ECT JESUS NEVER TAUGHT SOLA SCRIPTURA

[republicanchick]

You just added to the Word of God. You don't think you did, but you did.

how utterly ironic (read: hypocritical)

you add to Scirpture by saying we are saved by faith alone, something that is NOWHERE in the Word and in fact is explicitly REFUTED in James 2:14

and then you accuse others of that...

YOU are adding when you say we are saved by faith alone... you are not only adding but SUBTRACTING (James 2:14 and other psgs like Mt 25:31-46)




+

 

[revpete]

Just because Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as AN authority (and Catholics do the same) does not mean that Jesus believed that the OT was the ONLY authority. Try again.

Just a question: What other authority was there at the time that God would have approved of?

Pete

 

[Lon]

Whatever he is, he knows how to read the Bible.

He's been on my ignore list for quite awhile now.

 

[Lon]

you add to Scirpture by saying we are saved by faith alone, something that is NOWHERE in the Word

Ephesians 2:8&9???

opcorn:

 

[rainee]

Your lowest stoop yet....

Jesus constantly quoted SCRIPTURE. Constantly said "IT IS WRITTEN" or "IS IT NOT WRITTEN".

The simple fact is that God gave us His written Word to protect us against religious charlatans like the RCC.

P.S. I don't believe in sola scriptura, so don't try to use that against me.

What does this mean? I don't understand?

 

[oatmeal]

I'm just a bee that stings arminians with God's Word.

They have reprobate tongues

That is an odd declaration seeing that I have yet to see you refer to scripture.

 

[TulipBee]

In I Corinthians 14:21 Paul associates their gift of tongues with Isaiah's prophecy of Israel's hearing of the Assyrian language. To understand the gift as gibberish would destroy his point of reference entirely.

 

[Cruciform]

Just a question: What other authority was there at the time that God would have approved of?

Jesus also appealed to Jewish Tradition, as well as to his own inherent Messianic authority for his teachings. He did not hold to "scripture alone."

 

[revpete]

Jesus also appealed to Jewish Tradition, as well as to his own inherent Messianic authority for his teachings. He did not hold to "scripture alone."

Ok, I'm aware of the Rabbinical schools which the Scribes and Pharisees followed but where did Jesus quote Jewish tradition to back up what He taught? I don't say this argue but would like to know.

Pete

 

[Cruciform]

Ok, I'm aware of the Rabbinical schools which the Scribes and Pharisees followed but where did Jesus quote Jewish tradition to back up what He taught? I don't say this argue but would like to know.

For instance:

III. Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Lon]

For instance:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Not that I have a hard time with tradition, but :nono:

Matthew 2:23 refers to the Hebrew word Netser "branch."
Nazarene is a transliteration that means the same (because a lot of plants grew there), hence:

Isa 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

Matthew 23:32- Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

:nono: This is an assumption or bit of 'proof-texting' without seeing a further or better intent. The Pharisees and Sadducees simply had no authority 'other than' what they were using for it: Moses' writings, hence, their authority was literally seated in Moses, not their own.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Possibly OR it is just not a direct quote and was translated wrong. In other words, he may have been summarizing Jesus' teachings as an indirect quote. As such, 'tradition' might fit well but such doesn't support an RC stance upon Tradition's authority. I
(I know these aren't your's, and are but a reference, I'm just saying this reference information is contested by Protestants).

 

[Cruciform]

Matthew 2:23 refers to the Hebrew word Netser "branch." Nazarene is a transliteration that means the same (because a lot of plants grew there)...

However, the notion that "He shall be a Nazarene" is found nowhere in the Old Testament. Rather, Jesus draws it from Jewish Oral Tradition.

This is an assumption or bit of 'proof-texting' without seeing a further or better intent. The Pharisees and Sadducees simply had no authority 'other than' what they were using for it: Moses' writings, hence, their authority was literally seated in Moses, not their own.

Again, the notion of "Moses' Seat" to which Jesus refers comes not from the Old Testament, but from Jewish Tradition.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Lon]

However, the notion that "He shall be a Nazarene" is found nowhere in the Old Testament. Rather, Jesus draws it from Jewish Oral Tradition.


Again, the notion of "Moses' Seat" to which Jesus refers comes not from the Old Testament, but from Jewish Tradition.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

It is the difference between direct and indirect quotes OR tradition. That's what is contested. It isn't so much a disagreement in what is observed, as it is as to what bin that observation falls under. We use the results to fund opposing or different assumptions.

 

[Cruciform]

It is the difference between direct and indirect quotes OR tradition. That's what is contested. It isn't so much a disagreement in what is observed, as it is as to what bin that observation falls under. We use the results to fund opposing or different assumptions.

Sure thing. Moving on...

 

[republicanchick]

Just a question: What other authority was there at the time that God would have approved of?

Pete ��

Jesus himself

Jesus said much that was not in the Old T

according to protestants, we are supposed to go by the bible alone but the bible as we know it did not exist until the 16th century, and even then, in the beginning the Bible was too expensive for just anyone to have a copy of.

So i guess all those poor souls born before the 1800s or so... were damned... the poor things... just b/c they weren't born in the right time... :noway:

 

[revpete]

Jesus himself



Jesus said much that was not in the Old T



according to protestants, we are supposed to go by the bible alone but the bible as we know it did not exist until the 16th century, and even then, in the beginning the Bible was too expensive for just anyone to have a copy of.



So i guess all those poor souls born before the 1800s or so... were damned... the poor things... just b/c they weren't born in the right time... :noway:

I don't think that all Protestants would say that but I know what you mean. Doesn't our Lord Himself teach that every person will be judged according to the amount of light they have received: Lk 12:47,48? The Apostle Paul says much the same in Rom Ch 1 when he teaches that the creation itself bears witness to the existence and greatness of God.

So then, are you saying that our Lord never regarded any written work as equal in authority to the OT and if He did what were they?

Pete

 

[john w]

....according to protestants, we are supposed to go by the bible alone but the bible as we know it did not exist until the 16th century,...

You and your fellow Roman Organization shil, Crucy, lie about that-you learn, through repetition:


Romans 9:17 KJV
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.



Exodus 9:16 KJV
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.


Galatians 4:30 KJV

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Genesis 21:10 KJV

Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

 

[Right Divider]

<cut>

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
​

Your intimation that the only "words of Jesus" are those recorded in MML&J has no grounds.

What makes you think that Paul did not hear this directly from the Lord Himself? Jesus Christ spoke to Paul on many occasions.

Act 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
​

 

[republicanchick]

I don't think that all Protestants would say that but I know what you mean. Doesn't our Lord Himself teach that every person will be judged according to the amount of light they have received: Lk 12:47,48? The Apostle Paul says much the same in Rom Ch 1 when he teaches that the creation itself bears witness to the existence and greatness of God.

So then, are you saying that our Lord never regarded any written work as equal in authority to the OT and if He did what were they?

Pete &#55357;&#56420;

I'm saying that Christ founded a CHURCH. the Jews had their written law, the Torah (Old T)

Jesus did new things... the Church

and then, the greatest thing about this Church: he actually LIVES there...

but so few people believe that..

the people who have been in that Presence believe... but they seem so few...

__

 

[republicanchick]

You and your fellow Roman Organization shil, Crucy, lie about that-you learn, through repetition:


.

I try not to listen to hate mongers