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

[benhur]

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.

True ,there are written gospels,writings (not canon) that claim to record some of Jesus words. No one is saying every utterance of the Lord was recorded by tradition or writing either…

As some say, neither have it all,Tradition and her Writ , as held by O and CC and P’s.

I would not say NT is devoid of all reference to such a statement that Luke quotes. But yes, it is the only Jesus quote not found in canonical gospels.

"Give to everyone who begs from you; and if any
one takes away your goods, do not ask for them
again … do good, and lend, expecting nothing in
return … give and it shall be given back to you, flowing over"…Luke 6

 

[PRmerger]

But yes, it is the only Jesus quote not found in canonical gospels.

And that’s a testament to…Sacred Tradition.

We know that not everything Jesus said was recorded in the Gospels.

QED.

Give to everyone who begs from you; and if any​

one takes away your goods, do not ask for them
again … do good, and lend, expecting nothing in
return … give…Luke 6

Not quite close enough.

I mean, if you’re going to say that the above is the same thing as saying, “It is better to give than receive” then I am going to say that “All generations shall call me blessed” is the same thing as saying Mary is sinless.

 

[benhur]

And that’s a testament to…Sacred Tradition.

You have to be more specific. Then everything found in other 23 NT books is Sacred Tradition ? and not the Gospels ?

I mean, if you’re going to say that the above is the same thing as saying, “It is better to give than receive” then I am going to say that “All generations shall call me blessed” is the same thing as saying Mary is sinless.

"Give and it shall be returned to you flowing over " certainly makes it clear that, "it is better to give than to receive."

 

[CatholicHockey7]

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.

Okay chariot boy lol

I was not aware of the verse in Deuteronomy. The only footnote about it in my Bible pointed to Sirach 4:31.

You’re right that it would not conclusively prove anything even if Sirach were the only similar quote, but it would be a counterexample which disproves a common argument against the inspiration of the Deuterocanon which is that Jesus and the NT authors never quote from any of the books.

Remember math classes when you were younger? All I need is one counterexample and I prevent your theorem from becoming a rule.

But as you’ve shown, this isn’t going to be the example which does that.

 

[PRmerger]

You have to be more specific. Then everything found in other 23 NT books is Sacred Tradition ? and not the Gospels ?

BINGO! :extrahappy::bounce:

"Give and it shall be returned to you flowing over " certainly makes it clear that, "it is better to give than to receive."

And “all generations shall call me blessed” certainly makes clear that Mary was sinless.

 

[benhur]

And that’s a testament to…Sacred Tradition.

We know that not everything Jesus said was recorded in the Gospels.

Right, some were recorded in Acts, even Revelations, even an epistle. Is there a difference that Luke records in a Gospel from Acts ? How is that a testament to Scared Tradition? Remember , SS does not deny oral gospel/tradition, transmission of the Lord’s Words remembered before Holy Writ. It is quite Catholic, even catholic, to not quote the Lord, except that which we find in the tradition of Holy Writ
.

And “all generations shall call me blessed” certainly makes clear that Mary was sinless.

Well as our good friend Cathoholic like to point out, sometimes things are explicit, and sometimes implict.

That one is blessed is not explicit of being immaculate, sinless, but for certainty, to be sinless is, will be , a blessing.

Okay chariot boy lol

I was not aware of the verse in Deuteronomy. The only footnote about it in my Bible pointed to Sirach 4:31.

You’re right that it would not conclusively prove anything even if Sirach were the only similar quote, but it would be a counterexample which disproves a common argument against the inspiration of the Deuterocanon which is that Jesus and the NT authors never quote from any of the books.

Remember math classes when you were younger? All I need is one counterexample and I prevent your theorem from becoming a rule.

But as you’ve shown, this isn’t going to be the example which does that.

The best example i think is one from Macc(do not remeber which one). So there is one or two that might qualify, might. Regardless one thing is prove, to "rule’’ explicitly, and another is evidence, to “guide” even imply. So let us say there are 100 quotes and 98 are from Hebrew OT, the latter is reasonable.

Also, quoting from something does not prove canonicity, or prove a “tradition” equal to tradition of authoritative writ.

As stated many posts ago, St. Paul said , “I become all things to all men so that some might be saved” . He even used Greek mythology/tradition at Mars Hill to introduce the Gospel. That in no way condoned the Greek tradition or elevated it to anything authoritative.

 

[Abu]

benhur #582
That one is blessed is not explicit of being immaculate, sinless, but for certainty, to be sinless is, will be , a blessing.

Once again the Sacred Scriptures confirmed and authorized by Christ’s Catholic Church are being misinterpreted, but they are quite clear.

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). **Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” **This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

Listen to Christ as He proclaims through His Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, some were recorded in Acts, even Revelations, even an epistle. Is there a difference that Luke records in a Gospel from Acts ? How is that a testament to Scared Tradition?

Scared Tradition, eh?

I suppose it is kind of scary to folks who reject it.

But as for Sacred Tradition, well, it’s curious that Luke, who you say recorded all the Words of Jesus, didn’t actually record Jesus as saying “It is better to give than to receive”.

Why wouldn’t he put that in his Gospel?

Remember , SS does not deny oral gospel/tradition, transmission of the Lord’s Words remembered before Holy Writ.

Well, perhaps YOUR definition of SS doesn’t deny oral tradition.

But since there is NO AUTHORITY in your world to define SS, there are about a dozen different definitions of SS.

And some do deny oral gospel/tradition. In fact, most definitions do.

 

[TxGodfollower]

How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

God doesn’t need a perfect human to prevent Christ from not inheriting original sin. In fact, Romans 5 shows that sin passes down from men. Since Christ had no human father, he didn’t inherit original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

God doesn’t need a perfect human to prevent Christ from not inheriting original sin. In fact, Romans 5 shows that sin passes down from men. Since Christ had no human father, he didn’t inherit original sin.

This is correct. God didn’t need a perfect human (Mary) to prevent Christ from not inheriting original sin.

The Catholic position is that it was FITTING that she was. Not necessary. But fitting.

 

[Abu]

TxGodfollower #586
God doesn’t need a perfect human to prevent Christ from not inheriting original sin. In fact, Romans 5 shows that sin passes down from men. Since Christ had no human father, he didn’t inherit original sin.

This has not even attempted to accept the reality that Mary was created by God from parents under the effects of Original Sin and acknowledged by no less than Angel Gabriel as in Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace,” as free from sin!

That is precisely why she is called “Immaculate”.

 

[benhur]

Once again the Sacred Scriptures confirmed and authorized by Christ’s Catholic Church are being misinterpreted, but they are quite clear.

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). **Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” **This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

Listen to Christ as He proclaims through His Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Hi Abu. Have heard this before, the meaning of “full of grace”. The Douay Rheims is the only translation to have this phrase(Not sure if its revision DouayChalloner has it either). All other translations have “highly favored”.

Most say her Immaculateness was not necessary for the Incarnation.(fitting but necessary).

Scared Tradition, eh?

I suppose it is kind of scary to folks who reject it.

I was saying to myself what is she talking about. Then I remembered my typo.I did catch it earlier but too late to edit.

But as for Sacred Tradition, well, it’s curious that Luke, who you say recorded all the Words of Jesus, didn’t actually record Jesus as saying “It is better to give than to receive”.

Maybe another typo but don’t think anyone ever states that Luke recorded every word of the Lord. But you are right, Luke records Paul saying it.

Why wouldn’t he put that in his Gospel?

To keep us on our toes ? To help stop bibliolotry and open door to traditionolotry, even churcholotry, for the testing of the saints ?

Again, no one denies oral transmission, and what is written suffices to cover it. Even this one quote is partially covered in more detail in the gospel as pointed out.

Well, perhaps YOUR definition of SS doesn’t deny oral tradition.

Did Luther deny oral tradition(of gospel) before NT Writ ?

But since there is NO AUTHORITY in your world to define SS, there are about a dozen different definitions of SS.And some do deny oral gospel/tradition. In fact, most definitions do

Where can one find a list of the these twelve definitions? I did not know I was odd man out.

Hi Abu. Have heard this before, the meaning of “full of grace”. The Douay Rheims is the only translation to have this phrase(Not sure if its revision DouayChalloner has it either). All other translations have “highly favored”.

Most say her Immaculateness was not necessary for the Incarnation.(fitting but necessary).

meant fitting but not necessary.

This is correct. God didn’t need a perfect human (Mary) to prevent Christ from not inheriting original sin.

The Catholic position is that it was FITTING that she was. Not necessary. But fitting.

Just read this .I almost said I quoted you but did not .I remember you stating this before.

“Do not go beyond what is written.” 1Cor4:6 Paul

“Those who are learned of the Lord’s precepts, as many as are written, keep them”, Barnabus

 

[CatholicHockey7]

benhur:

Also, quoting from something does not prove canonicity, or prove a “tradition” equal to tradition of authoritative writ.

I agree it wouldn’t “prove” inspiration in this case. What I was trying to point out was some protestants argue the seven books uninspired because Jesus and the Apostles do not quote directly from them.

So the quote would not prove the inspiration of Sirach, but it would disprove this claim. There is other evidence, as i’m sure you know, such as St. Paul’s constant quoting and paraphrasing of non-Christian poetry from the time period. No one accepts the original poetry as inspired (unless it was quoting from the OT, of course), so we can’t say something is proven inspired just because Christ or the apostles quoted it.

Some protestants refuse to see the logic in that. Instead they apply a different standard to the Deuterocanon than to Greek poetry in the same situation. So if the quote were only found in Sirach, that would go a long way to disproving the idea that Christ and the apostles never quoted from those seven books.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

Hi Abu. Have heard this before, the meaning of “full of grace”. The Douay Rheims is the only translation to have this phrase(Not sure if its revision DouayChalloner has it either). All other translations have “highly favored”.

Most say her Immaculateness was not necessary for the Incarnation.(fitting but necessary).

Douay Rheims is not the only one. You can also find it in the RSV.

Something that’s important to remember, though, is the way it’s translated isn’t as important as how it was originally written. I think we in the English-speaking West forget the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in English. That’s why so many translations have things in such different ways.

First, according to biblical scholars (as well as Pope John Paul II), the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. (cf. Redemptoris Mater, 8, 9). In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28.

In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The People of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob.

What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.

St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. “Full of grace” is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Click here for the full article

benhur:

“Do not go beyond what is written.” 1Cor4:6 Paul

I’m ignoring the Barnabus quote because I’m really curious about this one.

Scholars estimate First Corinthians was written around 56-57 A.D. The Gospels may not have been written yet, and John certainly wasn’t. Nor were half of Paul’s letters (except Galatians, 1&2 Thessalonians, and possibly Romans, Philemon and Philippians). Acts was not completed, nor were any of the letters of Peter and John.

So how do we apply, “Do not go beyond what is written,” when most of the NT wasn’t written yet? And how do we reconcile it with other places where Paul references oral teaching (like 2 Thess. 2:15)?

 

[Cathoholic]

• Oral Tradition
• Written Tradition (Sacred Scripture)
• Magisterium (Teaching Office of the Church . . . or . . . the Pope and the Bishops in union with him—CCC 100)

Benhur.

You said (quoting 1st Corinthians 4:6):

“Do not go beyond what is written.” 1Cor4:6 Paul

Remember. Oral Tradition does not go “beyond what is written” (they flow from the SAME Divine Wellspring).

Oral Tradition does not go “beyond what is written” any more than St. Paul was going “beyond” what was written when he wrote 2nd Corinthians.

What is written is we are to live by “EVERY WORD” that comes from the mouth of God.

As far as the Magisterium is concerned, sola Scriptura adherents do not reject a magisterium. Unfortunately they invent one.

They are forced to invent a magisterium that was not commissioned by Jesus—themselves.

That’s what “private interpretation” is all about.

Nobody outside of God, knows how many Bible-ONLY religions exist (I’ve never seen a serious estimate less than many thousands). But one thing is for sure, if you had a hundred Bible-only “religions” in the same room ALL claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet all coming to doctrinally different conclusions (on matters important enough for Church splits), at LEAST 99 of them are going to NECESSARILY be WRONG on some of the issues.

And as I have pointed out before. If Bible-Only Christians only differ on 8 measly doctrines, the permutations and combinations of “Christian religions” you can extrapolate is astronomical.

8! = 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x1 = FORTY THOUSAND, three hundred and twenty (40, 320).

(Some will say there are “many” Catholic religions too [wrongly assert and employ a *tu quoque fallacy or “you guys do it, so we get to do it too”]. This charge reveals a misunderstanding of the Papacy, authority and submission to the Magisterium. Or this charge would be forced to re-define people who do not submit to the Magisterium as “practicing Catholics”)

Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work and Sola Scriptura cannot work.

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

 

[Abu]

benhur #587
Have heard this before, the meaning of “full of grace”. The Douay Rheims is the only translation to have this phrase(Not sure if its revision DouayChalloner has it either). All other translations have “highly favored”.

“Full of grace” is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Karl Keating remarks that these newer translations "are imperfect since they give the impression that the favour bestowed on Mary was no different from that given other women in the Bible…indistinguishable from the status of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist; or Sarah, the wife of Abraham; or Anna, the mother of Samuel * all of whom, by the way, were long childless and were ‘highly favoured’ because God acceded to their pleas to bear children.”

Karl Keating says that the older translations convey that this grace is permanent and of a singular kind in keeping with the Greek which indicates a perfection of grace, and which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches. He stresses that the sense of the Greek kecharitomene is not just “to look upon with favour, but to transform by this favour or grace.” (From René Laurentin).

Convert from Evangelicalism, ex-Pastor David B Currie, in his book *Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic *thinks that St Jerome “probably did the best job of translating this passage so many centuries ago. He translated it as ‘Hail, full of grace’. The important point to notice is that Mary is not addressed by Gabriel as ‘Mary’. She is addressed as ‘full of grace’, as though that were her name. When we unpack the Greek meaning of these words, Gabriel called Mary ‘The One Most Full of God’s Gracious Gift of His Life in All Time’.”

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe another typo but don’t think anyone ever states that Luke recorded every word of the Lord. But you are right, Luke records Paul saying it.

So why didn’t St. Luke ever record Jesus saying this in his gospel???

Do you think that there are other things Jesus said which the 4 evangelists didn’t put in their gospels?

Again, no one denies oral transmission,

Yes, ben. LOTS of folks do.

truthontheweb.org/sola.htm
dawnbible.com/2012/1210cl-1.htm
anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

and what is written suffices to cover it.

That’s a man-made tradition, ben. You have NEVER read, in a single page of the Bible, that “what is writtten suffices to cover it.”

Where can one find a list of the these twelve definitions?

Well, I dunno, ben.

You guys have splintered into so many denominations, rejecting the idea of any teaching authority which can speak for you. Who is it that would be authoritative enough to proclaim this list?

Since you claim the Bible is your authority, why don’t you look to the Bible for your definition of SS?

Hint: it isn’t there.

“Do not go beyond what is written.” 1Cor4:6 Paul

Isn’t the Table of Contents going beyond? NO INSPIRED AUTHOR wrote the table of contents.

So have you gone beyond what is written?

 

[PRmerger]

And as I have pointed out before. If Bible-Only Christians only differ on 8 measly doctrines, the permutations and combinations of “Christian religions” you can extrapolate is astronomical.

8! = 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x1 = FORTY THOUSAND, three hundred and twenty (40, 320).

Ah, you’re scratching me where I love to be itched! I have been proposing a mathematical formula like this for years now!

Originally posted by me in 2009:

Dern! You beat me to this! I had the math problem all worked out, (courtesy of my 16 yr old daughter) using the factorial equation 17C17 and the number she came up with was** a grand total of 131, 071.**

Now, that of course is if we even accept that there’s really only 17 different belief systems.

As Nowak pointed out, there’s even 4 different theologies on the Rapture alone.

 

[Magdalena59]

Hi Abu. Have heard this before, the meaning of “full of grace”. The Douay Rheims is the only translation to have this phrase(Not sure if its revision DouayChalloner has it either). All other translations have “highly favored”.

Most say her Immaculateness was not necessary for the Incarnation.(fitting but necessary).

John Wycliffe’s Bible translation also says Hail full of grace. If you go to an online Bible tool and search out Luke 1:28 you will find, many translations such as “Rejoice, highly favored one.”, “Greetings, O favored one”, “Hail favored one”, "Hail thou art freely beloved’, and more.

So, I have asked this question before in this conversation and haven’t had a response from a protestant yet: When following Sola Scriptura, how do you know that your beliefs are right when the different protestant churches down the street have different beliefs than yours? How do you know they are wrong and you are right, when you both are claiming Sola Scriptura? And where do you go to obey what Jesus said in Matthew 18:17 when you do not have a Church to take your argument to?

Not having a Church to settle disputes between those following Sola Scriptura leaves people privately interpreting scripture which goes against scripture. 2 Peter 1:20, 1 Timothy 3:15, Proverbs 3:5

.“Do not go beyond what is written.” 1Cor4:6 Paul

This doesn’t even make sense taken out context. Paul wasn’t even discussing what is being discussed here, Sola Scriptura. Just like CatholicHockey7 said most of the New Testament wasn’t even written yet, so if they couldn’t go beyond what was written, which at that time would have been the Old Testament, and a few letters of the NT, they would not be able to listen to those telling them about Jesus and the Gospel.

Most scholars think they were talking about avoiding false wisdom and vain speculations.

God bless.

 

[benhur]

Once again the Sacred Scriptures confirmed and authorized by Christ’s Catholic Church are being misinterpreted, but they are quite clear.

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). **Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” **This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

Listen to Christ as He proclaims through His Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm as long as you were quoting folk here is my pick

 

[Magdalena59]

ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm as long as you were quoting folk here is my pick

I took the below quote from a page Dr. Lugenbill (Ichtys) wrote on baptism.

“To begin, I should make it clear that ichthys.com is not connected with any other ministry or any other personality, either officially or unofficially. Nor does the teaching presented here reflect anything but my own individual exposition of the Word of God…
none of the teaching from this ministry (to include this response) should be construed as anything but my own (i.e., I don’t represent anyone else) - although I do hope, and pray, and strive to ensure that they accurately reflect the truth of the Word of God (this is my sole concern).”

ichthys.com/mail-water%20baptism.htm

He is clearly stating that he is not sure of his answer in regards to baptism and that it is his own private interpretation, and that his whole ministry is his own private interpretation and that he hopes and prays he is accurate.

So, where does he go to find out if he is right or wrong?

If he is unsure about his beliefs regarding baptism or anything else, why should we take his word for what he is saying about the Blessed Mother?

As the scriptures say in 1 Timothy 3:15 the place to find out the truth is the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. This is where the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.