ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

As the WORD, Jesus actually breathed scripture, so yes in a way He did teach by God's WORD alone.

The OP's question was whether or not Jesus taught sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), not whether he taught sola Dei verbum ("the word of God alone"). Catholics hold to the latter, but not the former, which a distinctly Protestant notion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

The OP's question was whether or not Jesus taught sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), not whether he taught sola Dei verbum ("the word of God alone"). Catholics hold to the latter, but not the former, which a distinctly Protestant notion.

Guess you didn't understand my response?
Scripture is God's breathed Word, and as Jesus is God and the WORD, and whatever he said was breathed by Him, then that is exactly what He taught. Let's try not to equivocate about Latin.
I'm not really to concerned about what the RCC holds to, having been one BEFORE I was saved, I'm more concerned with what God's Word (scripture) says.
This forum is ECT, not ERCCT.

Matt 24:35 (NIV)
John 5:24 (NIV)
John 14:10 (NIV)

 

[Cruciform]

Scripture is God's breathed Word, and as Jesus is God and the WORD, and whatever he said was breathed by Him, then that is exactly what He taught.

You apparently hold to the common Protestant assumption that "God's Word" is restricted to "Scripture ALONE" (sola scriptura). However, even the Bible itself indicates that apostolic oral Tradition is ALSO "the word of God." So no, Jesus never believed or taught sola scriptura.

Let's try not to equivocate about Latin.

Sorry, but the title of the OP is "DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?", so Latin is already part of the discussion.

I'm not really to concerned about what the RCC holds to, having been one BEFORE I was saved...

As we've seen so often on this forum, the fact that one was once a nominal Catholic is entirely irrelevant to whether or not one actually comprehends Catholic beliefs and teachings.

I'm more concerned with what God's Word (scripture) says.

Here again, you equate "God's Word" exclusively with "Scripture." And yet, the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is also "God's Word.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

You apparently hold to the common Protestant assumption that "God's Word" is restricted to "Scripture ALONE" (sola scriptura). However, even the Bible itself indicates that apostolic oral Tradition is ALSO "the word of God." So no, Jesus never believed or taught sola scriptura.


Sorry, but the title of the OP is "DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?", so Latin is already part of the discussion.


As we've seen so often on this forum, the fact that one was once a nominal Catholic is entirely irrelevant to whether or not one actually comprehends Catholic beliefs and teachings.


Here again, you equate "God's Word" exclusively with "Scripture." And yet, the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is also "God's Word.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Which is more important, the Word or tradition? Does one have authority over the other?

 

[StanJ]

You apparently hold to the common Protestant assumption that "God's Word" is restricted to "Scripture ALONE" (sola scriptura).

I hold to a Biblical teaching...unless you can point out God's Word exists elsewhere?

However, even the Bible itself indicates that apostolic oral Tradition is ALSO "the word of God." So no, Jesus never believed or taught sola scriptura.

and yet you fail to show WHERE the Bible teaches that. As a matter of fact, Jesus dealt with the exact opposite when he said;
"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! (Mark 7:8-9)

Sorry, but the title of the OP is "DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?", so Latin is already part of the discussion.

Yes, and despite your attempt to denigrate your own OP by inserting the cartoon you did, that is the issue, not OTHER Latin sayings.

As we've seen so often on this forum, the fact that one was once a nominal Catholic is entirely irrelevant to whether or not one actually comprehends Catholic beliefs and teachings.

Comprehension is based on knowledge and letting go of manmade traditions and doctrines. One can only do that if one ACTUALLY does. Pushing the RCC and it's dogmatic traditions, is NOT doing that.

Here again, you equate "God's Word" exclusively with "Scripture." And yet, the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is also "God's Word.

You mean the ancient teaching tradition of the RCC don't you.
Yes, that's pretty much the point isn't it? It's about as valid as the ancient teaching tradition of the Jews, which is ZERO!

 

[Cruciform]

Which is more important, the Bible or Tradition?

Neither. Both are the word of God (Divine Revelation). (Fixed your question for you.)

Does one have authority over the other?

No. (See above.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

I hold to a Biblical teaching...unless you can point out God's Word exists elsewhere?

God's word also exists in apostolic oral Tradition.

...and yet you fail to show WHERE the Bible teaches that.

See above.

As a matter of fact, Jesus dealt with the exact opposite when he said; "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! (Mark 7:8-9)

There are two types of "tradition" in the New Testament. There is [1] a corrupt form referred to as "the traditions of men" which is forbidden and condemned in Scripture. But there is also [2] Apostolic Tradition which believers are actually commanded to follow and obey (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.). Thus, not ALL tradition is condemned by Christ and the apostles, as you have wrongly been taught to assume.

Comprehension is based on knowledge and letting go of manmade traditions and doctrines.

Yes, such Protestant "man-made traditions and doctrines" as sola scriptura, "believer-only" baptism, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc. Obedience to Apostolic Tradition, on the other hand, is commanded in the New Testament.

You mean the ancient teaching tradition of the RCC don't you.

...of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15)---that is, the Catholic Church---yes.

Yes, that's pretty much the point isn't it? It's about as valid as the ancient teaching tradition of the Jews, which is ZERO!

Not according to the New Testament, with which your opinion is plainly in direct conflict.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

God's word also exists in apostolic oral Tradition.

I didn't ask for a link to a RCC doctrinal site, I asked you WHERE else is God's Word known. John 20:31 tells us clearly why written accounts were necessary and both Paul and Jesus said not to trust the traditions of men.
You saying there are, and we must, just puts you against what Jesus and Paul and Peter taught.

There are two types of "tradition" in the New Testament. There is [1] a corrupt form referred to as "the traditions of men" which is forbidden and condemned in Scripture. But there is also [2] Apostolic Tradition which believers are actually commanded to follow and obey (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.). Thus, not ALL tradition is condemned by Christ and the apostles, as you have wrongly been taught to assume.

All the traditions we are to follow are WRITTEN, not just verbal. This is why Paul wrote so much. There is NO revelation other than that in the written word we call the Bible. Jesus taught Paul personally, just as He did the original 12. It was over a period of more than 3 times as long as the original 12. Neither one of the verses you point out say that Paul taught anything OTHER than what he wrote in his epistles. You are more than assuming it does. You are creating a scenario NOT in evidence in the scriptures.

Yes, such Protestant "man-made traditions and doctrines" as sola scriptura, "believer-only" baptism, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc. Obedience to Apostolic Tradition, on the other hand, is commanded in the New Testament.

No it isn't, submission to Apostolic authority is for sure, but that ended when the last one died. There is NO support for actual apostolic succession in the Bible itself.

...of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15)---that is, the Catholic Church---yes.

The gates of hell would not prevail over the foundational confession of Jesus being the Christ, as Peter did in v16, nothing to do with Peter being the first Bishop of Rome or Jesus making him so. Since that time, His real church IS based on that confession of faith as Paul teaches in Rom 10:9-11

Not according to the New Testament, with which your opinion is plainly in direct conflict.

Your RCC link is NOT the New Testament. THIS is.

 

[Cruciform]

"----:blabla:----"

Every single one of your statements here has already been answered in my previous posts above.

 

[StanJ]

Every single one of your statements here has already been answered in my previous posts above.

Sorry but posting links is NOT an answer, and what exactly is here when you cut out all my response?
Seems to me you like to hide behind this façade with anyone who confronts you?

 

[Cruciform]

Sorry but posting links is NOT an answer, and what exactly is here when you cut out all my response? Seems to me you like to hide behind this façade with anyone who confronts you?

Post #289.

 

[StanJ]

Post #289.

Sorry but posting links is NOT an answer, and what exactly is here when you cut out all my response? Seems to me you like to hide behind this façade with anyone who confronts you?

 

[Cruciform]

Sorry but posting links is NOT an answer, and what exactly is here when you cut out all my response? Seems to me you like to hide behind this façade with anyone who confronts you?

Post #289.

 

[Bright Raven]

Post #289.

Real responses as to why you disagree would be appreciated even though post #289 may contain the answer

 

[Cruciform]

Real responses as to why you disagree would be appreciated even though post #289 may contain the answer

I provided the requested information, and effectively rebutted the anti-Catholic claims of both yourself and StanJ. You were utterly unable to substantively answer the statements and questions in Posts #264 and #266, while StanJ was answered---and corrected---in Posts #281, #283, and #287 above. The answers in these posts are as "real" as the true and relevant information could possibly be.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

Post #289.

Post #290

 

[Cruciform]

Post #290

Post #295.

 

[StanJ]

Post #295.

Post 290

 

[Cruciform]

Post 290

I invite interested and honest readers to consider the comments in Stan's Post #290, and compare them with the content of my Post #295 above, in order to determine which of us is actually offering a reasoned response here. I'm perfectly content to let readers make up their own minds on these issues. God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

I invite interested and honest readers to consider the comments in Stan's Post #290, and compare them with the content of my Post #295 above, in order to determine which of us is actually offering a reasoned response here. I'm perfectly content to let readers make up their own minds on these issues. God bless.

I'm the one challenging you, NOT anyone else. I really don't care what anyone else thinks. My purpose is to get you OUT of your rut and start being responsible for your words, not links.
To many RCs deflect to what the RCC says but can't answer of their OWN accord.

1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)