Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[francisdesales]

Sorry to butt in, Mondar and Francisdesales, (idle hands here, blame aLoneVoice :wink: ) but where or why do we need either written or oral traditions if all we need to know is the story of Christ’s sacrifice and his commands to love one another? How much more do we need to know than that? Why all the disagreement and controversy and bitter fighting and inquisitions over ‘love one another as I have loved you’?

LOL!

Well, that puts things into perspective...

How about this question?

How would one worship God or act towards others (praxis) if Jesus was believed to be NOT God? How would one act believing that Jesus was not God (vs. those who believed that He is God).

What is your opinions on why 1,2,3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter seem to adamantly oppose "false teachers". They have the opinion that "wrong" doctrines lead to "wrong" practice. Do you consider that view as an overreaction?

Regards

 

[unred typo]

quote Francisdesales, .
LOL!

Well, that puts things into perspective...

How about this question?

How would one worship God or act towards others (praxis) if Jesus was believed to be NOT God? How would one act believing that Jesus was not God (vs. those who believed that He is God).

What is your opinions on why 1,2,3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter seem to adamantly oppose "false teachers". They have the opinion that "wrong" doctrines lead to "wrong" practice. Do you consider that view as an overreaction?

Regards

LOL…good questions indeed. Simplicity would put a kink into our world, wouldn’t it, Joe? In fact, I think you mean to say it can’t even be done. You’re no doubt right but I can dream, can’t I? As we know, the devil is in the details. Just for fun, because I am so bored today, I’m going to hypothetically answer your hypothetical questions. Or try. :wink:

How would one worship God or act towards others (praxis) if Jesus was believed to be NOT God? Hmmmn… I know some believers in God who consider that Jesus is NOT God but as the Bible states implicitly, the Son of God, and they refuse to go further than that. They believe he is to be followed, and that he died for their sins, that they should treat him with all the respect due the Father, since he is the Son of God, representing God to the world as a son would his father. They talk and act much like you, Joe, except for the whole RCC system you bear on your shoulders. For them to worship the Son as not the Son of God but God himself would be a sin, because they believe it would be. I just accept them as they are, believers in Christ and God with a little different understanding than Trinitarians. What do you think? Are they going to hell? In a hand basket or walking backwards?

What is my opinion on why 1,2,3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter seem to adamantly oppose "false teachers"? They have the opinion that "wrong" doctrines lead to "wrong" practice. Agreed. I would have to agree with that. I read somewhere that good exegesis is mandated by bad exegesis. So if we didn’t have all this bad theology running around rampant, we wouldn’t have to spend so much energy refuting it. But if we were only insisting that we all love one another, and follow the teaching of Christ, it would be only a question of what it means to love one another, right? We could argue about whether it is more loving to accept a homosexual as he wants to be or help him to get out of homosexuality. Easy stuff like that. Yeah, you’re over reacting. Calm down, Jo. A simple, “you idiot!†would have been fine. :-D

 

[Guest]

It is based on an ASSUMPTION that Paul is in the process of something akin to a tape recorder and putting it all down on paper! Obviously, that is incorrect. WHERE does Paul talk about liturgy? WHAT do people do when they baptize? Celebrate the Eucharist? HOW do people pray? See, you make the common mistake that Paul and the other apostles got together one fine day, and said -

"Hey, we are all going to die soon, let's put together a bunch of letters together and then some day, our great-great grandchildren in the faith will recognize that this is Scripture and put it together into a book that they'll call the Bible. And then, everything we said will be written down and then people can just pick up a book and read it for themselves. Naturally, they'll all agree on what it means"

What a fantasy! :P

I suggest that you go to the library in Pennsylvania and read some books on how the Bible came to be. Read about the canon, about WHY the apostles wrote, and so forth. There was no collaboration. There was no grand plan between them to write a Bible. We can see that plainly when we analyze the writings and see that they are NOT a catechism (chapter 1 - salvation. chaper 2 - ethics...). Thus, it goes without saying that it was not the INTENT of Paul or anyone else to write down EVERYTHING that was taught. As such, it is you who misinterpret 2 Thessalonians. Your tradition forces you to make this mistake, rather than being open to the reality of the situation and then determining what the Apostles ACTUALLY did.

Regards

You are right, the Apostles didn't. GOD DID.

 

[francisdesales]

You are right, the Apostles didn't. GOD DID.

That's what we believe - that God guided the apostles and their successors.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Simplicity would put a kink into our world, wouldn’t it, Joe? In fact, I think you mean to say it can’t even be done. You’re no doubt right but I can dream, can’t I?

There'd be a lot of unemployed "apologists", wouldn't there?!

How would one worship God or act towards others (praxis) if Jesus was believed to be NOT God? Hmmmn… I know some believers in God who consider that Jesus is NOT God but as the Bible states implicitly, the Son of God, and they refuse to go further than that. They believe he is to be followed, and that he died for their sins, that they should treat him with all the respect due the Father, since he is the Son of God, representing God to the world as a son would his father. They talk and act much like you, Joe, except for the whole RCC system you bear on your shoulders.

I am always a bit leary on the claims that orthodoxy ALWAYS leads to orthopraxy, and that heterodoxy ALWAYS leads to heteropraxy. That is why I like the Catholic stance on this idea. Thus, Vatican 2 noted that ALL religions have SOME truth and there is also a recognition that the Spirit blows where He wills. I have a book here at home that actually discusses "no Salvation outside the Church", and you'd be surprised to know that many people believe this is taken literally, when, in fact, even during St. Cyprian's time (250), the guy who is credited for coining the phrase, meant something different than what many assume. Who'd of thought that the Church was more inclusive?!

Being a "victim" of the "Catholic Church is sending millions to hell" crap, and other such nonsense, I am open to the Spirit blowing where He wills and am always ready to accept that God is working in a person of good will, even if they are of a different faith community than I am. Of course, the Catholic Catechism says that same thing. For example, in paragraph 841, it says that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims". In the next paragraph, salvation of the individual is left in God's hands - right where it belongs... Not many people who are non-Catholic care to make such statements.

With all of this in mind, perhaps you can see why I can empathize with your stance. Yes, we have the "RCC system", but I equate that with what Jesus says, "the burden is light" in regards to His way. When we look from the outside in and consider Jesus' way, the way of the cross, the way of self-sacrifice, the Beatitudes, many people say "THAT'S NOT A LIGHT BURDEN. I CANNOT DO IT!" Only when people actually undergo the "burden" to they recognize the wisdom of Christ's Words. I am of the same mind regarding Catholicism. It looks like a lot of "hoops" from the outside to jump through, but from the inside, I really believe it brings me closer to God. Anyway, I am probably rambling, but I am thinking while I write. I hope I am understandable.

What is my opinion on why 1,2,3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter seem to adamantly oppose "false teachers"? They have the opinion that "wrong" doctrines lead to "wrong" practice. Agreed. I would have to agree with that. I read somewhere that good exegesis is mandated by bad exegesis. So if we didn’t have all this bad theology running around rampant, we wouldn’t have to spend so much energy refuting it. But if we were only insisting that we all love one another, and follow the teaching of Christ, it would be only a question of what it means to love one another, right?

I happen to be reading a book on Eastern Orthodox spirituality. Before the Orthodox/Roman split of 1054, there were many similarities and strands of spirituality within our respective communities (and still is). I found something in there that applies to this. Just the other day, someone said to me "we should just send Origen to the scrap pile of history".


Now, the guy certainly wrote a few things that the Church considered heterodox. In the sixth century, Origen was given the epithet "impious". And yet, the more one studies the history of spirituality, the more one becomes aware of his influence!

I will now quote from "The Spirituality of the Christian East", pg 11...

Spirituality is lived dogma. However, spiritual doctrines do not consist of abstract deductions. The truth of spiritual knowledge possesses a different heirarchy of principles...than speculative synthesis. Doctrinal heresy consists in the "choices" made from among the truths of the faith. The spiritual teaching of an "heretic" will be wrong if it is based upon such a choice. For the true spiritual writer, this is impossible because he follows the principle that praxis, the observance of all the commandments and especially charity, proves the correctness of theoria, of spiritual knowledge.

To me, this means that Protestants (or anyone else) who practice sound spiritual teachings, the one you have discussed already, are teaching and practicing truths of God, even if they may be incorrect on more speculative and abstract theological principles. That is why I am open to reading Protestant writings such as Wesley, Bunyan or Bonhoeffer, men who obviously were true spiritual giants. And that is why I do not "push" men such as yourself who espouse sound spiritual doctrines.

In Christ,

Joe

 

[mondar]

[quote:57d41]I said:
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now here he describes what oral tradition actually is. Oral tradition is the things that Paul taught to the Churches ("I told you") and this oral message is identical in content with his later writings

francisdesales said:
Again and again and again, I have told you this is an assumption on your part.[/quote:57d41]
Yes, you make all sorts of assertions like this and leave those assertions completely undefended. Of course you do not need to defend assertions but can assume what you say is true because that is what your tradition tells you is true. So then to you, it does not matter what the bible says, since your tradition tells you what it says.

Notice above, when I bring up a point about the context of 2 Thes 2:13, and quote verse 5 and document that the content of the oral preaching of Paul was identical to Pauls later epistles, yuo just simply make the assertion "that is not true." Do you explain why what I said about verse 5 is not true? No! You just simply make the undefended assertion over and over again that "it is not true." Where did you actually explain what verse 5 means? Where do you even mention the context of 2 Thes 2:13? Your tradition provides blinders for you to not see verse 5 as part of the context of verse 13. Any time that you quote a verse, and I put the verse in context, you call it a "smoke screen." The contextualization of a verse is a "smoke screen?" I would suggest you tradition puts you in a fog, that is what you think is a smoke screen.

So, let me repeat what I said. Yes, there is both oral and written revelatory traditions in 2Thes 2:13. However, in the context (hint hint) verse 5 demonstrates that the oral content of Pauls message to the Thessalonians was identical to the written form.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Part one of the verse is "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you." Paul was once in the Thessalonian Church/Synagogue. When he was there, he spoke to them. Paul here calls upon the whole body of believers to remember his visit and his words. Now he does not claim that there memory is "theopneustos" (God breathed). The question is what is he asking them to remember. Now the second part of the verse tells us the content of the message that was spoken by Paul.
He says "I told you these things." What things did Paul tell them? What are "these things?"
Now I know you will ignore these questions because if you actually look at verse 5 it is a problem for your tradition. Your tradition tells you to ignore verse 5 and pretend that the oral part of verse 13 is an extra tradition that later will tell you about the bodily assumption of Mary. There is no extra oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians. The oral tradition was merely the preaching of the apostles before they died, and the content of this preaching was identical to their later epistles and gospels.

What I have said about verse 5 is airtight. That is why you cannot actually challenge it with information. You can only make undefended accusations "it is a smoke screen." "That is not true."

Last, let me say I would like to go back to page 7 of this thread and pick up some verses you quoted if I have the time. I dont have time right now, but maybe some other day. Also, you made a defination of sola scriptura, and it is missing several important elements. I should correct that. Maybe later.

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, you make all sorts of assertions like this and leave those assertions completely undefended.

Maybe you can't read. I don't know. But I defended my point of view. Disagree if you want, but don't give me that "you...leave those assertions completely undefended".

I think you should look at your own argument. It is sad... :P

You think because Paul says "ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?", that THIS tells us that EVERYTHING he taught them is NOW in written form????

What a joke.... What an incredible leap of logic. You actually think your argument is going to convince anyone????

Paul is REMINDING the Thessalonicans about what he said about the parousia!!! ONE THING!

And by this, you make you a HUGE leap that Paul is telling us that EVERYTHING he taught them is now put into words??? HE DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PAROUSIA IS IN WORDS NOW!!! He merely reminds them - certainly without listing or detailing everything he actually said! :P :P :P

That is ridiculous, especially when Paul says, less than 10 verses later that the Thessalonicans are supposed to hold to EVERYTHING taught - BOTH oral and written. Now, if Paul was saying in verse 5 that everything he told them was now written, it would be a needless repetition to mention "ORAL" again.

Sorry, it is obvious that your defense of the whole concept that Paul placed everything he taught into writting is incredibly lame.

Paul reminds them of one teaching, and that suddenly means that everything he told them is now in writing. What an imagination. Let me know if you can actually defend your incredible presumptions with some actual Scriptures. NOWHERE does Paul abrogate oral traditions, and 2 Thes. 2:5 says nothing about that.

Regards

 

[mondar]

francisdesales says:

Paul is REMINDING the Thessalonicans about what he said about the parousia!!! ONE THING!

In this statement you are referring to 2 Thes 2:5.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now you try to avoid the context of 2Thes 2:15 by saying that verse 5 refers to only one thing, the parousia. Now, lets closely observe the grammar of the verse to see if the insertion of your tradition is even possible. Can verse 5 be referring to "ONE THING?"

You read your tradition right over the top of the words of the text. You change the words "these things" to be "this thing." The words a plural, and you make them to be singular. Your tradition says that verse 5 can only be referring to "ONE THING," and that the text cannot be saying "these things." Then we would have the sentence reading "...I told you this thing." That is not what the words of the text say. The fact that it is plural, and that Paul taught what he later wrote in epistolary form is clearly stated in the plural "these things." The logical conclusion is that he is taught the Thessalonians orally, the same things found in his epistles. Now of course Paul did not write every single word down (no even sola scriptura claims such a thing). But the theological content of his oral teaching and his words were the same identical thing.

In spite of all the rhetoric you present, I think the readers will see that you are using your traditions to nullify the word of God. francisdesales, I think your argument would be stronger if you completely ignore the text and focus only on calling me names : : .

 

[francisdesales]

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

And what are "these things"? The parousia. Not the Eucharst, not Jesus has risen, not baptism...

Paul is merely reminding them what he told them. Are you trying to say that in the time he spent with the Thessalonicans, Paul only mentioned a sentence or two of oral speech on the second coming? Sure.

And what does that have to do with EVERYTHING ELSE he told them?

Sorry, I think you are incorrectly applying your own theology to what is not there.

Let me know if you find anything that tells me that oral tradition is now "enscriptured". 2 Thes 2:5 certainly doesn't say that...

Regards

 

[MarkT]

So that this question never comes up again.

Isa 29:18
In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see.

To those who possess the Spirit, it is very aggravating to hear people dismiss the Scriptures. I'm talking about the books that were written by Moses and the prophets, not the letters of the Apostles. Though they are beneficial, no one ever refers to them as Scripture. The gospel is set apart as the gospel of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit leads us to understand the Scriptures. That's what Jesus said and I can confirm it. If you don't believe it then you don't believe Jesus Christ. Paul said, 'Attend to the daily reading of Scripture'. He wasn't talking about his letters. The letters and the gospels report on the Scriptures and the teachings and the events as they happened 2000 years ago. Everything the Apostles talk about is taken from the Scriptures. Their writings are based on the Scriptures. Jesus studied the Scriptures. He used the Scriptures to back up his statements. Peter used the Scriptures to backup his statements. Paul used the Scriptures to back up his statements. If you want to follow the tradition of the Apostles, then use the Scriptures to back up your statements.

 

[francisdesales]

Everything the Apostles talk about is taken from the Scriptures. Their writings are based on the Scriptures. Jesus studied the Scriptures. He used the Scriptures to back up his statements. Peter used the Scriptures to backup his statements. Paul used the Scriptures to back up his statements. If you want to follow the tradition of the Apostles, then use the Scriptures to back up your statements.

Mark,

For example, what did the OT Scriptures say about Baptism? What did the OT Scritpures say about the Eucharist?

And while the Apostles certainly used the OT Scrtipures to back up their teachings to JEWS, what good would that have done with Gentiles? The Hebrew Scriptures was not authoritative to them.

We even have the Apostles doing something AGAINST the OT Scriptures - they tell us that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the People of God. This is accepted by Christians for well over 20 years before that event is ever related in writing by Luke in Acts of the Apostles.

Scriptures are very important, but they are not the end of the story. Jesus Christ is God's Word, in the end.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Mark,

For example, what did the OT Scriptures say about Baptism? What did the OT Scritpures say about the Eucharist?

Such statements disregard the progressive nature of scriptures. The OT does not need to say anything about Baptism or the Eucharist.

And while the Apostles certainly used the OT Scrtipures to back up their teachings to JEWS, what good would that have done with Gentiles? The Hebrew Scriptures was not authoritative to them.

Look at Pauls constant quotes of the Hebrew scriptures in Romans 3, and 9. He either quotes or constantly illudes to the Hebrew scriptures constantly in Galatians.

We even have the Apostles doing something AGAINST the OT Scriptures - they tell us that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the People of God. This is accepted by Christians for well over 20 years before that event is ever related in writing by Luke in Acts of the Apostles.

The scriptures never did teach that circumcision was neccessary to be a child of God. The book of Genesis commands circumcision as a "sign" of the Abrahamic Covenant, not a means of salvation. Circumcision was never salvific.

Scriptures are very important, but they are not the end of the story. Jesus Christ is God's Word, in the end.

Jesus Christ appealed to the written word as his authority. In Matthew 22:29-31 he condemned the Saducees. Notice in verse 31 how Christ condemned the Saducees because they had not "read" what God had said. In that context, the living "Word" of God appealed to the written word as "sufficient" and authoratative.

 

[francisdesales]

Such statements disregard the progressive nature of scriptures. The OT does not need to say anything about Baptism or the Eucharist.

I disagree, because the premise "everything that the Apostles write about is taken from Scriptures" is refuted IF the Apostles write about something that is NOT in the Scriptures that they had in hand... You are using special pleading to advance an argument that RELIES on written words to be present ALREADY before the Apostles can comment on it or make any progressive theological statements about them.

It is one thing to make the statement that Jesus made in John 9 regarding the cause of evil (and progressive revelation), and quite another to discuss the Eucharist in the NT.

Look at Pauls constant quotes of the Hebrew scriptures in Romans 3, and 9. He either quotes or constantly illudes to the Hebrew scriptures constantly in Galatians.

Paul is writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians. However, to convert Gentiles to Christians would require something OTHER than "Sacred Scriptures".

Is the Koran authoritative for you, just because the Muslims say it is? Neither was the Hebrew Scrtipures authoritative for Gentile Greeks before conversion.

The scriptures never did teach that circumcision was neccessary to be a child of God. The book of Genesis commands circumcision as a "sign" of the Abrahamic Covenant, not a means of salvation. Circumcision was never salvific.

NO ONE could be saved, part of the people of God, UNLESS they were circumcised. Do you dispute that? The act of circumcision did not save - God saved. Circumcision was a sign that God had set aside a particular person. Without this sign, the person was NOT part of the People of God.

Jesus Christ appealed to the written word as his authority.

Jesus merely refered to a commonly-held, authoritative source that was accepted by His audience, the Jews mostly. Would Jesus refer to the OT Scriptures when teaching Gentiles? He doesn't mention the OT Scriptures when He runs into Gentiles from time to time...

He sometimes refered to written words, and sometimes to oral teachings that were commonly held as authoritative for the Jewish community. HOWEVER, Christ's authority was from His Father, not a book. Jesus INTERPETED Scriptures based on HIS authority (You have heard it SAID, but I tell you...) He interpreted oral traditions based on HIS authority.

In Matthew 22:29-31 he condemned the Saducees. Notice in verse 31 how Christ condemned the Saducees because they had not "read" what God had said. In that context, the living "Word" of God appealed to the written word as "sufficient" and authoratative.

Reading the Word was obviously insufficient for the Sadducees, wasn't it?

Regards

 

[Lewis]

Everything the Apostles talk about is taken from the Scriptures. Their writings are based on the Scriptures. Jesus studied the Scriptures. He used the Scriptures to back up his statements. Peter used the Scriptures to backup his statements. Paul used the Scriptures to back up his statements. If you want to follow the tradition of the Apostles, then use the Scriptures to back up your statements.

Mark,

For example, what did the OT Scriptures say about Baptism? What did the OT Scritpures say about the Eucharist?

And while the Apostles certainly used the OT Scrtipures to back up their teachings to JEWS, what good would that have done with Gentiles? The Hebrew Scriptures was not authoritative to them.

We even have the Apostles doing something AGAINST the OT Scriptures - they tell us that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the People of God. This is accepted by Christians for well over 20 years before that event is ever related in writing by Luke in Acts of the Apostles.

Scriptures are very important, but they are not the end of the story. Jesus Christ is God's Word, in the end.

Regards

Good post. :wink:

 

[mondar]

Such statements disregard the progressive nature of scriptures. The OT does not need to say anything about Baptism or the Eucharist.

I disagree, because the premise "everything that the Apostles write about is taken from Scriptures" is refuted IF the Apostles write about something that is NOT in the Scriptures that they had in hand...

The first thing that happened is that you read MarkT out of context. Mark did write one sentence in which he made an overstatement, but if you had read the context you could have seen that it was a simple case of the overstatement of one sentence. MarkT was not saying that every exact detail of what was written in the NT was written in the OT. That was not his point at all. He was simply trying to assert that both Jesus and the apostles commonly quoted from the written word, the Tenakh, the Old Testament, as authoritative and sufficient to support what they wrote in the NT. You mistakenly took MarkTs very first statement and read it into the rest of his paragraph. MarkT was not saying that the apostles did not advance the progress of special revelation in the NT.

Look at Pauls constant quotes of the Hebrew scriptures in Romans 3, and 9. He either quotes or constantly illudes to the Hebrew scriptures constantly in Galatians.

Paul is writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians. However, to convert Gentiles to Christians would require something OTHER than "Sacred Scriptures".

Is the Koran authoritative for you, just because the Muslims say it is? Neither was the Hebrew Scrtipures authoritative for Gentile Greeks before conversion.

Gentile did not require something other then scriptures. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading the prophecy of Isaiah. Of course he did not understand the book. That does not mean Isaiah (as a part of the OT) is not sufficient.

I see no parallels between the Tenakh and the Koran. One is God breathed (Tenakh) and one is the product of a false prophet (Koran).

Maybe we have a more major difference of opinion then I think. I consider the Tenakh or the OT still authoritative for today. It was inspired, and never stopped being inspired. When would you say it stopped being inspired?

Maybe you should just forget the whole bible all at one time. Stick to your tradition and forget the bible.

The scriptures never did teach that circumcision was neccessary to be a child of God. The book of Genesis commands circumcision as a "sign" of the Abrahamic Covenant, not a means of salvation. Circumcision was never salvific.

NO ONE could be saved, part of the people of God, UNLESS they were circumcised. Do you dispute that? The act of circumcision did not save - God saved. Circumcision was a sign that God had set aside a particular person. Without this sign, the person was NOT part of the People of God.

I certainly do dispute that circumcision was ever salvific. Show me one verse that says circumcision could ever save.

Jesus Christ appealed to the written word as his authority.

Jesus merely refered to a commonly-held, authoritative source that was accepted by His audience, the Jews mostly. Would Jesus refer to the OT Scriptures when teaching Gentiles? He doesn't mention the OT Scriptures when He runs into Gentiles from time to time...

I believe I was commenting on Matthew 22:31. I often paste the verses into my comments because I know few will actually bother to look a reference. Let me paste it now.
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Your tradition that Jesus only quoted the OT as a "commonly-held, authoritative source that was accepted by his audience" seems not to have a proper respect for the word of God. Neither was the authoritative to all in Jesus audience. The Pharisees trusted in a different authority, they trusted in the traditions of the elders. This refers to a group of Jewish scholars that would have been closer to the time of the prophets. They passed down their interpretations in what is called the Mishna and later the Talmud. Jesus did not agree with their authorities. In Matthew 15:2 Jesus condemned the Pharisees because their tradition transgressed the commandments of God.
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

He sometimes refered to written words, and sometimes to oral teachings that were commonly held as authoritative for the Jewish community.

Jesus just denied these so called authoritative oral teachings in Matthew 15:2.

HOWEVER, Christ's authority was from His Father, not a book. Jesus INTERPETED Scriptures based on HIS authority (You have heard it SAID, but I tell you...) He interpreted oral traditions based on HIS authority.

So tell me, in Matthew 22:29 does it say that the Saducees made errors in not knowing the authority of Jesus? Or by chance was their mistake that they did not know the scriptures?
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
It says right in the text "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures." You insert your tradition into the text yet one more time. Your tradition simply has nothing to do with the text.

In Matthew 22:29-31 he condemned the Saducees. Notice in verse 31 how Christ condemned the Saducees because they had not "read" what God had said. In that context, the living "Word" of God appealed to the written word as "sufficient" and authoratative.

Reading the Word was obviously insufficient for the Sadducees, wasn't it?

If a college student fails a class after reading a text book, does that always absolutely mean the textbook is insufficient? I can see it now, every student that gets an unacceptable grade can blame it on the insufficiency of the text book. The problem is that the Jews wanted to read the scriptures only through the lens of their own traditions. No wonder Jesus says they are not "knowing the scriptures." Please tell me, do you really think Christ was complaining about the insufficiency of the scriptures or the insufficiency of the Sadducees when he said the do not know the scriptures?

 

[francisdesales]

The first thing that happened is that you read MarkT out of context.

Perhaps you should stick to interpreting what YOU said, not what Mark T said and trying to tell me what he meant. He certainly is quite capable of correcting my oversight. The simple fact is that for his statement to be true, then we would expect to see IMPORTANT issues addressed, even in kernel form, SOMEWHERE in the OT. Thus, the premise is inaccurate, as I mentioned.

Gentile did not require something other then scriptures. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading the prophecy of Isaiah.

And why was the Ethiopian traveling in Israel? Chances are very good that the reader of Isaiah was a convert to at least Judaism, and was perhaps interested in the Christian message. Again, for ANY Sacred Scritpure to have authority, that authority must be accepted a priori by the reader. That is why I posed to you the rhetorical question regarding the Koran. NOT to compare the OT to the Koran, but to show you that the Koran, supposedly sacred Scriptures, are not authoritative to the non-Muslim.

I guess you didn't get that. I apologize for not making that more clear.

Maybe you should just forget the whole bible all at one time. Stick to your tradition and forget the bible.

I have found this to be your "mode of operation". When you can't figure out what to say, you revert back to the 'stick to your tradition" line in a lame attempt to attack me and my person. We will see this on several other occasions in this very post you write to me...

What is a shame is that you don't realize that YOU ALSO have a "tradition". Sola Scriptura is most definitely a tradition nowhere found in the Bible. You are blind to this and then tell me to stick to my tradition? How curious - and hypocritical...

I certainly do dispute that circumcision was ever salvific. Show me one verse that says circumcision could ever save.

Good for you. But as usual, you do not address what I ask, but rather, invent a red herring. Here is what I wrote. Note, in my response, I MYSELF said that circumcision was not salvific... Good for you, we agree. Now can you answer my question?

NO ONE could be saved, part of the people of God, UNLESS they were circumcised. Do you dispute that? The act of circumcision did not save - God saved. Circumcision was a sign that God had set aside a particular person. Without this sign, the person was NOT part of the People of God.

Your tradition that Jesus only quoted the OT as a "commonly-held, authoritative source that was accepted by his audience" seems not to have a proper respect for the word of God.

You are mistaken to think that. Jesus did not REQUIRE a book to show His authority. The Pharisees HAD THE VERY SAME BOOK! Yet, Jesus taught with AUTHORITY!!!! The scribes and Pharisees did NOT. Thus, the book BY ITSELF is not authoritative of its own accord. Christ's authority comes from above.

Jesus did not agree with their authorities. In Matthew 15:2 Jesus condemned the Pharisees because their tradition transgressed the commandments of God.

Good. You hit it in your second sentence. The traditions were wrong WHEN they transgressed or attempted to bypass the commandments of God, such as the tradition of Korban. Jesus gives examples of traditions that support and expound on the commandments of God. Jesus certainly does not condemn all traditions, just the ones that bypass God's Word.

So tell me, in Matthew 22:29 does it say that the Saducees made errors in not knowing the authority of Jesus? Or by chance was their mistake that they did not know the scriptures?

They "knew" the Scriptures, Jesus was attacking their ability to properly interpret the Scriptures. Improper interpretation is "not knowing the Scriptures". Are you saying that the Sadducees were not aware of the Torah???

It says right in the text "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures." You insert your tradition into the text yet one more time. Your tradition simply has nothing to do with the text.

Again, another red herring... My "tradition" has nothing to do with "inserting into the text any meaning". It is merely common sense. It is certain that the Sadducees were aware of the first five books of the Torah and had read it. The problem is that they misinterpreted it or "forgot" that God is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", and thus, the God of the living...

If a college student fails a class after reading a text book, does that always absolutely mean the textbook is insufficient?

It failed to do what it was intended to do. However, we do not view things in a vacuum. There are many factors involved in the "perfecting of the saints". Reading Scriptures is only ONE of them. Obviously, the effort placed into reading this book is a key factor. However, if one reads this book IMPROPERLY, you can memorize that book and you would miss the intent of the author, wouldn't you?

Fortunately, we have teachers that can help explain the meaning of this book - as the eunich you mention above faithfully notes. Thus, the Bible alone is not as effective as the Bible with an instructor who can explain the meaning of its intent.

Regards

 

[mondar]

What is a shame is that you don't realize that YOU ALSO have a "tradition".

This totally misses the point of the discussion. Sola scriptura never denies that we have a tradition, but affirms that the final judge of all matters of faith and practice is the scripures.

It failed to do what it was intended to do. However, we do not view things in a vacuum. There are many factors involved in the "perfecting of the saints". Reading Scriptures is only ONE of them. Obviously, the effort placed into reading this book is a key factor. However, if one reads this book IMPROPERLY, you can memorize that book and you would miss the intent of the author, wouldn't you?

Fortunately, we have teachers that can help explain the meaning of this book - as the eunich you mention above faithfully notes. Thus, the Bible alone is not as effective as the Bible with an instructor who can explain the meaning of its intent.

The problem you are having here is that you make this massive assumption that if the scriptures do not accomplish all that they were intended to accomplish, then the scriptures need another infallible authority. If the infallible scriptures were rejected, the man who rejected them would reject the other infallible authority. The misuse of the infallible scriptures does not render the scriptures fallible, or insufficient in any way. I say unto you... even if an infallible source raise from the dead and speak to a man.... if they hear not the scriptures, they will not hear any other infallible source.

Luke 16:29 But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.

This part of our conversation reminds me of

 

[francisdesales]

What is a shame is that you don't realize that YOU ALSO have a "tradition".

This totally misses the point of the discussion. Sola scriptura never denies that we have a tradition, but affirms that the final judge of all matters of faith and practice is the scripures.

My point is that you ALSO have a tradition, one that is not found in the bible, as we have already discussed in our most recent thread.

I would like to remind you that a book cannot be a "final judge" on matters of faith. While we certainly refer to it, knowing it is inspired by God and so forth, it is readily apparent that the bible is an interpreted work. People can read a verse and come up with totally different interpretations. As a result, the bible does not "judge" by itself.

The problem you are having here is that you make this massive assumption that if the scriptures do not accomplish all that they were intended to accomplish, then the scriptures need another infallible authority.

I don't make a "massive assumption" based on that, but on common sense that a book doesn't interpret ITSELF. If it could, then we would not have two people who disagree on interpretation of the same passages.

if they hear not the scriptures, they will not hear any other infallible source.

I have not set the Scriptures AGAINST "another" infallible source. The whole idea of "infallibility" stems from the belief that GOD is behind the source. Thus, whether it is Scriptures or Apostolic Tradition, it is considered infallible BECAUSE its source is God. If its source was not God, then it could not be infallible.

Sola Scripture is not proof that you can interpret the bible infallibly.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Sola Scripture is not proof that you can interpret the bible infallibly.

Who said it is?

 

[francisdesales]

Sola Scripture is not proof that you can interpret the bible infallibly.

Who said it is?

Many Protestants say it, with different words. You can see it if you read some of the other current threads taking place right now...

Here is the attitude:

"Since the Bible is the Word of God, and it alone, than how I interpret it is the Word of God".
"Catholics are wrong on 'x' because this is what the bible means"
"The Holy Spirit enables me to interpret the Scriptures, so it is not my opinion, but the Spirit of God who says 'x'"

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura, besides it not being Scriptural. It opens oneself up to the charge of subjectivism. There are NOT thousands of Holy Spirits running around telling people diametrically opposed dogmas of the faith!

Some people say it is a major sin to abort a baby, others do not.
Some people say baptism is necessary for salvation, others say it is an ordinance.
Some people say they are saved by faith alone, others say we are saved by faith and love.
Some people say that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, some say it is not.
Some people say that one can lose their eternal inheritance to heaven, others say you cannot.

And so forth. It is impossible that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for Christians, JUST BASED ON THIS ALONE! God's Spirit is not a Spirit of confusion!

Having the Bible is not enough to receive the intent of the Sacred Author. Have you ever had a conversation with another Protestant and you disagreed? WHAT became the deciding factor, since there is no authority except the bible?

Regards