Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation
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.
There is NO escaping the truth that Jesus taught the TRUE meaning behind the Old Testament Scriptures, not only what they said about the Laws of God, but what they said about God, himself as well as what they said about Jesus as the Son of God. He most certainly DID teach the importance of the Scriptures as the authority by which he presented himself to the nation of Israel as represented by the religious leaders of his day. If Jesus did NOT fulfill those prophetic passages about the Messiah, then he would NOT have been accepted by the Jews that DID accept Him. But that's the whole reason why God put those verses in there - so they WOULD know it was who He said it would be, so they would know Him, would know that God had kept his promises. The Scriptures WERE extremely important to Israel - it was their history, written BY God, and God gave them prophecies even in their early years as proof that He was the Only TRUE God. It was a sign to them that no other false god could do - predict the future then have it happen EXACTLY how he said it would.
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.
Yes. We do. But the religious leaders were certainly NOT demanding adherence to sola scriptura (nice try) because they had already perverted what Scripture said with their Mishnahs and Tanakhs and TRADITIONS and Jesus had to readdress what Scripture really did say especially about Him. And like I said, he taught them the SPIRIT of the law and not just the letter of law. As God incarnate, He had that right to teach them the heart of all God had revealed to them.
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.
Someone hasn't been telling you that right. That verse says:
John 20:30-31
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Jesus did many more signs in their presence. We then go to:
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Jesus DID many more signs in the presence of his disciples and the world could not contain the books that SHOULD be written, John said, but he didn't ever say Jesus "taught" or "said" other things that didn't get written down. In fact, John says there was a small dispute before that happened. Jesus had just told Peter about feeding His sheep and he said to Peter something about how he was going to die. In John 21:18-19, this conversation happened:
Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
But Peter turned to Jesus, pointing to John, and he asked Jesus, "Lord, what about him?". Jesus answered:
“If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
And there was a rumor that got started that John mentions here:
Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”. (John 21:22-23)
And John makes sure that everyone knows the truth, because he added in verse 24:
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
And he ends his gospel with Jesus DID many other things... I think these verses have been misused for a long time to try to make it sound like Jesus left out important teachings from Scripture and to leave open a great big container for everything that some afterwards could pretend was part of that that didn't get written down (like tradition), but it just doesn't say that and I think everything that He wanted to be taught and kept forever IS in there for all of us even two thousand years later.
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.
No, I'm NOT saying Jesus didn't know what was going to happen. Of course He did, it was already written and it happened just as He said it would. My only point was the "whatif?". It IS kinda funny, though, that you are reacting this way at the slightest hint that there MIGHT be some free will in there. Hmmm...could God have predestined this to happen????
As to your other comments, no, I am not calling you names. I know other eyes will read my words and they are meant for who needs to read them. I'm happy that you are confident in your faith. I have said many times that I believe some people in the Catholic Church are genuinely saved. I hope you are one of them.
Just what traditions were those, how do we know what they are, and how do we know that they have been handed down faithfully from the times of the apostles?
*haha* yourself.
The Roman Catholics don't consider Ukrainian Catholics quite good enough and the Ukrainian Catholics know it.
ping for reference
Aside from the irony of you ridiculing the the Roman Catholics for allegedly feeling towards another group exactly like you appear to feel about the all Catholics, how could you possibly know this? Do you have some sort of mind reading abilities to render the private thoughts of a billion Catholics in to a cogent thesis or are you projecting again?
did someone throw a bucket of water on the thief on the cross for baptism?
And the poor Orthodox, they dont get no respect from Rome either.
I'm part Ukrainian.
I know.
I was referring to quotes, not allusions, and 450 seems too high for the former, while allusions are said to be 600 or higher. But I have only seen numbers, and would be interested in seeing the whole list of quotes. I myself have counted approx. 300 clear references to the O.T.
Distraction is an art form with many. They seize upon one little phrase or some such thing and then use it to pull one into a different direction without addressing the original thought or post. Keeping the conversation focused is difficult.
*****There is NO escaping the truth that Jesus taught the TRUE meaning behind the Old Testament Scriptures, not only what they said about the Laws of God, but what they said about God, himself as well as what they said about Jesus as the Son of God.*****
I never disputed that. But you ignore the very real fact that Jesus was a radical departure from what the Jewish people expected and said and did things that were shocking to them, which were to them contradictory to Scripture. He healed on the Sabbath, He forgave sins, He allowed His disciples to gather grains to eat on the Sabbath. He did not conform Himself to what they thought He was or should be and He did not confine Himself to the letter of the law.
****If Jesus did NOT fulfill those prophetic passages about the Messiah, then he would NOT have been accepted by the Jews that DID accept Him****
Exactly, without authority, which He claimed according to Scripture, what He taught would have been soundly rejected by all Jews for what He taught, what He said and what He did was not what they wanted or at least expected.
That He used Scripture to reveal His authority is my point.
****He most certainly DID teach the importance of the Scriptures as the authority by which he presented himself to the nation of Israel as represented by the religious leaders of his day.****
Yes He did, but He did not use only Scripture nor did He ever claim that His message was to be measured ONLY by Scripture. Scripture certainly was used to affirm His authority, but He brought a new message. Again, many of the things He said and taught were thought to be contradictory of what the Messiah would do and say.
****Yes. We do. But the religious leaders were certainly NOT demanding adherence to sola scriptura (nice try) because they had already perverted what Scripture said with their Mishnahs and Tanakhs and TRADITIONS and Jesus had to readdress what Scripture really did say especially about Him. And like I said, he taught them the SPIRIT of the law and not just the letter of law. As God incarnate, He had that right to teach them the heart of all God had revealed to them.****
Really? The “leaders” tried to use Scripture to trip Him up, to get Him to say things they could condemn Him for and He always turned it around on them. He explained the deeper truths to be found in Scripture, truth that they did not see because they were too bound to their own understanding and could not accept His. He went under the surface of what Scripture says, which they were unable to do because they were too hard hearted in their own understanding.
Sorry I meant to include this but didn’t.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Did this promise of Jesus’ have an expiration date?
****It IS kinda funny, though, that you are reacting this way at the slightest hint that there MIGHT be some free will in there. Hmmm...could God have predestined this to happen????****
LOL, I believe fully in free will and my reaction was not to that but to your “what if”. Why, because you have been quite adamant about how Jesus HAD to fulfill the prophesies and the Scripture about Him, then you throw out this silly notion that He was waiting to see what the Jewish people would do. And some did exercise their free will to accept Him and some did so to reject Him.
No, God did not predestine this, but He knew what would happen. Just as He knows what will happen all the way to the end of the world. All the choices I make, you make, everyone makes. He doesn’t predestine them, He just knows them.
****I think everything that He wanted to be taught and kept forever IS in there for all of us even two thousand years later.****
I do as well. It is all there for those who have eyes to see it, minds to know it and hearts to accept it.
8
No doubt He was because they had lost sight of what the Law was all about.
It's irrelevant whether they thought He was violating the Law. He wasn't. Their interpretation was wrong and they had set up traditions of men which He violated and that offended them, but there's no way He would have violated Scripture.
He had to have confined Himself to the letter of the Law. In His own words....Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Yes He did, but He did not use only Scripture nor did He ever claim that His message was to be measured ONLY by Scripture. Scripture certainly was used to affirm His authority, but He brought a new message. Again, many of the things He said and taught were thought to be contradictory of what the Messiah would do and say.
What else would He have used besides Scripture? There was no other God given authority to appeal to to validate His claims. Scripture points to Jesus, it prophecies about Him. Ho showed where and He also showed the intent of the Law.
Sure the Jews didn't expect Him to do what He did. That's because they relied too much on tradition they had added to Scripture.
We see the same thing today. Too many religionists rely on tradition and get tripped up when only Scripture is presented. They react the same way as the Pharisees.
Have done numerous times...
I believe what it says in James...And I also believe what it says in Ephesians...
But that's where your religion self destructs...Your religion doesn't know what to do with the verse in Ephesians so your religion ignores it...It's probably not even in your catechism...
If you can't reconcile both of those verses, you can't possibly understand the scriptures...
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,
Sorry, you won't find your so-called full quote in any of the extant manuscripts that originated around Antioch, Syria where folks were first called Christians...
In fact, you won't even find the word 'you' in the Aramaic bible or even the Douay-Rheims bible...
So where did you get this supposed 'full quote' from???
Of course this is total nonsense...Who taught you that or did you just think of it???
The Apostles were very clear that there was and is no baptism without repentance...
People that actually read the scriptures know that...
But keep up the comic relief...It's good for an ocassional laugh...
Don't be silly. You sound like you've never heard of Lubomyr Husar, a Catholic Cardinal who was considered to be papabile.
Ereunate (search) is in plural (You, more than one person), active voice (subject of the verb is the one performing), second person (you, the persons spoken to).
Moreover it would be the present tense showing a continueus action, a habit, a practice onging at the time.
So John 5:39 would be: “You are searching.....” not a command to search or a recommendation to action.
Ereunate (search) is in plural (You, more than one person), active voice (subject of the verb is the one performing), second person (you, the persons spoken to).
Moreover it would be the present tense showing a continuous action, a habit, a practice onging at the time.
So John 5:39 would be: “You are searching.....” not a command to search or a recommendation to action.
If you were 100% Ukrainian Catholic, you'd know better.
I do know better. It’s total nonsense to pretend that there is no disagreement, hard feelings, or animosity between the two groups.
I heard it from both sides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.