M
mercygate
Guest
Indeed.
Not really. I find that Paul is not meticulous with his quotations, nor is Our Lord. They are close to the Septuagint but they are not word-for-word quotes.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
Thanks for the correction Mercygate.
I
Ignatius
Guest
When Paul referd to the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 he said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Now I am sure that, you are aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, by 2 Tikm 3: 16, Paul supports the Deuterocanon as inspired. This is no leap, this is from the pen of the Apostle himself.
Actually, When the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is close to that of the Septuagent Greek text.
So, to reiterate the question. How do you know which writings should be in the New Testament? I’m not debating the inspired nature of the New Testament. I’m asking on what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired?
I greatly look forward to your reply to these question.
May the Grace and peace of Christ be with you always.
Yours in Christ.
K
KCT
Guest
Where in the Bible does Jesus tell his followers to write things down so they have a book when he’s gone?
J
juliamajor
Guest
Paul’s’ letters being earlier then gospel and the other letters were they only NT “scripture " available at the time of the Infant church. earliest Gospel was at least thirty years after Jesus. So Most of scripture used would be OT.We have Oral teaching- tradition that passed Jesus’ words around. From New Light On The Difficult Words Of Jesus” by David Bivin"The transmission of oral literature by rabbis and disciples approached 100% accuracy,far greater accuracy then could be achieved through written transmission.When literature is transmitted in hand-copied documents,inevitably mistakes known as “scribal errors” creep in.The rabbis were aware of this danger.They knew that if their literature were transmitted in writing,it would lose its high degree of accuracy.Therefore,they forbade it’s written transmission.".,“Pursuing this line of reasoning,one can suggest that the first written collection of Jesus’ words and deeds was a Greek work,which may have been a translation of an oral Hebrew collection of Jesus’ deeds and teaching, memorized by Jesus’ first disciples and transmitted with a high degree of accuracy
.Perhaps an early bilingual follower of the Way compiled this collection as he sat listening day by day to the sermons and lessons of the Twelve or one of the other disciples who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.As the Twelve preached and taught they interspersed in their presentations many of the deeds and sayings of Jesus.Perhaps the listener to notes in Hebrew and later translated them into Greek or simply translated what he heard into Greek.”. Jesus would have made use of the"Oral Torah" and Mishnah.
.Perhaps an early bilingual follower of the Way compiled this collection as he sat listening day by day to the sermons and lessons of the Twelve or one of the other disciples who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry.As the Twelve preached and taught they interspersed in their presentations many of the deeds and sayings of Jesus.Perhaps the listener to notes in Hebrew and later translated them into Greek or simply translated what he heard into Greek.”. Jesus would have made use of the"Oral Torah" and Mishnah.
C
Canto
Guest
Has anyone yet been able to prove via the scriptures that the bible unequivically teaches sola scriptura? With respect it does not seem so. Instead we seem to be going around in circles and spending time on Limbo, the DC books, and everything else aside from the fact that nowhere in the bible does Jesus in the NT or the LORD in the OT or any apostles esposue SOLA scriptura.
This from wiki… Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 “expressly set down in scripture”. However, it is claimed that it passes the second test of being part of “the whole counsel of God” because it is “deduced from scripture” “by good and necessary consequence”, citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: "
“deduced from scriputre” isn’t this what we Catholics get accused of by deducing the assumption of Mary (tradition and logic aside) from the bible.
“While all Lutheran churches profess allegiance to “Scripture alone,” we do not all agree on what this means in practice.”
Didn’t the council of Nicea come up with Nicene Creed, before the bible was compiled and the relevant books were cannonised?
“All Scripture and only scripture and nothig else is God-breathed, and is soley alone without the need of Tradtion profitable for doctrine even if it contradcts, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work but not works for salvation.” ???
Deutrocanonical reference in the New Testament
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
This from wiki… Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 “expressly set down in scripture”. However, it is claimed that it passes the second test of being part of “the whole counsel of God” because it is “deduced from scripture” “by good and necessary consequence”, citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: "
“deduced from scriputre” isn’t this what we Catholics get accused of by deducing the assumption of Mary (tradition and logic aside) from the bible.
“While all Lutheran churches profess allegiance to “Scripture alone,” we do not all agree on what this means in practice.”
- An Introduction to the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
Dr. Samuel Nafzger, 1994 Concordia Publishing House.
Didn’t the council of Nicea come up with Nicene Creed, before the bible was compiled and the relevant books were cannonised?
“All Scripture and only scripture and nothig else is God-breathed, and is soley alone without the need of Tradtion profitable for doctrine even if it contradcts, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work but not works for salvation.” ???
Deutrocanonical reference in the New Testament
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
N
Newbie2
Guest
To whom are you referring, these Catholics in general who “don’t really believe Scripture”?
Some of your questions are a little ridiculous]
Matt. 7:5 : “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Tradition is a living and growing thing that is held in the very actions and attitudes of the Catholic community itself as well as in The Catholic Teaching. We are a family who cherishes our heritage yet we recognize that we live in an evolving world. I can not give you a link to Catholic Tradition since it is not a matter of being on the Internet or even “here or there”. But in all fairness as a Sola Scriptura’ist can you give me a link to The Church Tradition that Paul COMMANDS in scripture that Christians must follow? I bet you can’t.**I don’t disagree with most of what you are saying. However, in order to determine if tradition confirms Scripture, then we need to see the tradition. Can you provide a link to Catholic tradition, both large T and samll t? Many have listed Scripture but no one has linked Tradition. Perhaps that would be a great idea to prove your point.
Thank you!**
Catholics fully embrace tradition where Protestants reject tradition in favor of scripture only. Please tell me how non-Catholics, and in particular the Sola Scritptura’ists can be obedient to Paul’s commandments about tradition and remain “biblical” if they ignore his explicit commandments? See Paul’s teaching below.
Paul’s messages about Tradition:
So let me give you more insight about Catholic Tradition that may help you ask a better question that leads to something beneficial. Catholic tradition is passed down from proceeding generations and is part of every Catholic’s very identity. Tradition is not a thing that can be pointed to explicitly. No, Tradition is something that is living and evolving and growing through the body of The Church. It must be experienced and enjoined through The Church. If you want to learn Catholic Tradition (or even debate it and shape it) you must first live a Catholic Life. To live the Tradition one must first start off crawling, then walking then soaring with it on wings of faith. Do you want to learn The Tradition that is passed down from our apostolic forefathers and has grown and evolved into what it is today? If so become Catholic.
Tradition can’t be taught with one quick “Catholic Tradition for Dummies” cook book. A book is not tradition. But I can tell you what Catholic Tradition is not. It is not like giving a new child in the family a KJV bible and saying: “Good luck son. Take it and run with it; these words are your heritage. Interpret it rightly and maybe I’ll see you on the other side some day”. Tradition must be lived and learned through a combination of following the examples of the religious and through formal education, personal study, contemplative observation, participation in the Mass.
Please also know that according to Catholic understanding, Tradition implies change in continuity with the past. Both elements are essential. If there is no room for adaptation and growth, we are not talking about Tradition but about repetition. To live with others always means to accept some limits. To strive for real community always means to make many compromises of personal preferences. We just can’t have a system of anarchy and be self centered to the exclusion of our neighbors – that would be uncharitable. We all are commanded to both love God and love neighbor (the very definition of Charity). So there is both need for a personal relationship with God as well as a community relationship and worship with God. To come together as a community of God’s people we clearly need some conventions for how to interact with each other. This is what tradition is all about.
[continued]
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
[continued from above]
But Tradition is not an end in itself. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), said Jesus when the Pharisees accused him of breaking certain traditional rules that were in conflict with legitimate human needs.
The Catholic understanding of Tradition, what it is and how it comes to regulate our changing life and understanding, really goes back to Scripture, which actually supports the idea of Tradition. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus himself was sometimes caught in the argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The main difference between the two parties was that the Sadducees wanted to restrict beliefs and rules to what was explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures, while the Pharisees held themselves bound by the cumulative wisdom of the ages that had been gathered in the Tradition. On this issue, Jesus took sides very emphatically with the Pharisees against the Sadducees. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (22:23-33) he supports the Pharisees’ traditional teaching of the resurrection of the dead.
Paul, in his writings (1 Corinthians 11:23, for example), states very forcefully that he is “handing on” what was “handed on” to him. This “handing on” is a term with a special meaning in the Jewish teaching of the time. It translates into Latin as traditio, from which our English word tradition comes. Paul is evidently convinced that the community of believers has a strong sense about what is important enough to be passed on to the next generation of believers. The Holy Spirit, he believes, will help the community understand what in its experience and customs—and in its vision of the redemption—should really be held on to. In fact, Paul carefully distinguishes between what he offers as his own opinion and what he sees to be the Church Tradition handed on to him.
Tradition is expressed in (and grows from) the Church’s creeds, the records of the Church’s liturgy, the writings of the great teachers, the decrees of popes and councils, the prayer and faith of the people.
See the following quote:
Leonard Foley O.F.M. Believing In Jesus:
James
But Tradition is not an end in itself. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), said Jesus when the Pharisees accused him of breaking certain traditional rules that were in conflict with legitimate human needs.
The Catholic understanding of Tradition, what it is and how it comes to regulate our changing life and understanding, really goes back to Scripture, which actually supports the idea of Tradition. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus himself was sometimes caught in the argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The main difference between the two parties was that the Sadducees wanted to restrict beliefs and rules to what was explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures, while the Pharisees held themselves bound by the cumulative wisdom of the ages that had been gathered in the Tradition. On this issue, Jesus took sides very emphatically with the Pharisees against the Sadducees. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (22:23-33) he supports the Pharisees’ traditional teaching of the resurrection of the dead.
Paul, in his writings (1 Corinthians 11:23, for example), states very forcefully that he is “handing on” what was “handed on” to him. This “handing on” is a term with a special meaning in the Jewish teaching of the time. It translates into Latin as traditio, from which our English word tradition comes. Paul is evidently convinced that the community of believers has a strong sense about what is important enough to be passed on to the next generation of believers. The Holy Spirit, he believes, will help the community understand what in its experience and customs—and in its vision of the redemption—should really be held on to. In fact, Paul carefully distinguishes between what he offers as his own opinion and what he sees to be the Church Tradition handed on to him.
Tradition is expressed in (and grows from) the Church’s creeds, the records of the Church’s liturgy, the writings of the great teachers, the decrees of popes and councils, the prayer and faith of the people.
See the following quote:
Leonard Foley O.F.M. Believing In Jesus:
So I am sorry to say I can not point you to a link on the internet and say “here is tradition”. One has to actually go to Church and be an active living member of the Church to experience Tradition. It is a life long process. If you want to know Catholic Tradition you must become Catholic. One can walk into any Catholic Church in the world and within some permitted variations for local traditional that reflect native country and language and state of social development one will always see the same universal Catholic Tradition in the life of the people and in the reverence by the same to its past and its willful obedience to the Catholic Teaching.
James
E
epostle
Guest
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
E
epostle
Guest
2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 while abusing verses 16 and 17.
Note that Scripture is not the first thing on his list but the last. And he tells them that the Bible is “profitable” not sufficient to instruct us. It is only when we include Scripture with Tradition and Magisterium that we are “fully equipped.”
I challenge anyone to prove the full doctrine of Scripture (ie., canon, inspiration, inerrancy, authority, etc.) independently of Tradition. Furthermore, I challenge any sola scripturist to give me one instance where the application of sola scriptura resulted in greater unity among Christians.
Now let’s string 2 Tim 14-17 together so that we get the complete idea that St. Paul was trying to get across:
Continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you learned it and you have been acquainted with the sacred writings that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Or to paraphrase even further:
Continue in the Traditions which you learned from Magisterial authority and study the Bible so that you may be fully equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists must read “All scripture is inspired…” as meaning “Only scripture is inspired…” which is mere human opinion and unbiblical.
Where can we look today for a sure word from God - today?
Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In the Bible Jesus tells us to do this:
Luke 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Matthew 10:40 "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me."
And St. Paul also says:
1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 7-8
1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus…
7 For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
1 Corinthians 11:2 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Pitting Sacred Tradition against the Bible that is clearly in the Bible, and attested to in the first 3 centuries of the Church before the “Bible” even existed as we know it is indefensible, man-made, unhistorical, divisive and anti-biblical.
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 while abusing verses 16 and 17.
Note that Scripture is not the first thing on his list but the last. And he tells them that the Bible is “profitable” not sufficient to instruct us. It is only when we include Scripture with Tradition and Magisterium that we are “fully equipped.”
I challenge anyone to prove the full doctrine of Scripture (ie., canon, inspiration, inerrancy, authority, etc.) independently of Tradition. Furthermore, I challenge any sola scripturist to give me one instance where the application of sola scriptura resulted in greater unity among Christians.
Now let’s string 2 Tim 14-17 together so that we get the complete idea that St. Paul was trying to get across:
Continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you learned it and you have been acquainted with the sacred writings that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Or to paraphrase even further:
Continue in the Traditions which you learned from Magisterial authority and study the Bible so that you may be fully equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists must read “All scripture is inspired…” as meaning “Only scripture is inspired…” which is mere human opinion and unbiblical.
Where can we look today for a sure word from God - today?
Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In the Bible Jesus tells us to do this:
Luke 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Matthew 10:40 "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me."
And St. Paul also says:
1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 7-8
1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus…
7 For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
1 Corinthians 11:2 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Pitting Sacred Tradition against the Bible that is clearly in the Bible, and attested to in the first 3 centuries of the Church before the “Bible” even existed as we know it is indefensible, man-made, unhistorical, divisive and anti-biblical.
T
Tomster
Guest
As I stated before, there have been no changes. Perhaps if you seriously read the information I gave you, you would understand the Church’s position on this topic. Obviously you have failed to read through the information.
Once again, Old Scholar, you have failed to do your homework.
T
Tomster
Guest
BTW Old Scholar, you still have not answered explained to us the difference between salvation and redemption. You still have not given us your conception of what grace is. You still have not given us your conception what the Church is.
If you really want to be taken seriously it would really behoove you to give us the answers to these questions according to your own understanding.
I would really be interested to see if your understanding on these very important topics squares with the rest of what mainline protestantism really believes.
I do not know for certain if any of the other Catholic posters on this thread would like your explanation. But I certainly would like some ANSWERS from you.
If you really want to be taken seriously it would really behoove you to give us the answers to these questions according to your own understanding.
I would really be interested to see if your understanding on these very important topics squares with the rest of what mainline protestantism really believes.
I do not know for certain if any of the other Catholic posters on this thread would like your explanation. But I certainly would like some ANSWERS from you.
T
Tomster
Guest
You are not the only one!
T
Tomster
Guest
We would all like some answers!You ignored this part of my post, Old Scholar. I’d really appreciate an answer. How do you know I’m NOT infallible, and why should I accept your interpretations as infallible? That’s what you’re asking me to do.
There aren’t many different Catholic beliefs. They’re all there in the Catechism.
And yes, I do believe the Church is right because it is the ONLY church given authority by Jesus Christ Himself to teach and interpret. No other church has that authority.
IN YOUR OPINION. Please tell me: what makes your interpretation superior to that of a Baptist?
This is from the website of the Southern Baptist Convention.
There you go. OSAS, supported by Scripture.
Why is **your **interpretation of the above verses superior to theirs?
If the Bible is “quite clear” on divorce, why do so many denominations have different teachings about it?
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that divorce cannot dissolve a valid marriage bond; that death is the only thing that can dissolve a valid marriage bond.
The ELCA, on the other hand, says that civil divorce is acceptable and spouses are free to remarry. Both of these churches cite the Bible when explaining their viewpoint.
Who is right? How do you know who is right?
Well, if Scripture is sufficient for everything, shouldn’t this have been clearly expounded upon? If we were meant to rely upon “Scripture alone,” why doesn’t it have a clear condemnation OR approval of infant baptism, divorce, etc.?
T
Tomster
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
Old Schooler:
However, in order to determine if tradition confirms Scripture, then we need to see the tradition. Can you provide a link to Catholic tradition, both large T and samll t? Many have listed Scripture but no one has linked Tradition. Perhaps that would be a great idea to prove your point.
Thank you!
If you would provide a list of “what Scripture teaches” I will give you a list of what is contained in Tradition. If you prefer, you may go to the CCC and review it - anything you find in there which is not “explicitly Scriptural” would be Tradition - unless, of course it’s identified as a discipline or other practice.
P
Philthy
Guest
And of course you are correct on all counts. But that will not stop those committed to Sola Scriptura - they will simply alter the definition of what “Sola” means and when that gets ugly they will alter when it became the operative rule of faith, and when asked how they know when it became operative they will either admit that it is extrabiblical or resort to attempts to discredit the CC’s claims to authority. Pwlftr and I had a very civil discussion on this not to long ago…unfortunately it ultimately went nowhere!
Here’s the link - start at post 295:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=197932&page=20
Heres a taste if you dont feel like checking out the whole thing…
You made this statement:
Which clearly implies that it was settled. Out of curiosity I askedQuotewrlftr
…so the issue of what the canon is wasn’t settled **until **during the reformation for either side.
And you reply with:
I dont get it. You claim that you trust God’s Sovereignty in revealing the canon to the church; you claim you did not receive personal revelation on the canon, and you frequently give indications that the issue is, in fact, resolved yet when I ask for you to point to how and when this happened you equviocate that no “such authority” exists by which the canon is known. I dont get it, but that’s just me.
It just goes on and on Kaycee…
E
elvisman
Guest
MODERATORS:
HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO LET THIS PERSON UTTER THESE KINDS OF IDIOTIC AND UNCHARITABLE STATEMENTS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF REPRISAL?
**THIS THREAD HAS MORE THAN RUN IT’S COURSE BECAUSE THIS GUY REFUSES TO HAVE REASONABLE DIALOGUE. **
H****E SPITS OUT LIE AFTER LIE AND SPEWS OUT INSULTS AND YOU DO NOTHING.
HE’S A HIT AND RUN ANTAGONIST.
E
epostle
Guest
The bottom line is that sola scriptura, defined as the bible being the sole rule of faith, is illogical for the very fact that an outside source had to prove inspiration and compile the Bible in the first place. Sola scriptura forces its adherants to create a false dichotomy between this “outside source” and the Bible itself, when in fact, this “outside source”, the Church, is not over the Bible, but a servant of it. In order to support a reformist agenda, the hard cold facts of history have to be ignored or re-written, which has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth.
- Status