The historicity of the Church

[FathersKnowBest]

During Jesus time and before, the authority was from the holy scriptures.
Jesus quoted alot of scriptures as an authority of his mission and actions, and reverence to God.

You misunderstand.

Jesus always argued from a point of common reference.

With the Pharisees, He argued from the Scriptures. They recognized the authority of the scirptures; they didn’t recognize His authority.

With the Sadducees, He argued from the Penteteuch only.

With the Greeks & Romans, He didn’t use scripture at all.

It’s a practical matter of wisdom, NOT a teaching on authority.

Traditions were also there during the OT, but Jesus did not refer to them.

Perhaps, then, you could tell me where the “Seat of Moses” is mentioned in the OT?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I admitted in a previous post that you are absolutely right. Nowhere in the Bible does it make a claim of being the only authority. I cannot show you verses that do not exist.I can only state what I believe regarding the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura.

Since it is not in the scriptures, your belief in sola scriptura is extra-biblical (i.e., man-made), and therefore your belief is self-refuting.

Pretty simple logic.

Oh, and since scripture itself says that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”, sola scriptura is not only a tradition of men, but it is “a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God.” Hmmmm …

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This is true. Jesus and the Apostles always quoted Old Testament Scripture. They never quoted tradition. They made it clear where they stood on the authority of the bible.

OK, same question for you as I asked in post #838: If you believe this, then please point out where I can read about the “Seat of Moses” in the OT, and more explicitely, how it was passed down so that it could be occupied by the Temple authorities.

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

 

[spina1953]

Here are the texts:
Acts:15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Acts:15:13-16: And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Acts:15:17: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Peter made a ruling based on an event he had experienced.
James reinforced the ruling with a scriptural basis on what had been prophesied about the Gentiles.

Whether the others in the council said anything to reinforce or disagree, we don’t know as it is not recorded.
However, of paramount importance is the soundness of the declaration from the Jerusalem council. To-date there is no dispute by either the Roman Catholics or the other Christians.

Hi Cube 2: First of all, the question is why did Luke include this in his Acts? Apparently, Luke wanted to show that the early Christians were now moving away from Mosaic laws. and that the council was called in response to Converted Pharisees who had gone to Antioch and were teaching that the Gentile Christian converts had to be circumcised in order to be saved. This was not what Paul and Barnabus were teaching. This was confusing Gentle converts and was causing much in the way of controversy. So much so, that Paul and Barnabus decided that they needed to go to Jerusalem about the question.

When Paul and Barnabus arrived in Jerusalem an was the Apostles and told them what was going on, The Apostles an the presbyters accordingly convened a council to decide the issue. Some of the converted Pharisees got up and demanded that the converted Gentiles be circumcised and told to keep Mosaic laws. It was only after a lot of discussion that Peter got up and spoke and after speaking the whole of the assembly fell silent. They then listened to Paul and Barnabus described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles. Now, in Acts 15: 13 does James speak about dietary law. The Question is why did the whole of the assembly fall silent after Peter spoke? No one it seems had anything to say in reply or agreement to what Peter spoke about. James did not say yea or nay to what Peter talked about, James only spoke about dietary laws he wanted the Gentiles to keep. Bottom line is that Luke was showing that the early Christians were breaking away from Jewish laws So in effect Peter decided the issue concerning the converted Gentiles and James spoke according to his understanding of the Scriptures concerning what Peter had spoken on and decided.

 

[Nicea325]

You misunderstand.

Jesus always argued from a point of common reference.

With the Pharisees, He argued from the Scriptures. They recognized the authority of the scirptures; they didn’t recognize His authority.

With the Sadducees, He argued from the Penteteuch only.

With the Greeks & Romans, He didn’t use scripture at all.

It’s a practical matter of wisdom, NOT a teaching on authority.

Perhaps, then, you could tell me where the “Seat of Moses” is mentioned in the OT?

 

[edkw55]

This is true. Jesus and the Apostles always quoted Old Testament Scripture. They never quoted tradition. They made it clear where they stood on the authority of the bible.

I am wrong in what I stated above. There are a few instances where Jesus quotes tradition.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am wrong in what I stated above. There are a few instances where Jesus quotes tradition.

Shouldn’t this alter your views on sola scriptura?

Edited to add: You should be aware that Judaism has always held to a form of Sacred Tradition much like the Catholic Church does. Sola Scriptura is quite foreign to Judasim, as it was to Christianity for 1500 years.

 

[edkw55]

It is a authority…but not “the” authority or highest.

Your answer to my question is fair enough. Over the last few years I have read a great deal of Roman Catholic theology including reading through the Catechism a few times so I know exactly where you are coming from. We respectfully disagree on the issue of authority.

Ed

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;12036704]

I will IF you show where the term “bible” is in holy writ

The term Moses Seat is interchaged with the “Judgmment seat”

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[benhur]

benhur;12005268:

And who appoints the shepherd, the sheep or the owner of the sheep?

actually both do .The Lord of course but it is up to church to see the annointing and appoint .The church is the lay people and elders…appoint yourselves…

 

[Nicea325]

Your answer to my question is fair enough. Over the last few years I have read a great deal of Roman Catholic theology including reading through the Catechism a few times so I know exactly where you are coming from. We respectfully disagree on the issue of authority.
Ed

Then you disagree with Jesus who is very clear as to where and who has authority. This much I can tell you: It is not the Bible-only.

 

[edkw55]

Shouldn’t this alter your views on sola scriptura?

I was admitting that I was in error. If you read the instances in the Gospels where Jesus quotes tradition you will understand why my answer to your question is obvious.

Edited to add: You should be aware that Judaism has always held to a form of Sacred Tradition much like the Catholic Church does. Sola Scriptura is quite foreign to Judasim, as it was to Christianity for 1500 years.

I am aware of the fact that Judaism and Roman Catholicism have always held to a form of sacred tradition. You are correct. Does this change my views regarding Sola Scriptura? Not at all.

 

[edkw55]

Then you disagree with Jesus who is very clear as to where and who has authority. This much I can tell you: It is not the Bible-only.

I disagree with Jesus? Really? I am aware of the Bible passages you are referring to and the Roman Catholic Churches arguments in defense of it’s position regarding the issue of authority. It just so happens that I totally and completely do not agree.

 

[edkw55]

sallybutler;12030630:

actually both do .The Lord of course but it is up to church to see the annointing and appoint .The church is the lay people and elders…appoint yourselves…

I would have phrased what you have said differently but I know what you are trying to say and completely agree with you.

 

[Nicea325]

I disagree with Jesus? Really? I am aware of the Bible passages you are referring to and the Roman Catholic Churches arguments in defense of it’s position regarding the issue of authority. It just so happens that I totally and completely do not agree.

Yes…you do disagree with Jesus as much it hurts to say it to you. So if it is not the church edkw55 and it is not the Bible-only (because you admitted it is not taught) then where?

So you mean Jesus left it up to us to decide? Really? Is that what you believe?

 

[Nicea325]

I was admitting that I was in error. If you read the instances in the Gospels where Jesus quotes tradition you will understand why my answer to your question is obvious.

I am aware of the fact that Judaism and Roman Catholicism have always held to a form of sacred tradition. You are correct. Does this change my views regarding Sola Scriptura? Not at all.

No offense,but that is just plain spiritual pride. You flat out admitted the Bible-only is nowhere said or taught by God or the Apostles;hence an unblbical belief,but are adamant that SS is legit?

 

[spina1953]

You are right.The Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, we know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. That being the case all traditions, doctrines, and practices, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, must be tested against what God has revealed in the Bible. Until someone proves to me another authority equal to the Bible I remain Protestant.

Hi edkw55 I have read the Bible cover to cover many times over the years and still read it everyday, as I think most of the Catholic posters here have also. That being said I have not seen anywhere in the Bible where the Bible itself says or declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. So I would like to know just where I can find in the Bible where it says what you have clamed the Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative? I have been trying to find where the Bible makes those claims. Thank you.

 

[edkw55]

I would be lying to myself as well as to all of you if denied the fact that I still find myself being drawn to the Roman Catholic Church in an incredibly powerful way. What is doing this “drawing”? God? Satan? Is it just me? This journey I have been on these last three years has been extremely painful. I ask that God will lead me to what is Truth. Whether it is to be found in Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. I will follow Jesus wherever He leads me. And yes, it is a very heavy burden to be your own Pope. I ask for all of your prayers as well.

Peace be with all of you.

edkw55

 

[edkw55]

I don’t believe most cradle Catholics understand what a torturous and painful journey this can be for some Protestants like myself. One of the catholic priests who taught the RCIA class I was in experienced the same as I on his journey from Protestantism to Catholicism. At this point I know not where this will all end up.

Thanks to all.

Ed

 

[benhur]

Hi edkw55 I have read the Bible cover to cover many times over the years and still read it everyday, as I think most of the Catholic posters here have also. That being said I have not seen anywhere in the Bible where the Bible itself says or declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. So I would like to know just where I can find in the Bible where it says what you have clamed the Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative? I have been trying to find where the Bible makes those claims. Thank you.

Wow. You get Ed to admit it does not say it (bible) is the “only” authoritative source and now you want more , that the bible is not in error or God-breathed or authoritative at all according to itself ?.. Hanging out in a garage does not turn you into a car, and reading the bible a thousand times does not make you one with it in understanding. Yet I believe thou hast enough light and experience to answer your own question.