Protestant Canon

[Kliska]

Paul was accountable to Christ’s Church and to Her authority. This is all over Scriptures.

Paul was accountable to God, and there are several instances where we read of Paul being directed by the Holy Spirit and communicated to by Him as well. Paul didn’t hesitate to correct other members of the church when they taught improperly through word or action, such as Peter. The fact that the Spirit spoke to Paul directly isn’t the question, we can all read about that. The question is; can we be in the same relationship with the Spirit? I believe so, from what I read in scripture.

Take off your 21st century glasses.

From my POV you are looking at those in the past as though they were ignorant and perhaps had a lower IQ than us. We often think of those in the past as totally in the dark about other cultures, when the truth is far from it. The places where the Apostles, disciples, deacons, etc… went were well traveled. And, that was the point for them to go there; to teach and preach. Any teaching and preaching of the Gospel would include talking about the OT.

You want to know what are the Scriptures that God breathed out. You want to know which books are the ones to be considered as such.

How do you find out?

ETA: You look for Paul but can’t reach him, you want to ask him what are the Scriptures.

Did Paul already answer this question?

I’m sorry, I’m sure I’m just dense, but your questions don’t make sense to me. If I’m a Gentile living in a city, and there are preachers and evangelists either speaking about the Gospel, or someone is telling me this, they would have to be pretty poor not to draw the connection to Jewish belief and writings. I’m just not getting your point here, so the simplest thing to do would be just to state whatever point you are getting at, instead of trying to build off of some answer of mine, because obviously I’m not saying something you wish me to say.

 

[commenter]

Are you sure? A married man can become a Catholic priest (other than clergy from other communions that convert)?

Jon

The Catholic Church’s position on celibacy is one of discipline not doctrine. Other than convert ministers, a Latin rite married man could not be ordained to priesthood, unless the Pope set aside the rule; which he could. In the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome, most don’t have a rule against a married man becoming a priest. Of course, widowers have always been able to be ordained.

 

[Topper17]

Luther’s ‘problems’ with several books of the NT came completely to the surface when he ‘translated’ the NT into German in early 1522. The story of Luther translating the Bible into German is often portrayed as his finest achievement and I would agree, but not for the reasons that others would normally suggest. The “Legend” of Luther would have us believe that he was an incredibly brilliant Scholar and that he was gifted in Greek, Hebrew, the Classics, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, etc., etc. The “most excellent” translation of the Scriptures into German is often hailed as being an astonishing accomplishment. However, it seems that whenever this is mentioned, the fact that there were at least 26 German translations printed on the printing press BEFORE Luther’s is virtually never mentioned. This begs the question:

If there were already 26 Bibles in German available in 1522, then what was it, specifically and exactly (of course) that made it ‘necessary’ for Luther to do his own translation? What was it that compelled Luther to produce the 27th (or whatever) translation into German?

What would be truly astonishing about the story of Luther’s translation would be if it were actually true, meaning true as in it being an effort independent of any other German translation. That is not at all likely and in fact, it is virtually impossible as suggested by Henry Clay Vedder, a Protestant Scholar:

“In a letter to his friend Lange, dated December 18th, (1521) he announces his intention to translate the New Testament into German, in terms necessitating the inference that the work had not yet begun. On March 30, 1522, he writes Spalatin that he has translated the entire New Testament…This leaves little more than ten weeks for the completion of the work…….

It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther’s limited attainments in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed, in the short space of ten weeks. And, as we shall see, another task occupied a part of his attention and time during these very weeks. A minister today, who has had the Greek course of a college and seminary, is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther’s achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament – such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name – and multiply the time consumed by two hundred and sixty chapters. He will speedily be convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one. What then? Is the whole story false? That, too, is impossible – the main facts are too well attested. The solution of an apparently insoluble contradiction is a very simple one: Luther did not make an independent translation; he never claimed he did; none of his contemporaries made that claim for him. It is only later admirers who have made this statement to enhance his glory, just as they have unduly exaggerated the paucity of the Scriptures and the popular ignorance of them before Luther’s day, for the same purpose. We now know that both these assertions are untrue to historic fact, and have misled many unwary persons into inferences far indeed from the truth. The two assertions are so intimately connected, that in showing either to be unfounded the other is also and necessarily controverted.” Vedder, pg. 169-170

Here we have Vedder, a reputable Protestant Scholar (actually a Professor of Church history at Crozer Theological Seminary, Upland, Pennsylvania), pointing out that Luther’s “limited attainments” in Greek. If Luther was “qualified” to translate from Greek, then hundreds of thousands of modern day “not so great” Scholars would be much more qualified.

What actually IS astonishing is that Luther completed his translation of the entire New Testament in only 10 or 11 weeks, and only part time at that. It took Jerome decades to produce his translation to Latin in the Vulgate. By comparison, Luther’s translation was a slap dash effort by an average Scholar. How could even he have believed that such a rushed effort was worthy of an actual translation of the Holy Scriptures? It wasn’t of course.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Paul was accountable to God, and there are several instances where we read of Paul being directed by the Holy Spirit and communicated to by Him as well. Paul didn’t hesitate to correct other members of the church when they taught improperly through word or action, such as Peter. The fact that the Spirit spoke to Paul directly isn’t the question, we can all read about that. The question is; can we be in the same relationship with the Spirit? I believe so, from what I read in scripture.

From my POV you are looking at those in the past as though they were ignorant and perhaps had a lower IQ than us. We often think of those in the past as totally in the dark about other cultures, when the truth is far from it. The places where the Apostles, disciples, deacons, etc… went were well traveled. And, that was the point for them to go there; to teach and preach. Any teaching and preaching of the Gospel would include talking about the OT.

I’m sorry, I’m sure I’m just dense, but your questions don’t make sense to me. If I’m a Gentile living in a city, and there are preachers and evangelists either speaking about the Gospel, or someone is telling me this, they would have to be pretty poor not to draw the connection to Jewish belief and writings. I’m just not getting your point here, so the simplest thing to do would be just to state whatever point you are getting at, instead of trying to build off of some answer of mine, because obviously I’m not saying something you wish me to say.

Kliska, no need to have a lower IQ. Have you ever talked to someone who has never been in Church? And they come for the first time. They have heard about the Bible but didn’t care about it. Didn’t care for religion. And they are brought to you as they are called to Christ. They are very intelligent people, but don’t even know where to start. They go to the store to buy a Bible and are faced with many translations, they are so overwhelmed and unsure on what to do. Have you helped them in choosing a translation, where to start reading, what the Trinity means, what Christ has done and how He is 2 natures at the same time, and many more things. It doesn’t take away from the intelligence in any way. But still they need a person to help them.

I am presenting you with circumstances, and you are gridlocked in the self absorbed sufficiency of the lone person. That by intelligence alone they can figure it all out. That’s not the majority of us. We need help and while the Holy Spirit helps us, He does bring other people to do it.

I’ll answer my own question…

You go to the Church to find the Scriptures, you go to the Church because that’s where even Paul was led to.

And Paul would tell you that if he is not there to answer you question you can:

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

You go to the Church because the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Not Paul alone.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you sure? A married man can become a Catholic priest (other than clergy from other communions that convert)?

Yes, he can. It is unusual, but not unheard of.

And I don’t know why you would dismiss the “clergy from other communions that convert”. Why must we look at them as “other than”?

Maybe, but their guys have better beards.

Jon

No one seems to be able to beat the beards on these guys.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No one seems to be able to beat the beards on these guys.

http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/beards-back-490x255.png

Oh I beg to differ

http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/OR+MY+AXE+_47337e83cb2dea58bd4791c0dc822b42.jpg

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

A couple of days ago I told you the following:

“So really Jon, you have two options here, neither of which is good for your position. You seem to be admitting that Luther’s beliefs on Salvation are different than those of the Lutheran church. If that is so, then you are admitting that Luther (according to you) was wrong on Salvation. Conversely, you could claim that Luther didn’t understand how James and Paul (so the explanation normally goes) could be ‘reconciled’ (but you can). Either way, you are claiming that Luther didn’t understand Salvation. And since Salvation by Faith Alone was the Basis for Luther’s whole theology, that would mean that his theology was built on a foundation of false understanding, an errant understanding of arguably the most important teaching of Christianity.”

Thanks for your response which was:

The number of options I have are not set by you. There are lots of things Luther believed that are not the teachings of Lutheranism. The fact that he was a man, living in a time where even the Catholic Church in that time in that place was not portraying justification as the Catholic Church does today. Whether or not Luther was able to reconcile James and Paul in his early preface is irrelevant. They certainly do reconcile, and clearly do so under justification by grace alone through faith alone.

I agree in part. I don’t set your options. Your options though are limited by the historical facts and also be logic and reason. Remember reason? It is no wonder that Luther called reason the Devil’s Whore.

You can claim that you can reconcile James and Paul, but as you know, Luther claimed that it couldn’t be done. In fact:

“Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul.” Marius, pg. 341

No self-respecting Catholic Theologian would have wanted Luther’s beret but of course he rejected the explanations of dozens of Catholic regarding “James vs. Paul”. Rather than accept the “Catholic Salvation”, which DOES reconcile James and Paul, Luther chose to reject their explanations AND question whether James was really Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

By your choice of an option, you are admitting that Luther was wrong on James and Paul, meaning that Luther was wrong on Salvation. In addition to being wrong about the canonicity of James, because it WAS written by an Apostle, Lutherans have seen fit to ‘correct’ Luther’s misunderstanding of how James fits with Paul.

In other words, Lutherans have rejected a core belief of Martin Luther, and on the very issue which DROVE him to revolt against the Catholic Church. To put it in a different manner, the Lutheran Church has seen fit to refute Luther on what was to him, BY FAR, the most important doctrine. How could this not mean that the Lutheran church has determined that Luther was WRONG on his ‘signature doctrine’?

So, it appears that you have chosen an option, and the option that you chose was that Luther was wrong about being able to reconcile James and Paul. You say it can be done and Luther said it couldn’t. I would bet that you believe, that given the “clarity of Scripture”, even an average Theologian would be able to reconcile James and Paul. But Luther couldn’t, which I take to be further evidence that Luther was a poor Theologian. Catholics can provide that reconciliation and so can Lutherans, which only seems to prove that neither Catholics nor Lutherans believe in the ‘Martin Lutheran version’ of salvation. It seems to me that you can’t say that the Lutheran church hold a different belief on Salvation than Luther did, and then claim that Luther was a ‘good Theologian’, and if Luther was NOT a ‘good Theologian’, well, then…………that has ‘major implications’.

In fact, we ALL agree that Luther got a lot of ‘stuff’ wrong. Now THAT is common ground and something that we could all build on in an effort to foster unity. It’s just that Catholics have a longer list of things where Luther was wrong than do the Reformed, and their list is longer than the Lutheran list. At least we all agree that he was wrong about reconciling James and Paul, which by the way is a HUGE thing. Maybe if Luther had correctly understood James and Paul, he wouldn’t have had to “demote’ James, and claim that it was ‘written by some Jew’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[PRmerger]

Oh I beg to differ

http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/OR+MY+AXE+_47337e83cb2dea58bd4791c0dc822b42.jpg

:bowdown2:

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11688433]
I agree in part. I don’t set your options. Your options though are limited by the historical facts and also be logic and reason. Remember reason? It is no wonder that Luther called reason the Devil’s Whore.

You can claim that you can reconcile James and Paul, but as you know, Luther claimed that it couldn’t be done. In fact:

“Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul.” Marius, pg. 341

That Luther couldn’t, or didn’t think it could be doesn’t matter, Tim. It doesn’t matter. Lutherans are not bound to Luther.

No self-respecting Catholic Theologian would have wanted Luther’s beret but of course he rejected the explanations of dozens of Catholic regarding “James vs. Paul”.

You see, these are the kind of obnoxious, unnecessary comments you make that makes dialogue with you unpleasant. I come here because I enjoy the interactions with respectful Catholics and others. So, before I say something that I will regret,
bye.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, no need to have a lower IQ. Have you ever talked to someone who has never been in Church? And they come for the first time. They have heard about the Bible but didn’t care about it. Didn’t care for religion. And they are brought to you as they are called to Christ. They are very intelligent people, but don’t even know where to start. They go to the store to buy a Bible and are faced with many translations, they are so overwhelmed and unsure on what to do. Have you helped them in choosing a translation, where to start reading, what the Trinity means, what Christ has done and how He is 2 natures at the same time, and many more things. It doesn’t take away from the intelligence in any way. But still they need a person to help them.

I am presenting you with circumstances, and you are gridlocked in the self absorbed sufficiency of the lone person. That by intelligence alone they can figure it all out. That’s not the majority of us. We need help and while the Holy Spirit helps us, He does bring other people to do it.

I’ll answer my own question…

You go to the Church to find the Scriptures, you go to the Church because that’s where even Paul was led to.

And Paul would tell you that if he is not there to answer you question you can:

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

You go to the Church because the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Not Paul alone.

Of course people are involved, people have always been involved. We are all in agreement on that, and we also agree that certain believers are gifted with things like teaching, evangelization, etc… If I were to come into a city from the country back in the day, and I started hearing of a man who claimed to be God that had been executed by the Romans and then rose 3 days later, of course the way of finding out about Him would be through the ekklesia; the gathering of out-called ones, those that had heard the Gospel message and believed it. The ekklesia is indeed the pillar and ground of truth because our job is to show forth Christ and preach Him; He is Truth.

None of this changes the fact that the OT is Jewish scripture, and the scriptures were used everywhere when the Gospel was preached; Jesus used it, Peter and Paul used it, the disciples used it, and we see it in the writings in the NT. The Jewish people that heard the Gospel searched their scripture to see if what the Apostles and disciples preached lined up with scripture. The fact that all the Apostles were Jewish insured that the fact of the OT, and their contents, would always be emphasized when teaching the Gospel, even to Gentiles.

We can also see from the account of the Ethiopian that certain OT passages could be used directly in the spreading of the Gospel because they clearly prefigure Christ. Paul esp. would have an encyclopedic knowledge of the OT and its prophecies. So, yes, the Apostles and the ekklesia were obviously instrumental in the spread of the Gospel. You and I agree on that; where we disagree is the exact nature of the ekklesia, and what was believed and practiced amongst the first Christians who were termed followers of “The Way.”

Grace and Peace to you,
K

 

[drblank1]

Well I for one believe in Jesus. I believe what He said. Which seems a bit different from what you are saying. Jesus said to the Apostles as he sent them out to go out and teach, preaching the Gospel, and to batpize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. He told the Apostles in the Upper Room to make anmensis of what he had just done with the Bread and Wine, he told them was His Body and Blood, He told us we must chew on His Body and Drink His Blood. The Apostles were told when H laid hands on them and breathed on them the those who’s sins they forgave were forgiven, and those who they did not forgive were not forgiven. He said He was building His Church, when He changed Simon’s name to Peter, He did not stop there but gave the newly appointed and renamed Peter the keys to His kingdom, and told Peter he would have the authority to bind and loose in heaven and earth.

But I guess we can either ignore all thoeusesless commands of Jesus, or just pretend Jesus only said, Believe in Me,and you don’t have to do anything else.

I’m sorry I was distracted from your posting by thinking about what Jesus commanded, and His Apstles and Disciples were (name removed by moderator)ired to write in the NT, which Jesus is it you said we have to believe in again?

So you believe that the apostles were not saved until they performed all that was commanded of them? To gain salvation, they had to do all the good works prior to being saved?

I am speaking strickly of salvation. I am speaking of the Jesus who said numerous times to the newly saved that because of their faith, they were saved. What did he say to them after He saved them. Oh yeah, “Go and sin no more.” i.e. peform good works.

Which Jesus are you refering?

 

[PRmerger]

So you believe that the apostles were not saved until they performed all that was commanded of them?

No one is saved, drblank, until he dies. That’s the bottom line.

Salvation = being with the Eternal Godhead, united with Him before the Throne of Heaven.

 

[drblank1]

Hi PR merger: Thanks for your comment! I agree that it seems prideful and self-centered way of thinking that one can test whatever the preacher is preaching. If I can not trust the preacher to preach then why am I in that church? maybe its time to go with a Church I can trust, which for me would be the Catholic Church which I have trusted all my life.

I am truly amazed by the contradiction in your view on pride. How can it be prideful to say, “please don’t just blindly accept what I teach. Test what I am preaching by the study God’s Word and pray.”? In fact, that is quite the opposite. Pride is: “This is the the Truth and if you don’t believe, be accursed!!!”

What was happening in the first century churches? The church John was writing to in 1 John was being infected with Gnosticisms. And John wrote his espistle to combat the false teachers. This church was most likely founded by an apostle himself but yet, was still had false teachings. The point of John’s message was to test what was being said by the First Message preached. Test, test, and test against all teaching and stick to the first message given.

We follow the directions given by John and the other apostles to read and study the Word of God and to test our teachers. Unfortunatley, that does not happen in all Christian churches and that is unfortunate.

 

[drblank1]

Irrelevant.

SDA say that Saturday is the day of worship, but they don’t speak for all of Christendom.

And yet St. Jerome deferred to the authority of the CC and kept them in his Vulgate.

No one knows who wrote Hebrews, or, really,* any* of the books of the OT.

Claiming to be inspired is irrelevant. The Koran claims to be inspired of God, too. And yet we don’t presume that just because something says it’s inspired that this makes it so.

It’s only as ridiculous as the story of a talking donkey.

Jesus made a botanical inaccuracy when he said the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds.

Should we throw out the gospel where there is this botanical inaccuracy?

My understanding is that the DSS included the deuterocanon.

No. They are included. Sirach, Baruch, Tobit are prophets.

Then we’d all have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted in the NT. And we’d have to add Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and maybe some pagan poets—which are quoted in the NT

Then you have to exclude 1 Samuel which states that "Saul went into a cave to relieve himself’.

That’s very, very "unbecoming of God’s authorship.’

It is a list that would throw out a whole lot of books in your Bible, drblank, and add a whole bunch of books, including the Koran.

And, I would add, it’s completely arbitrary.

I could just as well say, “Jesus 1 and 2 Kings, Nehemiah and Malachi when he quotes Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35”

And I could say that the OT must be written in Greek in order for it to be considered inspired.

And I could say that anything written about talking animals needs to be rejected.

My list would be as arbitrary as yours.

PR, you deny the whole body of truth. That is why I keep trying to get you to understand that is is of the utmost importance that you understand the harmony of the Gospels, the NT, the OT, and the Bible as a whole. When you do, you can clearly see the apocrypha is clearly out of context with the harmony of the Bible.

Let’s say for a minute that your agument above hold value, you keep denying one thing. God charge the Jewish people with the canon of the OT. They UNIVERSALLY reject the apocryphal writings as canon (then and now)!!! It doesn’t matter that some Christians don’t agree. We do not override our Holy Father.

Even the Catechism recognizes that the Jewish peeople are still charged with certain responsibilities from our Holy Father:

"…The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Paragraph 839

 

[PRmerger]

I am truly amazed by the contradiction in your view on pride. How can it be prideful to say, “please don’t just blindly accept what I teach. Test what I am preaching by the study God’s Word and pray.”?

It is not prideful to say that. In fact, it is very Catholic to say.

Where it is prideful is where you find the gospel that conforms to your own views, rather than conform your views to what has been revealed.

For example, most Protestant pastors have decided that they don’t like calling divorce and re-marriage adultery.

So what they do is decide that Jesus didn’t really mean that.

They create a gospel that conforms to their own ideas, rather than say: Jesus said it. It’s a hard saying, but we cannot alter the message.

 

[PRmerger]

The point of John’s message was to test what was being said by the** First Message** preached. Test, test, and test against all teaching and stick to the first message given.

Amen!

And what you are saying, drblank…is…

that you believe in Sacred Tradition!

For what is the First Message except the paradosis–the Word of God spread ORALLY, through the Apostles and their successors.

All of this occurred before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Sacred Tradition was the FIRST MESSAGE. Then came the Scriptures.

That’s what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2000 years: Sacred Tradition + Sacred Scripture!

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you deny the whole body of truth. That is why I keep trying to get you to understand that is is of the utmost importance that you understand the harmony of the Gospels, the NT, the OT, and the Bible as a whole. When you do, you can clearly see the apocrypha is clearly out of context with the harmony of the Bible.

That means that we heard the MESSAGE FIRST, and then chose the Scriptures that conformed to this message.

And that means you believe in Sacred Tradition.

Let’s say for a minute that your agument above hold value, you keep denying one thing. God charge the Jewish people with the canon of the OT. They UNIVERSALLY reject the apocryphal writings as canon (then and now)!!! It doesn’t matter that some Christians don’t agree. We do not override our Holy Father.

Who do you believe created the Septuagint?

Pagans?

I’ve asked you that before.

Who put that together?

Even the Catechism recognizes that the Jewish peeople are still charged with certain responsibilities from our Holy Father:

Amen!

"…The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Paragraph 839

Beautiful!

So if you could address the question of whether you believe it was Pagans, Romans, Etruscans…or Greek JEWS who compiled the Septuagint, then we could discuss.

 

[drblank1]

It is no more magical than Moses’ staff was magical.

It is fanatical and sounds as ridiculous as your other examples.

Yes! 100% yes!

Incidentally, I will say that what you are declaring above about certain things being not consistent with the message of God (“magic” in Tobit, for example) seems to me that you are really helping the Catholic position here.

What you are actually saying, drblank, is that the message came first. And then things that agreed with this message were put in the Bible, and things that disagreed with that message ought to be excluded.

And this is nothing but an argument for Sacred Tradition.

So what you are really saying, drblank, is that you defer to Sacred Tradition, and NOT the Bible, for knowing what the message is.

PR, Sacred Tradition? What was this to the Jews and 1st century Christians? It was the tradition of oral handing down of God’s Word until they were documented. And then once written, it was the oral teaching of the scriptures. BTW, as we know God used no prophets during the period these books were written, they could not be God Spoken Word. But you are free to have a different standard to what is God’s Word.

Then we get to the NT era. Jesus taught the New Covenent to his apostles. What was Sacred Tradition: the oral teachings from the Apostles of the First Message to the masses. Once the apostle finished writing the First Message in the first center, God’s message was complete. Sacred Tradition continued (oral teachings of the Frist Message) because the Holy Scriptures were not available to the masses. That was/is Sacrad Tradition.

I know your postition is that God has not fully revealed what he wants us to know about Him, but Jesus would disagree with you:

"1 'Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me. 2 There is more than enough room in my Father’s home.[a] If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?** 3 When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.”

5 “No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. 7 If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is.[c] From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”

9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. 11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do.

12 “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. 13 You can ask for anything in my name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father. 14 Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!" John 14 1-14.

We have Jesus, who fully revealed God to us in the Gospels. Thus, God has shown us what He wants us to know about Him.

God bless you my friend.**

 

[PRmerger]

PR, Sacred Tradition? What was this to the Jews and 1st century Christians? It was the tradition of oral handing down of God’s Word until they were documented.

YES! Except for the "until’ part, you got that exactly right!

Sacred Tradition continued past the writing of the Scriptures.

Were you aware that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months?

It would have been impossible that everything he preached was contained in the few epistles that he wrote!

Thank goodness for the Catholic Church’s retention of everything he preached through Sacred Tradition!

 

[PRmerger]

But you are free to have a different standard to what is God’s Word.

Sadly, drblank, you are NOT free to have a different standard as to what is God’s Word.

You are no more free to do that than you are to say, “Jesus never rose from the dead!”

Then we get to the NT era. Jesus taught the New Covenent to his apostles. What was Sacred Tradition: the oral teachings from the Apostles of the First Message to the masses.

Amen! Correct, again!

You are therefore not a Bible Alone advocate, but also submit to Sacred Tradition.

I know your postition is that God has not fully revealed what he wants us to know about Him, but Jesus would disagree with you:

No, drblank.

I know you are not Catholic, but if you are going to come to a Catholic forum you ought to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic Faith.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

There is no new revelation.

In fact, I happen to have read this today (coincidence? I think not. I think I was meant to convey this to you):

From Pope Francis, quoting Pope Benedict XVI: We do not blindly seek God, or wait for him to speak to us first, for “God has already spoken, and there is nothing further that we need to know, which has not been revealed to us”