The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

****Gamaliel was NOT speaking by inspiration of God but giving his own opinion.*****

And how is it that you know this? Does the Bible say that? And, who heard what he said so that it was recorded in Scripture? I ask because in the 40th verse of that passage, it says that they called in the Apostles after having them scourged, so it would seem that it was not the Apostles who heard this. Do you find it mere coincidence that he was a teacher of St. Paul? Was it Paul who was among the council members and heard this?

*****First of all, there are myriad religions FAR from anywhere close to being “of God” - some that go back millennium before Roman Catholicism or all of Christianity, for that matter. *****

And exactly how many of these religions were founded by Jesus, the Incarnate Word, God the Son?

*****It’s just Gamaliel’s first part - that if it be of man, it will come to nothing - that is provably untrue.****

Really, I mean really? LOL Sorry, this is just pathetic.

Gamaliel was a respected man, Scripture calls him a doctor of the law , so respected that just by this he was able to stay the executioners of St. Peter and the other Apostles in custody.

Honestly, other religions, not founded on Jesus, the ONE TRUE GOD, are not what Gamaliel was addressing and to compare them to the Church which Jesus founded is just ridiculous beyond measure.

There is no argument here, your position is simply preposterous.

I enjoy apologetics, especially the back and forth of a conversation with others, who impart to me, in their own words what they believe and why they believe it.

I am glad that you enjoy his posts, I thought I was being honest in telling him that I do not read them, I find them to be dry, impersonal reading. I meant no offense, just letting him know that to post them to me is a waste of his time.

****NL, it must be embarrassing to believe in a God that can’t keep the Church from going apostate in the second century and must be “restored”****

As the good Dr. Phil would say, there must be a payoff in it somewhere.

That’s okay, it was a trick question. I knew you couldn’t answer that question, because Jesus never specifically taught about Sola Scriptura, which is the claim you made.

That's okay because I figured you might try a trick question. If you noticed, I never said Jesus ever used the words "sola Scriptura", but there is a willful blindness if anyone refuses to believe He certainly held to the authority of Scripture - GOD was who wrote all of Scripture. Nobody ever used the word "trinity" either, but it didn't stop Christians from grasping the concept of the triune nature of God and that Jesus WAS God incarnate!

Remember, even Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus. Knowing Scripture is not enough.

Your Catholic fellows prove that every day. Of course, knowing Scripture is much more than being able to quote pieces of verses (i.e.; faith without works is dead). God wants us to be knowledgeable about it ALL, to believe it, to meditate upon it day and night, to teach it to our children, to be nourished by it so that we can attain the full measure of our faith and to be able to use it in battle against the lies of the wicked one - in whatever form he appears.

Hardly, Jesus used Scripture but He also expanded on what He quoted, actually going beyond what what was written in Scripture.

And, wonderfully, everything that Jesus went "beyond what was written", now HAS been written for us in the books that make up the New Testament. God left nothing out, but included within the Bible the full counsel of God. That makes it a pretty powerful weapon against deception. Athanasius battled against the Arian heretics WITH the same Bible they claimed to be using. He just knew it far better than they did.

And, twenty six times! Whew! But how many times is Jesus quoted in the New Testament? Many times more than 26, but then who’s counting? And if you google “list everything Jesus said”, you will find article after article discussing the times Jesus contradicted the Old Testament in something He said or did.

Please, go back to the point. I said he used the phrase "it is written" many times. It wasn't how many things Jesus said in the Bible. He used the phrase to convey His relevance to the fulfillment of those hundreds of Messianic prophecies. Those who knew their Scripture and were open to receiving the salvation of God, knew Jesus was who He said He was. He had thousands of followers, hundreds of disciples and those first Christians were Jewish believers, though many Gentiles were also saved.

I disagree with you that Jesus "contradicted the Old Testament in something He said or did". What He did was FULFILL it. He taught the religious leaders, for example, that the law said to not commit adultery and they thought they were good because they hadn't committed adultery, then He floored them with, "But, I say, if a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart." That was His whole point! Paul said the Law was out schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It showed us how truly wicked and sinful we really are, that sin is not just an outward act, but a condition of the heart. So, no, Jesus NEVER contradicted the Scriptures. If you think you have an example, I'd be happy to look at it.

John 5:39, As you quoted it. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” The full quote, . John 5:39 You study[a] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, and let’s not forget the 40th verse there.... 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. And, also, let us not forget the context of the saying and to whom it was spoken. Constant appeal? Hardly. Jesus used the Old Testament to lead the Apostles to know who He is. It was the way He confirmed His authority to say and do what He did, but the New Testament Messiah, Jesus the Christ, was nothing like what the Jewish people expected and hoped for, based on their knowledge of Scripture.

Disagree. Jesus said many times that the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) spoke of Him and, just as the noble Bereans were praised by Paul for searching the Scriptures to see if what they were telling them about Jesus being the promised Messiah was true, it IS found within it. The prophets spoke about the coming Messiah and it spoke of two comings - as suffering servant and as victorious King. Some failed to understand that there was a time gap between those two. Had the Jews accepted Jesus as Messiah, then he WOULD have set up His Kingdom, I believe, but as it happened they rejected Him as a nation, so He is still to come to set up His earthly kingdom with Israel. As I said before, MANY Jews DID believe in Him. Paul was a very learned Pharisee and he came to recognize that Jesus was the promised Messiah because he knew the Scriptures. Do you think God put all those prophecies in there just for fun? Or did He INTEND that those looking for His coming would find Him?

I never said you cherry picked St. Athanasius. I disputed the interpretation of the quote. I disputed that he said what was posited by you and I never said anything about the rest of his work other than to note that he never refuted St. Ambrose’s writing about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I also never said that St. Athanasius was not a strong adherent and student of Scripture, but he was also a strong adherent and supporter of the Church and her authority to interpret Scripture and speak authoritatively about doctrine.

That WAS my point and I used the words of Athanasius to show his faithfulness to Scripture. Of course, he was a supporter of the church! The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles - though some changes were going on. My contention was that the church in his day is NOT the Roman Catholic Church of today. It just isn't. Many of the dogmas held today - those with NO Scriptural warrant at all - would likely have been rejected by those such as Athanasius BECAUSE they had no backing of Scripture. I think he would have disputed with anyone who ventured to change some of the things that have been changed over the years and he certainly would question doctrines proposed as salvific that are found nowhere in Scripture. It's conjecture, of course, but from what I have read of him, I think I am correct. One day we can ask him, okay?

It comes across to those who wish to think that is the case, but it couldn’t be further from reality. What seems to go over the head of non Catholic Christians of undeclared or unknown denominations is that Catholics here reject what the above mentioned teach regarding Scripture. They believe in ALL of the Scripture and accept that Jesus founded A church with His authority and the promise of His continued guidance and presence through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What makes you think I do not accept ALL of the Scripture, too? I believe Jesus established his church, too, but I differ with Catholics about its substance as well as the powers he did or did not give to it. The church is His Body, His called-out assembly, and, as such, it spans across nationality, race, culture, time, personal likes and dislikes, etc. We are ONE body who have been born again into the family of God and we become that when we receive Christ, believe in Him as Savior. We HAVE eternal life and a new spirit nature that binds us to God as well as to one another. No one church, or local assembly, has overall power of authority of another, but God set up leadership structure within each assembly to accomplish His plan. If a certain religious body ceases to BE a support and buttress of the truth, then they cannot, obviously, BE the church. It is much bigger than that. There IS unity in the faith just as there is unity in the Spirit and all the various and assorted flavors of human division do not compromise that one body of Christ. We are His bride and He is who leads us.

Omitted critical truths? No, all truths may be found there, in fact the Catholic has a deeper understanding of those truths than the non Catholic Christian of undeclared or unknown denominations. As St. Paul said, 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

I was a Catholic, remember? And all the years since I was there, I know what is taught and there ARE critical truths that are omitted. I do not see a "deeper" understanding of the truths, at least not in most of the sample that posts here on a regular basis, but I'm not condemning anyone. I try to stress how important it is for each person to know what they know and WHY they know it. I do not accept a "that's just what we believe" answer. I mean, why come on a thread if that's the best to offer? This is a forum where we can dialog, hopefully with respect and genuine care, and it is a place where we CAN grow in our faith. Stretch it and exercise it, be ready, as Paul said, to always be able to give an answer to those who ask about the reason of the "hope" that is within us, with gentleness and respect. I get it that it isn't always easy, but I hope we all try to do that. I don't see these as opportunities to crush or demoralize anyone, but to present what I believe is true as well as why I believe it is true.

I know this is a long post and you aren't fond of them, but I tried to address each of your points the best I could. I do wish you peace and growth in the Lord.

"I have a few problems with using this statement as a proof text of sorts."

I have a serious issue with prooftexting in general. Prooftexting is the practice of using isolated quotations from a document to prove a hypothesis or position. Prooftexting rarely reflects the intent of the author.

An old joke that shows the problems with prooftexting goes like this: "A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, Matthew 27:5 ("Then Judas went away and hanged himself") Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read,Luke 10:37 ("Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'")

"I am glad that you enjoy his posts, I thought I was being honest in telling him that I do not read them,"

I too do not read them. I tried the first few times they were posted, but all too often all that was presented in the links was a lot of opinion wrapped up in dubious statistics.

As an engineer with over 35 years of experience I know that data integrity is essential before any analytics can take place; garbage in / garbage out. It is also the mark of poor scholarship to begin with a conclusion and then selectively gather information to support it.

Speaking in one’s own words and reading what others have to say in theirs is fine, but when one makes charges such as to what something effects, or as to what an entity believes, then substantiation is in order. The NT itself is counted to have 275 quotes from the Old.

Thanks be to God for what edifies.

"The NT itself is counted to have 275 quotes from the Old."Its actually over 450 when you include the entire Old Testament.

Peace with you

Like I said, I wasn't asking for an argument! That you call my comments "preposterous" and "pathetic", why don't you go back and read what I actually said with the rose-colored glasses off. I wasn't saying any other religions were founded by Christ or the Apostles. I said "religion" in general, you know, oh, Baal, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc., religions that ARE false religions. Gamaliel implied that if a religion is not from God it will "come to nought" and my only contention is that they haven't so far, have they?

I actually like what you said about Paul being there with Gamaliel when he said what he did. Although we know all Scripture is by inspiration of God, that's a very good point about Paul actually hearing his teacher's words. But it STILL doesn't make those words inspired by God - and that WAS my point - the recollection of them, yes, but not Gamaliel himself being inspired by God to say it.

Aren't there other topics to better spend your time on than misinterpreting what I say and making a case over it?

“The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles “

The Church in the early to mid 4th century ( in Athanasius’s day ) believed:

1. one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
2. One Church that had AUTHORITY from Jesus to teach and must be obeyed
3. the Eucharist is the Body of Christ
4 infant baptism
all doctrines that are denied by the very person that admits the Church then was the same Church established by the Apostles!
you can’t make it up folks.

I heard that one. Thanks.

There is another like it. A woman was grieving over a lost loved one and she sought solace in the Bible. She wasn't sure where to look so she thumbed through, opened to a page and placed her forefinger down to read what it said. The first was , “And it came to pass...”. Well, she thought that can't be it, so she did the same thing again. This time her finger stopped and she read, “And it came to pass...”. Slightly frustrated, she decided to try one more time. Sure enough, her finger again stopped at, “And it came to pass...”. But this time, as if seeing it for the first time, she understood God was telling her that the sorrow she was feeling, the heartache she was experiencing, would come...to pass. It WOULD pass, God WOULD heal her heart and what He allowed to happen in her life had happened for a purpose. That she would get through all things with the Lord at her side.

“The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles“

And it was still very much the Catholic Church that survives to this day. His staunch defense of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Tradition, and the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching at a time before the Canon of the Bible was established. Here is a sample of it.

'We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy...' Athanasius, De Decretis 27 (c. A.D. 350).

Let me start by saying, I don’t mind a long post when it is written the way yours is, in your own words, in a way that is conversant rather than professorial.

Now, I noticed that this is what you said regarding Jesus and Sola Scripture,

The term - understood and taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers - means that the Holy Scriptures are the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against.

You said the “term” understood and taught by Jesus, means that the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against. Jesus NEVER said that, He used Scripture in the same way the Church uses Scripture, as a measure and basis of authority to teach what is being taught, most of which was a radical departure from what the Jews expected in the Messiah.

So, we have Jesus quoting Scripture as a means to show that He has the authority and blessing of God to teach what He taught. It was the pharisees and scribes who demanded an adherence to “Sola Scriptura” because Jesus did and said things that seemed to them to be contradictory or against Scripture.

****And, wonderfully, everything that Jesus went “beyond what was written”, now HAS been written for us in the books that make up the New Testament.****

Really, because I heard from a pretty good authority, i.e. the Gospel of John, that not everything Jesus did or said is recorded in Scripture.

****It wasn’t how many things Jesus said in the Bible****

Hey, you brought it up, not me, I was just pointing out that your statement

“In fact, Jesus’ ministry was a constant appeal to the Scriptures” is a little over the top, considering out of all He had to say, He only quoted Scripture 26 times. Unless, of course, we disagree on the meaning of the word constant.

****I disagree with you that Jesus “contradicted the Old Testament in something He said or did”.****

I never said that was what I thought, but that if you google that phrase, that is some of what comes up. The point again, is that YOU raised all this and I merely showed you were you are wrong in your understanding.

But, that there are so many entries on google search that make that claim, goes back to my ORIGINAL point that there is much that “Bible” churches come to different interpretations of Scripture.

*****that the law said to not commit adultery and they thought they were good because they hadn’t committed adultery, then He floored them with, “But, I say, if a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart.”*****

First off, that law was from the Ten Commandments, and here Jesus is going even further as you say. The Jews of His time thought they understood ALL of Scripture, but here Jesus is opening them up to a DEEPER meaning of the commandment. He has taken what was written and gone deeper into the meaning. Hmmmmm......who else does that?

****Had the Jews accepted Jesus as Messiah, then he WOULD have set up His Kingdom, I believe, but as it happened they rejected Him as a nation, so He is still to come to set up His earthly kingdom with Israel****

Are you serious here? Do you really think that Jesus did not know, that it had not been written that He would be rejected by His own people? And are you saying that if only ALL the Jewish people had accepted Him as the Messiah, He would have established His Kingdom?

So, which is it, Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about Him in the Old Testament or He had to wait and see the reaction of the people of Israel to decide what He was going to do?

Wow.

****Of course, he was a supporter of the church! The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles - though some changes were going on. My contention was that the church in his day is NOT the Roman Catholic Church of today****

LOL, so exactly when did the Holy Spirit quit guiding and protecting the Church? And, you are aware, are you not that even in St. Athanasius’ time there was a system of hierarchy in the Church and that the See of Rome was considered the center of the Church? There had been councils of the Bishops, convened by the pope to declare with the authority of the Church, the doctrine of the faithful.

And I find no evidence in Scripture to support your claims of what is Christ’s Church.

Already, we see in Acts the beginnings of the organization, the charitable works, the collections for the widows and orphans, the careful adherence to a unified faith.

The early Christian community was not a disjointed, individualistic free for all, it was a tight knit group, bound in faith and determined to protect the Truths they had been given. Those who had different ideas, different doctrines were soundly corrected and if they persisted, ostrasized. Paul warns the brothers and sisters to stay away from those who were members of the community but who have fallen into heresy or left the faith altogether.

*****but I’m not condemning anyone.*****

And yet you compare the Church’s knowledge and use of Scripture to Satan’s.

****I try to stress how important it is for each person to know what they know and WHY they know it. I do not accept a “that’s just what we believe” answer. I mean, why come on a thread if that’s the best to offer?****

Is that what I have done? If that is your opinion of me, why have you wasted so much time responding to me?

*****I get it that it isn’t always easy, but I hope we all try to do that. I don’t see these as opportunities to crush or demoralize anyone, but to present what I believe is true as well as why I believe it is true.*****

Oh trust me, you have neither crushed nor demoralized me. In fact, you have been a wonderful way for my faith to grow and added to the peace I feel in the Catholic church, especially in receiving the Lord in the Eucharist, as HE commanded, in Scripture.

Well, that is it for me tonight.

Have a blessed evening:)

Why don't you ever provide actual proof of what you contend? You know, the history of when a certain doctrine began to be taught as dogma and who approved of it? All you offer is your own opinion along with snotty remarks about other Christians. You come into a thread after nearly four hundred posts and bring up stuff that has already been discussed. Why don't you go back and get caught up? Nobody wants to repeat everything they have said because someone is too lazy to read the flow of the thread. I you really want to join the discussion, at least have a clue about what has already been hashed over. I know you bring up these same issues from thread to thread and, no matter how many people respond back with good, solid Scriptural points, you seem to act as if nobody CAN answer your questions. What's the point?

Preposterous because either ALL of Scripture is inspired by God or it isn’t. God inspired Gamaliel to say what he did to stop the execution of St. Peter and the others. God wanted what Gamaliel said to be known to later generations.

Hence, preposterous.

What Gamaliel said had nothing to do with other religions.

We are speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ, not pagan or other world religions which of course, fall very short of the one true faith in the one true God.

I tried also, but the way in which they are presented makes it difficult reading, especially on a computer.

daniel, I am sure you are sincere in wanting to relate what you believe is the truth to me, and I honestly do no wish to offend you or impune your scholarship in any way, but it is not a method which I can comfortably read.

Thanks for those numbers. The question was how many quotes, or times is Jesus recorded in His own words.

I couldn’t find a comprehensive list, but boatbum seems correct in her count of about 26 times Jesus says “it is written” meaning in Scripture.

But, St. Athanasius and other Church fathers only count when it seems they sound like non Catholic Christians of undeclared or unknown denominations and can be used as proof that Catholicism is wrong and has been wrong since......well, they aren’t really sure of the exact date the Holy Spirit ceased to be her guide and protector, but anyway, yeah, at some point the Church went wrong.

Was it the Immaculate Conception declaration? Well, gee, there were already non Catholic Christians of undeclared or unknown denominations then, so before that what was the beef?

Was it the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Well, Paul sure seemed to believe in it, thought they can never admit that. No, that fallacy didn’t come about until after the reformation, right? No wait, there is evidence that it was believed before then. Hmmmmm.....oh it’s just too much to think about right now, when I am so tired and don’t really know what I believe and why I believe it. I just believe it because I’m like Catholic and what was I saying....?

Well, it happened anyway and thank God that He gave us the Bible so we would know that it happened, except for that one little thing.....the canon of Scripture came through a council of the Catholic Church.

Which all goes back to MY ORIGINAL point about the vast differences in Bible interpretation by the various Bible churches.

"Which all goes back to MY ORIGINAL point about the vast differences in Bible interpretation by the various Bible churches."

Protestantism is the product of classical sophists whose chief tool in the fabrication of pseudo-realities is flattery. These sophists, by corrupting words, that fragile relationship between language and ideas, they seek to corrupt the Word. Language is properly ordered when its words express reality with as little distortion and omissions as possible. With this in mind, as you read these posts, it becomes evident who is appealing to the and who is not, who is either a sophist or a victim of sophists and who is not.

Peace be with you.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery