What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

[SemperReformada]

He also said it wouldn’t fit into all the books of the bible, and I hardly think he was talking about such mundane things as you are. That’s common sense. You could say the same about anyone over a three year period.

I have a hard time believing that you actually interprete that to mean he was talking about mundane everyday things.

Okay, tell us what those “things” are that aren’t recorded in scripture and please let us know if your answer is your private interpretation or an actual teaching of yoru church.

 

[RomanCath379]

First of all I don’t understand what you mean “go by”.

But whatever you mean by “go by”, I also do not understand why you feel this Scripture “proves” this.

Does this Scripture address what Christians are to “go by”? If not, I don’t understand what exactly this proves…except that…Jesus said and did stuff that was not recorded in the gospel of John.

And since I also have the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke at my disposal as proof of this statement, I know this assertion is true.

You know what I mean, if you want to decipher it well then go ahead. Protestants will not develge in any history whatsoever about any knowledge of the past 2,000 years. As if the bible just suddenly dropped down from the sky, and the Catholic church came into existence whatever time…The church came BEFORE the bible. In other words, word of mouth is what John speaks of here. Things that Christ did, said, etc…is not recorded. But the people other than the Apostles who knew other things (ECF), have thoroughly believed Catholic beliefs. The Catholic church IS Christ. He established it 2,000 years ago. We have this evidence.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Protestants will not develge in any history whatsoever about any knowledge of the past 2,000 years.

Well, it might be true that MOST of the 2.1 billion Christians - REGARDLESS of what denomination their congregation is legally affiliated with (Catholic or Protestant) have not taken too many courses in the history of Christianity. I doubt the percentage of Catholics with a degree in such is greater than the percentage of Protestants with such. But I know that my father (a Protestant minister) was required to take 9 courses in the history of Christianity during his seminary studies, this not including the historical studies in the systemmatics department (where, for example, he took courses in the Early Church Fathers).

The Catholic church came BEFORE the bible.

I think you need to study history. MOST of the Bible came before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have begun; it is absurd to argue that The Catholic Church existed before 1400 BC when the oldest part of the Bile came into existence. Now, it IS older than my tome (which was published just last year) but it is not older than Scripture. As if that had any significance for anything.

Things that Christ did, said, etc…is not recorded.

So, you - as a Catholic - deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are actually recording the words and deeds of Jesus - it’s all fake?

The Catholic church IS Christ. He established it 2,000 years ago. We have this evidence.

I’d love to see that “evidence” but I’m just at a loss to see how any of your comments has a thing to do with the words of the verse we are discussing. You should note that the words are discussing don’t mention Christ or Tradition or The Catholic Church or Christian history. It says that Jesus DID things that John did not record in his Gospel book - which we know is true since there are several actions of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that John didn’t record. That’s what it says, so therefore - that’s what it says. Nothin’ more. Nothin’ less.

.

 

[Carlan]

Well, it might be true that MOST of the 2.1 billion Christians - REGARDLESS of what denomination their congregation is legally affiliated with (Catholic or Protestant) have not taken too many courses in the history of Christianity. I doubt the percentage of Catholics with a degree in such is greater than the percentage of Protestants with such. But I know that my father (a Protestant minister) was required to take 9 courses in the history of Christianity during his seminary studies, this not including the historical studies in the systemmatics department (where, for example, he took courses in the Early Church Fathers).

I think you need to study history. MOST of the Bible came before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have begun; it is absurd to argue that The Catholic Church existed before 1400 BC when the oldest part of the Bile came into existence. Now, it IS older than my tome (which was published just last year) but it is not older than Scripture. As if that had any significance for anything.

So, you - as a Catholic - deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are actually recording the words and deeds of Jesus - it’s all fake?

I’d love to see that “evidence” but I’m just at a loss to see how any of your comments has a thing to do with the words of the verse we are discussing. You should note that the words are discussing don’t mention Christ or Tradition or The Catholic Church or Christian history. It says that Jesus DID things that John did not record in his Gospel book - which we know is true since there are several actions of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that John didn’t record. That’s what it says, so therefore - that’s what it says. Nothin’ more. Nothin’ less.

.

Many of you sound like children argueing a silly point! :shrug:Carlan

 

[RomanCath379]

Well, it might be true that MOST of the 2.1 billion Christians - REGARDLESS of what denomination their congregation is legally affiliated with (Catholic or Protestant) have not taken too many courses in the history of Christianity. I doubt the percentage of Catholics with a degree in such is greater than the percentage of Protestants with such. But I know that my father (a Protestant minister) was required to take 9 courses in the history of Christianity during his seminary studies, this not including the historical studies in the systemmatics department (where, for example, he took courses in the Early Church Fathers).

I think you need to study history. MOST of the Bible came before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have begun; it is absurd to argue that The Catholic Church existed before 1400 BC when the oldest part of the Bile came into existence. Now, it IS older than my tome (which was published just last year) but it is not older than Scripture. As if that had any significance for anything.

So, you - as a Catholic - deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are actually recording the words and deeds of Jesus - it’s all fake?

I’d love to see that “evidence” but I’m just at a loss to see how any of your comments has a thing to do with the words of the verse we are discussing. You should note that the words are discussing don’t mention Christ or Tradition or The Catholic Church or Christian history. It says that Jesus DID things that John did not record in his Gospel book - which we know is true since there are several actions of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that John didn’t record. That’s what it says, so therefore - that’s what it says. Nothin’ more. Nothin’ less.

.

Non-Catholic Christians have chosen this mind frame about the bible because they reject the church in which Jesus Christ founded.
The Bible in fact tells you so clearly that Jesus founded His church long before the Bible.
Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Matthew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
Acts 2:47 KJV
1Corinthians 14:12
Acts 20:28 KJV
2Cor 1:1
Galatians 1:13
Ephesians 1:22 and many more verses
Phillipians 3:6 and 4:15

I can go on and on with how the Church came BEFORE the Bible but this alone should convince you. IF you go by the Word of the Lord.

Since ALL these books mention the word CHURCH, the Church had to have been already in existence already for years before they were written.
If that is true, then how was the teaching accomplished without a New Testament of Jesus Christ?
Simply by the same way that Jesus Christ taught, **ORALLY. **Oral teaching IS Tradition.
Tradition is Apostolic oral teaching handed down to their successors and to others.
There was not any New Testament Scripture for the first twenty years of the existence of the Church.

Where in my words have I ever said I thought the words and deeds of Christ are fake? Hello?
I also think that your father has overlooked the Early Church Fathers and how and what they said were thoroughly Catholic. I’d love to give you examples. Please ask…

 

[twinc]

"“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?

Christ did not always and everywhere speak word of mouth for He said to the Devil and other devils “it is written,it is written,it is written”[Lk.4:4-8] - twinc - re Jn.21:25 see Jn.20:31 - twinc

 

[RomanCath379]

Christ did not always and everywhere speak word of mouth for He said to the Devil and other devils “it is written,it is written,it is written”[Lk.4:4-8] - twinc - re Jn.21:25 see Jn.20:31 - twinc

Huh? He read from a manuscript??? When He said “it is writtten”, He was talking about the Old Testament. Christ ALWAYS spoke word of mouth. That is Tradition with us Catholics…but you already knew this…

 

[AmateurPianist]

You know what I mean, if you want to decipher it well then go ahead.

Actually I don’t know what you mean. But then again I was NotTooSmart.

Protestants will not develge in any history whatsoever about any knowledge of the past 2,000 years.

Yup, that of course is true for all Protestants.

As if the bible just suddenly dropped down from the sky, and the Catholic church came into existence whatever time…

And that is true for all Protestants also.

The church came BEFORE the bible.

And this proves what again?

In other words, word of mouth is what John speaks of here.

Where does it say word of mouth again? I must really be reading challenged, because I am not seeing word of mouth in that Scripture

Things that Christ did, said, etc…is not recorded. But the people other than the Apostles who knew other things (ECF), have thoroughly believed Catholic beliefs.

And this is relevant to the passage you cite how again?

The Catholic church IS Christ.

Really. The Catholic church is now God just like God the father, son, and Holy Spirit? Please quote from your Catechism where your church teaches that your church is Jesus.

Otherwise, I don’t think you know what your church teaches.

He established it 2,000 years ago. We have this evidence.

Hmm…I must really be reading challenged because I have not read in Scripture where Jesus established the Catholic church.

 

[RomanCath379]

Actually I don’t know what you mean. But then again I was NotTooSmart.

Yup, that of course is true for all Protestants.

And that is true for all Protestants also.

And this proves what again?

Where does it say word of mouth again? I must really be reading challenged, because I am not seeing word of mouth in that Scripture

And this is relevant to the passage you cite how again?

Really. The Catholic church is now God just like God the father, son, and Holy Spirit? Please quote from your Catechism where your church teaches that your church is Jesus.

Otherwise, I don’t think you know what your church teaches.

Hmm…I must really be reading challenged because I have not read in Scripture where Jesus established the Catholic church.

And this my friend, the last sentence in your post explains it all…

 

[Reuben_J]

Augustine is pre-reformation, or 1,200 or so years before the Protestant Reformation. Personally, I believe Augustine would be one of the giants of the Protestant Reformation along-side of Luther and Calvin.

Can hardly be compared to your Luther and Calvin. He did not leave the Church and so was a Catholic the rest of his life and that cannot be said of Protestant Luther and Calvin.

 

[Reuben_J]

AmericanJosiah:

I think we’re getting side tracked…

The question is what do we think this says?

Well, I think “many” means many. Nothing unclear about that.
I think that “things” means things. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “Jesus” means Jesus - that individual. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “did” means did - certain actions. Nothin’ unclear about that.
I think that “written” means written. Like in a book.
I think that “the entire world” is probably hyperbole.

So, if we look at the whole thing, John is saying that Jesus DID things, not all of which he has recorded in the Book of John. {We know this is true because, for example, there are miracles of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that he doesn’t record).

That’s what it says. So that’s what I think it says.

Not too much controversy, if we just read the words - and accept what is there.

Of course, if we delete the words there and substitute other words, then it says something different. For example, delete “did” and replace it with “dogmas taught” would change it. Change out “Jesus” for “Joseph Smith” and that would change it. Delete “this book” and replace it with “Bible” and that changes it. Anytime you delete words in Scripture and replace them with an entirely different one - you raise the distinct possibility of changing it. This would be no exception

Great observation because the word dogmas are not to be found in the Bible. Look like we cannot make any dogmas out of the verse in the Bible. Great.

 

[Reuben_J]

Again, what I think this verse says is what it says. Jesus did some things not recorded in John’s book. That’s what it says. That’s therefore what I think it says. WHAT those things might be - I don’t know. We know some of them by looking to Matthew, Mark and Luke - they all record some things Jesus did that John doesn’t. I suppose we could all theorize what He had for breakfast on His tenth birthday but that’s WELL beyond what this verse says. It jsut says Jesus did some things not recorded by John, it doesn’t tell us what those things were and doesn’t say we need to know all those things.

.

Well, we could also suppose he brought Peter and the apostles somewhere after saying that he was the rock upon which he would build his church and bless him, again, after elaborating on what he said earlier on. This which is not recorded by John but nevertheless carried out by the apostles into what we know today - the Catholic Church.

Hey, don’t blame me. I am merely going by the same logic.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Yes this is why Cathloic believe in Tradition and also believe in the false teaching of Sola Scriptura

Yes, the man lived for 33 years. There is no need to write it all down, and no reason to write down much of it. But the key things. The important things. The vital things. Of course there is a need to write those things down. We don’t know his favorite color. We don’t know his favorite food. We don’t know if he healed 100 people or 100,000. We know he healed people. If you follow anyone around and record things, you are not going to write down every word of every day. I think that verse is key for the curious who want to know more or why they don’t have every little detail.

 

[AmateurPianist]

**

AmateurPianist:

Hmm…I must really be reading challenged because I have not read in Scripture where Jesus established the Catholic church.

**
And this my friend, the last sentence in your post explains it all…

Well perhaps you could enlighten us and show us where it is in the Bible since I obviously must have missed it.

 

[RomanCath379]

Yes, the man lived for 33 years. There is no need to write it all down, and no reason to write down much of it. But the key things. The important things. The vital things. Of course there is a need to write those things down. We don’t know his favorite color. We don’t know his favorite food. We don’t know if he healed 100 people or 100,000. We know he healed people. If you follow anyone around and record things, you are not going to write down every word of every day. I think that verse is key for the curious who want to know more or why they don’t have every little detail.

Listen. Let’s be mature about this now. We are not talking about His favorite color, His favorite food, etc…we are talking about things say, the Eucharist and what He says about that. His authority to lead His church, etc…important things, miracles etc…although all these things are in the bible, I am sure there is much more elaborate discussion that Christ could of said. Why else would St. Ignatius call God’s church Catholic in the year 105 A.D. and of course there is the Creed. All pointing to the Catholic beliefs in which the people had then and now.

 

[RomanCath379]

Well perhaps you could enlighten us and show us where it is in the Bible since I obviously must have missed it.

AP, you realize that for 2,000 years the Catholic church has an unbroken lineage of popes from Peter on to whom Christ told him to start His church in which Peter reigned Bishop of Rome for 25 years, passed it to the next pope etc…265 popes later without an unbroken link! That is really something. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the church. The church in which Christ founded. You see? It is all in the bible. The word Catholic means Universal, which means Christ wanted all kinds of people to join His church. The Catholic church. My priest starts out the Mass every Sunday with the words, “Let us pray in God’s Universal church.”

 

[Melkite_Sword]

Christ did not always and everywhere speak word of mouth for He said to the Devil and other devils “it is written,it is written,it is written”[Lk.4:4-8] - twinc - re Jn.21:25 see Jn.20:31 - twinc

Yes, Jesus used scripture, as a faithful Jew he believed all scripture to be the word of God. Like Catholics today. Yet also like Catholics, Jesus and his apostles regarded certain Traditions as of divine origin, an example of this in scripture would be;

Matthew 23:1-3

“1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

This Tradition isn’t found anywhere in the Old Testament. From this alone we can conclude that Jesus followed Sacred Tradition, he did not follow sola scriptura.

Peace and blessings

 

[AmateurPianist]

AP, you realize that for 2,000 years the Catholic church has an unbroken lineage of popes from Peter on to whom Christ told him to start His church in which Peter reigned Bishop of Rome for 25 years, passed it to the next pope etc…265 popes later without an unbroken link! That is really something.

I realize there is a claim of lineage. The claim of lineage is not unique to the Catholic church.

And you are assuming that the lineage of lineage (which is not unique) is the exclusive metric that should be used to identify the one church today.

It is the Holy Spirit who guides the church. The church in which Christ founded. You see? It is all in the bible. The word Catholic means Universal, which means Christ wanted all kinds of people to join His church. The Catholic church. My priest starts out the Mass every Sunday with the words, “Let us pray in God’s Universal church.”

The church in which Christ has founded has divided in an ecclesiastical sense. That is a fact of history.

If one of these unique organizations that claims to be at least a part of the church of Jesus Christ want to claim for themselves that they are uniquely the church of Jesus Christ (meaning that from God’s perspective there is some type of superior->inferior relationship between their organization and all other organizations out there) they are welcome to it. However, the burden of proof rests upon those who want to make these claims for themselves.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Listen. Let’s be mature about this now. We are not talking about His favorite color, His favorite food, etc…we are talking about things say, the Eucharist and what He says about that. His authority to lead His church, etc…important things, miracles etc…although all these things are in the bible, I am sure there is much more elaborate discussion that Christ could of said. Why else would St. Ignatius call God’s church Catholic in the year 105 A.D. and of course there is the Creed. All pointing to the Catholic beliefs in which the people had then and now.

Okay…let’s be mature and realistic. If you follow anyone of great importance, let’s say a world leader. Everything they do in the course of their job, decisions, meetings, agendas, etc. is important, but not all of it is noteworthy.And sometimes you don’t know it’s noteworthy until after the fact. Oral tradition is wonderful, but the shortcoming of it is clear. The story A tells B has little in common with the story X tells Y although it’s supposed to be the same. LIne 20 people up and whisper one sentence in the first one’s ear and have them pass it along. The last person in line is whispering something entirely different. The verse, to me, sounds like the kind of thing one writes down when a lot of people have different stories or have different versions of the same story…or most confusing, have a lot of different versions of a lot of different stories. What do you write when that is the case. One writes exactly what is there. That a lot of things happened as its the one thing that is agreed upon.

 

[RomanCath379]

Okay…let’s be mature and realistic. If you follow anyone of great importance, let’s say a world leader. Everything they do in the course of their job, decisions, meetings, agendas, etc. is important, but not all of it is noteworthy.And sometimes you don’t know it’s noteworthy until after the fact. Oral tradition is wonderful, but the shortcoming of it is clear. The story A tells B has little in common with the story X tells Y although it’s supposed to be the same. LIne 20 people up and whisper one sentence in the first one’s ear and have them pass it along. The last person in line is whispering something entirely different. The verse, to me, sounds like the kind of thing one writes down when a lot of people have different stories or have different versions of the same story…or most confusing, have a lot of different versions of a lot of different stories. What do you write when that is the case. One writes exactly what is there. That a lot of things happened as its the one thing that is agreed upon.

That is why there are lots of Early Church Fathers who have said the same things about Christ and His Catholic church. Have you read any of the ECF? Funny how they all say the same thing. Why do you insist in following Luther?