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

[mercygate]

So we agree that this reference to rememberance is only to those in the room at the time?

Both Catholics and Protestants understand that some things are said and apply to specific people while others apply broadly. In this case – the Great Commission and the Farewell Discourse – Jesus addresses the Apostles. The rest of us are not exempt from these promises, but our participation in them requires unity with the Apostles and the Apostolic Church. It is how we view the ongoing, historic Church and the Holy Spirit’s role in the continuity of the faith. Apostolic Succession also fits in here.

If the Holy Spirit causes me to believe something that is not affirmed by the Church, whose job it is to “teach” and to “remember” and to be guided “into all the truth” then guess who’s getting it wrong? Hint: not the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I would like add some traditions of Protestantism goes against Scripture i.e, Rapture, Alter Calls, Accepting Jesus as your Personal Lord in Savior can you save you once and for all, Scripture Alone, and not to mention the Faith Alone doctrine. All these goes against Scripture.

 

[TobyLue]

Simple,neither is scriptual

Hah!!! this is the crux of the problem. You ask what did Christ teach that wasnt written and if you ave given an example you comback will say…“it’s not written in scripture so its false”.Infant baptism was taught by the apostles. Jesus taught the apostles and they passed it down to their disciples. I know that “Baptize Infants” is not in scripture but we know from the early Fathers that Jesus taught this because they learned from the apostles who learned from Jesus. Many ask this same question but then come back same as you do “its not written in scripture”. Make up your mind. DO YOU WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING THAT IS NOt IN SCRIPTURE OR WILL YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE". You want scripture only?.. OK show me where Jesus commanded sombody to write everything down. Book, chapter, and verse. please…

 

[NotWorthy]

You want scripture only?.. OK show me where Jesus commanded sombody to write everything down. Book, chapter, and verse. please…

For that matter, you may want to ask our good friend N2thelight, “Show me in Scripture where Scripture won’t be written and compiled correctly for 1500 years” - in the form of the King James Bible.

According to N2’s reasoning, those crazy catholics (aka “us”) couldn’t get it right for 1500 years, so the reformers had to come along.

 

[Gamera]

For that matter, you may want to ask our good friend N2thelight, “Show me in Scripture where Scripture won’t be written and compiled correctly for 1500 years” - in the form of the King James Bible.

According to N2’s reasoning, those crazy catholics (aka “us”) couldn’t get it right for 1500 years, so the reformers had to come along.

This always bothers me about “King James Onlyism.” Catholics and Orthodox believe God’s general revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Protestants believe God’s general revelation ended with the writing of the final book of the Bible. But “King James Onlyists,” on the other hand, believe God’s general revelation to humanity ended in 1611 when the King James Bible translation was completed. How is that consistent with sola scriptura?

 

[Usagi]

Let me put it to ya this way,I stand by the KJV ,so whatever books are included in there are the ones God intended to be

And how do you know that?

The “table of contents” of the Bible is the one thing even non-Catholics must admit arises from the Tradition of the early Christians.

We all agree that God inspired certain writings (you say sixty-six, we say seventy-three), but nowhere is there an inspired written list of which writings are inspired. They had to be recognized as such by the Christian community (and confirmed, in cases of dispute, by the Christian leadership), after which the canon was dutifully passed down from generation to generation – outside, but alongside, the Scripture itself.

Usagi

 

[guanophore]

You are missing the point of this verse,this is basically a dispute between two people,with the Church simply being an arbritraitor,its not a biblical matter,rather a legal one.

Matthew 18:17 “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

This is Christ teaching on matters between members of the body of Christ. Those outside the body of Christ are not part of this instruction. When this happens you set yourself apart from that person, and if it is your blood brother, you do the same. Don’t treat that person as an enemy, but as a brother that you just don’t care to be around, until the matter is tended to.

This is a nice way of trying to dispense with the authority that Jesus gave to the church. Interesting the Apostles did not understand it this way. When Ananias and Sapphira sinned against the HS, did they take that one up with Scripture? Suppose I say that my brother has sinned against me by claiming that Sola Scriptura is a teaching of the Apostles. Where do I take that dispute?

 

[guanophore]

If a book was written by a prophet or apostle would that qualify as Scripture?

Obviously it does, since we still don’t know who wrote the book of Hebrews.

To answer this question if a Tradition goes against Scripture would require us to know specifically all the Traditions of the Catholic church. Such a list as far as i can tell does not exist so we can’t know.

There are no Sacred Traditions that “go against Scripture”. They both came from the same Source, so it is impossible for them to contradict one another. If it seems to you that they do, then you don’t understand one or the other.

You are right, the Sacred Tradition is a way of life, and a world view, described in the book of Acts as The Way. It is impossible to reduce a way of life to a “list”.

I have read through a lot of this thread and i didn’t see an answer to this question:
What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it?

i know John 20:30-31 allude to Jesus doing much more than what was recorded. The question is what was it if its not written down?

Thos who have received the Apostolic faith do not distinguish between what was written, and what was practiced. It is all ONE GOSPEL. We can be sure He taught it because He gave His Apostles the authority to teach it, and to choose faithful men, who were able to teach others also. The Apostles entrusted the message to these bishops, and charged them before God to keep and guard what was entrusted to them, and they did so.

What Jesus teaches that is not written is all of it, since none of it was written when He taught it.

If this was the only criteria you would be correct. There were other ways to determine if a book or letter was Scripture than just this one.

Yes and i have wondered of other writings that the apostles may have written. There are a couple reasons why we don’t have more and that is they were lost or God determined by His Spirit working through the church at the time the limits of the canon.

Yes, the main one being adherance to the Sacred Tradition passed on by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

There are no traditions of the Aposles,but there is the written Word

What do you think happened to them?

Why do you think they disciples ignored the commandment to keep them?

It is no wonder you are having trouble understanding them, if you start out insisting they don’t exist. That is like saying, I keep looking for the moon, but it does not exist.

 

[guanophore]

This was not addressed to the “church” but to His disciples. It is in the context of what Jesus said and taught that they would be reminded of.

ja4, this is an example of one of those “basics” of the faith that I was telling you requrie your attention. You are suffering from a deficient understanding of church. The Church is comprised, among other things, of the disciples of Christ. Collectively, we are the Body of Christ. I agree with you, that this promise was made to disciples, specifically the Apostles, and those in communion with them. I also agree that they would be reminded of what Jesus taught, and also be led by the HS when the need arose to make decisions over things that had not come up previously.

 

[guanophore]

Has n2thelight EVER shown us, from Scripture which books belong in the Bible?

Seems this question was posed several times earlier in the thread without n2thelight providing an answer.

Then let us commend him, for he has accepted at least this much of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4158612]

Originally Posted by n2thelight
Can you give some examples of sacred traditions

1. The authorship of Mark’s Gospel. Nowhere does the text identify its author. We know Mark wrote it because Sacred Tradition tells us he did.

1. The Canon of Scripture (the list of which books belong to the Bible). The Bible itself lacks any table of contents – nowhere does it tell us which books to include. We know which books constitute the Bible from Sacred Tradition.

1. The fact that John the Evangelist was the same John who wrote the Revelation of John (nowhere does the text state this).

Does the church use the term “Sacred Tradition” when speaking of these questions? If so, who and where do they speak thus?

What is the difference between “Sacred Tradition” and tradition? How do you determine one or the other?

 

[guanophore]

Does the church use the term “Sacred Tradition” when speaking of these questions? If so, who and where do they speak thus?

What is the difference between “Sacred Tradition” and tradition? How do you determine one or the other?

Sacred Tradition is that which came down to us from the Apostles. other traditions, with a small "t’ are the customs of men, and vary through the Rites based on culture and language. For example, many Eastern Rite persons do not use the Rosary, as it is a Western tradition.

I think, though, ja4, it would be more beneficial for you to focus on the basics of the faith. It will not be possible for you to grasp these other matters when a firm foundation is not present.

 

[justasking4]

Sacred Tradition is that which came down to us from the Apostles. other traditions, with a small "t’ are the customs of men, and vary through the Rites based on culture and language. For example, many Eastern Rite persons do not use the Rosary, as it is a Western tradition.

I think, though, ja4, it would be more beneficial for you to focus on the basics of the faith. It will not be possible for you to grasp these other matters when a firm foundation is not present.

Do you think i should go to a RCIA class and then come back?

 

[guanophore]

Do you think i should go to a RCIA class and then come back?

I really don’t think you are ready for an RCIA class. I guess it would not hurt, but I think some basic bible classes in your own faith tradition might be helpful. Does your denomination have a bible school that you are eligible to attend?

Would you consider some correspondence study?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4163777]I really don’t think you are ready for an RCIA class. I guess it would not hurt, but I think some basic bible classes in your own faith tradition might be helpful. Does your denomination have a bible school that you are eligible to attend?

i can think of a number of protestant seminaries but i don’t think it would approach this the same way a person in a RCIA class would.

Would you consider some correspondence study?

Depends on time and what it is.

 

[TobyLue]

This is the thing that puts many B.O’s. and KJV only’s in a dilemma. What version of the Bible was used by the Early Christians, say in 100 AD?
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Question: what version of the KJV was St. Ignatius, who BTW was a student of John, using when he wrote this letter to the Romans? Remember, many Protestants deny Jesus’ word that the Bread and Wine become His Body and Blood because they say Catholics take Jesus’ words out of context. Now, again what version of the Bible was St. Ignatius using that he would take Jesus’ words out of context? Was John such a lousy teacher that Ignatius completely misunderstood John? If John was such a lousy teacher then he probably was a lousy writer too and we have no guarantee that the Gospel of John is inspired.

How about Ireneaus that said : “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
Here he is writing Against Heresies. What version of the KJV was he using? Anyone?, anyone?
This from the Book 1 Against Heresies : 1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2) “minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,” **and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] (*Here was Ireneaus using the KJV and taking it out of context?)*These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, (sound familiar? The church teaching on the Eucharist for over 1500 years then come these people that have the audacity to say that the CC takes John 6 out of context because they are learned and they have the Holy Spirit) from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;(3) and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.
Again, what Bible is Ireneaus using? Did the teaching on the Eucharist come from the Apostles who learn it from Jesus? So the Church Fathers that canonized the Bible completely took John 6 out of context?
THE BIBLE HAD TO AGREE WITH WHAT WAS BEING TAUGHT BY THE EARLY CHURCH OTHERWISE BOOKS WERE REJECT. AND JOHN 6 AGREED TO A “T” THAT THE BREAD AND WINE CHANGED TO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS.

Again, what Bible was used by the Early Church that completely took John 6 out of context? And BTW took it out of context for over 1500 years until God sent some of the deformers to enlighten God’s Written Word. Anyone? Anyone?

 

[NotWorthy]

This is a nice way of trying to dispense with the authority that Jesus gave to the church. Interesting the Apostles did not understand it this way. When Ananias and Sapphira sinned against the HS, did they take that one up with Scripture? Suppose I say that my brother has sinned against me by claiming that Sola Scriptura is a teaching of the Apostles. Where do I take that dispute?

I’m no expert on this, and I don’t wish to answer for N2, but I certainly hope you don’t handle it like the Peter did with Ananias and Sapphira!!!

 

[n2thelight]

Quote=OneNow1: So you say ? Common sense says something different n2thelight.

Some people try very hard to complicate the Word of GOD, but it is in reality very simple. Jesus Christ founded one Church in Matthew 16:18, as pointed out many times in these forums. Today, there are numerous churches which call themselves “Christian”, and all teach something different from one another.
Our common sense and human reasoning should tell us, “How can this be, since Jesus Christ taught one truth?” Consequently, common sense should be telling us that there can be only one Christian Church which teaches all truth. By the simple process of elimination, we can determine which is the true church. It’s out there have you really searched for truth without bias and misinformation. In essence n2thelight you better be abslutely certain what you are professing is absolute truth, not what you believe to be true.

Peace, OneNow1

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

The two Churches are Smyrna and Philidelphia and what they taught can be found in the book of Rev,you would do well to check them out.This is how you find a true Chuch,it must be based on what is taught aligned with scripture.With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

 

[guanophore]

i can think of a number of protestant seminaries but i don’t think it would approach this the same way a person in a RCIA class would.

Depends on time and what it is.

Bible college is usually more affordable, and some places do correspondence for very small compensation. I agree that it would not do the same thing an RCIA would, but RCIA is for people who are thinking about becoming Catholic, so it is not really appropriate for you. What might work better is some basic history and historical criticism, so that you can understand more accruately what you are reading.