

I don’t understand your argument. You’re saying that the Scriptures didn’t demand that Christians conform to the Laws of Moses?

Is that your point?

 

[alwayswill]

So you’re saying that Judaizers wanting the early Christians to conform to the Laws of Moses was not found in the Laws of Moses?

close , but that’s not what I said

that Judaizers wanting the GENTILES who became Christians to conform to the Laws of Moses was not found in the Laws of Moses

 

[alwayswill]

Not sure what you’re disappointed with…

I don’t understand your argument. You’re saying that the Scriptures didn’t demand that Christians conform to the Laws of Moses?

Is that your point?

Scripture don’t demand non- jews to be circumcised