Y
- Status
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
When I mean significantly important, that the Gospels have a higher precedence over them, because they are the closest things to Jesus himself.
I don’t quite understand your second question.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Revelation 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
22:17 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” 17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
Has nothing to do with Jesus Christ in context/content of Revelation 22 nor any Bible commentary of 13:7Who do you say Jesus Christ is?
John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to me.
P
pablope
Guest
Ah…your personal view again.
Let me ask again…are you the authority, do you have the authority, to define what is Christian theology?
Who has that authority to define what a Christian should believe?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Revelation 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life.17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic Church’s.
John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to me.
John 4:10 Jesus replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.”
The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic Church’s.
John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to me.
John 4:10 Jesus replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.”
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
Is there any christian theologian that uses apocryphal books to get their theology?
J
jediliz
Guest
John 20:22 And he breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit.
No mere “mortal” can breathe on someone and say THAT!
John 11:43-44
And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice,* “Lazarus, come out!”
The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, “Untie him and let him go.”
Can a mere MORTAL raise a person from the dead?
No mere “mortal” can breathe on someone and say THAT!
John 11:43-44
And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice,* “Lazarus, come out!”
The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, “Untie him and let him go.”
Can a mere MORTAL raise a person from the dead?
P
pablope
Guest
The protestant communities…and look at the result…several thousand denoms and still growing…and your understanding is a result of this deficiency.
The Catholic Church, and the Orthodox, for that matter, do not use the Bible to develop theology but is reflected in the Scripture. The source is Sacred Tradition, of which Scripture is a subset of it…it is the written part of ST.
Maybe this will help your understanding: mark-shea.com/tradition.html
*And the first step is to realize that Sacred Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel revelation. Indeed, it is precisely this view of Tradition which the Church has always condemned as the essence, not of Christianity, but of gnosticism. That is why Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies (c. 180 AD):
For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.
So if the Church does not see Sacred Tradition as separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, then how is it understood?
Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church…In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.*
In other words…Catholics do not derive theology from… “sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!””
P
PRmerger
Guest
You still haven’t answered the question, YiiNaa.
I don’t think you’ve actually thought out your position of “I believe in the Gospels but I don’t submit to the authority of the Catholic Church” because…
you cannot know that the Gospels are the inspired word of God…
except through the authority of the Catholic Church.
Do you see that now?
Unless you can tell us what *other *way you know that the Gospels are inspired?
That’s my question.
The answer as I see it is this: you cannot know if the Gospel of Mark is God-breathed. You only know this because the CC declared it to be God-breathed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No Catholic ought to get any theology from any Scripture.
Rather, the Scriptures reflect the theology of the Church.
The Church came first. Then she chose the writings that confirmed her theology.
You are operating from a backwards paradigm.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
What if God gave him the authority to do that?
Elijah, and Elisha did many miracles didn’t they?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You seem to be missing that God the Father did give Him the authority, the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ Crucified who defeats death, and comes to judge the living and the dead. Biblically, Elijah/Moses, Transfiguration. When the Fathers of the Church discerned what indeed is Inspired, they also knew, that the mysteries of the Church would further inspire and lead to communion thus salvation. They also knew not all would see this but only read the Bible taken as its word without the Tradition.
Gets back to what PR has been saying.
Gets back to what PR has been saying.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Not really. First of all, we goes even beyond the title of Son of God in saying that he and the Father are one. Not just I’m a god like my Father, but I’m the same God as my Father.
Secondly, he is emphasizing and eluding to his role as prophet, since he is making an appeal to the works and signs he has shown as a testimony to his words. Remember that in in the Old Testament a prophets words which he delivered from God had to be accompanied by demonstrable deeds and signs as a testament to those words’ truthfulness and origin from God.
From almost the first post you have been saying you want to understand this as a 1st century Jew would. Now that the 1st century Jews understand things contrary to how you want them to you change tunes to I want to understand this as a 21st century Jew? Can you explain this change in outlook?
Your assertion is false because since not even God the Father is referred to by the Tetragrammation in the New Testament, due to it being written in Greek, then trying to make an argument against Jesus’ divinity because he also is not referred to by such falls flat on its face.
As you say, the Tetragrammation would be translated as Kyrios in the Greek New Testament. So, to answer you question of where is Jesus referred to as Kyrios in the New Testament;
Matthew 7:21-22; Mark 7:28; Luke 11:1; John 9:38
There are many, many others, I merely wanted to give you at least one example from each of the four canonical Gospels.
I don’t know what you know, but I have given you four out of dozens or hundreds of references to Jesus as Kyrios in the New Testament.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
So should we throw out Acts, the Letters of Paul, John, James, Peter, Revelation…?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
As one example, we use 2 Maccabees as one of the Scriptural references to the doctrine of Purgatory.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
How do you know? By what authority do you claim that the Gospel of Mark is divinely inspired and should be considered Scripture, but, say, the Gospel of Peter is not?Because the books outside the canon are not significantly important.
That’s like asking me “If you submit to the OT canon, why don’t you submit to Judaism”
*My name is YiiNaa btw
I’m assuming you proscribe to the idea of Sola Scriptura, so let say you were born on a desert island and grew up alone and isolated and one day two books came in on the tide. One of the books was the Gospel of Mark and the other the Gospel of Peter. How would you know that one was divinely inspired and the other not, or both inspired, or neither inspired?
S
SaintFrancis333
Guest
Where did God ever say that His teachings should be compiled into a book? Scriptures are the Word of God but they are “not” the do all end all. Christ created One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A physical and literal Church. This Church compiled the Bible. If you want to understand Christ, you have to look deeper than just Scriptures.
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
I believe he meant denoms to be short for denominations…as in thousands of Protestant denominations.
- Status