SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Zenas]

For you to make this statement,is an insult to God!What do you mean we can’t be certain,what do you think Jesus died for?I need NO man to absolve my sins,and nor can he.Jesus death made it possible for me to come straight to my Fathe

Consider Matthew 9:6-8:

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Notice the plural here. What men were Matthew talking about? Jesus Christ is a man. That is one. Who are the others? The apostles, of course. Matthew should have known–he was one of them.

 

[n2thelight]

Cut and paste

Some here think that I just go everywhere and pull out things against the Catholic Church,so I thought Id take the time to say why.

First, if I quote some one, I agree with that quote,when I supply the link at the end, I agree with what was said on that particular point,but in no way should it be implied that I agree with all of whomevers teachings.Its hard sometimes for me to put my thoughts in writting,so its easier for me this way.

Example,I can read the sayings of the kkk,and quote something from them that is very true,but as an African American,it should be no question that I don’t agree with about 99% of what they teach.

Just thought I needed to get that out there

 

[n2thelight]

Zenas

Notice the plural here. What men were Matthew talking about? Jesus Christ is a man. That is one. Who are the others? The apostles, of course. Matthew should have known–he was one of them.

Matthew 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, Which had given such power unto men.”

“Unto men” reads in the original text, “unto a man”.

No man can forgive your sins,period.

 

[Stephen_C]

Cut and paste First, if I quote some one, I agree with that quote,when I supply the link at the end, I agree with what was said on that particular point,but in no way should it be implied that I agree with all of whomevers teachings.Its hard sometimes for me to put my thoughts in writting,so its easier for me this way.

This is a little bothersome to me. And at the heart of the matter. So you agree with some of sources you have quoted but not all of what they say? If you disagree, who do you take it to? I am quite sure the auther of that source whould say he/she was guided by the Holy Spirit as well you. So who are we to believe?
A couple of questions for you.

1. Where did the Bible come from?
2. Who compiled the Bible?
3. Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?
4. Is this group still around? If yes, where are they now? If no, what happpened to them?

 

[guanophore]

I understand. But do we have a Scriptural reference for this? Or am I just being stupid?

In Christ

No, I don’t think it is stupid. Protestants are not taught to read the scriptures with the concept of sacramental grace in mind, so it is often not perceived that way.

When Jesus said “do this in memory of me”, Catholics understood from that day that Jesus was sacramentally present with them during Eucharist. They experienced His graces flowing during and as a result of the Sacrament.

Once Christians separated themselves from sacramental celebration, God’s Spirit being persistent, Christians also experienced graces outside of the sacraments.

 

[n2thelight]

Zenas

Notice the plural here. What men were Matthew talking about? Jesus Christ is a man. That is one. Who are the others? The apostles, of course. Matthew should have known–he was one of them.

Matthew 9:2 "And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.”

Matthew 9:3 "And, behold, certain of the scribes said with themselves, “This man blasphemeth.”

Luke 5:21 "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is This Which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”

This is why its important to compare scripture,as you can see the Pharisees,had one part right,that being,that only God alone can forgive sins,the problem is the fact that they refused to believe that Christ was God in the flesh.

Matthew 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, Which had given such power unto men.”

“Unto men” reads in the original text, “unto a man”.

No man can forgive your sins,period.

 

[wanner47]

Matthew 9:2 "And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.”

Matthew 9:3 "And, behold, certain of the scribes said with themselves, “This man blasphemeth.”

Luke 5:21 "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is This Which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”

This is why its important to compare scripture,as you can see the Pharisees,had one part right,that being,that only God alone can forgive sins,the problem is the fact that they refused to believe that Christ was God in the flesh.

Matthew 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, Which had given such power unto men.”

“Unto men” reads in the original text, “unto a man”.

No man can forgive your sins,period.

Your statement contradicts the Bible.

Jhn 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

Jhn 20:20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Jhn 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Jhn 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Men **can **forgive sins if they are given that power by Jesus Christ.

 

[guanophore]

As a former Protestant, the Bible is well known to me. As a recent Catholic convert, I must of course read the Bible from a different perspective, one that is based more clearly on commandments, regulations, rules and proccedures that serve to set up a foundation for the church eternal,

Why is this, I wonder?

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. St. Luke 10:16

The quotes you give are well known to most Christians, and as they are in the name of Christ they are authoritative, of course. But they do not establish the uniqueness of the CC as a channel of God’s grace.

I agree that God’s grace is not limited to any channel. However, Jesus said this to His Apostles. They understood His words to be directed to themselves, and those in union with His teaching with them. They understood them to refer to their successors. Persons who attempted to speak authoritatively that were not in union with the successors of the Apostles were considered false teachers, outsiders, apostates, and heretics. Pure Teaching was preserved by adhering to that which was passed down from the Apostles through the succession.

The Church lays unique claim to these sacraments because our bishops have been charged to safeguard the traditions of Christianity that were instituted by the Apostles.

This is an important point. I have provisionally discounted the uniqueness of the CC as a channel of God's grace.

I guess I just am not really clear on what you mean by “uniqueness”. If you mean that it is the only “channel”, then I understand and agree. However, if you mean, as it appears you do above, that the sacraments confected by the CC are not a unique channel, then I am mystified about why.

 For example, it does not flow through the church to people of other faiths, whose closeness to God is established in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Vatican II. Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and others can claim his gracre: they too are divinely imbued, but by God and not by the CC.

What do you mean when you say “it does not flow through the church through people of other faiths”? As I read that, I think of Mother Teresa, and how she spent her whole life allowing God’s grace to flow from the Church, through herself, to people of other faiths. There are thousands who do this every day, and have done in every generation, though they are not as well known as Mother.

If you mean that persons of other faith traditions experience grace, then I do agree with you. God is not limited to using any channel to confect grace.

 But this does not make it a unique channel of God's grace.

It is unique in the sense that grace cannot be obtained in the way that it is without the sacramental life of the Church. It seems clear that Jesus intended this. However, Jesus is not limited to sacraments, and pours out His grace upon all men everywhere.

 

[SD_Catholic]

No man can forgive your sins,period.

Ever??? You must know this is not truth… why do you refuse to answer the posts that show that the power to forgive sins was given to others (Ex. Apostles)… how can you possibly deny this???

 

[guanophore]

For you to make this statement,is an insult to God!What do you mean we can’t be certain,what do you think Jesus died for?I need NO man to absolve my sins,and nor can he.Jesus death made it possible for me to come straight to my Father.

Persons of Apostolic faiths consider that it is more insulting to God to spurn the instructions He gave, and to attempt to please Him in a manner other than what He directed.

For a person to say “I need NO man…” is basically saying to Jesus that what He set up is unnecessary.

It also seems like the eye saying to the hand “I have no need of you” when Jesus sacrificed His life to build us into a body where all the parts depend upon one another.

Mark 15:37 “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.”

Mark 15:38 “And the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”

This was the sacrifice hour, the ninth hour of the day when the chief priest would go into the holy of holies and make sacrifice for the sins of the people. It was a forbidden place for the people to enter and look upon, and now with this veil of the Temple rent in two, the people now had access to look into and approach the very throne of God. This was the daily oblation or sacrifice that offered a lamb, and now here the Lamb of God was offered for one and all times for all those that by faith would believe on Christ, and repent to the Father in “Jesus name”. Jesus name became our credentials to approach the throne of God in repentance, and the blood of Christ made it all possible. Jesus became the perfect sacrifice for one and all times.

Do you know what was meant by the term “the veil was rent in twain”? The Holy of holies was covered by the law, and it stated that one time each year, one individual, the High Priest, could penetrate the holy of Holies. That means that he could go into the presence of God Himself. That veil was very think and it was not a small thing that this curtain was rent in two from the top to the bottom. This meant that it was a divine supplication, letting us know that it was God that did it.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Now in Christ even you and I can go in and approach the throne of God. Even though you are a sinner, God loved you enough that He paid the price that allows that barrier to be removed. It was an awesome price that Christ paid, and that is why when you say, salvation is free, it is only free because the price has already been paid. Now you can come to the Father at any time and say, Father, I love you. That pleases Him, and with His love for you, come His blessings for you. You now have the right to say directly to Him, Help me Lord, I am a poor sinner." and He will.

You are inserting some sort of separation or barrier that does not exist. The priest acts “in the person” of Christ. The priest is not a barrier, but a point of access. There is no veil, no barrier.

 

[guanophore]

Is it possible for a person to abtain salvation without the Bible,relying solely on sacred tradition?

Gee…I sure hope so! Otherwise, all the people we read about in the NT were not really saved, since the NT was not written at the time. And no one in the first four centuries was saved, since the Bible had not been formed yet.

Is it possible for a person to abtain salvation without sacred tradition,relying solely on the Bible?

I believe that it is, as there are many people that have been led to Christ by reading Holy Scripture, even though they are separated from the Sacred Tradition. What is curious, however, is why people choose to remain separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the text that led them?

 

[n2thelight]

Stephen_C

This is a little bothersome to me. And at the heart of the matter. So you agree with some of sources you have quoted but not all of what they say? If you disagree, who do you take it to? I am quite sure the auther of that source whould say he/she was guided by the Holy Spirit as well you. So who are we to believe?
A couple of questions for you.

1. Where did the Bible come from?
2. Who compiled the Bible?
3. Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?
4. Is this group still around? If yes, where are they now? If no, what happpened to them?

I take it to no one,I compare what was said to scripture,I was taught to take no mans word for anything and to always check out what was said,compard to scripture,and I was taught this by scripture.

I can’t go wrong with scripture,but with man and his traditions,I can go very wrong,and I say this meaning not only Catholic tradition,but any of mans traditions.

1.God
2.Inspiried men of God
3.Very much so
4.Don’t know,I don’t really care where these men are,because I know where Christ is,for He said He would never leave me nor forsake me,and I don’t think He was talking about a specific church.

I don’t think from my undersatnding of the Word that I 100% agree with anyman.But from my main teacher,who happens to be Pastor Arnold Maurry of the Shepherds Chapel what I do dis-agree with him on is very insignificant

shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

I do agree with the above

 

[n2thelight]

guanophore

You are inserting some sort of separation or barrier that does not exist. The priest acts “in the person” of Christ. The priest is not a barrier, but a point of access. There is no veil, no barrier.

My point is, Christ died so that I would not have to go through anyone to get to God.In other words I need no man here nor anyone in Heaven,what Im trying to say is I need no middle man,Christ is all I need period.

When I sin I don’t need a priest all I have to say is Father forgive me and ask in Christ name.And I am forgiven.

I don’t need the Pope,Peter Mark Paul or Mary

Judgement will start in the Church

 

[wanner47]

I take it to no one,I compare what was said to scripture,I was taught to take no mans word for anything and to always check out what was said,compard to scripture,and I was taught this by scripture.

I can’t go wrong with scripture,but with man and his traditions,I can go very wrong,and I say this meaning not only Catholic tradition,but any of mans traditions.

1.God
2.Inspiried men of God
3.Very much so
4.Don’t know,I don’t really care where these men are,because I know where Christ is,for He said He would never leave me nor forsake me,and I don’t think He was talking about a specific church.

I don’t think from my undersatnding of the Word that I 100% agree with anyman.But from my main teacher,who happens to be Pastor Arnold Maurry of the Shepherds Chapel what I do dis-agree with him on is very insignificant

shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

I do agree with the above

How do you know that Pastor Arnold Maurry is infallible in his teachings?

Furthermore, are you going to respond to my post that proved, very clearly, that men do have the power to forgive sins?

 

[wanner47]

My point is, Christ died so that I would not have to go through anyone to get to God.In other words I need no man here nor anyone in Heaven,what Im trying to say is I need no middle man,Christ is all I need period.

When I sin I don’t need a priest all I have to say is Father forgive me and ask in Christ name.And I am forgiven.

I don’t need the Pope,Peter Mark Paul or Mary

Judgement will start in the Church

I assume, then, that you think it is sinful to ask others to pray for you or your intentions, given your beliefs as stated above.

Is that accurate?

 

[guanophore]

foundation:

Thank you. Been around a while, lurking etc.

guanophore:

Are you under some misapprehension that the Catholic Church purports to decide who is with Christ?

foundation?:

The tenor of many postings suggests that anyone who is NOT with CC is not eligible for many things, and I have repeatedly suggested that this is false. I don’t think this is a misapprehension of the attitude of many posters, and I assume that you would agree with my position?

Ok. However, not being eligible for things is not equivalent to being with Christ, or not. As you recall, in the book of Acts the Apostles found some disciples who have been baptized in the name of Jesus, but did nor receive the HS. Scripture is clear that they were disciples, even though they lacked the fullness of the gifts available.

You are suggesting that it is false to believe that there are graces available within the CC that are not available outside of it?

I think what you are characterizing as “the attitude of many posters” is actually Apostolic Teaching.
foundation?:

That’s good. But the implication of my note was that it is very difficult to accept the position of the Church that a moral non-Christian would not be of God.

I am glad that this is difficult to accept. Especially since iti is not the position of the Church!

Lisdogan:

Perhaps I know, love and respect too many moral non-Christians. Perhaps I have been given to understand that this is not God’s intention, despite the words of Christ: ‘No man cometh unto the Father except by Me’. This continues to be disputed with various interpretations, no?

Not in Catholic Teaching. The Catholic Church recognizes that there are many who come to the Father through Christ that do not recognize Him for who He is. They may never know, until they are face to face with Him. However we accept HIs words, that even those who do not know Him, yet come to the Father, are indeed coming through Him. The Catechism is clear on this point.
Lisdogan?:

I think this is confirmed by your previous statement:

guanophore:

God is loving, and desires our fellowship for eternity. However, in His love He is just, and will not be in the presence of sin. Those who prefer sin over Him will not be in “blessed comfort for all eternity”.

Lisdogan?:

The question is how you define ‘sin’, or how the CC defines ‘sin’.

Actually, I think it has nothing to do with how “I” define sin. The CC defnes sin according to what was passed on by Jesus through the Apostles. Only God can judge the heart.

Lisdogan:

I keep wondering about the missionaries. If they left Africans in peace long ago (would that they had), and not brought the Word of God to them, then Africans would not know about God.

I am curious about your statement wishing that missionaries had not come to Africa. However, such a topic is far afield from this thread. The rest of your statement I think is just patently false. I have studied the spirituality of indiginous peoples all over the world, and I don’t know of any that don’t have in intrinsic awareness and experience of the Divine. The assertion that “Africans would not know God” is absurd.

Lisdogan:

And they would have a chance of being of and in God. However, the missionaries did go, they taught about God, many Africans rejected this belief in favour of their own customary beliefs, and thereby were damned to hell for all eternity.

Making such statements is false and inflammatory. Are you trying to get another thread closed? It is not the place of people to judge one another, and we are not to make condemnatory statements of this kind about one another.
Lisdogan?:

Are the missionaries then culpable for dreadful ‘sin’ in sending millions of Africans (or Indians or Chinese or whoever) to hell? Have a think, or is it all clear to you? Not to me.

The only thing that seems clear is that you have not studied your Catechism. People cannot “send” anyone to hell. Personally, I don’t even consider that God “sends” people to hell, but makes provision for those who choose not to be in His presence a condition in which their choice can be fulfiled.

Lisdogan:

As you said in another post:[/qupte]

guanophore:

I would say that no one has a “claim” on His grace. It is free and unmerited. However, not all avail themselves of His loving grace. Some reject God’s purpose for themselves.

Lisdogan:

So where does that leave the missionaries - like the fabulous Jesuits who are still struggling to convert, to teach, to comfort, and to establish some form of canon law that while not disabusing CC law, at the same time recognises local belief systems which are almost inevitably incorporated into Catholic doctrine among believers.

I really do not understand your question, and it really seems off topic here. Canon Law is Catholic law.

Lisdogan:

I must return to the two apparently contradictory propositions later. For now, just let me be very unsure about ‘original sin’, monogenesis and evolution, OK? Unless you have a big revelation that would help.

I don’t think anything I could say would be an improvement over the Catechism on this topic.

guanophore:

Perhaps you are thinking of something another poster wrote. I made no claim that all of the saved are in union with the Apostolic succession. However, I do agree that failure to be in unity with the Church that Jesus founded does very much affect the chances.

Lisdogan:

I think my quote was cut, and does not represent my original comment - but be that as it may. I have argued elsewhere in allegorical terms that the Mother Church represents the vine, and other Christian denominations the branches; or that the Mother Church represents the roots and trunk of a mighty tree, and other Christian denominations the branches - although some of them are suckers and parisites and must be trimmed away. As part of the whole, those who are not committed to the idea of the apostolic succession cannot be denied, to any extent, being One with God insofar as it is merited by their faith (and that apparently includes those of other faiths who do not know God).

I think you will find, if you read your Catechism, that there is no need to “argue” this point.

guanophore:

I agree that God decides. I am not sure how you got the error that the Catholic Church decides.

Lisdogan?:

See my note above.

I know that this post staggers all over the place, but I can make no apologies for that. There are too many implications that arise from the propositions that are being considered, from the interpretation of the CC teachings and doctrine by individuals, and from one’s own perceptions of God’s justice, mercy and grace.

In Christ

It seems that you are trying to blame the Catholic Church, and Catholic posters here that are representing it, for things that do not happen, and have not happened, except in your imagination.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

There are two errors here that I can see. One is, why do you think Jesus would lie, saying He would distribute Grace through the Church, then not do it? The other is that the Church is “man made” which is not true. The Church is founded by Jesus, and built by the Holy Spirit. It is “of God.”

I will deal with only the first part of this statement, as it is dishonourable. More later on the entire post, as I have run out of time.

Perhaps I am just being narrow minded? It seems to me that, if Jesus says “I will be with you until the end of the age”, then does not keep his promise,that he is a liar, a weakling, or possibly a lunatic. If there are other explanations of how He could make a promise like that, then fail to keep it, please enlighten me! I fail to see how my reasoning is dishonorable.

I did not, in any way, think that ‘Jesus would lie’ and I don’t know where you got this impression. I feel tainted. I know - personalising again.

I did not actually have that impression. It is just a form of debate. It is the first of the three possibilites mentioned above. It is a rather brash way of pointing out the explanations for the alternative.

If it is because I suggested that not all grace is distributed through His church, then that does not mean it is a lie. If he said he would distribute grace through his church, then he distributes grace through his church. I believe.

Well, I am glad that we are in agreement about SOMETHING!

 What I suggested, if I remember, is that this is not the only channel by which the grace of God is received by mankind. I would stand by that statement, as In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, the Vatican II Council Fathers.

And I don’t think you will get any arguement from Catholics here. Unless, of course, they are ignorant of the church teaching, or are not accurately representing it!

 

[n2thelight]

guanophore

I believe that it is, as there are many people that have been led to Christ by reading Holy Scripture, even though they are separated from the Sacred Tradition. What is curious, however, is why people choose to remain separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the text that led them?

Because one does not need sacred tradition,but one does need the Word of God/I don’t know where these traditons come from,besides the fact I don’t feel most are biblical,but I do need the Word,I know for a fact the the Word is inspiried,can’t say the same about tradtions of men.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

"First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture"

John MacArthur

 

[guanophore]

Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son’s "co-mediatrix.“2 And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition.”

John MacArthur

No, it is not nullified. However, your private interpretation of it is!

The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that contradicts Church TEaching, or vice versa. Both strands of revelation came from the same Source, which is why they cannot contradict.

 

[wanner47]

Because one does not need sacred tradition,but one does need the Word of God/I don’t know where these traditons come from,besides the fact I don’t feel most are biblical,but I do need the Word,I know for a fact the the Word is inspiried,can’t say the same about tradtions of men.

The Bible was compounded and the canon formed BY SACRED TRADITION. Thus, if you say you don’t need Sacred Tradition, you are saying you don’t need the Bible.

As has been stated and repeatedly proved, there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that is in conflict with Scripture (and vice versa).