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

[Cathoholic]

I was just re-reading through some of the thread and a couple issues were raised to allegedly assert sola Scriptura. Since some of these objections were were not addressed by Catholics yet, I thought it would be appropriate to deal with them.

In post 65, it was stated:

. . . . The Pharisees though the same thing, & Jesus rebuked them…how? “Have you not READ…?” “As it is WRITTEN…” . . . .

This is fallacious reasoning. This is the kind of reasoning that basically says,

Because Jesus appealed to Sacred Scripture, He is asserting Scripture ALONE!

This is an example of drawing your conclusion, then working backwards and forcing your interpretation into it.

As I said earlier. I appeal to Scripture too. But you cannot conclude from that . . .

“Wow. Cathoholic must really believe sola Scriptura because he appeals to Sacred Scripture!”

No! You cannot conclude that from the above premise.

This would be like me trying to argue that because Yahweh indicts Cain (before any Scripture was written), God appealed to Natural Law (or Oral Tradition) ALONE, because after all, God ONLY appeals to extra-Scriptural moral teachings here to admonish Cain.

This would be like me trying to argue:

Because Yahweh appealed to Oral Tradition, He is asserting Oral Tradition ALONE!

And it is true that God ONLY appealed to extra-Scriptural morality here (that Cain is authoritatively held to) because no Scripture was written yet.

But it would be just as wrong for me to say: “Ahh Huhh!. This means Oral Tradition ALONE!”

That would be non-sense.

Likewise this is not persuasive when taking a verse where Jesus appeals to Scripture and basically saying: “Ahh Huhh!. This means Scripture ALONE!”

This would be atrocious Scripture exegesis and even this reply per se, in a sense, serves as yet another example of WHY sola Scriptura must be rejected.

When you think about it, these kinds of replies support the Catholic position—not undercut it.

---

Let’s look at another place where Jesus appeals to Scripture, but Jesus Himself appeals to MORE too (which is often ignored by the sola Scriptura tradition holders).

Jesus Appeals To Scripture, But Jesus ALSO Appeals To More Than Scripture

Sometimes Matthew 4 (I’ll ignore the synoptic accounts for brevity) is appealed to as asserting sola Scriptura because Jesus entreats Scripture when doing spiritual battle against the devil.

And Jesus DOES appeal to Sacred Scripture. Yet Jesus asserts MORE.

Jesus in Matthew 4:4 (from Deuteronomy 8:3) was directly talking about how we need to live.

And what does Jesus say? Let’s look (emphasis mine) . . .

First look at what Jesus DOESN’T say:

NOT MATTHEW 4 (PHANTOM VERSE) 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the pen (stylus) of the Scripture writers that I inspire and ONLY those words.’”

Now let’s look at what Jesus DOES say . . .

MATTHEW 4:2-4 2 And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

Followers of the sola Scriptura invention will reply to the effect of, “the Bible is the word of God” so this means the Bible ALONE.”

As we have said earlier, “the Word” was made flesh. Not “the Word was made text”. So “the Word” cannot be reducible to the printed page.

Jesus is Rebuking Satan.

(Satan is the one possibly using sola Scriptura here, not Jesus)

Satan himself quoted Scripture out of context misusing Sacred Scripture
(showing that mishandling of Scripture ALONE can be a tool Satan will try to deploy).

MATTHEW 4:4 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

Notice we are to live by EVERY WORD that comes from God!

“EVERY WORD” is to make up our proverbial diet!

Are we to believe that EVERY WORD from God can be reducible to the printed page alone in Scripture? No! Scripture IS God’s word to be sure but that’s not the fullness of the Gospel in and of itself.

But doesn’t “every word” that comes from the mouth of God lie in Scripture ALONE?
No of course not. The Bible itself refutes that notion too.

Listen to St. John on what Jesus DID during His sacred lifetime (presumably some of the things Jesus did, included saying a few more things than were recorded in the Gospels).

St. John tells us if he were to try to write everything Jesus did (and therefore said too) that the whole world could not contain the books!

JOHN 21:25 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Yet we are commanded to live by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God! (And this command is in the context of . . . . talking about “bread”)

EVERY WORD is to make up our proverbial diet.

But we know from Scripture itself the whole world (much less the Bible alone) couldn’t contain the books describing Jesus’ ministry! The Bible itself says so!

Does Jesus’ temptation in the desert teach sola Scriptura?

No. Far from it. These verses taken as a whole “to support” sola Scriptura actually refute sola Scriptura!

Continued:

 

[thetazlord]

Oh. So kinda like when Catholics go to confession and receive absolution. It’s not the men who forgive sins, but Jesus Christ himself (who conveyed this authority to his Apostles, and the Church).

No, because Jesus is My ONLY Mediator between God & man, and Advocate & Intecessor, Who is also my “High Priest” Who stands in the presence of God for me, who I go directly through - not going through a fallible human being who requires his own absolution.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

No, because the explanation I gave is supported strictly on the Word of God - not “my interpretation” of Scripture by imputing my “personal” beliefs that aren’t supported by it.

“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.

Nothing in those passages say anything about the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” or “transubstantiating” into the body & blood of Jesus, like when Scripture states Jesus took water & it “became” wine. Scripture never uses this terminology like this to describe the bread & wine “becoming” the body & blood of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

Nothing of what you are accusing me of is what I actually said.

 

[Cathoholic]

Continued . . .

MATTHEW 4:4 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

And come up with this interpretation:

NOT MATTHEW 4 (PHANTOM VERSE) 4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by ONLY the written WORD that proceeds from the pen of Scripture writers.’”

They are going to have to say, “Every word, doesn’t mean every word”.

Incidentally, the only way we could possibly live by “EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God” would be live by receiving God Himself—ALL of God, not just Scripture ALONE! (Hmmm. Wonder what that could be a reference to?)

And this whole context in Matthew 4, concerns “bread,” and how we don’t live on mere “bread alone”.

Jesus cryptically alludes to the Eucharist here for those that will believe Him.

---

There is a lot of non-sense about tradition that has already been dealt with concerning this negative tradition argument in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 that was made against good tradition (the argument against the Catholic position was a subtle partial truth that has been exposed). (See here, here, here, and here)

---

Another thing that was said earlier (but I did not see it was responded to yet) was concerning 1st CORINTHIANS 11:2.

Let’s look at the verse (bold etc. mine):

1st CORINTHIANS 11:1-2 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Keep this verse in mind as we read the attempt to try to make the above verse say St. Paul was only talking about Scripture that he was in the process of composing (to falsely try to assert the sola Scriptura tradition).

this from post 50 (bold & ul mine) . . .

In fact, out of the 14 times “tradition” is mentioned in Scripture, it’s mentioned negatively. The THREE times it’s mentioned positively (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6), it’s in the context of “oral tradition” that Paul that he had just written down . . .

This type of “objection” is really eye-opening and if carefully looked at, actually serves as an apologetic on behalf of Catholic doctrine.

Carefully remember this type of grasping at straws (or straw men) to deny Catholic doctrine.

Let’s get back to 1st Corinthians 11:2.

Notice this is FIRST Corinthians. Not SECOND Corinthians.

This is St. Paul’s very FIRST inspired letter to the Corinthians.

And notice St. Paul ALREADY had “delivered” to them “the traditions” earlier and commended the Corinthians for already “maintain(ing)” these traditions!

**
1st CORINTHIANS 11:2** 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

How could the Corinthians already be “maintaining” the good “traditions” if they haven’t been delivered yet?
How could the Corinthians ALREADY be “maintaining” the good “traditions” if these traditions are only "in the context of “oral tradition” . . . . that . . . “he had just written down”?

**The Corinthians were already following them BEFORE, because the Tradition was given to them ORALLY first. **

We see a manufactured argument against the Catholic Church doctrine as follows (parenthetical addition and bold and ul mine) . . .

The THREE times it’s (tradition) mentioned positively (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6), it’s in the context of “oral tradition” that Paul that he had just written down

Really?

Draw your own conclusions:

1st CORINTHIANS 11:2 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

---

Earlier I said:

But the tradition of sola Scripture DOES subtract from the Word of God.

Here was the response in Post 92 . . .

QUOTE:
Going strictly by Scripture, which means not adding, nor not taking away, from the Word of God is “subtracting” from the Word of God? Okay…?

No:nope:. I mean redefining the “Word of God” to mean Scripture ALONE,
to reduce “the Word” down to “the Word was made text, and dwelt among us”
is subtracting from the Word of God.

And I also said in post 405 concerning redefining “the Word of God” . . .

Since you seem to define “the Word of God” as Scripture ALONE, I asked for the verse that the Canon is present in. And you have still not answered.

Circular reasoning isn’t going to be satisfactory . . . .

• Me: Why is it Scripture in the first place?
• Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: It is Scripture because it is the Word of God.
• Me: How do you know it is the Word of God?
• Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: Because it is in Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

That’s because when Ezekiel talks about the Temple, he also talks a future “prince” that will require his own sacrifices for his own sins, which obviously can’t be Jesus, Who is sinless. So, it has no bearing on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice was an eternal atonement, just not a “universal” one since Jesus’ didn’t die for “everybody,” otherwise “everybody” would end up in Heaven, which is unbiblical. This is a perfect example where “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need” is true, & not extra-biblical “tradition” that when “added” to the Word of God causes confusion.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

No, because Jesus is My ONLY Mediator between God & man, and Advocate & Intecessor, Who is also my “High Priest” Who stands in the presence of God for me, who I go directly through - not going through a fallible human being who requires his own absolution.

So I should discount anything I’m told by fallible men. Does that include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude? After all, Scripture was written by fallible men. So if I can’t trust fallible men today in the Church established by Christ, why should I believe the authors of Scripture?

thetazlord:

Nothing in those passages say anything about the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” or “transubstantiating” into the body & blood of Jesus, like when Scripture states Jesus took water & it “became” wine. Scripture never uses this terminology like this to describe the bread & wine “becoming” the body & blood of Jesus.

Scripture never states that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “trinity” either. You do not find that word. Nor will you find “scripture alone” or “scripture is the sole rule of faith.”

But it does say:

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord…For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭27, 29‬ NIV)

And:
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭53, 55, 58‬ NIV)

taz, let’s go back to what you DID say…

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.

You’re absolutely right! The original Greek did have different words that mean “eating.” In fact, in the “Bread of Life” discourse (John 6) we see this very thing in action. Jesus begins using forms of the verb phago to describe eating, but when the crowd becomes confused He changes to a form of the verb “trogo” which literally means “gnawing” or “chewing.”

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.

This is the part PR was focusing on. Let me try and help you see what he was saying.

Your logic is:

Jesus cannot violate the commands of Levitical law.
Eating the body and blood would violate Levitical law
Therefore, Jesus could not be speaking literally because it would violate the Law.

If we apply that logic to all things in the NT which violate the old Law, then we find other contradictions as well. Most notably, as PR pointed out, human sacrifice.

Jesus is God
God cannot contradict His Law

Jesus is human
God’s Law prohibits human sacrifice

Jesus was sacrificed

So either God can contradict His own Law to allow for Jesus as a human sacrifice, or Jesus was not really human, or was not really sacrificed.

Scripture (and Tradition) is clear that Christ really was human and was really sacrificed, so how do you reconcile that violation of the Law while at the same time saying God cannot violate other Levitical laws?

 

[zz912]

No, because Jesus is My ONLY Mediator between God & man, and Advocate & Intecessor, Who is also my “High Priest” Who stands in the presence of God for me, who I go directly through - not going through a fallible human being who requires his own absolution.

So when Jesus gives the Apostles the authority to forgive or retain sin, that was…what?

And in that vein, why then does the Bible command us to confess our sins to fallible men?

No, because the explanation I gave is supported strictly on the Word of God - not “my interpretation” of Scripture by imputing my “personal” beliefs that aren’t supported by it.

Nope, you’re taking your interpretation, your fallible interpretation, and saying it is symbolic and then tying in some other Scriptures to “prove” your fallible viewpoint. You are not doing what you claimed earlier. You said you didn’t need anything extra to understand what the Bible meant when it said “Jesus wept”. You also said that if you added a deeper or different meaning to it by referencing to other passages, you would then be adding to Scripture. That is what you’re doing here, you just won’t admit it because your pride won’t allow the possibility that you’re wrong.

BTW, myself and a couple others on here have asked repeatedly for you to list out the criteria for determining if a writing is Inspired, and also the support for why those criteria are authoritative. You have very obviously refused to do so, and have even avoided responding to the requests we have made. Why is that? Could you list out this criteria?

Nothing in those passages say anything about the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” or “transubstantiating” into the body & blood of Jesus, like when Scripture states Jesus took water & it “became” wine. Scripture never uses this terminology like this to describe the bread & wine “becoming” the body & blood of Jesus.

Sure it does. Jesus, who is God Incarnate, says “this IS My Body”. Nothing more needs be said, since the Word of God effects what it declares. And your example of the water to wine would work if Jesus had said “this IS wine”.

That’s because when Ezekiel talks about the Temple, he also talks a future “prince” that will require his own sacrifices for his own sins, which obviously can’t be Jesus, Who is sinless. So, it has no bearing on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice was an eternal atonement, just not a “universal” one since Jesus’ didn’t die for “everybody,” otherwise “everybody” would end up in Heaven, which is unbiblical. This is a perfect example where “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need” is true, & not extra-biblical “tradition” that when “added” to the Word of God causes confusion.

Could you give the chapter and verses for this, I would like to read it myself, since so many of your claims have been proven false so far.

 

[PRmerger]

No, because Jesus is My ONLY Mediator between God & man, and Advocate & Intecessor, Who is also my “High Priest” Who stands in the presence of God for me,

Amen! Very Catholic!

who I go directly through - not going through a fallible human being who requires his own absolution.

Then you are contradicting Scripture, taz.

Jesus set it up that the apostles would be able to retain sins or forgive sins.

Can you explain how a (fallible) man is able to know what sins to retain and what sins to forgive?

How do you 'splain that verse using your (fallible) interpretation?

Nothing of what you are accusing me of is what I actually said.

Can you answer this: is Jesus advocating a figurative violation of the Levitical prohibition on drinking blood?

If so, how is a figurative violation tolerable but not an actual one?

Do you think Jesus would advocate a symbolic worship of another god, as long as it wasn’t an actual worship?

What about a symbolic adultery, as long as it wasn’t actual adultery?

What about a symbolic burning of the Word of God, as long as it isn’t an actual burning?

How about a symbolic blasphemy? Commanded by Christ? As long as it wasn’t an actual one?

This is a perfect example where “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need” is true,

Ironically, not found in a single page of the Bible, taz.

You just heard some man say this, who heard another man say this, who heard another man say this…

[sign1]But no one ever read “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need” in a single page of the Bible[/sign1]

#manmadetradition

 

[PRmerger]

So I should discount anything I’m told by fallible men. Does that include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude? After all, Scripture was written by fallible men. So if I can’t trust fallible men today in the Church established by Christ, why should I believe the authors of Scripture?

Egg-zactly.

Or, we could give the Catholic answer which is: all men are fallible, except when they are given inspiration or assistance by the Holy Spirit.

Then they are infallible.

And that’s actually exactly what taz believes, although he just hasn’t connected the logical dots to their logical conclusion.

This is the part PR was focusing on. Let me try and help you see what he was saying.

Just a FYI: I’m a she, not a he.

Your logic is:

Jesus cannot violate the commands of Levitical law.
Eating the body and blood would violate Levitical law
Therefore, Jesus could not be speaking literally because it would violate the Law.

If we apply that logic to all things in the NT which violate the old Law, then we find other contradictions as well. Most notably, as PR pointed out, human sacrifice.

Jesus is God
God cannot contradict His Law

Jesus is human
God’s Law prohibits human sacrifice

Jesus was sacrificed

So either God can contradict His own Law to allow for Jesus as a human sacrifice, or Jesus was not really human, or was not really sacrificed.

Scripture (and Tradition) is clear that Christ really was human and was really sacrificed, so how do you reconcile that violation of the Law while at the same time saying God cannot violate other Levitical laws?

And that prompts the question, if it’s against the Law, then it’s against the Law, right? And a figurative violation of the Law would be permissible…why?

No, because Jesus is My ONLY Mediator between God & man, and Advocate & Intecessor, Who is also my “High Priest” Who stands in the presence of God for me, who I go directly through - not going through a fallible human being who requires his own absolution.

Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest? You don’t know?

Watch and learn, taz!

Something you didn’t learn as a Catholic:

youtube.com/watch?v=tvo0OCcp600

So that leads me to another question for you, taz, which I’m sure you’ve never considered before:

What is your paradigm:
Where the Bible is silent on an issue it is permitted?

OR

Where the Bible is silent on an issue it is forbidden?
For you must, as a Bible Alone advocate, choose one or the other. And apply it consistently.

You can’t say, “Well, the Bible is silent on issue A, so I get to do issue A”… while also saying, “The Bible is silent on issue B, so you are prohibited from doing issue B”.

Right?

Would you mind addressing the above, taz?

I know that you are under fire here and there’s lots to address, but the above is a trenchant question that I think you need to consider.

 

[stewstew03]

That’s because when Ezekiel talks about the Temple, he also talks a future “prince” that will require his own sacrifices for his own sins, which obviously can’t be Jesus, Who is sinless. So, it has no bearing on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice was an eternal atonement, just not a “universal” one since Jesus’ didn’t die for “everybody,” otherwise “everybody” would end up in Heaven, which is unbiblical. This is a perfect example where “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need” is true, & not extra-biblical “tradition” that when “added” to the Word of God causes confusion.

In Ezekiel 44? Or did you change the subject?

 

[benhur]

Where is that in Scripture?

You are right. Not sure when he wrote the five books. So then we must say he had it all in his head till he wrote it down ? Scripture says Moses judged using the “statutes of God and His laws”. NOT tradition. We know the ten commandments were "writ’ . If you want to quibble that “eye for an eye” was only oral from God/memorized by Moses and not Writ yet, maybe. Again, that is not “tradition” but God’s Word that was Moses’s final norm.

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

I suppose it could be both , for there were many “seats” by appointment literally but Moses only used one literally. All were "Moses
seat. Scripture tells us how that that tradition came to be.

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

OK. At least we covered that it is not tradition alone , as first posted.
Also, SS does not mean you can not cite custom, tradition, history. Just because Jesus cites something based in OT with some tradition modification (Pharisees assuming role of Law/Writ experts) does not mean the tradition is as authoritative as His Word, written or unwritten. I certainly don’t unpack that.

For sure Moses judged by God’s law and statutes, and Ive’ seen them, pretty boring reading.

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.

Ok How about this . Are there any prophecies found in the Talmud or Jewish tradition that did not come about ? I am sure there are some rabbinic interpretations of OT Messianic prophecies that were …wrong but still part of “tradition” even written. If you want to imply that Nazareth was not explicit In OT but some rabbis picked up on it and became part of Messianic prophecies/tradition, OK. It is still Writ that finally separated truth from fact of traditional rabbinic prophecies.

If you were Jewish back then how could you decide between the good and bad prophecies ? How could you decide if Pharisees or Saduccees had it right ? How could you tell the Pharisees good doctrine from the bad doctrine ?

See, a magisterium, even tradition can’t be final norm. Scripture can not discern all things explicitly either . For sure scripture should be the final norm in that quest, however, for any magisterium or for any tradition makers or personal even corporate interpretation.

 

[benhur]

Please cite the St. John Chrysostom text as I want to read it in context for my own personal interest.

Sorry it was not the Matt. quote but Timothy one.

“Who are these?The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iv.viii.html

Not denying tradition or its existence, or good use. yet it is writ that separates some good from bad Jewish traditions. It is a stretch to cite its good use to claim equal authority to His Word written or otherwise.

**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)

Would have to check, but He stood up also at times .

Rabbis would stand when reading from writ scrolls but sit when expounding

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.

I would not say “only” but along with Orthodox and Protestants, rudimenatlly speaking,even universally.

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

Would not say “that” but “the” Church.

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.

Scooooores.

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

I did, in the negative . Can’t prove a thing . My faith is in the truth that all things of the Church have the tradition of seeking to be scriptural.

The Bible is NOT enough, nor is Tradition, nor is the Church, nor a council or magisterium.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

benhur:

I did, in the negative . Can’t prove a thing . My faith is in the truth that all things of the Church have the tradition of seeking to be scriptural.

The Bible is NOT enough, nor is Tradition, nor is the Church, nor a council or magisterium.

Okay, if you can’t prove the Scriptures (or anything else which authoritatively defines Christianity) then how do you know it’s real? How do you know what you believe is accurate and others with “inspired” texts are wrong?

That’s why it’s so important to prove the inspiration of Scripture. Without it, we cannot have any knowledge of Truth.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

You said in post 567: (bold mine)

Again, that is not “tradition” but God’s Word that was Moses’s final norm.

Authoritative Oral Tradition IS “God’s Word” benhur.

Scripture and Oral Tradition flow from the same Divine wellspring and are to be treated with equal reverence.

You asked how we know which Oral Traditions are authentic?

The same way you (and I) know which Written Traditions are authentic.

This is exactly WHY I asked you to provide a verse that gives the Canon.

(You can even modify it to the New Testament Canon because I know we both agree on it).

You will not find a verse that tells you what the New Testament Canon is.

Not to argue the Canon here but rather to illustrate YOU MUST accept Oral Tradition (at least the Oral Tradition of the Canon) and a Magisterium too.

The problem is benhur, is that with your tradition, you will always have to be your own Magisterium and you will only have Oral Tradition that you happen to agree with from the Catholic Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord said on another thread:

(bold mine)

Earlier, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 & referred to it as Scripture, so we know from Paul that Luke’s Gospel is God-breathed Scripture as well.

I agree with you here thetazlord.

(But I don’t agree with the whole reason “why” you assert this. For example St. Timothy DOES refer to St. Luke as “Scripture”, but he doesn’t say “WHY” it is Scripture or “WHY” this writing is recognized as “God-breathed”. You will have to resort to a circular argument saying, “Scripture calls it Scripture, so it is Scripture” or some such).

Now I am going to (often) word-for-word (except insert “Oral Tradition” and change the appropriate Scripture citations) virtually quote the concept you said saying:

(Which of course you will Protest because the implications are obvious if you do not Protest)

Earlier, in his book of Acts, St. Luke quoted Jesus & referred to God-breathed Oral Tradition (or literally, “the words the Lord Jesus himself”), yet it was nowhere in the Gospels so we know from Luke in Acts,
that Oral Tradition is God-breathed as well.

ACTS 20:35 (NIV) In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ "

Or maybe you will say: “Well it wasn’t God-breathed Oral Tradition until it got written down”. (The implications of that would eventually cause “issues” for the various sola Scriptura traditions too)

 

[CatholicHockey7]

ACTS 20:35 (NIV) In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ "

Cathoholic, I changed the emphasis from this quote because I realized something last week.

Protestants often claim Jesus never quoted from any of the 7 deuterocanonical books, so they must not be inspired. Yet the only other place in the Bible where we find something similar to this quote is Sirach 4:31:

Do not let your hand be open to receive,
but clenched when it is time to give.

 

[Cathoholic]

Interesting CatholicHockey7.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[PRmerger]

ACTS 20:35 (NIV) In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ "

Or maybe you will say: “Well it wasn’t God-breathed Oral Tradition until it got written down”. (The implications of that would eventually cause “issues” for the various sola Scriptura traditions too)

Cathoholic, I changed the emphasis from this quote because I realized something last week.

Protestants often claim Jesus never quoted from any of the 7 deuterocanonical books, so they must not be inspired. Yet the only other place in the Bible where we find something similar to this quote is Sirach 4:31:

Yep.

And please note when St. Luke says, “Remember, Jesus said it is better to give than receive” we find Jesus saying that in the NT…no where.

That means that all of Jesus’ words were NOT recorded in the NT.

 

[benhur]

Cathoholic, I changed the emphasis from this quote because I realized something last week.

Protestants often claim Jesus never quoted from any of the 7 deuterocanonical books, so they must not be inspired. Yet the only other place in the Bible where we find something similar to this quote is Sirach 4:31:

Don’t think so but close. it is similar to Deut. 15:7,8

“If there is among you anyone in need, a member
of your community in any of your towns within
the land that
YHWH
your God is giving you, do
not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your
needy neighbour. You should rather open your
hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need,
whatever it may be”

From which Sira then wrote :

31
"Do not let your hand be
stretched out to receive and
closed when it is time to
give".

Then Acts:

*‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ *

It is a stretch to say Jesus based it on Sirach and not Deuteronomy

Either way, Sirach got it from Deuteronomy. Even J Akin would say this is weak evidence for Sirach referencing.

No one is denying Sirach was around and in Septuagint.