since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[zz912]

First, you don’t quote-mine individual verses, by isolating them out of the context of the surrounding passages, & ignoring the rest of the message of Scripture. Plus, you have to remember that like in English, the original Greek that the NT was written in, words like “bread,” “body,” “eating,” etc have numerous meanings that have to be taken into consideration. Plus, these passages don’t say anything about the “substance” of the bread “transforming” into the actual body of Jesus. Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do. Also, Jesus hadn’t died yet, so the “bread” couldn’t have been His actual “body,” because then Jesus would to “eating” Himself, plus His body hadn’t been broken yet, nor His blood spilled yet. Lastly, the intent of the Last Supper was uttered by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 - “give thanks” & “do this in remembrance of me.” Our Lord gave us His Church two ordinances - baptism, which symbolizes our spiritual death when we repent & believe in Jesus as our Savior AND Lord, & communion, when we* remember* when Jesus died & shed His blood for us on the cross, which is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

So you disagree with your own claim from prior then?

Originally Posted by thetazlord
This is the part you’re not getting. The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text. For example, when Scripture says, “Jesus wept,” do I really need someone to explain to me what that verse means?** And if I “permit” myself to “interpret” that “Jesus wept” has some greater allegorical or symbolic meaning,** like “Jesus was really happy because Lazarus was going to Heaven,” **then I’m imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there. **Sola scriptura, not “Sacred (extra-biblical) Tradition” avoids imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there.

You’re tying yourself into knots. According to your own standard set earlier, you need to only read the verse “this is My Body”. You don’t need someone to explain to you. The meaning is self evident and blatant. God/Jesus turned that bread into His Body. Anything else you add to it, somehow twisting it to only mean a symbol, is your interpretation you are inserting into Scripture.

 

[zz912]

Plus, these passages don’t say anything about the “substance” of the bread “transforming” into the actual body of Jesus.

“This is My Body”. God’s Word is effective. When God says something, it IS so. Same with “Let there be light”, and there was light. When God speaks, things happen. There’s a reason Jesus is the Word of God.

Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do.

How is it contradicting? You are describing the Old Covenant laws. Jesus was instituting the New Covenant (He says so Himself). Do the covenants have exactly the same rules and proscriptions?

Also, Jesus hadn’t died yet, so the “bread” couldn’t have been His actual “body,”

Why? Did His Body not exist prior to His death?

because then Jesus would to “eating” Himself

The passage doesn’t say that Jesus ate the “bread”. And even if He did, is this somehow impossible for God?

, plus His body hadn’t been broken yet, nor His blood spilled yet.

And? God isn’t limited by time, you know.

Lastly, the intent of the Last Supper was uttered by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 - “give thanks” & “do this in remembrance of me.”

Paul was pretty explicit when he said that whoever eats or drinks unworthily eats and drinks damnation on themself. How do you damn yourself with a symbol?

Our Lord gave us His Church two ordinances - baptism, which symbolizes our spiritual death when we repent & believe in Jesus as our Savior AND Lord, & communion, when we* remember* when Jesus died & shed His blood for us on the cross, which is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

Chapter and verse for this claim of only two ordinances, and where these are described as only symbolic ordinances. Considering that these two things (baptism & communion) bring salvation as Scripture says, then how are they merely symbolic? And where are the other ordinances/sacraments? Where is ordination/annointing the sick/marriage/confirmation/confession? Why do you ignore them?

 

[benhur]

The judges and their rule was ended with the enactment of the kingdom and the consecration of Saul.

Hi zz was not speaking of those judges. I did state by Jesus time the Pharisees were regarded, un officially, as the experts on holy writ,not the priests or high priest

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I’m sorry if this has already been covered, but can someone who believes the Bible is all we need please prove a couple things to me:

1.) Prove the Bible has all the correct books (none missing and none added that should not be)

2.) Prove the Bible is indeed all we need

I’m betting you can’t do it using Sola Scriptura. If you do, you’re using a logical fallacy known as “circular reasoning” or “begging the question.” If you use an outside source, then you prove the Bible is not all we need.

But please, prove me wrong.

I’m still waiting on one of our protestant brothers or sisters to answer this

 

[benhur]

The judges and their rule was ended with the enactment of the kingdom and the consecration of Saul.

So who determined at Jesus.s time when to see good doctrine or “leaven doctrine” of the Pharisees, even of all Israel?

Jesus did say, “beware”. How were folks to beware? Go to the high priest, the Sanhedrin, your local rabbi,a catechism? Was divine even personal revelation,discernment off the table?

 

[benhur]

I’m still waiting on one of our protestant brothers or sisters to answer this

Hi hockey puck. Who told you the CC has all the right books? How do you know they have it right?

Sorry I can not prove books or that bible is final authority. I think we both operate by faith, which are our evidences.we both have evidences, even unctioning from the Holy Ghost (on many things tho we see thru a glass darkly right now)

Can not stop u seeing our circular ness as me yours.

Ps please don’t be offended by “hockey puck” good sport. U can call me chariot rider

 

[benhur]

So is a symbolic violation of the command ok? We can drink blood symbolically because that’s actually not contravening the OT precepts of God?

Where does the Bible say that we are permitted to break the commands of God, as long as it’s just a symbolic violation?

What, exactly, is the problem with Jesus “eating” himself? Is he not God? He can create the world ex nihilo, but you’re saying that God is limited in this manner?

Muslims would have a field day with this, taz! “Some alleged Christians who profess that Christ is divine don’t want to call his mother the ‘Mother of God’, and they also don’t want to believe that he can hold himself in his hands!”

Very Catholic, this!

Good question of symbolic eating,drinking of human flesh still violating ot. Especially when one still has baggage of literalness. The OT allowed for eating of sacrifices and use of blood. Jesus was the lamb the sacrifice.we do not eat meat to commemorate as in OT. To make sure of the figurative ness He uses bread and not Passover meat,to symbolize his body. The wine made up of fruit sacrificed (crushed broken grapes) symbolizes His blood. So it is slightly similar and slightly different than OT but not conflicting at all with OT. We do not eat human flesh and blood but bread and wine. They symbolize more than His flesh and blood but the sacrificial lamb which was ok to eat…to believe in literal flesh eating,even with understanding of sacrificial, even lamb aspect is still eating human flesh

Jesus refers to the consecrated wine as " fruit of the vine". The apostles were drinking wine.

A wine commemorating the new covenant sealed with Calvary.you must discern the spiritual truth behind the elements. There is nothing to discern with a literal view. It is what it says. Symbolism requires discernment, of Calvary which is what some Corinthians failed to see as per St. Paul

If everyone knew for it was taught and understood that elements were literal body why would Paul say they failed to see the obvious and what is said at consecration ? This is my body is pretty simple if literal. The figurative requires more of a discernment and effort to rembember

 

[PRmerger]

Good question of symbolic eating,drinking of human flesh still violating ot.

Egg-zactly.

Do you have an answer?

Why would a figurative violation of the OT command be ok with Jesus?

Especially when one still has baggage of literalness. The OT allowed for eating of sacrifices and use of blood. Jesus was the lamb the sacrifice.we do not eat meat to commemorate as in OT. To make sure of the figurative ness He uses bread and not Passover meat,to symbolize his body. The wine made up of fruit sacrificed (crushed broken grapes) symbolizes His blood. So it is slightly similar and slightly different than OT but not conflicting at all with OT. We do not eat human flesh and blood but bread and wine. They symbolize more than His flesh and blood but the sacrificial lamb which was ok to eat…to believe in literal flesh eating,even with understanding of sacrificial, even lamb aspect is still eating human flesh

Jesus refers to the consecrated wine as " fruit of the vine". The apostles were drinking wine.

Sure, ben. Nothing is un-Catholic in what you say.

It’s just not…ONLY figurative…

Again, it’s the very Catholic both/and.

 

[PRmerger]

Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do.

It’s very scary to hear you say this, since you are a professed Christian, taz.

This means that you must, logically, believe that God did not sanction the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

For, remember, God abhors human sacrifice.

And yet…he sacrificed His only son.

You can’t have it both ways, taz.

Either God can command us to disobey OT commands (such as drinking blood) OR God cannot, which means that the atoning death on the cross is also a violation of God’s laws.

 

[stewstew03]

It’s very scary to hear you say this, since you are a professed Christian, taz.

This means that you must, logically, believe that God did not sanction the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

For, remember, God abhors human sacrifice.

And yet…he sacrificed His only son.

You can’t have it both ways, taz.

Either God can command us to disobey OT commands (such as drinking blood) OR God cannot, which means that the atoning death on the cross is also a violation of God’s laws.

Actually, if I remember correctly from our discussion of Mary’s perpetual virginity… taz believes that there will be a third temple established in the future that will reinstitute animal sacrifices and the role of High Priest. And if one believes this (that Christ’s body is not the third temple that Ezekiel describes in Chapter 44-47) then one also believes that Christ’s sacrifice was not a universal (and eternal) atonement for our sins.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Hi hockey puck. Who told you the CC has all the right books? How do you know they have it right?

Sorry I can not prove books or that bible is final authority. I think we both operate by faith, which are our evidences.we both have evidences, even unctioning from the Holy Ghost (on many things tho we see thru a glass darkly right now)

Can not stop u seeing our circular ness as me yours.

Ps please don’t be offended by “hockey puck” good sport. U can call me chariot rider

I’ll try and summarize, but here’s the link for the full story: catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

I start with the assumption that nothing in the Bible is infallible, nor are any Church teachings.

First step is prove we have an accurate text. The evidence strongly suggests we do. We have more copies of the original manuscripts and early translations into multiple languages, which can be dated much closer to the events recorded than any other classic work (Plato, Scorates, Homer). These texts have more than 99 percent of verses in common.

Working with an accurate text, we compare the Bible -specifically the Gospels - with other historical records from the time period which we also know to be accurate (Jewish historian Josephus, for example). In comparing these works we have three possibilities: Christ either was exactly who he says, was crazy, or was a bad person.

We eliminate the “crazy” because of the actions of the apostles and other followers after his death. If the resurrection was a hoax, then why would they continue to teach and preach it knowing it would result in their death and provide no benefit during their life? (remember, early Christians were outcasts from society)

If the resurrection is real, the Christ was telling the truth about what he would do. If he told the truth about what would happen to him after death, we have no reason to doubt any of the other claims he made about himself or the Church.

In fact, we see in these historical records (both in the Bible and the extra-biblical sources) that Christ established a visible Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today: papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

Because of the resurrection, we have reason to trust Christ’s claims that the Church would be empowered to teach in His name.

The Catholic Church, which we know has Christ’s authority because of the purely historical evidence, uses that authority to tell us which works were inspired and which were not. The 73 book canon was confirmed by the synod of Rome in 382, the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) and again at Trent (1545-1564).

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, if I remember correctly from our discussion of Mary’s perpetual virginity… taz believes that there will be a third temple established in the future that will reinstitute animal sacrifices and the role of High Priest. And if one believes this (that Christ’s body is not the third temple that Ezekiel describes in Chapter 44-47) then one also believes that Christ’s sacrifice was not a universal (and eternal) atonement for our sins.

Scary, what SS has wrought.

 

[Magdalena59]

First, you don’t quote-mine individual verses, by isolating them out of the context of the surrounding passages, & ignoring the rest of the message of Scripture. Plus, you have to remember that like in English, the original Greek that the NT was written in, words like “bread,” “body,” “eating,” etc have numerous meanings that have to be taken into consideration. Plus, these passages don’t say anything about the “substance” of the bread “transforming” into the actual body of Jesus. Plus, even “if” Jesus was commanding them to eat His actual physical body & blood, He would be violating His own command of Levitical law not to “eat” the “blood” of any “flesh” (Leviticus 17:10-14) - because then Jesus would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible for God to do. Also, Jesus hadn’t died yet, so the “bread” couldn’t have been His actual “body,” because then Jesus would to “eating” Himself, plus His body hadn’t been broken yet, nor His blood spilled yet. Lastly, the intent of the Last Supper was uttered by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 - “give thanks” & “do this in remembrance of me.” Our Lord gave us His Church two ordinances - baptism, which symbolizes our spiritual death when we repent & believe in Jesus as our Savior AND Lord, & communion, when we* remember* when Jesus died & shed His blood for us on the cross, which is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

I would like to ask how do you know that your thoughts here on the scriptures and what Jesus said are correct because there are several protestant denominations who do believe in the real presence. Maybe not transubstantiation as Catholics do but they do believe it is more than a remembrance. So only relying on Scripture alone how do reconcile what you have said with what say certain Lutherans, certain Anglicans, and others believe.

Some protestants believe as you said it is only something to be remembered and participated in once in a while and then there are others who maybe do not believe in the real presence but believe very strongly that it is biblical to have communion every Sunday and it is a sin to miss this

How do you reconcile your differences by going to the Church as Jesus said to do in Matthew when you do not have a Church to go to and you are only relying on Scripture when you are all reading it differently?

 

[PRmerger]

How do you reconcile your differences by going to the Church as Jesus said to do in Matthew when you do not have a Church to go to and you are only relying on Scripture when you are all reading it differently?

Indeed.

And I would add this factor that is quite troubling: fallibility.

Given the fact that there is no infallible guide in taz’s paradigm, each and every time taz professes something, there has to be the caveat, “But I’m fallible. And that means I’m going to be wrong at some point in my interpretations.”

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

That’s pretty dangerous stuff, messing with the Scriptures when one is fallible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

I showed there were conditions where the scribes and Pharisees taught correctly and were held accountable by Jesus and other times and conditions they were not.

I asked what “conditions” these were.

You merely said:

Good teaching, from the “Law” should be obeyed for its own sake (God), above from whom expounds or voices God’s Word.

I agree it should. God’s commands should be obeyed.

But that not withstanding, in Matthew 23, Jesus points out a special authority that those who sat on the seat of Moses seat had.

Jesus says nothing like this about the people of Tyre and Sidon, or the Hellenistic Decapolis area, or other pagan peoples giving directives.

The “scribes” (almost certainly Levitical Priests) and the Pharisees (almost certainly from the tribe of Judah) occupied Moses cathedra and consequently they have a special authority that others do NOT have.

MATTHEW 23:1-3 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

NOT MATTHEW 23 (Phantom Verse) 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 but this doesn’t matter. You should practice and observe whatever anybody tells you as long as it squares with your personal interpretation of Scripture.

---

Re: Moses seat you said . . .

Yes that is the Catholic proposition. Unfortunately you must know I disagree. My reasoning is that the Chair of Moses is in the OT Exodus 18:13.

**OK. So Moses merely sits down to judge, and you just coincidentally conclude that this is a “seat” of authority? And this is to be handed down for the ages?? And even Jesus disciples are bound to this??? Honestly? **

Did you REALLY draw that from Scripture ALONE?

---

Where is "Moses’ seat” in Scripture? I see Moses “sitting”, but Moses may have
been “sitting” on the ground for all you know. Where is Moses’ “seat” in Scripture?

(You appealed to Exodus 18:13)

EXODUS 18:13 13 On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening.

How is it that multiple Bishops, I mean multiple scribes and Pharisees “sit” on this un-named “Seat” or “Cathedra” united to Peter, I mean Moses? (Unnamed in Scripture, not unnamed in Oral Tradition)

And where is the “seat” in the verse that you alluded to?

---

Moses talks about himself standing and giving commands in Exodus 32 too.

Does that mean we need to stand up if we call people to spiritual battle in Christ? What if they are not “standing at a gate”? Then should we NOT call people to Christ?

EXODUS 32:26 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.

---

Here is what REALLY happened.

My reasoning is that the Chair of Moses is in the OT Exodus 18:13.

I don’t think that is your “reasoning” here benhur.

What you seem to have done here benhur, (but you almost certainly won’t be able to admit it to yourself) is you took a conclusion that was already passed down from Oral Tradition, and worked backwards because you can’t let go of the tradition of sola Scriptura.

You took explicit oral teachings, threw them back into an implicit verse, and came away with what you already knew. And then claimed it as an authoritative sola Scriptura methodology.

Catholics on the other hand, don’t need to pretend it is explicitly stated in Scripture to the point where Jesus can and does hold people (including His own “disciples!) to their authority.

This is what you tired to do earlier with Matthew 2:23 too regarding the prophets (plural not singular, by naming a singular prophet and pretending it said something it did not say). And it was unconvincing there too.

---

View attachment 21486​

See Illustration of Sola Scriptura Methodology here​

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, that makes void the commandments of God.

 

[benhur]

I’ll try and summarize, but here’s the link for the full story: catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

I start with the assumption that nothing in the Bible is infallible, nor are any Church teachings.

First step is prove we have an accurate text. The evidence strongly suggests we do. We have more copies of the original manuscripts and early translations into multiple languages, which can be dated much closer to the events recorded than any other classic work (Plato, Scorates, Homer). These texts have more than 99 percent of verses in common.

Working with an accurate text, we compare the Bible -specifically the Gospels - with other historical records from the time period which we also know to be accurate (Jewish historian Josephus, for example). In comparing these works we have three possibilities: Christ either was exactly who he says, was crazy, or was a bad person.

We eliminate the “crazy” because of the actions of the apostles and other followers after his death. If the resurrection was a hoax, then why would they continue to teach and preach it knowing it would result in their death and provide no benefit during their life? (remember, early Christians were outcasts from society)

If the resurrection is real, the Christ was telling the truth about what he would do. If he told the truth about what would happen to him after death, we have no reason to doubt any of the other claims he made about himself or the Church.

In fact, we see in these historical records (both in the Bible and the extra-biblical sources) that Christ established a visible Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today: papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

Because of the resurrection, we have reason to trust Christ’s claims that the Church would be empowered to teach in His name.

The Catholic Church, which we know has Christ’s authority because of the purely historical evidence, uses that authority to tell us which works were inspired and which were not. The 73 book canon was confirmed by the synod of Rome in 382, the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) and again at Trent (1545-1564).

Took a look Thanks. yes, you listed some evidences that we both agree on: accurate texts, history,churches. Would disagree on a few historical/writ interpretations only held by CC and not O’s and P’s. (pope,infallibility).

One still needs faith. Again why do you believe CC has it right ? Is it not a personal conviction, even revelation ?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Took a look Thanks. yes, you listed some evidences that we both agree on: accurate texts, history,churches. Would disagree on a few historical/writ interpretations only held by CC and not O’s and P’s. (pope,infallibility).

One still needs faith. Again why do you believe CC has it right ? Is it not a personal conviction, even revelation ?

It is not faith, it is fact.

Short answer is we can trust the Catholic Church because Christ gave it the authority to teach infallibly in his name.

As I said, in looking at the Bible as purely historical and in comparing that with other historical texts from the time period, we see that Christ did indeed establish a church with the rudiments of what we see today only in the Catholic Church.

To that Church, He gave the authority to teach in His name.

The leaders of that Church came together and reviewed the documents being passed around as Scripture. They determined which belonged and which did not based on recognizing the Holy Spirit in each and comparing what was written with what they had been taught by their predecessors.

I’ve shown you my evidence, can you answer either of my questions?

 

[benhur]

Benhur.

I showed there were conditions where the scribes and Pharisees taught correctly and were held accountable by Jesus and other times and conditions they were not.

I asked what “conditions” these were.

You merely said:

I agree it should. God’s commands should be obeyed.

But that not withstanding, in Matthew 23, Jesus points out a special authority that those who sat on the seat of Moses seat had.

Jesus says nothing like this about the people of Tyre and Sidon, or the Hellenistic Decapolis area, or other pagan peoples giving directives.

The “scribes” (almost certainly Levitical Priests) and the Pharisees (almost certainly from the tribe of Judah) occupied Moses cathedra and consequently they have a special authority that others do NOT have.

MATTHEW 23:1-3 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

NOT MATTHEW 23 (Phantom Verse) 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 but this doesn’t matter. You should practice and observe whatever anybody tells you as long as it squares with your personal interpretation of Scripture.

---

Re: Moses seat you said . . .

**OK. So Moses merely sits down to judge, and you just coincidentally conclude that this is a “seat” of authority? And this is to be handed down for the ages?? And even Jesus disciples are bound to this??? Honestly? **

Did you REALLY draw that from Scripture ALONE?

---

Where is "Moses’ seat” in Scripture? I see Moses “sitting”, but Moses may have
been “sitting” on the ground for all you know. Where is Moses’ “seat” in Scripture?

(You appealed to Exodus 18:13)

EXODUS 18:13 13 On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening.

How is it that multiple Bishops, I mean multiple scribes and Pharisees “sit” on this un-named “Seat” or “Cathedra” united to Peter, I mean Moses? (Unnamed in Scripture, not unnamed in Oral Tradition)

And where is the “seat” in the verse that you alluded to?

---

Moses talks about himself standing and giving commands in Exodus 32 too.

Does that mean we need to stand up if we call people to spiritual battle in Christ? What if they are not “standing at a gate”? Then should we NOT call people to Christ?

EXODUS 32:26 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.

---

Here is what REALLY happened.

I don’t think that is your “reasoning” here benhur.

What you seem to have done here benhur, (but you almost certainly won’t be able to admit it to yourself) is you took a conclusion that was already passed down from Oral Tradition, and worked backwards because you can’t let go of the tradition of sola Scriptura.

You took explicit oral teachings, threw them back into an implicit verse, and came away with what you already knew. And then claimed it as an authoritative sola Scriptura methodology.

Catholics on the other hand, don’t need to pretend it is explicitly stated in Scripture to the point where Jesus can and does hold people (including His own “disciples!) to their authority.

This is what you tired to do earlier with Matthew 2:23 too regarding the prophets (plural not singular, by naming a singular prophet and pretending it said something it did not say). And it was unconvincing there too.

---

View attachment 21486​

See Illustration of Sola Scriptura Methodology here​

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, that makes void the commandments of God.

Quickly if I may. Of course you know it was not a literal seat as it was not in Pharisees day .it is figurative , though Moses and judges usually sit. It is the idea of judging based on scriptura. That is right, even though not all scripture had been written ye t(but enough).

The comment was made that Moses seat of Jesus time was all tradition and no scripture/OT tie in. I am showing it is much scripture/OT and not just verse Exodus 18: 13 but thru the next ten verses also. Do not have an answer as to how Pharisees became the unofficial “experts” on writ and that may be tradition. What is more important is that it was very scriptural-OT- to judge ,expound on/from the Law/Writ. That was the tradition by the Lord’s arrival.

As far as Matt2 23.it was said to also have zero scriptural reference but it surely does. Correct I did not rule out a partner “tradition” also , but liked how Chrysosotom said be careful not to rule out pure inspiration for the names.

 

[Cathoholic]

Good article on the Chair or Cathedra of Peter here.

Benhur.

You said (about Moses’ Cathedra or Seat):

It is the idea of judging based on scriptura.

Where is that in Scripture?

You also said:

it was not a literal seat as it was not in Pharisees day

I didn’t know that. I thought it COULD be BOTH a literal and figurative seat but I do not know. How were you made aware of that?

Incidentally. Interesting picture of the Chair in an ancient synagogue here.

---

You also said:

That is right, even though not all scripture had been written ye t(but enough)

Where does it say any Scripture was written already at this time? I know Yahweh told Moses to write but it never tells us when he did this. He knew he was supposed to circumcise his son too, but dragged his feet upon doing it. As a matter-of-fact, he never did circumcise his son. His wife Zipporah ended up doing it.

The comment was made that Moses seat of Jesus time was all tradition and no scripture/OT tie in

I didn’t see that. I think you are right. It has roots in Oral Tradition AND IMPLICITLY in Scripture.

I just don’t think what Jesus said and all of the implications can be completely explicitly unpacked from Scripture ALONE.

---

As far as Matt2 23.it was said to also have zero scriptural reference but it surely does.

What Prophets and verses is Matthew 2:23 specifically explicitly alluding to? I didn’t say it had “zero scriptural reference”. I said there MAY be something to the netzer aspect of Isaiah, but you cannot conclude what Matthew 2:23 says from that ALONE. And no other prophets talk about this–which would not fulfill what Matthew 2:23 said . . . unless . . . unless there WAS an Oral Tradition that he was drawing upon that the people would have known.

I did not rule out a partner “tradition” also

This is good.

liked how Chrysosotom said be careful not to rule out pure inspiration for the names.

Please cite the St. John Chrysostom text as I want to read it in context for my own personal interest. I don’t think that is unreasonable, but St. Matthew is appealing to Prophets maybe even MANY prophets (admittedly maybe only just two also) to help people affirm Jesus as the one who fulfills these prophecies.

The “appeal” may have came from “inspiration” (certainly it did), but for the people to know what he is talking about, they would have to know of the prophecies.

Maybe St. Paul had “pure inspiration” too when he talked about Pharaohs magicians by name (Jannes and Jambres), but he assumes the people knew who he was talking about and their names are NOT in Old Testament Scripture. Yet they are NOW in New Testament Scripture.

2nd TIMOTHY 3:6-9 6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, 7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; 9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

St. Paul assumes people know about Jannes and Jambres . . . and the people DID know about Jannes and Jambres and even their names! But they did NOT know this through Sacred Scripture ALONE as Jannes and Jambres are never named in the Old Testament.

Many will object saying, “Well how important can the names of these guys be?”

Well, I don’t know. But it is important enough where St. Paul would appeal to them by NAME to St. Timothy and the other readers, even though it was not in Scripture at the time.

Sola Scriptura is a “counterfeit faith”.

Sola Scriptura is an un-Biblical tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

 

[Cathoholic]

**Just another quick thought on the “chair” or “Cathedra” aspect of what we are talking about here. ** Not apologetic but meditative.

I think it is interesting and will just bring it up here as it naturally came up on the thread.

(if someone wants to start a thread on it I will be happy to unpack a lot more detail that I have accrued on this subject, but not here).

Pay attention to Jesus teaching in the sitting position in the Gospels.

That (reflecting Moses) is the Rabbinic authoritative teaching position. It is an amazing meditation in the Gospels.

The fulfillment of this today . . . is the Bishops even today (who in union with St. Peter and his successors), can give homilies from the sitting down position–not because their legs are so tired, but because it is liturgically appropriate if and when they elect to do so.

Think about Jesus SITTING in the Temple asking the doctors questions as a twelve year old (Luke 2:46)!

What are the amazing implicit suggestions of this verse? Is the fact that Jesus was explicitly described as “sitting” among the doctors in the Temple mere trivia?

Think of the Gospel writers informing us of Jesus SITTING down to teach the masses of people, etc. later during His adult ministry also.

The Church Fathers commented on this too and it is a fun and a great spiritual meditation–especially when you go back and re-read the relevant Gospel passages.

(If someone DOES start a thread on this, please PM me if I am not on it because I may save them the home work that I did, AND others will have come across items of significance on this subject that I do not know yet too so I can learn from you folks too–and I love meditating on our Lord Jesus and HOW He carried out and carries out His salvific ministry)