A
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
What, that the apostles took the oral revelation of JESUS HIMSELF completely by itself, regardless of if they could “check it to scripture” or not?Wow, if we can’t trust even the apostles, why trust the NT at all? Or the apostle’s successors? Reflect for a few minutes on the severity of the statement you just made.
The apostles failed to understand “love one another as I have loved you?” They failed to understand “stop judging, so that you may not be judged”, they failed to understand, “this is how you are to pray”?The Apostles failed to understand it before they had an encounter with the resurrected Christ. Belief in Scripture presupposes faith. That is why Scripture is written to believers, not unbelievers.
Does belief in scripture presuppose listening to Jesus’ own words? The woman at the well, the Gentile, did she check something to a scripture she’d never seen and had no access to? Did He tell her to? Did Jesus, in His instruction, include “check these things to scripture?”
First of all, He expands VERY MUCH on the ten commandments, even saying that some would read it this way, but no, do as I’m telling you right now. This is two chapters worth of Jesus speaking, and not once does He say, “Before you do this, make sure it’s okay in scripture first.” He says go and do it. He also taught them as one having authority, hmmm . . .this is the end of the Sermon on the Mount:
Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
28
13 When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching,
29
14 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Quote me all the apostles letters that you want and tell me what you think that they mean, but Jesus commanded, and expected to be obeyed. This does not mean He didn’t want the study of scripture, far from it. But His WORDS held authority over the OT. The apostles were spreading HIS teaching, I would think that their words should be read in light of Jesus’, not the other way around.
No one, it is the final authority, and someone’s differing opinion has no power over Church teaching, which has been passed down. Just as Jesus’ words EXPLAINED the scriptures, so does the Church’s.Exactly. That is why people disagree on what Church teaching is. Who will interpret the interpreter?
Does the OT contain all of Jesus’ teachings? They would have to believe Jesus’ teachings for salvation, and those teachings were not in the OT. The OT prophecied Him, but did not cover His life and teachings so completely that they held authority over His teachings. They prophecied who He would be and what He would do, but not His instruction for what WE should do. I would say that is a fundamental of the Christian faith, if it wasn’t, and the OT was sufficient to verify all of Jesus’ teachings, then we might all still be Jews.How do you know this?
Again, what some say means nothing. People’s opinions, even those of the Church Fathers, cannot and do not change official Church teaching. Just as Jews opinions about how the OT should be interpreted did not change Jesus’ teachings.And much like some Catholics who read Church documents differently, like some who say that Vatican II was merely pastoral, and we don’t need to listen to it, and some that say we must listen to it absolutely, etc.?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
What, that the apostles took the oral revelation of JESUS HIMSELF completely by itself, regardless of if they could “check it to scripture” or not?
The apostles failed to understand “love one another as I have loved you?” They failed to understand “stop judging, so that you may not be judged”, they failed to understand, “this is how you are to pray”?
Does belief in scripture presuppose listening to Jesus’ own words? The woman at the well, the Gentile, did she check something to a scripture she’d never seen and had no access to? Did He tell her to? Did Jesus, in His instruction, include “check these things to scripture?”
First of all, He expands VERY MUCH on the ten commandments, even saying that some would read it this way, but no, do as I’m telling you right now. This is two chapters worth of Jesus speaking, and not once does He say, “Before you do this, make sure it’s okay in scripture first.” He says go and do it. He also taught them as one having authority, hmmm . . .
Quote me all the apostles letters that you want and tell me what you think that they mean, but Jesus commanded, and expected to be obeyed. This does not mean He didn’t want the study of scripture, far from it. But His WORDS held authority over the OT. The apostles were spreading HIS teaching, I would think that their words should be read in light of Jesus’, not the other way around.
No one, it is the final authority, and someone’s differing opinion has no power over Church teaching, which has been passed down. Just as Jesus’ words EXPLAINED the scriptures, so does the Church’s.
Does the OT contain all of Jesus’ teachings? They would have to believe Jesus’ teachings for salvation, and those teachings were not in the OT. The OT prophecied Him, but did not cover His life and teachings so completely that they held authority over His teachings. They did not prophecied who He would be and what He would do, but not His instruction for what WE should do. I would say that is a fundamental of the Christian faith, if it wasn’t, and the OT was sufficient to verify all of Jesus’ teachings, then we might all still be Jews.
Again, what some say means nothing. People’s opinions, even those of the Church Fathers, cannot and do not change official Church teaching. Just as Jews opinions about how the OT should be interpreted did not change Jesus’ teachings.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I think I hit quote instead of edit, sorry.
J
JTBT
Guest
JESUS HIMSELF quoted scripture, and he used it when faced with the Pharises. It was the Pharises who questioned Jesus authority, because the Law had been given to them.What, that the apostles took the oral revelation of JESUS HIMSELF completely by itself, regardless of if they could “check it to scripture” or not?
your premise here is mistaken “The woman at the well” was a sameritian she would have know scripture, or atleast had access to it.Does belief in scripture presuppose listening to Jesus’ own words? The woman at the well, the Gentile, did she check something to a scripture she’d never seen and had no access to?
hmmm where do you read two chapters worth of Jesus himself speaking? scriptureThis is two chapters worth of Jesus speaking,
B
bookgirl32
Guest
You’re missing my point, scripture did not validate Jesus. In fact, Jesus validated, and fulfilled, scripture.JESUS HIMSELF quoted scripture, and he used it when faced with the Pharises. It was the Pharises who questioned Jesus authority, because the Law had been given to them.
?? The Jews weren’t exactly evangelizing the Samaritans.your premise here is mistaken “The woman at the well” was a sameritian she would have know scripture, or atleast had access to it.
What’s your point? It wasn’t scripture when it was happening. And why would I have a problem with it being scripture now?hmmm where do you read two chapters worth of Jesus himself speaking? scripture
J
JTBT
Guest
no the Jews were not evangelizing, in fact they didn’t like the Samaritans, b/c the Samaritans had scripture that was very similar to the Jewish scripture and they practiced a version of the Jewish religion. my point being The woman at the well was not a Greek or a Roman. she had access to scripture?? The Jews weren’t exactly evangelizing to the Samaritans.
my point is the written words of our Lord should hold a higher authority than any one’s words today.What’s your point? It wasn’t scripture when it was happening. And why would I have a problem with it being scripture now?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
But there was a difference, and according to Jesus, the Samaritans did not fully understand scripture:no the Jews were not evangelizing, in fact they didn’t like the Samaritans, b/c the Samaritans had scripture that was very similar to the Jewish scripture and they practiced a version of the Jewish religion. my point being The woman at the well was not a Greek or a Roman. she had access to scripture
John 4:22:
You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews.
and this:
John 4:39-42:
Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me everything I have done.”
When the Samaritans came to him, they invited him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days.
Many more began to believe in him because of his word,
and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”
And then, Jesus left them. No mention of checking out the OT.
But they don’t claim that. Yes, you’ve quoted some verses that convince YOU of that, but this is your interpretation, and by whose authority is your interpretation correct?my point is the written words of our Lord should hold a higher authority than any one’s words today.
I’d also like to see some quotes from the OT that verify Jesus’ teachings, His specific teachings. That is the majority of what the apostles were preaching, salvation. What specifically were the Berean’s checking there, and let’s look at where in the OT it was being validated. The OT was NOT sufficient, how could it be, it did not have Jesus’ teachings. It was in preparation for Him, wasn’t it? It was not sufficient until He fulfilled it. So how could any Christian be telling any other that *it alone *was sufficient to validate the message of salvation the apostles were teaching? It was the word of God, yes, but it was not sufficient for instruction in salvation. It proclaimed the coming of Jesus, but not what or how He would save us. It proclaimed how we might know it was Him, but not what He would require of us. Just as the scriptures now are sufficient, not alone, but as an equal part of a whole, both which are needed to understand each other.
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
It is hardly “completely irrelevant” to note that using the Bereans to support solA scriptura assumes solA scriptura (the claim of self-interpreting scripture.) SolA scriptura, requires the belief of solO-scriptura.Completely irrelevant. Scripture is still Scripture. The fact that new Scriptures came later does not justify a change in attitude towards it.
That said, the Bereans could NOT have been searching NT scriptures, as none existed. It is correct that since new Scriptures came later does not justify a change in attitude towards the Bible. The Scriptures were not self-interpreting before the books of the NT appeared, nor after, and certainly not 1,100 years after the canon had been decided on.
We can trust both the apostles and their successors.Wow, if we can’t trust even the apostles, why trust the NT at all? Or the apostle’s successors? Reflect for a few minutes on the severity of the statement you just made.
The Apostles failed to understand it before they had an encounter with the resurrected Christ. Belief in Scripture presupposes faith. That is why Scripture is written to believers, not unbelievers
The fact that the apostles had to have scripture explained to them by Christ on the road to Emmaus is specifically because they had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit that Jesus had promised the apostles until Pentecost. Afterward, Philip taught the good news of Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, showing him how the OT scriptures prophesied about Christ.
The Bereans searched the existing OT scriptures just like the eunuch had been doing, but nothing in the Bble claims that they did not need to have them explained. Paul & Silas were there to be able to teach them, just as Philip taught the eunuch.
The Bereans use of the Scriptures was good, but it does not support the claim that the Bible, OT or NT can be understood “unless someone guides me” as the eunuch said.
Finally, the claim that scripture is written only to believers is Scripturally incorrect.
John 20:30-31
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
God Bless,
Chris
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
Why only the written words of our Lord?my point is the written words of our Lord should hold a higher authority than any one’s words today.
Are you assuming that only the ones that were eventually written down have any authority?
Are you claiming that all of Jesus words were written down?
The Bible doesn’t agree. In fact, some of Jesus words that were written down said that the teaching of the apostles was just as authoritative as His own.
Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
I note that Jesus didn’t say or even imply that the apostles would have to write down their teachings for them to be authoritative.
NIV/NASB – “He who listens to you, listens to Me,…”
KJV/NKJV - “He that heareth/hears you heareth/hears Me”
I don’t see a single translation that says “He who reads your words, reads Mine;”
… or one that states or implies that everything Jesus taught would (or had to be) written down. In fact, John 21:25 flat out says otherwise.
The doctrinal teaching from Christ’s magisterium, from the successors of the 12, has the same authority as Christ Himself – authority which was specifically given by Christ.
In addition to Luke 10:16, He promises it to the current apostles in John 14:25-26
*"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” *
And also to their successors in Matt. 28:19-20
“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
The Word of God is Truth, & cannot contradict itself. Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition are both parts of the word of God, & both with equal authority. They cannot, & do not, contradict.
People who insist that Catholic teachings conflict with scripture do so for three primary reasons:
- The Bible doesn’t explicitly explain the teaching in question,
- They think the Bible SHOULD explicitly explain the teaching in question,
- It is the Catholic Church doing the teaching. (Protestant teachings that are not explicitly explained are typically given a complete pass.)
Regards,
Chris
J
JTBT
Guest
can you tell me a direct quote of Jesus that was not written down?Why only the written words of our Lord?
Are you assuming that only the ones that were eventually written down have any authority?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
John 21:25can you tell me a direct quote of Jesus that was not written down?
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I don’t believe in sola scriptura and don’t see how it could possibly be Biblically supported. See this one verse as one that completely disproves the doctrine of sola scriptura:
2Th 2:15 DRB Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
See also:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
2Th 2:15 DRB Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
See also:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
J
JTBT
Guest
I know that, but quote one to meJohn 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
J
JTBT
Guest
Sola Scriptura is not Scripture aloneI don’t believe in sola scriptura and don’t see how it could possibly be Biblically supported. See this one verse as one that completely disproves the doctrine of sola scriptura:
2Th 2:15 DRB Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
See also:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
B
bookgirl32
Guest
He is one person out of three in a Triune God.I know that, but quote one to me
He is both divine and human nature simultaneously, in one.
He created His mother without the stain of original sin.
There’s three.
J
JTBT
Guest
so you are saying he told the apostles these thingsHe is one person out of three in a Triune God.
He is both divine and human nature simultaneously, in one.
He created His mother without the stain of original sin.
There’s three.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Yep.so you are saying he told the apostles these things
J
JTBT
Guest
you don’t think these are things that are reveled by God in time. you think Jesus told the Apostles?Yep.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I think Jesus is God, and I think that the apostles were the first teaching authority of the Church, the original Magisterium, so do I know when and where He said these things? No. But I believe (and the Church teaches) that they were revealed, along with all revelation, either throughout Jesus’ lifetime on Earth or at the institution of the Church. Did the Church have to define (further explain) any of this doctrine at a later time? Yes. But did the Church possess it as a part of the entire deposit of faith by the institution of the Church? Yes.you don’t think these are things that are reveled by God in time. you think Jesus told the Apostles?
The Bible is the inspired word of God, yes, but I don’t think that the things written there were held until it’s writing, after all, Jesus had already lived, as had the apostles. So revelation through the Bible, being the record of both of those people or groups, did not happen at the writing of the NT. That was just when it was written down.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.