What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

"“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?

Jesus did what the Father told him to do. He is good and He is perfect. The “other things” that Jesus did could only be good. For any religion, I would want to know if that “Tradition” would be something that Jesus himself would do.

 

[JonNC]

We are saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, working in love. Sola Gratia.

On this we agree.

Jon

 

[RomanCath379]

That is your claim. But this is off topic.

The scripture that you are citing claims:
(1) There were many other things that Jesus did
(2) So many that maybe the world could not contain the books that were written (maybe a slight hyperbole but we get the point).

Good grief, this Scripture seems so simple that even a 5th grader could understand this.

There is absolutely nothing in this Scripture that indicates that God wanted, planned, or intended that all of these other things that Jesus did should be known to us 2000 years later. Now if that was actually the intent of God, you have to go elsewhere to support this claim.

Good grief, if I were a fifth grader and claimed that this somehow was in this passage we are reading, I would be marked wrong on 5th grade reading comprehension. Some of you apparantly need to go back to elementary school and bone up on the basics of reading comprehension.

No it isn’t my claim, it’s history! Something you Protestants never do is learn your history, for to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…

 

[AmateurPianist]

No it isn’t my claim, it’s history! Something you Protestants never do is learn your history, for to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…

So now you are confusing me again. So let me phrase this again. Answer these questions please

(1)
Hypothetical question for a seventh grade reading reading comprehension exam. I will substitute the name “Fred” for the name “Jesus”

Please read the following sentence from a biography of a man named Fred who lived 2000 years ago

And there are also many other things which Fred did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.

What are valid conclusions that one can draw from reading this sentence.

A. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account of Fred.
B. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account but which were recorded in another biographical account of Fred
C. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account of Fred, or any other biographical account of Fred, but which were told in unwritten forms throughout many generations to this very time.

(2) Same question, but we now substitute the name Jesus instead of Fred in these sentences. Does the answer change?

(3) Same question but we are told as a condition:

Please read the following sentence from a biography of Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. This biography is the gospel of John in what is known as a Bible.

Does the answer change?

 

[MrS]

So now you are confusing me again. So let me phrase this again. Answer these questions please

(1)
Hypothetical question for a seventh grade reading reading comprehension exam. I will substitute the name “Fred” for the name “Jesus”

Please read the following sentence from a biography of a man named Fred who lived 2000 years ago

What are valid conclusions that one can draw from reading this sentence.

A. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account of Fred.
B. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account but which were recorded in another biographical account of Fred
C. Fred did many things that were not written about in detail in this biographical account of Fred, or any other biographical account of Fred, but which were told in unwritten forms throughout many generations to this very time.

(2) Same question, but we now substitute the name Jesus instead of Fred in these sentences. Does the answer change?

(3) Same question but we are told as a condition:

Please read the following sentence from a biography of Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. This biography is the gospel of John in what is known as a Bible.

Does the answer change?

Perhaps that is the problem.

Have you reduced the Scripture to a biography?
Have you reduced what is from God, yet not in the canon, to a biography?

The Scriptures may be reduced to one word… Jesus.

It, the Bible, is not “just” about Him. It IS Him… even more than an auto-biography.

…just another use of our Book that is really no more than an abuse of our book… The Bible, the Book of the Catholic Church because the Church He found is HIM.

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Perhaps that is the problem.
Have you reduced the Scripture to a biography?
Have you reduced what is from God, yet not in the canon, to a biography?

The Scriptures may be reduced to one word… Jesus.

It, the Bible, is not “just” about Him. It IS Him… even more than an auto-biography.

…just another use of our Book that is really no more than an abuse of our book… The Bible, the Book of the Catholic Church because the Church He found is HIM.

I do observe you did not answer my question. According to basic 7th grade reading interpretation rules, what is the proper interpretation of this Scriptur?.

You know that I was drawing an analogy here with a hypothetical biography to illustrate basic 7th grade reading comprehension rules.

Perhaps this is because you know that any 7th grader would get the answer wrong if he/she answered that one can logically conclude from this passage of Scripture that there were things that Jesus said and did that were recorded elsewhere. Perhaps this is because you know this is not in this passage of Scripture but do not want to concede this. Hence the dodge.

Either that or I must conclude that many Catholics are severely reading comprehension challenged.

So my next question is this. Does you being Catholic give you the right to violate basic 7th grade reading comprehension rules and interpret a passage of Scripture by making false leaps that would be wrong on a seventh grade reading comprehension test.

Yes or no please. And please no dodge to my question.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I do observe you did not answer my question. According to basic 7th grade reading interpretation rules, what is the proper interpretation of this Scriptur?.

You know that I was drawing an analogy here.

Perhaps this is because you know that any 7th grader would get the answer wrong if he/she answered that one can logically conclude from this passage of Scripture that there were things that Jesus said and did that were recorded elsewhere. Perhaps this is because you know this is not in this passage of Scripture but do not want to concede this. Hence the dodge.

So my next question is this. Does you being Catholic give you the right to violate basic 7th grade reading comprehension rules and interpret a passage of Scripture by making logical leaps that would be erroneous on a seventh grade reading comprehension test.

Yes or no please. And please no dodge to my question.

Putting your question aside for a moment, what do you think Jesus taught the disciples for these 40 days?

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

I believe that he was telling them how to organize and run the Church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Maybe I should be more clear…I, and I think most Lutherans and other protestants fully believe I am following the church Jesus started.

Most Christians, ie. Catholics, think you are gravely mistaken.

What are you protesting?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Putting your question aside for a moment, what do you think Jesus taught the disciples for these 40 days?

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

I believe that he was telling them how to organize and run the Church.

I do not know.

But anyway, I ask you the same question as the previous posts.

Hey, there is a case to be made concerning a legitimate role of what you call “tradition”. But you severely weaken your credibility when you claim that a passage of Scripture proves this when your proof violates basic reading comprehension rules.

 

[AmateurPianist]

What are you protesting?

Well right now I am protesting the notion that just because you are Catholic and the church that Jesus Christ founded and that you are obviously superior to all other churches, that this somehow gives you the right to interpret Scripture badly.

I’ll get over it tomorrow, but right now I am some combination of miffed, perplexed, and amused over this.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I do not know.

But anyway, I ask you the same question as the previous posts.

Hey, there is a case to be made concerning a legitimate role of what you call “tradition”. But you severely weaken your credibility when you claim that a passage of Scripture proves this when your proof violates basic reading comprehension rules.

I just jumped into the thread, so I’m not sure what your point is.

My point was that Jesus was teaching the apostles something for 40 days and we don’t know what that was. 40 days is a long time.

We have ample records of the practices and beliefs of the early Church. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that these practices and beliefs that we don’t find in the new testament were nonetheless teachings of Jesus.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I just jumped into the thread, so I’m not sure what your point is.

My point is that John 21:25 does not support the notion that there is this set of teaching that comes straight from Christ that was not recorded in the gospels but was orally transmitted from 2000 years ago today. Now this might actually be true if you can find something else to support it for all I know. However John 21:25 does not support this at all.

My point was that Jesus was teaching the apostles something for 40 days and we don’t know what that was. 40 days is a long time.

We have ample records of the practices and beliefs of the early Church. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that these practices and beliefs that we don’t find in the new testament were nonetheless teachings of Jesus.

Well are there any documents from the early church that claim those practices and beliefs were taught to the apostles during this 40 day period of time after Jesus rose from the dead.

Otherwise your claim, while still possible I suppose, lacks evidence at least for me to buy into it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well are there any documents from the early church that claim those practices and beliefs were taught to the apostles during this 40 day period of time after Jesus rose from the dead.

Otherwise your claim, while still possible I suppose, lacks evidence at least for me to buy into it.

I think some of the writings of the early Church, including the Didache, Clement I, the letters of Ignatius, and the writings of Justin Martyr are examples of teachings that don’t contradict the new testament, but are not explicit in the new testament.

For example, from the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

From I Clement:
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

From Ignatius:
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

From Justin Martyr:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think some of the writings of the early Church, including the Didache, Clement I, the letters of Ignatius, and the writings of Justin Martyr are examples of teachings that don’t contradict the new testament, but are not explicit in the new testament.

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.

For example, from the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

From I Clement:
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

From Ignatius:
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

From Justin Martyr:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

These are of course interesting writings. But do we know that the source of these is Jesus during the 40 days after He rose (I’m not saying it is not mind you…but looking for reasons to believe it is).

 

[MrS]

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.

These are of course interesting writings. But do we know that the source of these is Jesus during the 40 days after He rose (I’m not saying it is not mind you…but looking for reasons to believe it is).

That would be nice.

But it seems that your objective is more to prove/accept a “nothing-ness” to that verse rather than look for what it means. IMHO nothing in the Gospels allude to minor instructions or just throw-away comments that Jesus “did” other things.

The above quotes and many more like them, might help one who seeks to study material that preceeded and then accompanied the Scriptures.

I think reasonable questions might include:
1- why did they do that (when studying the actions, teachings of the early Church)
2- how did they know in one area how to do the same thing in another area
3- why were the early Christians so excited when certain leaders came to visit & instruct
4- why was the office of Judas only filled with one who traveled and learned from Jesus for His whole ministry?
etc

As to the 7th grader… well,

• a really astute 7th grader might say “I did not know the Bible was a biography”
• perhaps an average7th grader might say “Did?, I guess did means did. What ever He did, HE (not someone else) did. Duh”
• perhaps a 7th grader raised in a fundamentalist home would say “It means the opposite of whatever the Catholic Church thinks it means.”

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

That would be nice.

But it seems that your objective is more to prove/accept a “nothing-ness” to that verse rather than look for what it means. IMHO nothing in the Gospels allude to minor instructions or just throw-away comments that Jesus “did” other things.

The above quotes and many more like them, might help one who seeks to study material that preceeded and then accompanied the Scriptures.

I think reasonable questions might include:
1- why did they do that (when studying the actions, teachings of the early Church)
2- how did they know in one area how to do the same thing in another area
3- why were the early Christians so excited when certain leaders came to visit & instruct
4- why was the office of Judas only filled with one who traveled and learned from Jesus for His whole ministry?
etc

As to the 7th grader… well,

• a really astute 7th grader might say “I did not know the Bible was a biography”
• perhaps an average7th grader might say “Did?, I guess did means did. What ever He did, HE (not someone else) did. Duh”
• perhaps a 7th grader raised in a fundamentalist home would say “It means the opposite of whatever the Catholic Church thinks it means.”

.

OK. So I take it by your answer that since the Bible is a Catholic book and the Catholic church is the church that Jesus founded and is superior in some respects to all other churches…that this gives you the right to interpret the sentence:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.

As.

Jesus did many things that were not written about in detail in this book, but which were told and preserved in unwritten forms throughout many generations to this very time.

Now if you want to adopt this type of hermeneutic in interpreting Scripture, go ahead. Far be it for little old me to stop you. Particularly since I am just a heretic Protestant and all that.

But this tells me quite a bit when you defend a heremeutic for interpreting Scripture that does not even pass the 7th grade reading comprehension test.

 

[MrS]

OK. So I take it by your answer that since the Bible is a Catholic book and the Catholic church is the church that Jesus founded and is superior in some respects to all other churches…that this gives you the right to interpret the sentence:

No… the Bible is the Book of the Catholic Church. All are encouraged to use it to grow closer to the Lord. None are encouraged to misuse it to “support” their personal plans and agenda for theological theories.
As.

Now if you want to adopt this type of hermeneutic in interpreting Scripture, go ahead. Far be it for little old me to stop you. Particularly since I am just a heretic Protestant and all that.

I did not know you were a heretic. I assume then that since you are baptised, and you actually know the truth, then you are choosing to profess to something different… aka heretic. I just thought you had ingrained bias that formed your beliefs which are contrary to what the Catholic Church holds – and which I just happen to adhere to.

But this tells me quite a bit when you defend a heremeutic for interpreting Scripture that does not even pass the 7th grade reading comprehension test.

Here we go with the 7th grade again. But then, compared to the 2000 years of study, discernment, discussion, and guarantees of the Holy Spirit which only the Catholic Church enjoys… yeah, most of the errors of the reformation would belong in the “lower grades” of hermeneutics.

 

[schaick]

"“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?

Many more miracles that might have possibly been repeats or slight variations of ones already mentioned. Information that we don’t need for our salvation-the Gospel we have today is all we need.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Again, like I say, you are free to interpret the Scripture how ever you want. Far be it for me to tell you what to do when reading God’s word.

All I am saying is that your interpretation of this Scripture does not pass a basic reading comprehension test. That apparantly is ok with you.

It is not ok with me.

 

[MrS]

Many more miracles that might have possibly been repeats or slight variations of ones already mentioned. Information that we don’t need for our salvation-the Gospel we have today is all we need.

If you really believe that, I would expect you to

• not be a member of any faith community or fellowship group
• not participate in any singing or praise and worship
• not to have any Bible studies led by a cleric or a lay person
• not to need any commentaries or reference materials
• not need any insight from those who learned from the Apostles
• not require to really follow through on the instructions and teachings of Jesus… just read
• not have any concerns about which version or translation is the most authentic
  and
• certainly not have the sacraments and other graces which the Bible mentions

I guess you are the ultimate example of

More of me, less of Him.

Just give me somebody’s Bible.

.