those pesky bereans!

[bengal_fan]

Acts 17:11
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

does this verse not point to the primacy of scripture? i have said many times in these forums that i am not sola scriptura (scripture as the only authority), i am prima scriptura (scripture as the primary authority under which all other authorities are subject). Paul, an apostle, is teaching and the bereans checked scripture to make sure what he was saying was true. and it was thought well of them for doing it. they weren’t being insolent or anti-authority, they were simply testing one authority against the highest authority. the apostles’ teachings have been preserved for us in the new testament and are now considered scripture. i do believe in an authoritative source for interpretation, but that source is also subject to scripture. that source as well as it’s interpretations cannot go against scripture… hence prima scriptura.

i’m a little vaklempt now… talk amongst yourselves.

 

[ralphinal]

If only I knew what you were talking about

Actually, I see your point, but I think that if you take it from the beginning of the chapter, you see that they were checking Paul’s teaching concerning the prophecies of the passion, death, and resurection of Jesus. The Bereans were contrasted with the Thessalonica, who instead of hearing the word and seeing the truth, they rioted and caused troubles with the authorities. That said, there is no issue with this and the Catholic Church. After all, the most quoted work in the Catechism is the Bible.

Prima scriptura is much less problematic then sola scriptura. After all, whose interpretation matters?

 

[ABostonCatholic]

does this verse not point to the primacy of scripture? i have said many times in these forums that i am not sola scriptura (scripture as the only authority), i am prima scriptura (scripture as the primary authority under which all other authorities are subject). Paul, an apostle, is teaching and the bereans checked scripture to make sure what he was saying was true. and it was thought well of them for doing it. they weren’t being insolent or anti-authority, they were simply testing one authority against the highest authority. the apostles’ teachings have been preserved for us in the new testament and are now considered scripture. i do believe in an authoritative source for interpretation, but that source is also subject to scripture. that source as well as it’s interpretations cannot go against scripture… hence prima scriptura.

i’m a little vaklempt now… talk amongst yourselves.

Well, clearly those Scriptures didn’t include the writings of Paul…

Anyway, this is a straw man argument. It would lead one to believe that Catholics don’t think we should test new beliefs with Scripture. We do that. Yet we don’t hold to SS or PS.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If only I knew what you were talking about

Actually, I see your point, but I think that if you take it from the beginning of the chapter, you see that they were checking Paul’s teaching concerning the prophecies of the passion, death, and resurection of Jesus. The Bereans were contrasted with the Thessalonica, who instead of hearing the word and seeing the truth, they rioted and caused troubles with the authorities. That said, there is no issue with this and the Catholic Church. After all, the most quoted work in the Catechism is the Bible.

Prima scriptura is much less problematic then sola scriptura. After all, whose interpretation matters?

Good point ralphinal!

Do you think the predictions in the Old Testament St. Paul showed the Bereans were merely of what Jesus would do? or were they also prophecies of what the things he would do would accomplish?

 

[ralphinal]

Good point ralphinal!

Do you think the predictions in the Old Testament St. Paul showed the Bereans were merely of what Jesus would do? or were they also prophecies of what the things he would do would accomplish?

My gut says both, but I haven’t thought about it/studied it well enough to say. From the way Paul is presented, his teachings are more like a week long revival than a one day workshop. I would think that he would do both over the course of a couple of weeks.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Actually, I see your point, but I think that if you take it from the beginning of the chapter, you see that they were checking Paul’s teaching concerning the prophecies of the passion, death, and resurection of Jesus.

the point remains: using the scripture as a higher authority was considered noble.

which reminds me, the jews didnt have a papacy. so as some catholics here would say: the rabbis were their own popes.

 

[edward_george]

You might want to examine this article about the Bereans…

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

-ACEGC

 

[MarcoPolo]

does this verse not point to the primacy of scripture?

Here’s how I read it.

The verse does not address whether Scripture is superior to Tradition or the Church. It says it is noble to consult the prophecies of the OT in determining that Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say this is the primary way to do so, nor the only way to do so.

But it is certainly noble to do so because the OT is the Word of God.

 

[ralphinal]

the point remains: using the scripture as a higher authority was considered noble.

which reminds me, the jews didnt have a papacy. so as some catholics here would say: the rabbis were their own popes.

But where they considered noble because they used scripture as a higher authority or where they noble because they received the teaching and studied it instead of rioting?

No, the Jews did not have a papacy, but they did have a high priest who could bind and loose from the Seat of Moses. That means, naturally, that what he pronounced was to be taken as the correct teaching.

 

[AgnosTheist]

But where they considered noble because they used scripture as a higher authority or where they noble because they received the teaching and studied it instead of rioting?

many jews recieved the message during the course of the apostles’ careers. as well as well as some thessalonican jews. but only the bereans were praised for being noble. for what?

• Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true*
  its not just for the eagerness. but also for verifying the truth.

No, the Jews did not have a papacy, but they did have a high priest who could bind and loose from the Seat of Moses. That means, naturally, that what he pronounced was to be taken as the correct teaching.

i’ll have to ask my jewish friends about that. i’ll drop by on israel forums.

 

[XtusVictor]

i have said many times in these forums that i am not sola scriptura (scripture as the only authority), i am prima scriptura (scripture as the primary authority under which all other authorities are subject).

Couple of problems here:

1. As you define Prima Scriptura, there is no material difference from Sola Scriptura.
2. PS is a departure from Reformation principles demonstrating that you are actually acting as your own authority–the perpetual downfall of SS and PS responsible for the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations–a complete rejection of Christ’s will ut unum sint.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, the Jews did not have a papacy, but they did have a high priest who could bind and loose from the Seat of Moses. That means, naturally, that what he pronounced was to be taken as the correct teaching.

but waitta minute, those berean jews apparently did not consult the high priest when they checked their scriptures against the teachings of paul. theyve been acting up like their own popes.

 

[MarcoPolo]

i’ll have to ask my jewish friends about that. i’ll drop by on israel forums.

John 11:49-51 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation…"

 

[ralphinal]

but waitta minute, those berean jews apparently did not consult the high priest when they checked their scriptures against the teachings of paul. theyve been acting up like their own popes.

Not really. Each individual is responsible for his own education. Verifying the truth is not the same as definding it, defining it or creating it.

In my earlier post, you missed three little words. “Instead of rioting.” Were they called noble because the checked against scriptures or because they did not react like the Thessilonians?

 

[AgnosTheist]

John 11:49-51 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation…"

how come the high priest can utter prophecies and the popes could not?

 

[mercygate]

But where they considered noble because they used scripture as a higher authority or where they noble because they received the teaching and studied it instead of rioting?

I have just been “reading” this (on CD while commuting) and it is clear from the context that the Bereans were “nobler” because they took a more docile approach to Paul’s teaching.

Like our Lady, they asked: “How can this be?” The Thessalonians started a civil riot. Now, maybe Paul learned a lesson from that. In Thessalonica, “for three weeks he argued with them.” This likely did not set the stage for a happy proclamation of the Gospel to earnest Jews.

Maybe Paul changed his approach in Berea by inviting the Bereans to search the Scriptures for themselves. Or maybe, with Paul’s reputation preceding him, the Bereans decided to play it cool and not repeat the Thessalonian debacle.

There’s a LOT going on between the lines of these telegraphic accounts Dr. Luke has given us.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Not really. Each individual is responsible for his own education. Verifying the truth is not the same as definding it, defining it or creating it.

In my earlier post, you missed three little words. “Instead of rioting.” Were they called noble because the checked against scriptures or because they did not react like the Thessilonians?

its both.

"for they received the message with great eagerness (there’s your “instead of rioting” thingie) and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (here is the ‘extra’ in extraordinary)
so you see, your christian protestant brethren are not really that lost. they have their gifts.

 

[ralphinal]

how come the high priest can utter prophecies and the popes could not?

Well, there are these. They are of a similar line as well.
goodmorals.org/smith7.htm

 

[mercygate]

but waitta minute, those berean jews apparently did not consult the high priest when they checked their scriptures against the teachings of paul. theyve been acting up like their own popes.

There is no high priest in the dispersion. He’s in Jerusalem – where Jesus had already been rejected.

The Berean congregation was in a SYNAGOGUE.

 

[ralphinal]

its both.

"for they received the message with great eagerness (there’s your “instead of rioting” thingie) and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (here is the ‘extra’ in extraordinary)
so you see, your christian protestant brethren are not really that lost. they have their gifts.

There you go. It is both. No one ever said that Catholics cannot check with the Bible.

I’ve never said that Protestants are lost. In fact, I won;t say all atheist or agnostics are.