Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[Gara3987]

• Jesus didn’t/doesn’t need authority. He Is The authority: God. He was only citing Jewish teaching, in ‘It is written’.
  :coffeeread: Tony

Excellent Answer!

 

[justasking4]

Jesus didn’t/doesn’t need authority. He Is The authority: God. He was only citing Jewish teaching, in ‘It is written’. Catholic Church has been One since Our Lord founded it 2,000 years ago, except for a few “New Ideas” like arians, etc, who did’nt survive. Of Course the Reformation 500 years ago led to 30% of all Christias now having left, into tens of thousands of sects. But we are all Christians basically…
Tony
:coffeeread: Tony

Did Jesus appeal to the OT for His authority to teach? Did He base any of His teachings on the OT Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4257694]No. Jesus transferred the teaching authority to His Apostles. They now occupy the “seat of Moses”. The Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the bishops. The teaching authority is held to this day by the Magesterium - those that Jesus appointed as the teaching authority of the Church.

Would you happen to know how the Jews used this “seat of Moses” at the time of Christ?

The Jews lost their authority, which is why, when they erroneously identified a canon that deliberately left out books supporting the teaching of Jesus, their canon was not recognized as proper.

If what you say is true then why did Paul in Romans 3:2 say that they were entrusted with the oracles of God i.e. the OT Scriptures?

Protestants, following in the footsteps of those who rejected Christ, adopted this truncated canon and use it to this day.

Nonsense. We are using the canon that Jesus and His apostles supported.

 

[guanophore]

You could also add a couple of other reasons why protestants reject traditions:

1. Jesus rejected traditions for the most part.
2. Many Catholic traditions have no foundation in Scripture.

Both of these statements are false. In fact, Jesus authenticated the vast majority of Sacred Tradition. He criticized only those that were not consistent with God’s revelation.

The second statement is patently false because the whole of the New Testament was produced compeletly from Sacred Tradition. The Teachings of Jesus were delivered once and for all, whole and entire, to the Apostles prior to one word of them ever being written. What is written reflects that teaching, but was never meant to contain all of it.

What “traditions” was Paul referring to specifically?

That the written word of God is not to be separated from the preached word from whence it came.

Somewhat true. However Oral Traditions are not of much help to us now since all we have are the written word.

You have stated before that when you use the word “we” you are referring to “bible Christians” or as you call them “true believers”. This being the case, what you are saying is true. Those who have embraced the error of SS are limited in how much you can know, because “all we have” is the written word.

Do you have a couple of examples of these traditions catholics reject?

Sola Scriptura
Salvation by faith alone

Understand what? i know the Roman Catholic church claims to be 2000 years old but that cannot be really supported by history.

This is true. The Roman Rite of Catholicism did not develop as a separate Rite until the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. The Catholic Church began in the East, and spread Eastward, not West to Rome. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians, and there are communities in Syria that are older than the Church in Rome. Peter was first in Antioch, where he ordained bishops before he brougth the Apostolic succession to Rome.

I hope you will continue to read history, because that will enable you to find freedom from the great ignorance and misinformation to which you have been exposed.

 

[Sailka]

Did Jesus appeal to the OT for His authority to teach? Did He base any of His teachings on the OT Scriptures?

Please see my previous answer
Jesus’ authority to teach was/is thatt He is GOD. And He fulfilled the old testament prophecies of the Saviour, because He was/is. :dancing: Tony

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4259340]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You could also add a couple of other reasons why protestants reject traditions:

1. Jesus rejected traditions for the most part.
2. Many Catholic traditions have no foundation in Scripture.

guanophore
Both of these statements are false. In fact, Jesus authenticated the vast majority of Sacred Tradition. He criticized only those that were not consistent with God’s revelation.

So its not false that Jesus did reject some traditions.

The second statement is patently false because the whole of the New Testament was produced compeletly from Sacred Tradition. The Teachings of Jesus were delivered once and for all, whole and entire, to the Apostles prior to one word of them ever being written. What is written reflects that teaching, but was never meant to contain all of it.

I’m not taking about the NT but about some of the teachings i.e. traditions of the Catholic church. We know for example the idea of papal infalliblity and that men can be saved without faith in Christ are not grounded in the Scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What “traditions” was Paul referring to specifically?
guanophore
That the written word of God is not to be separated from the preached word from whence it came.

This does not answer my question. What “traditions” is Paul specifically referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Somewhat true. However Oral Traditions are not of much help to us now since all we have are the written word.

guanophore
You have stated before that when you use the word “we” you are referring to “bible Christians” or as you call them “true believers”. This being the case, what you are saying is true. Those who have embraced the error of SS are limited in how much you can know, because “all we have” is the written word.

I don’t ever recall you ever showing exactly what these so called “Oral Traditions” were. I suspect they don’t exist even though it sounds like they do by those who deny the Scriptures alone as the ultimate authority for the believer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you have a couple of examples of these traditions catholics reject?

guanophore
Sola Scriptura
Salvation by faith alone

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Understand what? i know the Roman Catholic church claims to be 2000 years old but that cannot be really supported by history.

guanophore
This is true. The Roman Rite of Catholicism did not develop as a separate Rite until the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. The Catholic Church began in the East, and spread Eastward, not West to Rome. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians, and there are communities in Syria that are older than the Church in Rome. Peter was first in Antioch, where he ordained bishops before he brougth the Apostolic succession to Rome.

I wonder if other Roman Catholics would agree with your assessment.

I hope you will continue to read history, because that will enable you to find freedom from the great ignorance and misinformation to which you have been exposed.

What we see in church history is checkered history of being true to Christ.

 

[justasking4]

Please see my previous answer
Jesus’ authority to teach was/is thatt He is GOD. And He fulfilled the old testament prophecies of the Saviour, because He was/is. :dancing: Tony

I agree in part but this is not what He based His teachings on. He also appealed to the OT Scriptures. Luke 24:27 is one such example.

 

[guanophore]

So its not false that Jesus did reject some traditions.

Jesus did not reject any Sacred Traditions. These have their source in God. He rejected the traditions of men.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, that He would have rejected.

I’m not taking about the NT but about some of the teachings i.e. traditions of the Catholic church. We know for example the idea of papal infalliblity and that men can be saved without faith in Christ are not grounded in the Scriptures.

Well, we read the Scriptures differently, don’t we?

Catholics read the scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching. We believe that Jesus meant what He promised when He told the Church that the HS would lead them “into all truth”. We also believe what the Apostle wrote “those without the Law perish without the law”. Everyone is judged according to the light they have received.

This does not answer my question. What "traditions" is Paul specifically referring to?

One of them would be that sacred scripture is not to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. This separation has spawned Sola Scriptura, which violates the Apostolic Teaching. I am sorry if that is not the answer you wanted, but it is the answer that is relevant to this thread.

I don’t ever recall you ever showing exactly what these so called “Oral Traditions” were. I suspect they don’t exist even though it sounds like they do by those who deny the Scriptures alone as the ultimate authority for the believer.

You are certainly entitled to your suspicion.

I wonder if other Roman Catholics would agree with your assessment.

Since they are Roman, they may be ignorant of these things.

What we see in church history is checkered history of being true to Christ.

That is certainly an expected result of wearing anti-Catholic glasses.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4260606]
Originally Posted by justasking4
So its not false that Jesus did reject some traditions.

guanophore;
Jesus did not reject any Sacred Traditions. These have their source in God.

What “Sacred Traditions” are you referring to?

He rejected the traditions of men.

Did He reject all traditions of men?

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, that He would have rejected.

Not so. He based His teachings in large part on the OT Scriptures and what He taught in the NT is Scripture. You never find Him promoting unblilical traditions nor appealing to “tradition” to ground His teachings in. He is the source and foundation for Sola Scriptura.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m not taking about the NT but about some of the teachings i.e. traditions of the Catholic church. We know for example the idea of papal infalliblity and that men can be saved without faith in Christ are not grounded in the Scriptures.

guanophore;
Well, we read the Scriptures differently, don’t we?

Catholics read the scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching.

Not always. Catholics add their own “traditions” without any support from the apostles. Papal infallibility is one such example of it.

We believe that Jesus meant what He promised when He told the Church that the HS would lead them “into all truth”.

Who is the “them” in this passage? (John 16:13)

We also believe what the Apostle wrote “those without the Law perish without the law”.

What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura?

Everyone is judged according to the light they have received.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This does not answer my question. What “traditions” is Paul specifically referring to?

guanophore;
One of them would be that sacred scripture is not to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

Where does Paul say this?

This separation has spawned Sola Scriptura, which violates the Apostolic Teaching. I am sorry if that is not the answer you wanted, but it is the answer that is relevant to this thread.

Actually it does not suprise me since i think you know that these traditions (not found it the NT) you refer to that supposedly came from the apostles cannot be proven but must be assumed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t ever recall you ever showing exactly what these so called “Oral Traditions” were. I suspect they don’t exist even though it sounds like they do by those who deny the Scriptures alone as the ultimate authority for the believer.
guanophore;
You are certainly entitled to your suspicion.

Then you are not justified in believing this since there is no evidence for it.

Originally Posted by justasking4
I wonder if other Roman Catholics would agree with your assessment.
guanophore;
Since they are Roman, they may be ignorant of these things.

I wonder… i hope some Roman catholics respond.

Originally Posted by justasking4
What we see in church history is checkered history of being true to Christ.
guanophore;
That is certainly an expected result of wearing anti-Catholic glasses.

Not so. It’s an objective view.View attachment 4256

 

[guanophore]

FOR jUSTASKING4
I am repeating something I said in my other post just in case your eyes missed it. Since you keep asking the same questions I decided to anticipate this and answer AGAIN.

Cinette, you are doing a wonderful job answering ja4, but I want you to know, the ja4 username is shared by a group of anti-Catholic fundamentalists whose goal it is to pull Catholics away from the faith. These questions are not representative of a genuine interest in Catholicism, but as tools to begin a discussion that will convince Catholics to rise up against the Magesterium, hold them accountable for “false teachings and speculation” and embrace “true” Christianity (bible only). If you search the history of this username, you can find all these things clearly stated. I was one of the members hoodwinked by the ja4 questions, believing for a long time they were genuine.

Realize that your postings may be much more valuable to the lurkers than the ja4 cadre to whom they are addressed. There are others out there who have fallen for the hostility and bigotry reflected by the ja4 cadre, or for the errors of SS that can benefit by your careful explanations. God Bless.

 

[onenow1]

What “Sacred Traditions” are you referring to?

Quote=OneNow1. I think this qualifies ja4. “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to My Name, and a Pure Offering: for My Name is great among the heathens saith the Lord Almighty.”
Malachias 1:11 KJV

?=ja4 Did He reject all traditions ? Of course not. Matt. 26 :18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the PASSOVER at your house with my disciples.’”

Then he perfected the passover with this pure offering HIS BODY: Luke22: 19, And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in REMEMBERANCEof me.”

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible. It is unscriptural and heretical. It’s purpose is to lead people away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If someone claims sola scriptura is biblical, just ask them to show you where it is taught in the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;4260712:

What “Sacred Traditions” are you referring to?

Quote=OneNow1. I think this qualifies ja4. “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to My Name, and a Pure Offering: for My Name is great among the heathens saith the Lord Almighty.”
Malachias 1:11 KJV

?=ja4 Did He reject all traditions ? Of course not. Matt. 26 :18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the PASSOVER at your house with my disciples.’”

Then he perfected the passover with this pure offering HIS BODY: Luke22: 19, And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in REMEMBERANCEof me.”

Peace, OneNow1

Since all you have quoted here is taken from Scripture so Sacred Tradition is another way of saying Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

The only traditions we would know of Paul would have to be found in his letters. Correct?

This would be true for you, of course, since you reject all other sources.

Did Jesus appeal to the OT for His authority to teach? Did He base any of His teachings on the OT Scriptures?

Jesus did not need to do this, as He is the author of the Scriptures. Catholics will concede the Scriptures are an authoritative source.

Would you happen to know how the Jews used this “seat of Moses” at the time of Christ?

I think this is pretty clear in the NT. Why do you ask?

If what you say is true then why did Paul in Romans 3:2 say that they were entrusted with the oracles of God i.e. the OT Scriptures?

Oracles means the speakings of God. Some of these can be found in the OT scriptures. Some are not. .

Nonsense. We are using the canon that Jesus and His apostles supported.

I know you would like to believe that, because there is no other good explanation for rejecting part of the books they used. They were taken out because they were too “Catholic”.

What “Sacred Traditions” are you referring to?

The one where the Sacred Writing is not to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

Did He reject all traditions of men?

Not at all. Clearly, he attended synagogue, and participated in the wedding at Cana, and a number of other things that were indiginous to the Jewish culture at the time.

Not always. Catholics add their own “traditions” without any support from the apostles. Papal infallibility is one such example of it.

Well, we read it differently.

Who is the “them” in this passage? (John 16:13)

All these promises were made to those present in the upper room, during the last supper (after Judas left). It is these in whom the fledgling church subsisted.

What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura?

Nothing, except that all Jesus taught cannot be found in Scripture. You were criticizing the Church for recognizing that people can attain heaven without having faith in Christ, and I pointed out a verse that speaks to that teaching.

Where does Paul say this?

If it were written that way, then you would not be disputing it, would you? You ask for a Sacred Tradition, I gave you one, now you want to know why you cannot see it in your Bible?

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."

Paul does not separate the Teachign that came by word of mouth or in writing. We are to stand firm and hold fast to both as of equal value. Catholics have done this. The reformers jettisoned the part that was not in the “letter”.

Actually it does not suprise me since i think you know that these traditions (not found it the NT) you refer to that supposedly came from the apostles cannot be proven but must be assumed.

I agree that they must be recieved. Paradosis means the handing down. Sacred Tradition (paradosis) must be received from an authoritative source. Paul did not make them up himself either, but handed on what was handed to him.

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” 1 Cor 11:2-3

Those who do not receive will obviously not be able to recognize it or benefit from it.

Neither will they be commended for maintaining it.

Then you are not justified in believing this since there is no evidence for it.

No evidence that you will accept. But, just as the example given to you about a beautiful well tended garden, I have sufficient evidence. As an avid gardener myself, I know well that a tended garden requires work and attention. Therefore, when I see one, I can rightly assume that work and attention has been given.

Likewise, when I see the Sacred Tradition maintained in the Church today is the same as it was in the time of Paul and the other Apostles, I find sufficient evidence for my faith.

You cannot see the garden, so you cannot benefit from the evidence.

I wonder.... i hope some Roman catholics respond.

I would venture that most of them are very weary of your apparently intractible resistance to the truth.

I was listening to the Roman Catholic radio today (Immaculate Heart) in this area. There was a special on about the Eastern Churches, and the patriarchies descended from Paul and Peter in the East. I have heard it said that IHS broadcasts all Roman Catholic programming all the time, so apparently this history is correct from both the Latin and the Byzantine perspective.

Not so. It’s an objective view.

We would all like to believe that we are objective, but in fact, we are not. Our perceptions are influenced by our experiences and education (or lack thereof). This is why it is so important to have an authority outside ourselves, so that we are not led astray by our own myopia.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. He based His teachings in large part on the OT Scriptures and what He taught in the NT is Scripture. You never find Him promoting unblilical traditions nor appealing to “tradition” to ground His teachings in. He is the source and foundation for Sola Scriptura.

It seems that you have a lot to learn about Jewish tradition as well!

I can assure you that Jesus is not the Source and foundation of SS. On the contrary, He Himself is the Word made Flesh, and no written document can ever replace HIm.

 

[onenow1]

onenow1;4260952:

Since all you have quoted here is taken from Scripture so Sacred Tradition is another way of saying Scripture?

ja Please ponder the verse below and understand who Jesus is talking to.

John 14 : 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have SAID to you.

Will you notice Jesus saying all things I have SAID to you, speaking to the Apostles not to everyone. I know I don’t remember Jesus saying anything to me verbally, do you ?

The short answer is apostolic succession. You know in your heart of hearts the Holy Spirit does not teach different truth to
different denominations.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[justasking4]

onenow1;4261150]

ja Please ponder the verse below and understand who Jesus is talking to.

 

[justasking4]

It seems that you have a lot to learn about Jewish tradition as well!

I can assure you that Jesus is not the Source and foundation of SS. On the contrary, He Himself is the Word made Flesh, and no written document can ever replace HIm.

I agree with you in part. The only teachings that we have of Christ can only found in the NT though. To claim there is something beyond has never been shown.

 

[onenow1]

Quote= ja4 He was only speaking to His apostles and not to anyone else. This includes later popes and councils.

? = OneNow1. Where does it say it does not include the sucessors of the Apostles ?

Peace, OneNow1 :coffee

 

[Fishing]

ja4, I pray that you are sincere in your questions. My suspicions tell me that you are not. If this is true, then I ask that all Christians, Angels, and Saints pray for you…In Christ’s name …Amen