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.
“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.
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:)