Is Early Christianity (pre Nicaean Council) the only True Form

[juj]

Originally Posted by shibata

So what are the important teachings that cannot be discovered from Scripture alone?

You are asking the wrong question. It's not that scripture can't answer most of the questions, it's who gets to decide what is the correct interpretation of scripture.

The Catholic Church has a three-legged approach to Devine Revelation. One leg is Sacred Scripture. See, we agree on that one. The other is Sacred Tradition which is was used to decide what books were to be in the Bible and preceded the Bible. And then the third leg is the Magisterium which is the Authoritative body that reconciles Sacred Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition. Since the Bible does not interpret itself, the Magisterium is the Jesus given Authority used to decide doctrinal truths.

I will let you decide what is important. To learn what those truths are, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's available online at: USCCB - Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's also available at any brick and mortar bookstore or online bookstore.

[shibata]

Originally Posted by juj

You are asking the wrong question. It's not that scripture can't answer most of the questions, it's who gets to decide what is the correct interpretation of scripture.

So which grade does Scripture get for revealing truth clearly- 'F', or 'A-'? If it gets a good grade, there can be little need for interpretation, because Scripture can answer most of the questions. If it gets a bad grade, it must be possible to say where there is room for humanity to clear up what God left fuzzy.

Some say that Scripture, as Paul wrote, equips and qualifies a person fully. If anyone at all can find anything that such people may lack, so that they fail to represent the true form of Christianity, let them now declare it.

[juj]

Originally Posted by shibata

So which grade does Scripture get for revealing truth clearly- 'F', or 'A-'? If it gets a good grade, there can be little need for interpretation, because Scripture can answer most of the questions. If it gets a bad grade, it must be possible to say where there is room for humanity to clear up what God left fuzzy.

Some say that Scripture, as Paul wrote, equips and qualifies a person fully. If anyone at all can find anything that such people may lack, so that they fail to represent the true form of Christianity, let them now declare it.

That would be "F". Why? Because it was never the Bible's or any of it's author's intention that it interpret itself. It was created in the context of tradition and an authoritative teaching body. If I sent you a "How to make a Saturn V Rocket" book complete with Calculus 3 and advanced physics equations in it, would you be able to build an Saturn V rocket? That answer would be no. Unless your Werner Von Braun. Of course there are not many of them.

Some say.....? Scripture that Paul was referring to could only have been the OLD TESTAMENT. At that point in time, the books of the NT were just a glimmer in Paul's eye. Do you believe that the Old Testament is all you need? That would make you, essentially, Jewish.

[shibata]

Originally Posted by juj

That would be "F". Why? Because it was never the Bible's or any of it's author's intention that it interpret itself.

Back to 'F'. So what are the important aspects of Christianity that cannot be resolved from Scripture alone? An answer, please.

Or might it just be that the likes of medieval magnates, who took firm steps to prevent others from even reading the Bible, think that the book is only too easily interpreted, and created and promoted this myth of Biblical mystery?

If a Roman Catholic or anyone else believes that following Scripture alone produces defective Christianity, let them give particular reasons, and desist from writing comment such as the above until those reasons have been proved and their view vindicated.

It was created in the context of tradition

'God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Eph 2:19-20).

The foundation (or tradition) of the prophets is found in the OT: that of the apostles in the NT.

The foundation cannot be found in 'Tradition'- whatever that may be. The concept behind 'Tradition' seems to be defended and defined by a euphemism for 'novelty', that cannot possibly be a context for that which preceded it!

and an authoritative teaching body.

Quite so. And that body, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, declares that Holy Scripture is the sole touchstone of correct belief and behavior.

If I sent you a "How to make a Saturn V Rocket" book complete with Calculus 3 and advanced physics equations in it, would you be able to build an Saturn V rocket?

Possibly. Can you guarantee that I could not?

If you sent me a recipe for onion soup, I dare say we might agree that I could make a reasonably pleasing bowl of the stuff. And because people like Peter and John were ordinary artisans, as the Sanhedrin observed, there is no need to suppose that the Scripture is beyond the ken of ordinary folk.

And anyway, there is very little credibility in making a claim for intellectual superiority if Roman emperors have much involvement in making the claim.

Some say.....? Scripture that Paul was referring to could only have been the OLD TESTAMENT.

In that case, the additional books (that the RCC approved, if belatedly) make the case for Scripture-based faith even more compelling!

(Though this is not actually true. Paul wrote to Timothy after he and probably others had written much recognised Scripture- which was all founded on the corpus of knowledge of the gospels, which may also have been committed to writing by the time Paul wrote to Timothy. The gospel lore must be accounted Scripture at that time, even if it had not yet been written.)

[juj]

Originally Posted by shibata

Back to 'F'. So what are the important aspects of Christianity that cannot be resolved from Scripture alone? An answer, please.

And round and round we go. Again it's not that scripture doesn't have most of the answers. It's the intrepretation of the answers AND asking the right questions. Protestants raise their Bibles in the air and proclaim that it has all the answers, but they don't know if got the right answer nor do they agree on what those answers are. That is my point. And my last word on this circular argument.

Originally Posted by shibata

The foundation cannot be found in 'Tradition'- whatever that may be. The concept behind 'Tradition' seems to be defended and defined by a euphemism for 'novelty', that cannot possibly be a context for that which preceded it!

No, it is defended by SCRIPTURE.

Excerpts from: Divine Tradition and Sacred Scripture

Catholics mean by Tradition (capitalized), the beliefs and practices that Jesus gave to mankind through the Apostles. It is this Divine Tradition that St. Paul encourages us to follow:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6)

What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9)


Still think Sacred Tradition has nothing to do with it? Paul, commanded you to use tradition and you have abandoned it. Also, The last paragraph of John says that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible.

Originally Posted by shibata

Quite so. And that body, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, declares that Holy Scripture is the sole touchstone of correct belief and behavior.

The body is the pillar and foundation of truth? The verse you are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It refers to a Church, the Church, not a bunch of Christians. So it is actually scripture that says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the body, and not scripture.

Originally Posted by shibata

If you sent me a recipe for onion soup, I dare say we might agree that I could make a reasonably pleasing bowl of the stuff. And because people like Peter and John were ordinary artisans, as the Sanhedrin observed, there is no need to suppose that the Scripture is beyond the ken of ordinary folk.

(Though this is not actually true. Paul wrote to Timothy after he and probably others had written much recognised Scripture- which was all founded on the corpus of knowledge of the gospels, which may also have been committed to writing by the time Paul wrote to Timothy. The gospel lore must be accounted Scripture at that time, even if it had not yet been written.)

So how do you think Scripture left solely in the hands of uneducated men is doing? Are they coming to the same conclusions? Obviously not. The early church had bishops, priests, and leadership hierarchies and people that were trained starting from the Apostles. What separates these men from Pastor Billy Joe Jim Bob is Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession.

The books that would eventually be canonized into the NT were done so over 300+ years after Paul wrote his writings. I truly doubt he considered his own writings at the time as Scripture. I guess it comes down to opinon again, huh? The only sure truth is that Paul's reference to Scripture is the Old Testament.

[RobinD69]

Yall are getting pretty deep in this discussion but I believe you are missing the actual point.

Paul was refering to the OT in referance to traditions and he clarified those tradition in the NT along with the other writer of the NT. The oral rendering was actually put into writing well before then Nicean Council and all the council did was recognize what was already clarified in the beginning.

[byebyeducky]

I am not even sure what the Nicean Council is, but I am pretty sure Christianity is not supposed to be a "pagan" type of religion with cult like teachings. Christianity is putting all your faith in Christ. Living for Christ! not being caught up in the law of man and the confines of society and culture.

One doesn't need to know how the early church worshipped and spend their time studying history to try and "remake" how they used to do it. What a mockery of Christianity. WORSHIP CHRIST with ALL your Heart and soul! Live for Him!, don't look back and turn to a pillar of salt. Man was as sinful natured then as he is now.

[shibata]

Originally Posted by juj

And round and round we go.

I'm only following you. Please sit still!

Again it's not that scripture doesn't have most of the answers.

Back to 'A-'! Dizziness, dizziness.

It's the intrepretation of the answers AND asking the right questions.

It is now. Who decides what the right questions are?

Protestants raise their Bibles in the air

As well they might, in consideration of the blood, sweat and tears that were shed in obtaining them.

and proclaim that it has all the answers, but they don't know if got the right answer

Then Catholics and every other interested party will be able to tell them if they don't get the right answer, won't they.

But Catholics and other parties never do so, as we have seen. Why is that? Because the Bible really does provide everything that anyone wants to know about Christianity. No-one has ever corrected any Protestant except when he did not use the Bible correctly- though that correction is almost always done by Protestants, and by no-one else, oddly enough.

nor do they agree on what those answers are.

Oh, they agree all right, you can be absolutely sure of that. It's just that there are many false teachers; because the powers of darkness oppose the gospel. The multiplicity of supposedly Protestant beliefs is a measure of the overwhelming success of Protestantism, and the persistent inability of those false teachers to arrive at a convincing enough falsehood. They run from one absurd notion to another.

That is my point. And my last word on this circular argument.

Your argument has not been circular, though- it's been flip-flop, jumping from 'F' to 'A-' and back again. There is of course the circularity of saying that Roman Catholicism is right, because Roman Catholicism says it is right. That has always been the root argument of Catholicism.

We may suppose that the likes of medieval magnates, who took firm steps to prevent others from even reading the Bible, think that the Bible is only too easily interpreted, and created and promoted this myth of Biblical mystery.

No, it is defended by SCRIPTURE.

Excerpts from: Divine Tradition and Sacred Scripture

Catholics mean by Tradition (capitalized), the beliefs and practices that Jesus gave to mankind through the Apostles. It is this Divine Tradition that St. Paul encourages us to follow:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

Unless a Catholic can confirm that those traditions were Catholic teaching, that is a completely nugatory claim.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

And what were these words? Perhaps they were opposed to Catholic teaching.

What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9)

What did you see in Paul?

The last paragraph of John says that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible.

True, but that does not mean that what Jesus said or did that went unrecorded affirmed anything of Catholicism.

It refers to a Church, the Church, not a bunch of Christians.

The Church is a bunch of Christians.

So it is actually scripture that says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the body, and not scripture.

Quite so. A bunch of Christians is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And they have the bruises to prove it.

So how do you think Scripture left solely in the hands of uneducated men is doing?

Better than the empire led by men who knew little more about life than putting swords and spears into people, and who had to impose their religion by force!

But actually, Paul was highly educated, as was Apollos, and no doubt Barnabas, Silas and many others in the early church, many of whom were ex-Temple priests. They were the ones who got the keen attention of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman Empire. They were the ones who wrote the letters that Roman Catholics say are far too difficult for ordinary people to understand!

The early church had bishops, priests

The johnny-come-much-too-lately 'church' had those. They were the clumsy means of controlling people that those dull-witted emperors employed.

and people that were trained starting from the Apostles.

People like Diotrephes.

What separates these men from Pastor Billy Joe Jim Bob is Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession.

Succession from Demas.

Succession from Pastor Billy Joe Jim Bob.

The books that would eventually be canonized into the NT were done so over 300+ years after Paul wrote his writings. I truly doubt he considered his own writings at the time as Scripture.

Peter did so. What condemns the RCC is the fact that it was still trying to decide this fundamental issue, hundreds of years after the church had decided.