Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[MariaG]

So that is your argument for elevating non-Scriptural traditions and the magisterium of the Catholic church to thesame level (and actually beyond) the authority of Scripture?

Respectfully, where in scripture does it tell us that SCRIPTURE is the ultimate authority?

There is much scripture that tells us to hold fact to traditions whether by word or by letter (posted below). Scripture that tells us to look to the Church. Where is the scripture that tells us that scripture has authority? This is a central belief that you have. Where is the scripture that supports your belief that you should only look to scripture?

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

They did rely on the traditions that were taught by Jesus and the Apostles now recorded for us in the Bible.

Where in scripture does it tell us it has all been written down now, only follow the written? Lots of scripture about the oral and holding onto it. Where does scripture tell you to only follow the written because we wrote it all down? If this is what you believe, you should be able to find it this belief in scripture, yes? Otherwise, it would appear that your belief, in fact, CONTRADICTS scripture that tells us to do otherwise.

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men

God bless,
Maria

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus established his church upon himself (Petros not Petras). Why do you think that he would have established his church upon imperfect people who are subjective to sin? That doesn’t make any kind of sense and it is not what Scripture says. I know this blows your whole premise for Peter being your first pope, I’m sorry.

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

I know this blows your whole reason for not being Catholic. I’m sorry.

 

[MariaG]

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

I know this blows your whole reason for not being Catholic. I’m sorry.

Aren’t there Protestants who debunk this one too? I just now noticed the “Baptist” part of this quote

Since I missed that, I’ll leave this post pointing it out again that this is not Catholic theologians saying this

Time for another :coffeeread:

 

[PRmerger]

BrewMax and others who are questioning Catholic teaching in this thread:

What we Catholics are looking for from you is a verse from the Bible which supports your question, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”

We want you to cite something from the Bible that says, for example, “All teachings given to Christ’s disciples will thus be found in Scripture.” or "Beware of teachings which are given through oral tradition and are not found in the Holy Word"

Of course, despite our constant pleas, you have not been able to provide us with these verses…because Scripture never says that all teaching must be found in Scripture.

Thus, to continue to ask Catholics, “Where is that found in the Bible” is, actually, unbiblical!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus is the cornerstone, the living stone, the rock, the foundation for the Church. All references to the rock in Scripture are pointing to Christ. It was Peter’s statement of faith that made him and us like living stones which are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Read 1 Peter Chapter 2 verse 4-12 to gain perspective on what Peter thought about this issue.

That is true but the **passage in Matthew 16:13-20 **the Rock here is Peter NOT Jesus.

All you did is just go around Scripture and find verses where Jesus is called the living stone. Those passage written by Paul are written concerning Jesus that he is indeed the cornerstone, which the stone builders rejected. Yet, in Matthew, Jesus said that His Father revealed to Simon Peter, that his Church will be built upon Him.

Jesus established One Church and He build it upon Peter. Jesus himself is the head of the Body of His Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So then for you it’s all about Mary being held in the highest regard.

We regard all of God’s family with high regards, especially Jesus’ Mother. However, we revere and adore Jesus because we ought to love Him more than anyone else.

That is why I love His Church. I also will defend it to the end…

 

[byoby]

That is true but the **passage in Matthew 16:13-20 **the Rock here is Peter NOT Jesus.

All you did is just go around Scripture and find verses where Jesus is called the living stone. Those passage written by Paul are written concerning Jesus that he is indeed the cornerstone, which the stone builders rejected. Yet, in Matthew, Jesus said that His Father revealed to Simon Peter, that his Church will be built upon Him.

Jesus established One Church and He build it upon Peter. Jesus himself is the head of the Body of His Church.

Please read 1 peter chapter 2 and tell me what you make of it.

 

[byoby]

Where in scripture does it tell us it has all been written down now, only follow the written? Lots of scripture about the oral and holding onto it. Where does scripture tell you to only follow the written because we wrote it all down? If this is what you believe, you should be able to find it this belief in scripture, yes? Otherwise, it would appear that your belief, in fact, CONTRADICTS scripture that tells us to do otherwise.

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men

God bless,
Maria

ok

1 cor. 4:6-7 “Do not go beyond what is written.”

here are some regarding tradition off the top of my head:

Mathew15:6
Col 2:8

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please read 1 peter chapter 2 and tell me what you make of it.

I have read 1 Peter Chapter 2 and I see nothing of it that is contrary to the Catholic Church teachings.

 

[Mannyfit75]

ok

1 cor. 4:6-7 “Do not go beyond what is written.”

here are some regarding tradition off the top of my head:

Mathew15:6
Col 2:8

Traditions which negate God is un-Biblical. The Traditions we Catholics hold dear does not go against God.

Second, you seem to disregard other verses in 1 Cor 4:6-7

After Paul write verse 6-7. We read the following:

For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If you received, why do you boast as if it were not a gift.

My friend there are many others things that were not written. What the Corinthians received is from things which are written and not. Even John said, “there are other things which Jesus Christ have done which is not written… for it were to be written, no book would be able to contain it.” We Catholics don’t adhere to Bible Alone. We adhere only to the Living Word of God, who is Incarnate, Jesus Christ. His Word is within Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Man himself is not capable to interpret these, so Jesus establish a Church to interpret both what is written and those which have been received orally.

 

[qui_est_ce]

your assumptions are ridiculous.

I was responding to your post to Manny see below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mannyfit75
For an Orthodox Christian, you pretty clear about your position on this matter. I think the Catholic Church and the Orthodox agree that the Church that Jesus Christ establish is a visible Church, not just spiritual.
Brewmax"
I personally know a devout Orthodox Christian who experienced a vision or a glimpse if you will that would disagree with you vehimately.

What is ridiculous that the “vision” is not recognized by the Church, or may even be from the Devil? How is that any more ridiculous than your post that your friend had a vision that disagrees with Manny?

 

[qui_est_ce]

What we Catholics are looking for from you is a verse from the Bible which supports your question, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”

Thus, to continue to ask Catholics, “Where is that found in the Bible” is, actually, unbiblical!

It has already been decided that “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?” is not found in the Bible.

The question of Petros and Petra can be further researched here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182509

I am still amazed at the way Scripture is being twisted by “Bible Christians” in order to avoid the obvious, Peter is the first Pope, the ROCK upon which Christ established His Church on Earth, and gave the KEYS. It is so simple. All the arguments against are reaching. Why? What are people afraid of? That those damned Catholics really might have been right all along?

 

[guanophore]

The question of Petros and Petra can be further researched here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182509

I am still amazed at the way Scripture is being twisted by “Bible Christians” in order to avoid the obvious, Peter is the first Pope, the ROCK upon which Christ established His Church on Earth, and gave the KEYS. It is so simple. All the arguments against are reaching. Why? What are people afraid of? That those damned Catholics really might have been right all along?

The fear is about the abuse of authority. This is the root fear of what caused the Reformation, and the children of the reformation still live under it today.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I was responding to your post to Manny see below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mannyfit75
For an Orthodox Christian, you pretty clear about your position on this matter. I think the Catholic Church and the Orthodox agree that the Church that Jesus Christ establish is a visible Church, not just spiritual.
Brewmax"
I personally know a devout Orthodox Christian who experienced a vision or a glimpse if you will that would disagree with you vehimately.

What is ridiculous that the “vision” is not recognized by the Church, or may even be from the Devil? How is that any more ridiculous than your post that your friend had a vision that disagrees with Manny?

Christine,

The Orthodox in Eastern Christianity believed in a visible Church. I think his Orthodox friend is mislead and need to consult someone who have more knowledge about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the Visible Church. I am very certain just as the Catholic Church believes that Jesus established a visible Church, the Orthodox also professes that Jesus establish a visible Church as well.

 

[Singinbeauty]

BrewMax and others who are questioning Catholic teaching in this thread:

What we Catholics are looking for from you is a verse from the Bible which supports your question, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”

We want you to cite something from the Bible that says, for example, “All teachings given to Christ’s disciples will thus be found in Scripture.” or "Beware of teachings which are given through oral tradition and are not found in the Holy Word"

Of course, despite our constant pleas, you have not been able to provide us with these verses…because Scripture never says that all teaching must be found in Scripture.

Thus, to continue to ask Catholics, “Where is that found in the Bible” is, actually, unbiblical!

How many times did Jesus or His disciples refer people back to the scriptures… 142 times.

The OP is a catch 22… ‘Where is the Bible in the Bible?’ It’s a silly question. The Bible IS Scripture and Scripture IS the Bible. You wouldn’t read the book ‘Little Women’ and expect the book to refer to itself. You don’t often read a self help book that refers to itself because obviously you know what you are reading. Why would the Scriptures refer to a book (the Bible) that hadn’t even been put together in the form we have today? Those in the time of Jesus would be walking around scratching their heads wondering what this ‘bible’ is. But they would never question what you were refering to when you say ‘scripture’. So since the Bible IS the Scriptures and the Scriptures are the Bible there is no difference but a title / name. You know the expression ‘A rose is a rose by any other name’? Scriptures, whether together in the book we call the Bible or separate as they were until they were compiled, are still the Scriptures. So would it be better to ask, where is that in Scriptures? Would that make more sense and be less confusing? Because we can do that… it would just be the same as asking, where is that in the Bible?

Don’t catholics claim that NO tradition they hold falls outside of Scripture??? So this would mean that all tradition can be put to the test against the Bible AND hold up, right? This claim is what protestants use when they ask, where is that in the Bible? So it is either one way or another. Either your traditions ARE in the Bible or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. So either you can say there are technically some EXTRA-biblical traditions OR the bible is the guideline for everything we believe and should follow hence, anything and everything we hold in tradition is followed in the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How many times did Jesus or His disciples refer people back to the scriptures… 142 times.

The OP is a catch 22… ‘Where is the Bible in the Bible?’ It’s a silly question. The Bible IS Scripture and Scripture IS the Bible. You wouldn’t read the book ‘Little Women’ and expect the book to refer to itself. You don’t often read a self help book that refers to itself because obviously you know what you are reading. Why would the Scriptures refer to a book (the Bible) that hadn’t even been put together in the form we have today? Those in the time of Jesus would be walking around scratching their heads wondering what this ‘bible’ is. But they would never question what you were refering to when you say ‘scripture’. So since the Bible IS the Scriptures and the Scriptures are the Bible there is no difference but a title / name. You know the expression ‘A rose is a rose by any other name’? Scriptures, whether together in the book we call the Bible or separate as they were until they were compiled, are still the Scriptures. So would it be better to ask, where is that in Scriptures? Would that make more sense and be less confusing? Because we can do that… it would just be the same as asking, where is that in the Bible?

Don’t catholics claim that NO tradition they hold falls outside of Scripture??? So this would mean that all tradition can be put to the test against the Bible AND hold up, right? This claim is what protestants use when they ask, where is that in the Bible? So it is either one way or another. Either your traditions ARE in the Bible or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. So either you can say there are technically some EXTRA-biblical traditions OR the bible is the guideline for everything we believe and should follow hence, anything and everything we hold in tradition is followed in the Bible.

Catholics don’t believe in just the Bible as the Only Word of God. We believe that the Word of God is founded three pillars.

1. Sacred Scripture: Written Tradition.
2. Oral Tradition: Un-written
3. Magisterium of the Church: The Church interprets both SS and OT.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Christianity is not the religion of the Book it is as the Catechism states:

108 Still, **the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” **Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Dei Verbum, a Vatican II document states,
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10).

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching is part of this divine revelation. Jesus handed down his authority to his apostles, the apostles handed their their authority to their successors, the bishops, and popes. There is so much historical evidence to prove that Jesus Christ established a Church and this was handed down.

The belief that the authority of the Apostles died with them as they died is un-heard off as well, which most Protestants hold to be true. It was handed down by the laying of the hands.

The beliefs of Marian doctrine develop over time but it was always believed based on the writings of our ECFs. The first century mainly focus on Jesus Christ because the divinity of Our Lord was put into question by heresies of Gnostics, Arianism, and Nestorianism…

Oh when Jesus told the Apostles about the Scripture, he was refering to the Old Testament, which were all a testimony about Him, the Word of God. The OT were written about Jesus… the promised Messiah…Second at the time of the Apostles, they didn’t have the Gospels written down yet.

Of course I told you that already. The Gospels were written 10-20 yrs after the event of the Ascension of our Lord…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

How many times did Jesus or His disciples refer people back to the scriptures… 142 times.

Yeah, what’s your point.

The OP is a catch 22… ‘Where is the Bible in the Bible?’ It’s a silly question. The Bible IS Scripture and Scripture IS the Bible. You wouldn’t read the book ‘Little Women’ and expect the book to refer to itself. You don’t often read a self help book that refers to itself because obviously you know what you are reading.

You would if the book claimed to have everything you needed for the topic. Many books out there have such a claim - “This is the only book you’ll ever have to buy to know everything about topic”. Why would the one book that had an authentic claim to being the sole source of knowledge on a topic be without such a statement?

Why would the Scriptures refer to a book (the Bible) that hadn’t even been put together in the form we have today? Those in the time of Jesus would be walking around scratching their heads wondering what this ‘bible’ is. But they would never question what you were refering to when you say ‘scripture’. So since the Bible IS the Scriptures and the Scriptures are the Bible there is no difference but a title / name. You know the expression ‘A rose is a rose by any other name’? Scriptures, whether together in the book we call the Bible or separate as they were until they were compiled, are still the Scriptures. So would it be better to ask, where is that in Scriptures? Would that make more sense and be less confusing? Because we can do that… it would just be the same as asking, where is that in the Bible?

Seems mean for all those poor people to be without a complete version of the book they need for salvation.

Don’t catholics claim that NO tradition they hold falls outside of Scripture??? So this would mean that all tradition can be put to the test against the Bible AND hold up, right? This claim is what protestants use when they ask, where is that in the Bible? So it is either one way or another. Either your traditions ARE in the Bible or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. So either you can say there are technically some EXTRA-biblical traditions OR the bible is the guideline for everything we believe and should follow hence, anything and everything we hold in tradition is followed in the Bible.

No that is NOT what Catholics teach. Were did you get such a silly idea. What we proclaim is that there is no teaching, no Tradition that contradicts Scriptures. You won’t find a Catholic teaching that says “the truth is xyz” and the BIble saying “the truth is not xyz”. But there is plenty that the Catholic Church proclaims is not explicit in the Bible. Some of these are held onto by Protestants still - though they will deny being unbiblical even though they use these unbiblical traditions - like Church on Sunday; the Canon of the New Testament (a listing of the books in not in the Bible); Christmas; date of Easter; etc.

 

[guanophore]

How many times did Jesus or His disciples refer people back to the scriptures… 142 times.

But which scriptures were those, and who determined which books were part of that OT canon?

The OP is a catch 22… ‘Where is the Bible in the Bible?’ It’s a silly question. The Bible IS Scripture and Scripture IS the Bible. You wouldn’t read the book ‘Little Women’ and expect the book to refer to itself. You don’t often read a self help book that refers to itself because obviously you know what you are reading. Why would the Scriptures refer to a book (the Bible) that hadn’t even been put together in the form we have today? Those in the time of Jesus would be walking around scratching their heads wondering what this ‘bible’ is. But they would never question what you were refering to when you say ‘scripture’. So since the Bible IS the Scriptures and the Scriptures are the Bible there is no difference but a title / name. You know the expression ‘A rose is a rose by any other name’? Scriptures, whether together in the book we call the Bible or separate as they were until they were compiled, are still the Scriptures. So would it be better to ask, where is that in Scriptures? Would that make more sense and be less confusing? Because we can do that… it would just be the same as asking, where is that in the Bible?

The point is that the list of what belongs in the Bible is no where to be found within it’s pages. Who decided which books belonged, and how?

Don’t catholics claim that NO tradition they hold falls outside of Scripture???

Yes.

So this would mean that all tradition can be put to the test against the Bible AND hold up, right?

No, because it was the Sacred Tradition that formed the Bible, and not all of the Apostolic Teaches are recorded there. One thing that is not recorded is which books should be contained in the canon.

This claim is what protestants use when they ask, where is that in the Bible? So it is either one way or another. Either your traditions ARE in the Bible or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. So either you can say there are technically some EXTRA-biblical traditions OR the bible is the guideline for everything we believe and should follow hence, anything and everything we hold in tradition is followed in the Bible.

No, this is too black and white. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the bible, but some of the Teachings are very difficult to discern, because the Bible does not contain all the teaching. They are not “extra-biblical” in the sense that they are “outside” of scripture, but they are not dependent upon the scripture for proof either.

The Bible is not the Guideline for all that we should believe and follow. It is a good guideline, but since it was written by, for, and about the Catholic Church, it’s contents can only best be understood from within the context of the Catholic Church.

 

[jeg101]

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel [of John] as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.

The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (John 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus’ public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on John 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l8:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place.

From NAB