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

[Church_Militant]

Why do you all think the apostles were Catholic?

Well gee. Look at what they preached and taught.The Eucharist IS Scriptural and Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

Christ never forced anyone to follow Him,yet the Catholic Church persecuted all that did not believe as they did.

“For over a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church hunted down “heretics” and killed them. Some of these “heretics” were people with strange beliefs. However, many of them were Bible-believing Christians.”

Oh…okay…here comes the self righteous (and historically ignorant and bigoted) proclamations that the Catholics are the bad guys and the Protestants (and all their modern post reformation step children) have been saints and martyrs without blood on their hands.

Please don’t try to foist that propaganda onto us because I, for one, can hear the souls of my Irish Catholic ancestors crying out from their graves, where their blood was spilled by Protestants because they would not convert. After, of course, they were persecuted and robbed of the little that they had and made unable to support themselves because they held to the Catholic faith! What a load of self righteous trash!

How do you all explain these killings?

John 16:2
“Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

Answer it yourself. Your own hands are just as bloody.

Neither was right, but don’t try to play that anti-Catholic propaganda to those of us who had relatives who paid the price for our faith at the hands of who erred from the Christian faith and indeed fulfilled your cited verse.

By all means cite verifiable sources for your allegations and we’ll quickly see just how factual your statement is.

 

[onenow1]

Yet my original question has not been answered,what did Christ teach that was’nt written

Quote=OneNow1 He taught there was a seat of authority, given by God, in the verse below. I believe this is the only time the seat of Moses is expressed in OT scripture ?

The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3).

Peace, OneNow1

 

[justasking4]

Where does Jesus specifically teach that He is divine in the Bible?

Jesus was doing things only God could do. Things like forgiving sins in which the Jewish leaders took great offense at Him for claiming to do something only God could do. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God.

 

[Church_Militant]

Jesus was doing things only God could do. Things like forgiving sins in which the Jewish leaders took great offense at Him for claiming to do something only God could do. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God.

Ah… but that is non specific…it is implied by his actions.

 

[n2thelight]

Well gee. Look at what they preached and taught.The Eucharist IS Scriptural and Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

I do look at what they preached and taught,however I do so based on scripture not tradition which make void the word of God,so to me it is the Catholics who teach a different gospel.

Oh…okay…here comes the self righteous (and historically ignorant and bigoted) proclamations that the Catholics are the bad guys and the Protestants (and all their modern post reformation step children) have been saints and martyrs without blood on their hands.

I never claimed catholics were the bad guys for I don’t nor will I judge.I am a Bible believing Christain so I really don’t care who you are,if you teach that which is not scriptual then you are wrong period,and that goes for whatever denomination one happens to be.So don’t keep playing that anti catholic card.

Please don’t try to foist that propaganda onto us because I, for one, can hear the souls of my Irish Catholic ancestors crying out from their graves, where their blood was spilled by Protestants because they would not convert. After, of course, they were persecuted and robbed of the little that they had and made unable to support themselves because they held to the Catholic faith! What a load of self righteous trash!

Not propaganda historical fact,I don’t agree with anyone being persecuted for what they believe,even those who believe nothing,Im sorry about your catholic ancestors for there deaths were wrong also.

Answer it yourself. Your own hands are just as bloody.

Neither was right, but don’t try to play that anti-Catholic propaganda to those of us who had relatives who paid the price for our faith at the hands of who erred from the Christian faith and indeed fulfilled your cited verse.

What exactly is being anti catholic?

 

[JLongoria]

Jesus was doing things only God could do. Things like forgiving sins in which the Jewish leaders took great offense at Him for claiming to do something only God could do. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God.

That isn’t Jesus specifically teaching anything at all. It implies His Godliness, but it is by no means explicit.

In fact, Jesus never answers in this regard as to whether He is God or not. St. Peter professed that He is the Son of the Living God, and others believed so too; but the Gospels as they are written are meant to supplement the oral word of the Apostles.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

John 20:30-31

What’s so interesting that nowhere in Sacred Scripture can it be explicitly known that Christ’s divine sonship makes Him one in being with the Father.

We find it hard to reference Christ’s proclaimation of “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) as a direct proof, especially since the Arians were able to convert a great many people using such Scripture to an extremely heretical preaching.

Only in light of the Sacred Tradition can it be read as, “one in being”; they argued it was “one in purpose”.

The point is our knowledge of Christ and God - the Hypostatic Union (two natures, one being, true man, true God), the Most Holy Trinity, His place in our salvation - can only be completed with Sacred Tradition.

Never has Christ’s nature been opposed by the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles; in fact, it has only deepened our understanding along side Sacred Scripture, and many Protestants gladly draw on this Tradition, this paradosis, without fully appreciating the fact that it is Tradition.

But not Tradition of men! No, instead it is the very word that Christ preached to the Apostles, and it was this oral word (we don’t have any writings of Christ) that He passed to the Apostles upon which the Church was founded.

Not the Bible.

The Church existed before the Bible was even conceived; the New Testament was meant to stand as a testament to the prophecies concerning Christ, the proof of His divine sonship, and a testament to the Apostolic age that followed.

 

[Church_Militant]

I do look at what they preached and taught,however I do so based on scripture not tradition which make void the word of God,so to me it is the Catholics who teach a different gospel.

Well I certainly cannot tell from the scriptures that I cited in both those articles.

How do you justify that the general n-C gospel is different from that specifically found in the New Testament?

How do you justify that the modern post reformation doctrine on communion is at severe odds with both the scriptures I cited and the very specific writings of the earliest of the Christian fathers?

I never claimed catholics were the bad guys for I don’t nor will I judge.I am a Bible believing Christain so I really don’t care who you are,if you teach that which is not scriptual then you are wrong period,and that goes for whatever denomination one happens to be.So don’t keep playing that anti catholic card.

Then don’t try to feed us anti-Catholic propaganda as if it is gospel truth, (which it is not!). I don’t care where you got that stuff from…I’ve heard and or seen it all before and every single time it has been proved to be lies perpetrated by someone with an a-C agenda, or someone ignorantly quoting such a source. In every case, it has proved to be one-sided rhetoric that seeks to portray the Catholic Church in a bad light while making the n-Cs appear as holy and righteous martyrs when in fact they were generally nothing of the sort.

It cuts both ways, but it never gets presented that way by guys like you.

Not propaganda historical fact,I don’t agree with anyone being persecuted for what they believe,even those who believe nothing,Im sorry about your catholic ancestors for there deaths were wrong also.

Prove it!

Cite your verifiable historical sources or at least the actual sources that you personally received that from and let’s see who’s actually telling the truth.

Bring it on! If it’s “historical fact” then it ought to be a simple matter to provide sources from which one can verify its veracity.

Bring it…or admit that you have no proof and have believed what someone else has told you and are yourself a victim of that same a-C propaganda.

 

[JLongoria]

I do look at what they preached and taught,however I do so based on scripture not tradition which make void the word of God,so to me it is the Catholics who teach a different gospel.

Woah there, Tex.

You have yet to denote where does Catholic tradition make void the word of God? The knowledge of God as you know Him has been preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.

The only reason you know of Christ’s nature, and necessity in our salvation at all, is because the Catholic Church exists.

You deny the faith of those who lived thousands of yours before yourself because it’s inconvenient for you. Funny, my understanding of salvation seems rather biblical when Christ tells me I should suffer for His sake; I thought, according to Protestant beliefs, He did all the suffering for me - all I should have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

Oh, and what’s this? St. Paul even says:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflctions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church…

Colossians 1:24

Funny that he’d say something like that. You know, since Christ’s death was supposed to do all the work for us, even though none of us deserves it one bit.

I never claimed catholics were the bad guys for I don’t nor will I judge.I am a Bible believing Christain so I really don’t care who you are,if you teach that which is not scriptual then you are wrong period,and that goes for whatever denomination one happens to be.So don’t keep playing that anti catholic card.

Oh bullhonky, my friend.

You quite literally attacked the entire institution with your regression in to the Black Legend of “Catholic persecutions”. Don’t sissy out now; either you admit that you shouldn’t have brought it up and apologize, or stick to your guns.

There’s a reason that no one has brought up Protestant persecution of Catholics: it isn’t relevant in this discussion.

Not propaganda historical fact,I don’t agree with anyone being persecuted for what they believe,even those who believe nothing,Im sorry about your catholic ancestors for there deaths were wrong also.

Wow, changing your tune there, aren’t you?

You come in here rampaging, demanding that we explain these attrocities, and then you become as docile as a sheep. How very sad, N2.

What exactly is being anti catholic?

Pretty much everything in that post of yours.

 

[n2thelight]

Quote=OneNow1 He taught there was a seat of authority, given by God, in the verse below. I believe this is the only time the seat of Moses is expressed in OT scripture ?

The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3).

Peace, OneNow1

Don’t think you quite understand this verse

What is the seat of Moses? Moses was the law-giver, which simply means that these scribes and Pharisees have taken over God’s law.

From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is approximately four hundred and fifty years before the time of Jesus birth, the Levitical priesthood has been totally replaced by false ones.

These people are not from the true line of the levitical priest the priesthood was inflitrated by those whom Jesus said were of their father satan

 

[JLongoria]

Woah woah woah.

The Eucharist is unscriptural?

And I quote St. Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the chalice, after supper, saying, “This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you drink this bread and drink the chalice, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

[and here’s the shocker for you]

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30

St. Paul calls it “the body and blood of the Lord”, and he’s not kidding! People will be judged based on whether or not they respect it! People have become ill in the Corinthian Church because of their disrespect of the Eucharist.

My dear sweet Lord, what’s wrong with these people? As much as they read the Bible, you’d think they would actually listen to it.

 

[JLongoria]

Don’t think you quite understand this verse

What is the seat of Moses? Moses was the law-giver, which simply means that these scribes and Pharisees have taken over God’s law.

From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is approximately four hundred and fifty years before the time of Jesus birth, the Levitical priesthood has been totally replaced by false ones.

These people are not from the true line of the levitical priest the priesthood was inflitrated by those whom Jesus said were of their father satan

Lol, that had nothing to do with what Christ had even said.

He said they sit in the place of authority, and they should be listened to. End of story.

Even then, the “seat of Moses” is still not placed anywhere in Scripture.

 

[onenow1]

Don’t think you quite understand this verse

What is the seat of Moses? Moses was the law-giver, which simply means that these scribes and Pharisees have taken over God’s law.

From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is approximately four hundred and fifty years before the time of Jesus birth, the Levitical priesthood has been totally replaced by false ones.

Hi,nthelight, I think you are in err 2the light the Pharisees have nothing to do with the Priesthood, they are a lay group of Jews,who sit on the chair of Moses.

This is what Jesus says 2nthelight; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3).

Simlpy put Jesus is saying what they teach is correct but there personal life is messed up. Don’tcha think ?

Peace, OneNow1

 

[n2thelight]

JLongoria

You have yet to denote where does Catholic tradition make void the word of God? The knowledge of God as you know Him has been preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.

The only reason you know of Christ’s nature, and necessity in our salvation at all, is because the Catholic Church exists.

Mass, purgatory, the priesthood, Transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, the worship of Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, the celibacy of priests and nuns, the papacy, and many others are based totally upon tradition and are without the slightest shred of Scriptural support to substantiate them.

The only reason I know of salvation has nothing to do with the Carholic Church.

Oh bullhonky, my friend.

You quite literally attacked the entire institution with your regression in to the Black Legend of “Catholic persecutions”. Don’t sissy out now; either you admit that you shouldn’t have brought it up and apologize, or stick to your guns.

I am sticking to my guns,they were wrong for what they did,period!

Wow, changing your tune there, aren’t you?

You come in here rampaging, demanding that we explain these attrocities, and then you become as docile as a sheep. How very sad, N2.

What Im demanding is,how can you claim you are of God and commit these attrocities,and if I were on a Protestant cite,then I would demand the same of them

Pretty much everything in that post of yours.

Why,because I have a mind of my own,to believe in no man or institution,that teaches contrary to the Word of God?

 

[Gamera]

Lol, I knew you would change the subject.

How very, very sad.

Technically, that isn’t “changing” the subject so much as changing back to the original subject.

Of course, Tradition includes the preaching of Christ and the Apostles, not just the teaching of Christ. The thread title confines Tradition to unwritten teachings of Christ, which is not how the Catholic Church defines Tradition. For instance, the authorship of Mark’s Gospel is Tradition, but Mark’s authorship can’t have been a teaching of Christ because it was written after His resurrection and ascension. We therefore know that Mark’s authorship was a teaching of the Apostles. Similarly, we don’t know that the hypostatic union was taught personally by Christ, it may have been by the Apostles under inspiration. The question of the thread title should be, “What did Christ and the Apostles teach that wasn’t written …?” because that is really what is being asked.

 

[Usagi]

I only have time to give quick responses to a few items on your list right now. If others haven’t already done it, I’ll try to provide Scriptural citations for the rest later.

Transubstantiation

Jesus and Paul are both quite clear that what is received in Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ. Other early Christian writings (outside of Scripture, but important for showing us how our forebears taught and acted) show that that truth was widely understood.

The specific philosophical explanation known as transubstantiation did come along later, just as the specific philosophical explanations for the Trinity and the Incarnation did. It’s trying to use some of the philosophical terminology of the time (substance and accidents) to describe how it is that the “bread” and “wine” of the Eucharist are no longer bread and wine at all but Jesus, when our senses still register the former and not the latter.

prayers for the dead,

Commended in one of the books of Maccabees. That certain non-Catholics believed they could “demote” books of Scripture isn’t our fault

the worship of Mary,

Not a permitted Catholic practice, so I certainly hope it’s not present in Scripture.

Giving honor (but not worship) to those fellow humans we esteem highly, whether alive or dead, is a common enough human practice, and I’m sure we can even find examples of it being done (without condemnation) in the Bible.

holy water

A sacramental, nice but not necessary to the life of the Church. Does Scripture forbid the idea that God (or those given authority by Him) can bless material things, or bless other people through material things? Are we never to develop customs or practices not found in Scripture?

(Remember, the question here is not merely what ideas come more from Tradition than Scripture, but in what way those traditional ideas “make void” the Scriptures themselves.)

rosary beads,

A particular form of devotion, developed in the Middle Ages, that is not binding on any Catholic. Again, must our devotion to Scripture be so great that we never develop customs not mentioned in Scripture, even if they do not go *against *Scripture?

the celibacy of priests and nuns

Both Jesus and Paul commend those who are able to remain unmarried in order to devote their lives to the Kingdom.

The religious life that monks and nuns embrace is marked by a choice to remain unmarried. Of course, a lay person within a Christian marriage can be just as holy (by God’s grace) as a vowed religious. It’s all a matter of how God calls each particular person to serve Him.

Ordaining only men willing to be celibate to the Latin priesthood is a custom of later development, yes. On the other hand, it’s not considered part of the unchanging Apostolic Tradition, either, just a discipline that one part of the Church has seen fit to impose in a particular era of history. In the Eastern churches (both Catholic and Orthodox), married men can be ordained, though not the other way around. Even in the Latin church, some married Protestant converts who were ministers in their former communities are permitted to become priests, especially those who brought some portion of their congregation “home to Rome” with them and want to remain a united parish.

So, really, this one’s about whether the Church has the authority to make binding rules or not. We believe it is Scriptural that she does (“Whatsoever you bind on earth,” and all that), but you may of course read Scripture differently in that regard. I don’t see how you can say that you read Scripture “right” while we read it “wrong,” though, unless you have some authority to shore up your interpretation over ours.

Usagi

 

[Gamera]

… holy water … based totally upon tradition and are without the slightest shred of Scriptural support to substantiate them.

“…and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel …” Numbers 5:17.

 

[Gamera]

A sacramental, nice but not necessary to the life of the Church. Does Scripture forbid the idea that God (or those given authority by Him) can bless material things, or bless other people through material things? Are we never to develop customs or practices not found in Scripture?

(Remember, the question here is not merely what ideas come more from Tradition than Scripture, but in what way those traditional ideas “make void” the Scriptures themselves.)

Don’t concede that things are outside Scripture so easily, my friend. “Holy water” is expressly mentioned in Numbers 5:17. That’s a useful tidbit for whenever one of our non-Catholic friends posts such a list — the fact that an adversary doesn’t realize holy water is biblical exposes their own lack of scriptural literacy.

 

[Church_Militant]

"…and the priest shall take holy water

in an earthen vessel …" Numbers 5:17.

Don’t concede that things are outside Scripture so easily, my friend. “Holy water” is expressly mentioned in Numbers 5:17. That’s a useful tidbit for whenever one of our non-Catholic friends posts such a list — the fact that an adversary doesn’t realize holy water is biblical exposes their own lack of scriptural literacy.

Exactly! N2 really messed up in that one. Even I didn’t expect him to come off with that mistake.

Most of these n-Cs have their Strong’s Exhaustive Concordances close to hand and it’s easy for them to look that up. When they post that sort of silliness, it shows (again) that most of them have been deceived by people with Bibles and they themselves have not done their own homework.

 

[Gamera]

Exactly! N2 really messed up in that one. Even I didn’t expect him to come off with that mistake.

Most of these n-Cs have their Strong’s Exhaustive Concordances close to hand and it’s easy for them to look that up. When they post that sort of silliness, it shows (again) that most of them have been deceived by people with Bibles and they themselves have not done their own homework.

Yup. That’s one of my personal favorite apologetics points when it comes to so-called “Catholic inventions.” You can cite verses supporting purgatory or papacy and end up arguing endlessly about what each verse “really means,” but the “holy water” verse is succinct, plain and inescapable. They say “holy water” is unbiblical, you show them “holy water” in Numbers 5:17, and they have nothing left to counter with. It’s effective on anti-Catholic boards where everyone is screaming at you at once, because it’s so plain that suddenly everyone stops in shock. For an added touch, quote it from the KJV.

 

[Usagi]

Don’t concede that things are outside Scripture so easily, my friend. “Holy water” is expressly mentioned in Numbers 5:17.

Oho, thank you! I did not know that one specifically, though I did originally think of adding something along the lines of “I strongly suspect we could find instances of blessed water in Scripture somewhere.” And so we can, even called “holy water” in English translation.

Usagi