The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[PRmerger]

The apostle John makes it clear that** what we need to know about Jesus, is recorded and written down,** and we’re promised, through scripture, eternal life in His name if we will believe in Him!

I find it interesting that in the section I bolded you did not add the words “in this book”. For do not John’s words indicate that everything we need to know is in his book? (He clearly could not be referring to the Bible for it was not yet compiled.)

Are you really saying that what Christians “need to know about Jesus is recorded and written down” in the book of John? That’s what that verse says.

By your reasoning, we ought to dismiss the Lord’s Prayer, for it was not “recorded in this book”.

 

[PLeeD]

By your reasoning, we ought to dismiss the Lord’s Prayer, for it was not “recorded in this book”.

That doesn’t follow at all. What you said there is not a reasonable conclusion.

But, is the Lord’s prayer necessary for salvation? Of course not. John is clearly saying that what he wrote is sufficient in order for us to believe in Jesus and be saved. It doesn’t say it’s the only book we should read.

Thanks 4theLamb for that post. It’s powerful.

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer: Thank you for posting a response to my post. I would like to comment on your response.

First off I believe truly that 2 Thess 2:15 is scripture and I accept it fully. God doesn’t change, his essential nature and character etc doesn’t change, agreed. Does God’s Word change? Perhaps you can clarify that question I am not sure what you are asking. Are you talking about the method God uses to pass on his directions, commands to his people? At different times God used different methods of passing on his divine instruction, commands to his people…God has used written and oral transmission. God for instance giving divine instructions through the prophets whom then gave them to the people, that is oral transmission. At other times God used written communication to his people…

What I meant when I asked the question, “Does God’s Word change?” is that do we have to keep interpreting God’s word to fit the times or is God’s word, like God Himself, immutable [unchanging]. In other words, is truth an absolute or is it relative? I think every one will agree that God’s word like He Himself is unchanging so Scripture, the written word of God means the same today as it did when first penned almost 2,000 years ago. The meaning of the written word has not changed. So Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to hold onto the Oral Tradition is as valid today in the 21st century as when he wrote it in the 1st century. That is not good for sola scriptura.
Just_Me_Andrew;7038741:

You asked if we are holding onto what God has given orally today, interesting that your own church has stated no new revelation is being given today. The canon they say is closed…yet oral revelation is still being given? Interesting that in the early Church prophets were around e.g. Agabus (Acts 11:27-28). That is oral transmission of God’s prophetic word, and yet we don’t see the Catholic church proclaiming they have prophets giving oral revelation. As you read the book of Acts and onward through the NT the prophetic gift seems to have died down…yet the Catholic church claims oral revelation through the Pope and the Magesterium, very interesting.

There has been no new public revelation since the death of the last Apostle somewhere around 100 AD. There is private revelation. However, one is not obligated to believe in private revelations. The Catholic Church does not claim “oral revelation” through the pope or the Magisterium. In fact the term “oral revelation” is one I am not familiar with. I have heard of public and private revelations. That is why you don’t see anyone with the mantle of prophet today in the Catholic Church. What you do see is the church clarifying doctrine by formal definition. Usually this is done in response to some erroneous teaching such as Arianism or Nestorianism but that is not always the case. In 1968 Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical called *Humanae Vitae * [Human Life] in which He extolled the perils of abortion and contraception calling them grave sins. This was long before the infamous *Roe vs Wade * court case in the U.S. and it raised quite a ruckus amongst Catholics and protestants alike. His teaching on abortion was not new as the church has always called abortion murder. It was condemning artificial contraception that was seen as new because prior to ‘the pill’ there was no way to prevent conception. But Humanae Vitae said that artificially preventing life was no different than aborting it in that both were grave [mortal] sins. What you are seeing therefore, is not any new “revelation”. Rather, the Church was given, by Christ, a teaching obligation. In Mt 28:19-20 we see this conferred onto the Apostles. That obligation was never abrogated and is still in effect today. What the Church is doing in this teaching role is applying those immutable truths to the times today. It does this often in the face of secular and even religious opposition by protestants as was the case forty years ago when it labled artificial contraception a sin. Today protestants in the pro-life movement no longer oppose the teaching and Humanae Vitae is seen as a landmark in the pro life movement.

 

[inkaneer]

You are correct there is no verse of Scripture I can examine in context to say that the Apostles were reduced to writing yet we see that they used that method of communicating God’s truth as time went on…Oral transmission of revelation can easily be corrupted however written revelation cannot easily be corrupted e.g. the Jews today still have the OT. Jesus said his words would not pass away. They haven’t, any person can go and buy a good literal translation e.g. the RSV and Jesus words are there for us.

I agree but I also disagree. I agree that oral transmission of information can be corrupted as the famous elementary school experiment shows. In case you are not familiar with that experiment the teacher would whisper something to the first pupil in a row. That pupil would then turn around and whisper the same thing to the person behind them and so on and so on until the last person in the row heard the message. That person then stood up and said out loud what he heard. Usually it was quite different from what the first person wastold by the teacher. That is the nature of human nature and why gossip originates. But that is strictly on a human level with no outside influence. But that is not what we have in the Oral Tradition of the Church. We have another factor envolved and that factor is the Holy Spirit. Remember it was the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would lead the Church into all truth? Again, no time limitation on how long the Holy Spirit would do this. What He did on that Pentecost Sunday He is still doing today. That is why we can say that the pope speaks infallibly under certain conditions. Recall also that Jesus said that hell would not prevail over the church. How could hell do this? By stopping the church from accomplishing its mission and that was to preach the gospel. If the church was to ever preach a false gospel, as protestants claim the Catholic Church has done then hell prevails and Jesus is a liar. Then you can trash your Bible because it contains error. Then what do you have? Nothing, absolutely nothing and who wins? Hell wins. So these teachings of the church are not new “revelations” nor are they the infamous “man made traditions” that protestants say they are. Instead, they are teachings of a church guided into truth by the Holy Spirit. I could never understand why protestants could claim that the Holy Spirit could inspire men to write inerrant scripture but somehow could not inspire men to teach inerrantly. They put a limitation on the Holy Spirit.

By the way written transmission can be corrupted. Only if we have the original documents can we be assured that the written word is the same. Unfortunately that is far from the case. We have absolutely none of the original manuscripts. Our earliest complet text of any of the books of the New testament date, I believe, only to the seventh century. We have copies of copies of copies of copies… with no way of knowing if they are faithful to the original. Does that seem odd to you? It does to me. What I mean is that if God really wanted His word to be preserved in writing would He have allowed it to be written on the highly degradable material that it was or a more resilient material?

Lastly no one answered which view they hold of Divine revelation…In my post I put: Lastly I was wondering what view of Divine Revelation is held by the majority of Catholics in this forum…the Partim Partim view or the Material Sufficiency view.

That is one of the important questions I would like some Catholics online to answer…IMO Partim Partim view seems more defensible for the Catholic…yet how would you explain Papal Infallibility and the Assumption, Immaculate Conception as revelation being late on the scene…Material Sufficiency is the view that I would love to debate Catholics concerning…because that states everything you believe is at least implicitly found in scripture. That would be interesting. However because it’s hard to defend either view exclusively many Catholics sort have a foot in both camps and won’t commit to either view.

I am not familiar with the terms you use. *Material Sufficiency * I am familiar with but Partim Partim I am not familiar with. What I can tell you is that back in the fourth century when the canon of the scripture was being debated, the purpose for a canon of scripture was caused by Gnosticism. The Church was under attack by Gnosticism which produced its own writings such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Appocalypse of Peter as well as many others which the Gnostics claimed were inspired by God. There was a lot of confusion in the Church as a result and the question arose as to which writings were truly suitable for use in the liturgy. As a result the canon of scripture was developed. It was developed by the church. Nowhere do you find an inspired table of contents telling you which books are inspired. It was the Catholic Church who, using its teaching authority said these 73 books and only these 73 books are inspired. And one of the criteria that was used was whether a writing supported the Oral Tradition as received from the Apostles. So doctrine is contained in the scriptures but as I said in my earlier post it may not be fleshed out. The doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example. Maybe someone who is familiar with the terms you use could help out.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PLeeD,

You bring up an interesting issue: just what IS necessry for salvation - according to Scripture.

But, is the Lord’s prayer necessary for salvation? Of course not. John is clearly saying that what he wrote is sufficient in order for us to believe in Jesus and be saved. It doesn’t say it’s the only book we should read.

Thanks 4theLamb for that post. It’s powerful.

So, we ‘believe in Jesus’ and are saved? OK. Isn’t there a requirement in Scripture to be baptized - and not just dunked or spashed with water, but (Matt 28:19) baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But apparently, salvation requires EVEN MORE (dare I say, “Works”!) where feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned as mentioned in Matthew 25. Ah, but we are not saved by our own actions - rather, by doing these good deeds in cooperation with the Grace of God. Yes, the Divinely Inspired Bood of Matthew does not REQUIRE us to say the Our Father - but, in my view, it would be a foolish person indeed who claimed to follow Christ but ingore one of the methods (formula) of praying to God.

So, for those who say salvation is one item - I think such a view should be re-examined in light of all of the New Testament - and not just cherry-pick a verse here and there. What do you think?

God bless

.

 

[PRmerger]

That doesn’t follow at all. What you said there is not a reasonable conclusion.

But, is the Lord’s prayer necessary for salvation? Of course not.

Can you cite the Scripture verse that says it’s not necessary for salvation?

 

[catholictiger]

this is embarrassingly one sided and should be ignored as a credible debate

 

[PRmerger]

John is clearly saying that what he wrote is sufficient in order for us to believe in Jesus and be saved.

Yikes! John says nothing at all about humanity being made in God’s image and likeness. That comes from the book of Genesis. He also says nothing about salvation being by grace. That’s from Romans and Galatians and Ephesians. Or that there is only one God. That’s from Exodus and Isaiah.

It doesn’t say it’s the only book we should read.

Right. But it does say that everything we “need to know” is in his book. So, if you’re going to take it literally, you have to dismiss the rest of the bible.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Inkaneer:

Studying apologetics and the transmission of Sacred Scripture and the reliability of the NT documents etc I am quite surprised by your comment in response to my previous post. It is my opinion that in order for Catholicism to stand and to be able to refute all those that contradict Scriptural sufficiency must be attacked. I must say that some comments I have heard from Catholic apologists concerning scripture could be made by atheists and agnostics.

You wrote:

By the way written transmission can be corrupted. Only if we have the original documents can we be assured that the written word is the same. Unfortunately that is far from the case. We have absolutely none of the original manuscripts. Our earliest complete text of any of the books of the New testament date, I believe, only to the seventh century. We have copies of copies of copies of copies… with no way of knowing if they are faithful to the original. Does that seem odd to you? It does to me. What I mean is that if God really wanted His word to be preserved in writing would He have allowed it to be written on the highly degradable material that it was or a more resilient material?

Your comment is on the same level as the atheist who must degrade or challenge the validity of the written word. I don’t mean to offend anyone but this is how it seems to me. I on the other hand have complete confidence that the written word of God has been preserved and those “copies of copies” when taken together can be relied upon…there are 1% of variants that have needed to be discussed etc. I hope no Catholics are using the arguments of Bart Erhman. Sometimes I wonder

Peace Andrew

**Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times.
Martin Luther **

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer:

Studying apologetics and the transmission of Sacred Scripture and the reliability of the NT documents etc I am quite surprised by your comment in response to my previous post. It is my opinion that in order for Catholicism to stand and to be able to refute all those that contradict Scriptural sufficiency must be attacked. I must say that some comments I have heard from Catholic apologists concerning scripture could be made by atheists and agnostics.

You wrote:

By the way written transmission can be corrupted. Only if we have the original documents can we be assured that the written word is the same. Unfortunately that is far from the case. We have absolutely none of the original manuscripts. Our earliest complete text of any of the books of the New testament date, I believe, only to the seventh century. We have copies of copies of copies of copies… with no way of knowing if they are faithful to the original. Does that seem odd to you? It does to me. What I mean is that if God really wanted His word to be preserved in writing would He have allowed it to be written on the highly degradable material that it was or a more resilient material?

Your comment is on the same level as the atheist who must degrade or challenge the validity of the written word. I don’t mean to offend anyone but this is how it seems to me. I on the other hand have complete confidence that the written word of God has been preserved and those “copies of copies” when taken together can be relied upon…there are 1% of variants that have needed to be discussed etc. I hope no Catholics are using the arguments of Bart Erhman. Sometimes I wonder

Peace Andrew

**Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times.
Martin Luther **

Well then you tell me how the written word was transmitted inerrantly solely by human efforts. No bible scholar, either Catholic or protestant, that I know of ever claimed that the inerrancy of the origianl manuscripts extended to the copies or translations. In fact there are differences between copies of the same text. Then there is the old adage that “it loses something in the translation” We have problems with modern language in trying to express the same thought from one language to another. Imagine what far greater difficulty there is in experessing a thought from an ancient language to a modern one.

By the way Catholics do not have to refute scriptural sufficiency. We claim scripture is ‘materially sufficient’. We do not agree that scripture is ‘formally sufficient’. By material sufficient we mean the following:

“All the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred
Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things – Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium – are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.” socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of.html

Whereas the protestant claim of “formal sufficiency” means:

“that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.” [ibid]

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah’s Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the “tradition of Arianism” was non-existent." [ibid]

That the Trinity doctrine is not explicit in scripture can be attested to by the fact that it took over 400 years for the church to define the doctrine and they did so by using Greek philosophical terms which are not found in scripture. And, as you can well imagine, that is absolutely huge in refuting the ‘formal sufficiency’ of scripture.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Inkaneer:

Inakeer:

Thank you for your response I appreciate it. From your post I get the impression that you believe in Material Sufficiency view and not the Partim Partim view of Divine revelation? Partim Partim means divine revelation is contained part in Apostolic Tradition and part in written Scripture…(oral and written) and that not all doctrine is contained in either. A Catholic who held this view point would not say all they believe can be found in Tradition only…but only partly…Material sufficiency teaches that divine revelation etc is found entirely in Tradition and entirely in Scripture (at least implicitly).

I just wanted to ask this because no Catholic seems to be on one side or the other they fluctuate between the two views.

You mentioned the Arians and the view that they used Scripture alone. If you read what happened at the time you will see that there was no Pope to infallibly define the doctrine of the nature of Christ. There was no Pope declaring “ex cathedra.” We don’t see the Bishops who contradicted Arius getting up and saying “Rome has spoken the matter is settled” Athanasius used scripture when he refuted the Arians.

It is well known that some Popes made horrid errors e.g. Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see. My question to you would be what if Arius appealed to Apostolic Succession along with other Bishops that were with him? Then what would happen? Wouldn’t it be a great time for the Pope to take action? Yet we see nothing from a Bishop of Rome concerning Arius.

Lastly you mentioned the Trinity and philosophical terminology. I have no problem with that. I would say you must be careful, even some of the Church fathers became to enamored with Greek philosophy and moved from a Hebraic understanding,

Andrew—Peace

 

[PAboy57]

Dear Andrew,

All Catholics should believe in scripture and oral Tradition and should not bounce. As St. John said == the world couldn’t contain everything that happened. Words to that end.

Great posts. I really have enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you all. God Bless.

 

[PLeeD]

Yikes! John says nothing at all about humanity being made in God’s image and likeness. That comes from the book of Genesis. He also says nothing about salvation being by grace. That’s from Romans and Galatians and Ephesians. Or that there is only one God. That’s from Exodus and Isaiah.

I ask, are those things necessary for salvation?

Right. But it does say that everything we “need to know” is in his book. So, if you’re going to take it literally, you have to dismiss the rest of the bible.

I don’t know what to make of your reasoning. It doesn’t seem to follow what John wrote. There is no reason to dismiss any of the rest of the bible based on a literal reading of that verse.

If we aren’t supposed to take that verse written by John literally, then what is your understanding of it?

Can you cite the Scripture verse that says [the Lord’s Prayer is] not necessary for salvation?

I believe it to be obvious. There is no need for me to prove the negative. Jesus didn’t say “You won’t enter the kingdom of heaven unless you pray like this”, or anything of the sort.

Can you cite an example that implies that it is necessary?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PLeeD,

Actually, if you go back to my Post 402 … you will see my answer to this and some questions that you have not yet gotten around to answering.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

I ask, are those things necessary for salvation?

I don’t know what to make of your reasoning. It doesn’t seem to follow what John wrote. There is no reason to dismiss any of the rest of the bible based on a literal reading of that verse.

If we aren’t supposed to take that verse written by John literally, then what is your understanding of it?

I believe it to be obvious. There is no need for me to prove the negative. Jesus didn’t say “You won’t enter the kingdom of heaven unless you pray like this”, or anything of the sort.

Can you cite an example that implies that it is necessary?

 

[PRmerger]

I ask, are those things necessary for salvation?

Firstly, can you please provide us with a list of what’s necessary for salvation? What verses in Scripture are necessary and what can we dismiss?

I don’t know what to make of your reasoning. It doesn’t seem to follow what John wrote. There is no reason to dismiss any of the rest of the bible based on a literal reading of that verse.

John says that what he has written in HIS book. He makes no mention of the rest of the bible. Which, of course, was not even in existence yet.

If we aren’t supposed to take that verse written by John literally, then what is your understanding of it?

We are to understand it in light of what the Apostles believed and have taught for 2000 years.

I believe it to be obvious.

Then you are following a man-made, non-Scriptural tradition. It’s a belief you’re professing that’s nowhere in Scripture.

Can you cite an example that implies that it is necessary?

As a Catholic, I believe that we are commanded to follow the ENTIRE Word of God, not just that which is “necessary”.

That’s why I’m so interested in your listing of what’s “necessary” for salvation.

It isn’t “necessary” to believe that there is just ONE God? It’s not “necessary” to believe in salvation through grace?

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer:

Inakeer:

Thank you for your response I appreciate it. From your post I get the impression that you believe in Material Sufficiency view and not the Partim Partim view of Divine revelation? Partim Partim means divine revelation is contained part in Apostolic Tradition and part in written Scripture…(oral and written) and that not all doctrine is contained in either. A Catholic who held this view point would not say all they believe can be found in Tradition only…but only partly…Material sufficiency teaches that divine revelation etc is found entirely in Tradition and entirely in Scripture (at least implicitly).

I just wanted to ask this because no Catholic seems to be on one side or the other they fluctuate between the two views.

Well the two views are not mutually exclusive. Catholics will agree on the material sufficiency of scripture but will reject the idea of *formal sufficiency *of scripture.
Just_Me_Andrew;7043695:

You mentioned the Arians and the view that they used Scripture alone. If you read what happened at the time you will see that there was no Pope to infallibly define the doctrine of the nature of Christ. There was no Pope declaring “ex cathedra.” We don’t see the Bishops who contradicted Arius getting up and saying “Rome has spoken the matter is settled” Athanasius used scripture when he refuted the Arians.

I’m sorry, there was a pope. His name was Sylvester I and his papacy was from 313 -335 AD. He was the 33rd pope in succession from Peter. The doctrine of the nature of Christ was done by the Council of Nicea. That council was a general council and therefore infallible in its outcome. It was infallible only because it’s findings were accepted by Sylvester who did not attend but sent two representatives. Nicea came to the same conclusions on Arius as did the earlier council of Alexandria in 321 AD. That council was not a general council and therefore not infallible. But notice that with Pope Sylvester agreeing with the council at Nicea the doctrinal dispute was ended. Just as at the council ofJerusalem in Acts when Peter spoke the debate ended, here after Nicea there would be no more discussion on this particular issue. That did not happen with the council of Alexandria four years earlier. So the church

It is well known that some Popes made horrid errors e.g. Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see. My question to you would be what if Arius appealed to Apostolic Succession along with other Bishops that were with him? Then what would happen? Wouldn’t it be a great time for the Pope to take action? Yet we see nothing from a Bishop of Rome concerning Arius.

Pope Liberius was pope from 352-366. What he did or did not do is debated to this day. What is known is that he refused to anathematize Athanasius and was taken into custody by the emperor Constantius who imposed a man named Felix as bishop of Rome. Felix was never accepted in Rome as bishop and Liberius was eventually returned. What happened in those years of exile is unknown but what is known is that when Liberius returned to Rome in 359 AD he was received as a hero. In his actions following his return he showed no signs of agreeing with the Arians. What happened in those years he was held captive by the Arian emperor Constnatius can only be guessed at but it is known that letters attributed to Liberius were later found to be forgeries. If he did consent, as you claim but I doubt, to the condemnation of Athanasius I fail to see how that meets the requirements for infallibility. Maybe you could present that evidence. I know of no one in Catholicism or in mainstream protestantism that makes that claim. I am aware of some of the more recently separated denominations who champion that claim but they have not presented the evidentiary proof to back it up. As for his “profession of Arianism”, That too is subject for debate and not as clear cut as you may think. What is known is that during Liberius’ early reign he was much involved in defending the strongly anti-Arian bishop Athanasius of Alexandria against Emperor Constantius II, who saw Athanasius as a divisive force in the empire. By 355 Liberius one of the few who still refused to condemn Athanasius, despite an imperial command to the contrary. The consequence was his banishment to Thrace and the appointment of Felix as his successor. Upon his return he again was very much anti Arian. Some writers alleged he did sign a document approving Arianism but that just does not fit with his deportment before and after his captivity. But if he did sign one under duress it would not be valid and would not impact papal infallibility.

As for Arius appealing to Apostolic Succession the answer is simple. He couldn’t. Arius was a priest. He was not a bishop. Priests do not have Apostolic Succession; neither do deacons. Only validly consecrated bishops have Apostolic Sucession. Even if he were a bishop it would not help him because individual bishops are not infallible. It is only when the bishops are in communion with each other and in communion with the bishop of Rome are they infallible provided that all other requirements for infallibility having been met.

 

[inkaneer]

Lastly you mentioned the Trinity and philosophical terminology. I have no problem with that. I would say you must be careful, even some of the Church fathers became to enamored with Greek philosophy and moved from a Hebraic understanding,

That does not take away from the fact that the definition of the Trinity doctrine was done using Greek phoilosophical terms which are not found in scripture and is accepted today by protestants and Catholics alike. The same is true of the results of the council of Nicea which are contained in the Nicene creed where it speaks of substance and essence. These terms are completely foreign to the scripture.

 

[PLeeD]

Firstly, can you please provide us with a list of what’s necessary for salvation? What verses in Scripture are necessary and what can we dismiss?

I’m not claiming that we can or should dismiss any scripture. You are wrongfully attributing that to me when I never said or implied it. Please stop. It’s your invention, not mine.

I’m also not claiming to know what is necessary for salvation. I’m only commenting on what John wrote, which can reasonably be read to mean that the contents of his book are sufficient to understand who Jesus is, and by believing we may have life in His name.

I’ve never read John with an eye toward consideration of what is present and what is not. I will do that soon.

Also, I asked you what your understanding is of John’s comments in John 20:30-31.

 

[inkaneer]

Also, I asked you what your understanding is of John’s comments in John 20:30-31.

John 20:30-31 says:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 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 RSV]

I’ll tell you what John 20:30-31 does not say. It does not say that everything we need to be saved is written down and it also does not say that what is written down is all we need. It is not the ringing endorsement of sola scriptura that protestants like to think it is. For one thing if it was then it would contradict 2 Thess 2:15 and we know that the bible cannot contradict itself. This same Apostle John who wrote this gospel also taught two disciples who became giants in the church in the time immediately after the time of the Apostles. These two disciples were a man named Polycarp and a man named Ignatius. Both were martyred for their faith. Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna while Ignatius became bishop of Antioch. These men left writings, letters like Paul except their letters are not considered inspired. But… is it reasonable to think that what they taught their students was different from what John taught them? I don’t think so. Paul even tells his disciple Timothy to do the same thing as John did with Polycarp and Ignatius. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul writes:

“and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” [2 Timothy 2:2 RSV]

Here we see the Oral Tradition being passed down thru the first four generations:

1. Paul the Apostle
2. Timothy
3. the “faithful men”
4. the “others”

So did you ever read what Polycarp and Ignatius taught? How about the other early church writers like Irenaeus who followed Timothy , Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and the others?

One more thing. Do you think that when John wrote verse 31 of chapter 20:

“31 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 20:31 RSV]

That he meant that was all one had to believe? I mean, John does not mention the Ascension at all. He does not mention the commands of Jesus to "do this in rememberance of me or to go and teach the gospel and to baptize. Clearly John is not writing a “Christianity For Dummies” book for christians.

 

[Adam_Z]

Of a truth, the Blesseth Mother Mary did not know a man, but her Son was born according to the Law.

However, according to the scriptures, the Blesseth Mother was bought barren but just like anything bought sight unseen, buyer beware. And due to a lack of contractual law provisions under the OT, Joseph was pretty much stuck with her when an Angel appeared to Joseph and told him that she wasn’t untruthful, try to find an honest woman nowadays and brother thou has found a goldmine.

If the Angel wasn’t enought to freak you out, a pregant woman that was not defiled by man is more than this mortal could handle, but Joseph being a just man, trusted in the Word of the Lord.

Now Satan, the physical being whom rules this world, cherished the man child, but the Holy and Pure Father sent His Son, the Holy Ghost to dwell within the child, and upon conception, the Son of the Holy Spirit entered into the flesh and walked and talked upon the face of the earth before all mankind.

And denying his flesh, the only begotten Son of GOD refuted SATAN and well, you probably don’t want to hear anymore of my foolishness… You know the truth already.