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

[guanophore]

How serious these words of our Lord; how we ought to give them our full attention! We are bound to repeat the same mistakes of the Pharisees unless we take heed. Christ warns us plainly of the tendency of man’s religious inventions to supplant the Word of God. Three times he charged the Pharisees: “Laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” “You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” “Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down.” The origin of their traditions was lost in antiquity, but these old traditions came to be regarded as authoritative. The Pharisees expected everyone to obey, and they were offended because the disciples did not keep these regulations. The Scriptures were interpreted by their traditions, and so, in practice, tradition superseded the written Word. The end result was disastrous. Like the addition of a small amount of poison to a beaker of water, so is the addition of human tradition to God Word. The Word of God is rendered “of no effect” – void and useless to true spirituality.

I think this is a little overboard. There are some customs of men that are not contradictory to the Word of God. An example of such a tradition would be:

When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read…Luke 4:16

People don’t go to synagogues today, and some don’t all stand up to read in the gathering, but there is nothing “ungodly” or “disasterous” about such a custom.

YOu are also failing to distinguish between Sacred Traditions and human traditions (customs). Jesus did follow some of traditions, and approved of them. One of these was the festival of the Tabernacles, a feast established after the rededication of the Temple after the Maccabean revolt. You may know nothing about this, because the Reformers took out the books that give this history from your bible. However, it is recorded in Jn. 7 that Jesus went up to the temple for this occasion, and used it as an opportunity to teach the people. It is unlikely He would have done such a thing if He did not approve.

The Pharisees censured the disciples of Christ because they ignored their venerated “tradition of the elders.” Today Roman bishops do the same to Christians because we would not follow their “Sacred Traditions” – they curse us for not saluting their images; sternly warn us that we stand condemned and have fallen away from the divine faith because we do not believe their novel Marian dogmas, and exclude our communities from the universal church because we do not submit to the bishop of the capital of the old Roman Empire.

This is the best load of calumny and slander I have seen since ja4 was suspended! Please show where a Roman Bishop has censured you or cursed you. I think this is a baseless accusation, and amounts to bearing false witness against your brother. Or, do you believe that Jesus also discontinued the ten commandments?

Please show where a Roman Bishop has excluded any communities from the universal church. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches the exact opposite. I hope that you are here long enough to get some of these lies you have been told corrected.

It would be much better for you as a Catholic to question whether your church has fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees of old. For if "Sacred Tradition" is nothing but doctrines of human origin rather than the holy Word of God, the consequences are dreadful. Remember God's warning: "In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Has it occurred to you what measure of audacity is required to come into a Catholic forum, and with your vast misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Apostolic faith to reprimand us to ‘repent’?

 

[guanophore]

Again you are missing the point,I never said there was anything wrong with praying for the dead(I don’t know what good it will do)but rather asking the dead to pray for you,thats the problem.

I agree with you. Good thing they are alive! In fact, Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life are alive with Him “forevermore”.

Matt 22:29-33

29 Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. …‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.”

If the holy ones are not alive, how is it that Moses and Elijah were able to have a conversation with Jesus about his impending crucifixion? Do you think he was role modeling necromancy for us?

Again Christ died that I may be forgiven,and when I die I go instantly to the Father noy purgatory

Now you are contradicting yourself, because only those who are alive can be in heaven, and if your soul is in some kind of soul sleep until the resurrection of the body…

As far as the blasphemy,you didnt read it right, what I said was once you are saved you don’t have to be saved again,but you must repent of your sins

That is very catholic of you to say!

 

[JLongoria]

Let me just say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all these posts. Some of the apologetic arguments I’m already familiar with, and I say bravo for sticking up for the faith; everything else is new to me, so thank you for giving me more ammunition

N2, you like to cite things from the Bible where Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their “traditions”; yet what do you say about this:

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

St. Matthew 23:2-3

In fact, what do you have to say to that entire chapter? It seems to me that Jesus is rebuking their hypocrisy, and not what they teach.

And as Mark Shea points out, where do we find this “chair of Moses”? Where? Look in the Bible, and you’ll find it not. It comes straight from Tradition! Interesting that our Lord would rely on the “un-biblical” paradosis in order to drive home a point on such an important lecture.

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth–people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith. But they will not make further progress, for their foolishness will be plain to all, as it was with those two.

2 Timothy 3:8-9

In the words of Shea,

Consult your concordance. You will not find Jannes and Jambres anywhere in the Old Testament …] So the question arises: how does Paul know the names of these guys? If we propose the “Paul was directly inspired” theory again, we have to ask, “Why then does Paul know that Timothy will know who he means?”

By What Authority?, Mark P. Shea

Obviously, you can tell whom I’m a fan of, especially because my initial faith formation was that as an evangelical Christian. Yet God opened my eyes, and brought me to Truth in the Catholic Church.

It should be said that there is no problem with tradition so long as it is not anti-Biblical. If I held to a tradition that said that Jesus was not really human, rather only appeared to be, then I’d be in line with a lot of heretics that were booted out of the Church long ago. Somehow, they keep on popping up :dts:

The thing is that the Apostles, and even Our Lord Himself, adhered to paradosis that was handed down from the ages. Numerous times are events or people mentioned in the Bible without appearing anywhere in the Christian canon; how come these books aren’t there, right along side our other books?

There are three distinct references that Mark (the writer, not the Apostle, heh_ points out from the Bible where the law of Moses is handed through angelic mediation, and not directly from God (Acts 7:52-53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2-3). Once again, no where in the Bible, yet its truth as Tradition is asserted; in fact, so much so that is is “one of the underpinnings for their teaching that the covenant of Moses is inferior to the covenant of Christ, since the former was made through angelic creatures while the latter is made by the incarnate God Himself!”

Jews during the time of Jesus would have known exactly who people like Jannes and Jambre were, or that Isaiah was sawed in two; yet these truths are contained nowhere in Sacred Scripture. They would have also been aware of the angelic intercession, as indicated by historians such as Josephus. They relied on Sacred Tradition, passed down through the ages, to fill in on places where the Bible was clearly silent.

 

[guanophore]

Hebrews 12:1 “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,”

This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with saints in Heaven and those on earth

Really? Who do you think are the “witnesses”. I will give you a scripture study hint. Whenever you see a “wherefore” or a “therefore”, look and see what it is there for. In this case, he is making a point based on what he has said before in chap. 11.

Do show scripture where someone prayed to someone who has died.Do these saints turn God like in that they can even hear your prayers?

It does say that, when we see Him, we shall be like HIm, for we shall see Him as he really is. How did Saul have a conversation with Samuel after he died?

 

[JRKH]

TobyLue

In response to the last point. Catholics renew our baptismal vows annually, Plus each each child and convert will renew their vows at confirmation.

As we can see from this exchange, the thread has become pointless.
Tobylue has interjected that N2 wants examples of things taught by Jesus that are not written down. Examples are provided. Instead of acknowledging this he argues that they must be wrong since they aren’t supported by the Bible.

At this point I would say that the catholics here have done their Job of providing the data.
N2 rejects this which is no surprise.
This does not change the validity of the data provided.
Nor does it change the fact that a person who has restricted themselves to only their own interpretation of the Bible, and cut themselves off from the fullness of faith through the Apostolic Church, cannot attain a full and correct understanding of the wonders of God’s Revelation.

Peace
James

 

[TheGreenO]

In response to the last point. Catholics renew our baptismal vows annually, Plus each each child and convert will renew their vows at confirmation.

As we can see from this exchange, the thread has become pointless.
Tobylue has interjected that N2 wants examples of things taught by Jesus that are not written down. Examples are provided. Instead of acknowledging this he argues that they must be wrong since they aren’t supported by the Bible.

At this point I would say that the catholics here have done their Job of providing the data.
N2 rejects this which is no surprise.
This does not change the validity of the data provided.
Nor does it change the fact that a person who has restricted themselves to only their own interpretation of the Bible, and cut themselves off from the fullness of faith through the Apostolic Church, cannot attain a full and correct understanding of the wonders of God’s Revelation.

Peace
James

Agreed, bravo!

 

[mlchance]

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Agreed. But note that John 3:16 does not (indeed, cannot) contradict those many places in Scripture that plainly teach that baptism forgives sins and is necessary for salvation. In fact, Jesus Christ in John 3 speaks of the necessity of baptism.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TobyLue]

I have yet to see an example of anything yet I give you verses that if looked at with common sense should leave no doubt

But n2, please look at your post. You are not responding to examples given that YOU specifically asked. AGAIN, you asked (if you don’t care to look back at your original post) “What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it” ; your own words. We have given you examples of infant baptism that we know because of what the Early Fathers were doing, that infant baptism was taught by Jesus. Are you saying (and please do not dodge this question) that the Apostles got it incorrect by baptizing infants? Did they misunderstand Jesus? Please answer these YES OR NO!!!

If you say YES they misunderstood Jesus, then what proof do YOU have that St. Paul when writing his letters didn’t get “household” correct? What proof do YOU have that **any **of the scriptures are correct then? Maybe St. Paul forgot to write down “all in the household and BTW infants too”.

If you say NO they didn’t misunderstand because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then infants should be baptized because that’s what they were teaching and practicing.

The EarlyChurch was doing this for over 400 years before the bible was compiled, and once the Bible was canonized, are you saying that nobody was smart enough to know that “all in household” did not mean infants too? Are you saying that all of sudden the Church was blind to those scriptures? Remember, the scriptures came out of what was being taught by the Church.
So again, the practice of infant baptism WAS TAUGHT BY JESUS BECAUSE THE APOSTLES TAUGHT THEIR DISCIPLES WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM JESUS.

You dare call the Apostles ignoramuses and HAD NO COMMON SENSE? They had no idea what they were writing. They were doing one thing but HAD NO COMMON SENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE WRITING DOWN? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t have any common sense to get it through the head of the Apostles and their disciples to understand that “household” didn’t mean infants too?

Please prove to us that YOUR interpretation supersedes the interpretation of the EarlyChurch.

Oh, and since you want to be specific that “all in household” does not include infants, then what about your

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I guess that infants and retarded (mentally challenged to be politically correct) are doomed because they dont have enough mentallity to “believe”. What about people in the jungles who have never heard of Jesus… I guess they are doomed to hell too.

 

[cfrancis]

Agreed. But note that John 3:16 does not (indeed, cannot) contradict those many places in Scripture that plainly teach that baptism forgives sins and is necessary for salvation. In fact, Jesus Christ in John 3 speaks of the necessity of baptism.

– Mark L. Chance.

Right you are, Mark! In fact, John 3:16 says “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. I DO believe in Christ, when He and His Church, through Scripture and Tradition, teach me Baptism does save us!

 

[TobyLue]

Acts 8:36-37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV)

So my question again,in light of this verse,how can an infant believe in anything

Here is the fatal error that n2thelight and many protestants make. They are by n2’s own words condeming all infants that die to hell. He said that infants can’t believe anything but then love to quote john 3:16*“that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”*. "…how can an infant believe in anything…"

Which is it n2thelight? If baptizing an infant is wrong because he can’t believe, then how can an infant be saved according to John 3:16?

Me, I would rather follow God through HIS Church which is the Pillar and Foundations of truth, rather than my own fallible and possible erroneous self-interpretation.

 

[TobyLue]

JRKH

In response to the last point. Catholics renew our baptismal vows annually, Plus each each child and convert will renew their vows at confirmation.

I learned the following prayer as a child umteen hundred years ago, and still say it every morning “I renew my baptismal vows. I renounce Satan and all his worksand all his pomps. I take Jesus Christ for my Saviour and my Guide and promose to be faithful until the end of my live. Amen”

 

[NotWorthy]

And do tell why not

Or are you saying that the Catholic Church decides whats scripture and what is not,and that it can be and not be at the same time?

What he is saying is there is a difference between “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Versura”. People that claim to ascribe to “Sola Scriptura” actually believe in “Sola Versura”, which means,* If something is not explicitly stated in a singular verse, it’s not Scriptural*. This tends to ignore the fact that God doesn’t limit Himself to soundbites.

For instance, nowhere is it taught that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, according to “Sola-Versura-ists”. But these people tend to ignore the fact that the New Covenant Church is the restored Kingdom of Israel. And in ancient Israel, it was the King’s mother who was the Queen, the Gebira. This was such an obvious lesson, that nearly every queen mother is mentioned immediately after the king. But since it’s not spelled out, “Sola-Versura-ists” don’t believe in it.

Hence, now that Jesus reigns in His Kingdom, Catholic understand that Mary would reign as Queen of Heaven. It’s very Scriptura, even if it’s not versed in a simple sound bite.

 

[cfrancis]

Sola Versura…I like it!

 

[TobyLue]

Sola Versura…I like it!

I like that one too… now how about Sola Interpretatus ( dont know if there is such a word but I think you get the idea)

 

[NotWorthy]

Sola Versura…I like it!

Yes, it’s the only way I can figure that someone can ignore all of Jesus’ teachings on performing good works for our brothers and sisters and still think heaven is all about simply believing and being saved.

 

[cfrancis]

I move we combine the terms…something like Sola Versura Interpretatus

 

[vern_humphrey]

I move we combine the terms…something like Sola Versura Interpretatus

Something along the lines of the famous spelling rule, “I before E except after C or when decreed by me.”

 

[JRKH]

I move we combine the terms…something like Sola Versura Interpretatus

I vote Yea:thumbsup:

Peace
James

 

[cfrancis]

I’ll check with my two oldest children on the proper declension for “I interpret” so we can get the correct translation of, “By the Verses I Interpret Alone.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll check with my two oldest children on the proper declension for “I interpret” so we can get the correct translation of, “By the Verses I Interpret Alone.”

I usually call it, “Sola Scruptura But Not Wholla Da Scriptura.”

It’s what I call “Garage Sale Theology,” which operates on the assumption that the Bible was just found (perhaps bought at a garage sale) and no one ever heard of it before.