What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCath379
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It occurred to me that I might be a little unclear.

I am not debating whether there is body of oral tradition that originated with Christ, is not found in the Bible, but has been passed on in other forms for 2000 years or so.

This may or may not be true. Although I am skeptical of this myself, you can’t really prove a negative. So for all I know maybe it is true.

My only point is that you can not take this Scripture and assert that this Scripture teaches that is the case. That is because this Scripture is totally silent on whether this is the case.

If you want to make the case that this does exist, you just have to use something other than this Scripture.

That is all I am saying.
 
AmateurPianist said:
It occurred to me that I might be a little unclear.

…

My only point is that you can not take this Scripture and assert that this Scripture teaches that is the case. That is because this Scripture is totally silent on whether this is the case.

If you want to make the case that this does exist, you just have to use something other than this Scripture.

That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...
Perhaps both the question you ask, and the answers you receive are a little unclear.

I compared Barclay’s non-Catholic commentary with the Navarre Catholic commentary. They both express virtually the same idea.

from Navarre:

St John’s account, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has as its purpose the strengthening of our faith in Jesus Christ through reflection on what our Lord said and did. Like the Fourth Gospel, we shall never be able to capture the full richness and depth of our Lord’s personality. "Once we begin to be interested in Christ, one’s interest can never ceae. There is always something more to be known, to ber said - infinitely more. St John the Evangelist ends his Gospel making this very point. Everything to do with Christ is so rich, there are such depths for us to explore; such light, strength, joy, desire have their source in Him… His coming to the world, his presence in history and culture and… his vital relationship with our conscience: everything suggests that it is unseemly, unscientific and irreverent ever to think that we need not and cannot advance further in contemplation of Jesus Christ. (Paul VI)

So my answer to you is that “whatever” you wish to think that Jesus did (and we agree that He indeed did much more that what is written), it is worthy of our contemplation… and not worthy of remarks that demean Him or His works in any way.

By asking those who were there to see and hear (not just write), we gain the most of that added insight.
By asking those who heard from the Apostles and were taught my them, we also gain the most of that added insight.
By asking those who heard and were taught by them… etc, etc etc

That succession, that chain of information, that direct connection to Jesus is NOT found outside the Catholic Church.

Outside the Church you are limited to your personal use of the Book of the Catholic Church, as you have desired to be.

.
 
AmateurPianist said:
What I meant to ask (and perhaps I worded this unclearly) was are there any writings of the early church that said something like we are basing so-and-so practice on a teaching of Jesus in the 40 days after he rose from the dead (that is not recorded in Scripture). For example in any of the cases below are there writings that indicate the origin of these is Jesus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RomanCath379 said:
"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

This is where The Catholics believe in Tradition. Word of mouth from the Early Church Fathers and others who had witnessed things about Christ before the bible ever came into the hands of the people. After all, didn’t Christ speak word of mouth?
Click to expand...
Actually that’s why I believe ‘the Bible only’. It is so easy to read in the Bible what doesn’t belong and then say it’s extra biblical revelation. Dangerous. Let’s let the Holy Spirit through the Bible do His job.
 
JonNC said:
I think we all know what Bill meant.

Jon
Click to expand...

I agree; I was just teasing him. That’s why the smiley face.​

God forbid Bill would place the Bible above all other writings and above Sacred Tradition.😃
 
Dokimas said:
Actually that’s why I believe ‘the Bible only’. It is so easy to read in the Bible what doesn’t belong and then say it’s extra biblical revelation. Dangerous. Let’s let the Holy Spirit through the Bible do His job.
Click to expand...
Let’s let the Holy Spirit, through His Church, do the job.

Job one… go forth and teach all nations.

Job two… let his office (Judas) another take

Job three… adddress the early heresies.

…

…

…

…

Job xxx… determine the Canon of the Scriptures.

Job xxx++ … try to teach those who think they can use/misuse My book by not listening to My Church.

.
 
RomanCath379 said:
"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

This is where The Catholics believe in Tradition. Word of mouth from the Early Church Fathers and others who had witnessed things about Christ before the bible ever came into the hands of the people. After all, didn’t Christ speak word of mouth?
Click to expand...
Among those more “mystical Friends”…this is type and fulfillment in the Body of Christ…WE are His living Body in our world…each of us being “little Christs” to each one we meet…such a responsibility…so much to live up to…don’t you think?🙂
 
MrS said:
Let’s let the Holy Spirit, through His Church, do the job.

Job one… go forth and teach all nations.

Job two… let his office (Judas) another take

Job three… adddress the early heresies.

…

…

…

…

Job xxx… determine the Canon of the Scriptures.

Job xxx++ … try to teach those who think they can use/misuse My book by not listening to My Church.

.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion.
 
Dokimas said:
Actually that’s why I believe ‘the Bible only’. It is so easy to read in the Bible what doesn’t belong and then say it’s extra biblical revelation. Dangerous. Let’s let the Holy Spirit through the Bible do His job.
Click to expand...
There is nowhere in the Scriptures that say you are saved through the bible alone. Nowhere. But it does say that you are saved by Christ’s church. Again, the church came before the bible.
 
RomanCath379 said:
"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

This is where The Catholics believe in Tradition. Word of mouth from the Early Church Fathers and others who had witnessed things about Christ before the bible ever came into the hands of the people. After all, didn’t Christ speak word of mouth?
Click to expand...
Jesus also stated many times, ‘it is written’ when preaching to the people. Did the Catholic church author the books of the Bible? It doesn’t matter who established the canon because the Holy Spirit can work through anyone.
 
Justy90 said:
Jesus also stated many times, ‘it is written’ when preaching to the people. Did the Catholic church author the books of the Bible? It doesn’t matter who established the canon because the Holy Spirit can work through anyone.
Click to expand...
And HE CHOSE the Catholic Church.

Kinda tells ya something.

Also, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a God of division. So when the many denominations all teach different things and claim the Holy Spirit is “working” through them, well

we know that at the **very least **all… ALL… but one of them is very wrong.

Common sense and reason says we go to the Church which received Jesus’ promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you are not Catholic… it ain’t your faith community.

.
 
MrS said:
And HE CHOSE the Catholic Church.

Kinda tells ya something.

Also, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a God of division. So when the many denominations all teach different things and claim the Holy Spirit is “working” through them, well

we know that at the **very least **all… ALL… but one of them is very wrong.

Common sense and reason says we go to the Church which received Jesus’ promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you are not Catholic… it ain’t your faith community.

.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox church disagrees with you.
 
RomanCath379 said:
And? So do 30,000+ other denominations.
Click to expand...
Yup. The Catholic Church enjoys a unity with just one: itself. Alone, exclusively, solely. Self alone officially and currently agrees with self alone in the matters that self alone currently regards as necessary to agree upon. Yup. AT LEAST as much can be said for all other denominations, too. So the BEST that can be said of The Catholic Church is that it is no better in this regard than most other denominations - which also are in full, official, current agreement with only one: self. Now, so what? Why is that signficant to anything? Heck, I typically agree with me yet no Catholic immediately proclaims: “Ah, then Josiah must be infallible/unaccountable, dogmatically correct in all these things, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, we must accept all he alone says with docility!” So, I don’t understand the significance of this claim for the CC, that because self alone currently/officially agrees with self alone (a unity of one: self with self), ERGO…

Now, to the issue of this thread: The verse we are discussing says that Jesus DID things that John didn’t record in the singular book we know as The Gospel of John. That’s what it says, so as a Protestant, I think that’s what it says. It’s not so difficult.

Thank you.

Pax
  • Josiah
.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
Now, to the issue of this thread: The verse we are discussing says that Jesus DID things that John didn’t record in the singular book we know as The Gospel of John. That’s what it says, so as a Protestant, I think that’s what it says. It’s not so difficult.

Thank you.

Pax- Josiah

.
Click to expand...
As Gil Grisson once said on CSI : “It appears that you do not have one scientific bone in your body. You start with an answer that you want, and then devise whatever questions you can to try and justify the answer.” 🤷

This is very common among the reformers, and their followers… then and now. :rolleyes:

You are welcome.

Pax
 
MrS said:
40.png
Josiah:
Now, to the issue of this thread: The verse we are discussing says that Jesus DID things that John didn’t record in the singular book we know as The Gospel of John. That’s what it says, so as a Protestant, I think that’s what it says. It’s not so difficult.

Thank you.

Pax
  • Josiah
.
Click to expand...
As Gil Grisson once said on CSI : “It appears that you do not have one scientific bone in your body. You start with an answer that you want, and then devise whatever questions you can to try and justify the answer.” 🤷

You are welcome.

Pax
Click to expand...
Here’s the verse we are discussing:
“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

Here’s what I think it says: There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them. There’s nothing that should be TOO hard for a Catholic to understand. Jesus did other things. That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. Now, “did” does not mean “taught”. And “not recorded” does not mean “revealed to one who claims that such has been revealed to self.”

Now, put this with John 20:30, “Now Jesus did (there’s that emphasis on actions rather than teachings as in John 21:25) many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book (The Gospel of St. John).”

That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. I didn’t start with an answer, I just read the text and I think it says what it says - in the words on the page. I’m not deleting any words or adding any words. I think it may be you that’s doing that, that’s assuming something and “seeing” it in invisible words that just aren’t there.

.
 
RomanCath379 said:
There is nowhere in the Scriptures that say you are saved through the bible alone. Nowhere. But it does say that you are saved by Christ’s church. Again, the church came before the bible.
Click to expand...
Where’s the verses that say a person is saved by Christ’s church.
 
Dokimas said:
Where’s the verses that say a person is saved by Christ’s church.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Matthew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
‘And the Lord added to the CHURCH daily such as should be saved’ Acts 2:47, KJV
(note the singular ‘the church’)
1Cor 14:12
The bible also states that Jesus purchased the CHURCH of God with His own Blood,
Acts 120:28 KJV
The bible states that Christ gave Himself up for the CHURCH Ephes 5:25
2Cor 1:1
Galatians 1:13
Eph 1:22 and many more

Since all of these mention the word church, proves it was already in existence for many years before they were written.

I have many more verses if you’d like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top