Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1 Cor 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

I'm not aware that Jesus wrote a Scripture or commanded anyone to write a Scripture. But He established a Church and commanded the members of that Church to worship God and teach others how to worship God.

So, if you can provide the evidence that Jesus wrote a Scripture, please show me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

No He did not, in fact in most of the parables and sayings of Jesus He was actually quoting from the Law and the prophets, the everyday folk in His day being so ignorant they didn't even know this. The Book of Sirach I think at one time excited people because the author is said to be Jesus but this is actually a different Jesus son of Eleazar, son of Sirach

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

Scripture, and then he commanded that we not go beyond what is written.


I'm not aware that Jesus wrote a Scripture or commanded anyone to write a Scripture.

Wow. How did you miss it? There are numerous examples of where God commanded that scripture be written, and here are a few:

Ex 34:27
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
NKJV

Rev 1:10-12
11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV

Jer 30:2
2 "Thus speaks the LORD God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.
NKJV


Did God write anything Himself? Most assuredly:

Ex 34:1
34:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
NKJV

The Book of Sirach I think at one time excited people because the author is said to be Jesus but this is actually a different Jesus son of Eleazar, son of Sirach

Sirach is not canonical and actually contradicts scripture.

Scripture, and then he commanded that we not go beyond what is written.



Wow. How did you miss it? There are numerous examples of where God commanded that scripture be written, and here are a few:

Ex 34:27
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
NKJV

Rev 1:10-12
11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV

Jer 30:2
2 "Thus speaks the LORD God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.
NKJV


Did God write anything Himself? Most assuredly:

Ex 34:1
34:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
NKJV

That is God speaking to Moses in the Old Testament.

Please show where Jesus commanded that the New Testament be written. The only thing I see is Jesus commanding the establishing of Traditions.

Sirach is not canonical and actually contradicts scripture.

Sirach was canonical long before Luther took it out. But the subject here is what did Jesus command? Did Jesus command Tradition or Scripture?

Sirach was canonical long before Luther took it out.

Luther never took it out, but the fact that the Roman Church chose to add it at the Council or Trent in the 16th century does not remove the contradiction, or the fact that The Church never considered it canonical.


But the subject here is what did Jesus command? Did Jesus command Tradition or Scripture?

I answered that.

I answered that.

No you didn't. You posted God speaking to Moses, not Jesus speaking to the Church.

Or are you saying that only the Old Testament is Scripture?

That is God speaking to Moses in the Old Testament.

Am I to understand from your comment that you reject the OT, or that you deny that Jesus is God?


Please show where Jesus commanded that the New Testament be written. The only thing I see is Jesus commanding the establishing of Traditions.

I already did, but apparently you did not read all of my post.

As for Jesus supposedly establishing traditions, that is something that you have yet to validate.

My sources say, Sirach written approx 200 B.C. not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D. nor accepted by Protestants but always viewed as canonical by the Catholic Church and part of the liturgy
Also remember that the first century A.D. Church believed Christ's return to be imminent, many of the Gospels were written much later by the apostles when it was apparent that these men were going to die before Christ's return and wanted to pass along their special narratives and their witness to others

My sources say, Sirach written approx 200 B.C. not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., nor accepted by Protestants but always viewed as canonical by the Catholic Church and part of the liturgy

Your un-identified sources err. The additional books were included in the canon of the Roman Church at the council of Trent. Non-Catholic Churches, (Protestant and others) rejected this addition.

Besides, any book which contradicts scripture cannot, by definition, be a Holy Spirit inspired work.

Jesus never wrote anything, and no where in the Texts written of Jesus did it tell that Jesus told them to write any of what he did down.

The real fact the early church for 50 years of its start had no scripture beyond that of the old testement. They had the vebal teachings of Jesus passed down by word of month from person to person. And the traditions he taugh to the church, on things to follow, how to prayer, how to be saved and more.

It was the early church fathers who latter wrote down what they saw and Pauls writing of varoius corrections to other churches, that we have.

It is obvious I am sure to everyone that Paul would have written dozens if not 100s of other letters to other churches that were never saved or found, and that most likely other early church leaders had writtings that were not saved as scripture by the early church fathers.

As for Sirach those churches that accept it as Scripture and most of the others accept it as sound Christian teaching to be studied but at a lessor value than scripture, Only a few churches don't accept it as proper church teachings.

I will say this the few that don't accept it, at least at a lessor value for study basically merely in the past have attacked many things of the catholic church just because they are catholic teachings for some reason.

And while I know the ones that wish to be anti catholic willl not accept this as proof, but to prove it was scripture to the catholics in the early church, it is also part of the scripture of the Eastern Orthodox, so it had to be part of the Catholic church before 1100 AD since that was when the two split. So no it was not added, it was part of the christian church scripture and only taken out latter by those other churches latter.

I think they call those books the Apochrypha, meaning Jesus himself never quoted from them so it's not known if they were in common use in His day. I was going by the link at the bottom of this question, "canon of scripture" askmehelpdesk/religious discussions/canon-scripture-24384/html

Jesus never wrote anything, and no where in the Texts written of Jesus did it tell that Jesus told them to write any of what he did down.

Here is an example of where He in fact did do that.

Rev 1:10-12
11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV


The real fact the early church for 50 years of its start had no scripture beyond that of the old testement.

Peter called Paul's writings scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-17
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
NKJV

Therefore they in fact did have parts of the NT very early. But the OT contains all that is essential for the gospel in any case - Paul told us that in scripture.

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV


Only a few churches don't accept it as proper church teachings.


I would suggest that the overwhelming number of denominations reject it as canonical by any definition. There are denominationalists who will not accept this, I know.

I think they call those books the Apochrypha, meaning Jesus himself never quoted from them so it's not known if they were in common use in His day. I was going by the link at the bottom of this question, "canon of scripture" askmehelpdesk/religious discussions/canon-scripture-24384/html

That is not what apochrypha means. Here is the definition:

a·poc·ry·pha
1. (initial capital letter) a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.
2. various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
3. writings, statements, etc. of doubtful authorship or authenticity. Compare canon1 (defs. 6, 7, 9).
(Source: apocrypha - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=apocrypha))

Some other definitions:

A·poc·ry·pha

1. The biblical books included in the Vulgate and accepted in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon but considered noncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. See Table at Bible.
2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons.
3. apocrypha Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

Apocrypha
1387, from L.L. apocryphus "secret, not approved for public reading," from Gk. apokryphos "hidden, obscure," thus "(books) of unknown authorship" (especially those included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew and not counted as genuine by the Jews), from apo- "away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide." Properly plural (the single would be Apocryphon), but commonly treated as a collective sing. Apocryphal "of doubtful authenticity" is from 1590.
(Source: Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper)

Apocrypha

14 books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not grant them the same status
(Source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)


But I do agree that Jesus would be unlikely to quote from such material.

Your un-identified sources err.

Her unidentified source is correct. On the other hand, you and your unidentified source are wrong.


The additional books were included in the canon of the Roman Church at the council of Trent.

Here's the actual history:

73 book canon decreed by Pope Damasus I, Council of Rome, 382ad.
Same canon confirmed by Council of Hippo, 393ad.
Same canon confirmed by Council of Carthage, 397ad.
Same canon found in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate 397ad.
Same canon confirmed in the 4th Council of Carthage, 419ad.
Same canon confirmed in the Council of Florence, 1431-1445ad
Same canon confirmed in the Council of Trent, 1546-1565ad.
Canon of Scripture (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm)


Non-Catholic Churches, (Protestant and others) rejected this addition.

Luther rejected the Deuterocanonicals because they contain matter which disagrees with his doctrines.


Besides, any book which contradicts scripture cannot, by definition, be a Holy Spirit inspired work.

The Deuterocanonicals do not contradict Scripture. They do contradict Luther's interpretation of Scripture however, that is why he wanted to get rid of the book of St. James and the Epistle of the Hebrews as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Here is an example of where He in fact did do that.

Rev 1:10-12
11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV

Context, context, context.

This, of course, is referring to what St. John saw in heaven. But it is not Jesus instructing the Apostles to write down His Teachings.


Peter called Paul's writings scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-17
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
NKJV

Sure did. But this is not Jesus telling the Apostles to write Scripture.



Therefore they in fact did have parts of the NT very early. But the OT contains all that is essential for the gospel in any case - Paul told us that in scripture.

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

But Jesus established Tradition, not Scripture. Jesus instructed the Church to teach and to Baptize and to worship. Jesus did not tell them to write or to pass out Bibles.


I would suggest that the overwhelming number of denominations

That's because Sola Scriptura churches multiply denominations by constantly splitting.


reject it as canonical by any definition. There are denominationalists who will not accept this, I know.

Although this isn't a popularity contest, the fact is that all the Churches which can trace themselves beyond the Protestant Revolution to the Apostles consider the deuterocanonicals inspired Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Context, context, context.
This, of course, is referring to what St. John saw in heaven. But it is not Jesus instructing the Apostles to write down His Teachings.

So Jesus in heaven is not the same Jesus as on earth. An interesting position to take. I would be fascinated to see you try to validate that belief from scripture.


Sure did. But this is not Jesus telling the Apostles to write Scripture.

Ah, so the fact that Paul's writings are scripture does not matter to you.


But Jesus established Tradition, not Scripture.

You keep saying this, but never validating it. You keep saying it, and then rejecting any scripture which disagrees with you. Thateffectively means that you are making yourself your own authority and judging God's word.


Although this isn't a popularity contest, the fact is that all the Churches which can trace themselves beyond the Protestant Revolution to the Apostles consider the deuterocanonicals inspired Scripture.


Nice try, and it is so easy to make statements. If longevity is you basis for authority, then you need to look to the Jewish canon. But even if you claim were true, it would not matter since God decided on the canon, not your denomination.

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?
Both.

I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise... Tradition without Scripture is WORTHLESS (not to mention logically impossible).

:confused:

That is not what apochrypha means. Here is the definition:

a·poc·ry·pha
1. (initial capital letter) a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.
2. various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
3. writings, statements, etc. of doubtful authorship or authenticity. Compare canon1 (defs. 6, 7, 9).
(Source: apocrypha - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=apocrypha))

Some other definitions:

A·poc·ry·pha

1. The biblical books included in the Vulgate

Thanks for posting this. You have just proven that the Deuterocanonicals, what Protestants call the Apocrypha, were around since 397 AD when St. Jerome put it together.


and accepted in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon but considered noncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. See Table at Bible.

In other words, Luther accepted the Jewish Canon which rejected the Deuterocanonicals in the year 100 ad because Christ used them.

Do you understand that you have confirmed that the Deuterocanonicals have been in the Christian canon since before the Council of Jamnia in 100ad which is the Jewish council which took the nonHebrew Scriptures from THEIR canon?


2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons.

You don't even seem to understand that this refers to the books which the Catholic Church calls the Apocrypha. They may also be called the New Testament Apocrypha. These are books which were not written by the Apostles such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache. Well respected books which did not make the final cut because there was no evidenc they had been written by Apostles.


3. apocrypha Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity

St. Jerome called these books into question in the third century because he had many Jewish friends. But later he realized his mistake and kept them in his Latin Vulgate.

Luther however, took them out of the canon and called them Apocrypha against the overwhelming evidence that even Jesus Christ had included them.


Apocrypha
1387, from L.L. apocryphus "secret, not approved for public reading," from Gk. apokryphos "hidden, obscure," thus "(books) of unknown authorship" (especially those included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew and not counted as genuine by the Jews), from apo- "away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide." Properly plural (the single would be Apocryphon), but commonly treated as a collective sing. Apocryphal "of doubtful authenticity" is from 1590.
(Source: Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper)

Thanks for highlighting that they were not counted as genuine by the Jews. However, they were always accepted by the Christians.


apocrypha

14 books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not grant them the same status
(Source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)


But I do agree that Jesus would be unlikely to quote from such material.

If you are going to eliminate the Deuterocanon because Jesus didn't quote from it, will you also eliminate these books for the same reason?

Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum

Neither Jesus or the Apostles ever quoted from those.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection .

This is a summary of what is described in 2 Macc 7.

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

Sirach 5:11: Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering.

For more examples see this website:
Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thanks for posting this. You have just proven that the Deuterocanonicals, what Protestants call the Apocrypha, were around since 397 AD when St. Jerome put it together.

I never denied that they were around, just as there were many heretical and extra-Biblical writings around at that time. That was never the question. The question is whether they are canonical, and as I pointed out Sirach, for one is disqualified easily on the basis of the contradictions.


In other words, Luther accepted the Jewish Canon which rejected the Deuterocanonicals in the year 100 ad because Christ used them.

I would suggest that the reason that The Church rejected the apochrypha was because they were clearly not inspired works.


Luther however, took them out of the canon and called them Apocrypha against the overwhelming evidence that even Jesus Christ had included them.

You keep making these claims, despite what the Biblical and historical record shows.


If you are going to eliminate the Deuterocanon because Jesus didn't quote from it, will you also eliminate these books for the same reason?

That was not me who said that.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:


Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection .

This is a summary of what is described in 2 Macc 7.

I noticed that you carefully gave no specific references, and no doubt you had good reason. Even if there were any similarity, just because a non-canonical book speaks of something similar to a canonical book is no basis for claiming that the un-inspired book is part of the canon (especially when Maccabees has internal evidence denying that it is inspired).

The same goes for the rest.

They were included in one version in the 1611 King James Bible and they were always part of the Catholic Bible. The idea they were not part of the Catholic bible originally is merely not true. It is that the Protestants took them out because part of them did not follow their ideas and teachings.

This of course can not be accepted or taught by the Protestants since of course that means they took away from the bbile. So they merely try and claim the Catholics added it, which of course is not true and just plan silly.

I never denied that they were around, just as there were many heretical and extra-Biblical writings around at that time. That was never the question. The question is whether they are canonical, and as I pointed out Sirach, for one is disqualified easily on the basis of the contradictions.

You denied they were in the Bible. You said they were added by the Church. But I have shown you that they were considered canonical by the Church since the time of Christ.

I have also shown that the Jews considered them canonical until the Council of Jamnia in the 1st Century. Then they took them out.

And of course, Luther took them out of the Protestant Canon in the 15th century.


I would suggest that the reason that The Church rejected the apochrypha was because they were clearly not inspired works.

And you would be wrong. The only criteria for selecting the canon of the New Testament was because they were written by Apostles.

The Old Testament canon was already established in the Septuagint by the time of Jesus. The Septuagint included the Deuterocanon.


You keep making these claims, despite what the Biblical and historical record shows.

I'm the one providing substance. You are the one making claims without evidence.


That was not me who said that.

You said,


But I do agree that Jesus would be unlikely to quote from such material.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:


I noticed that you carefully gave no specific references,

You must have been reading in a hurry.


and no doubt you had good reason. Even if there were any similarity, just because a non-canonical book speaks of something similar to a canonical book is no basis for claiming that the un-inspired book is part of the canon (especially when Maccabees has internal evidence denying that it is inspired).

As I said, the Deuterocanon was already included in the Septuagint before the advent of Jesus Christ. It was because the Deuterocanonical book had prophecies like this one:

Wisdom 2 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.

Which obviously prophecies the coming of Jesus Christ that the Jews threw the Deuterocanon out.


The same goes for the rest.

And of course Luther threw them out because they disagree with his interpretation of Scripture.

But back to the topic. Jesus commanded Tradition, not new Scriptures. But I can understand why you don't want to broach that topic.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DE Maria, the issue that too many of the protestant churches have is they can not admit they were there, no amount of "proof" will ever be enough,

As noted they were even in one version of the 1611 bible, I was told that today by one of our churches friars ( hermit monk) who does studies into this.

DE Maria, the issue that too many of the protestant churches have is they can not admit they were there, no amount of "proof" will ever be enough,

As noted they were even in one version of the 1611 bible, I was told that today by one of our churches friars ( hermit monk) who does studies into this.

Excellent point Fr Chuck. How can something be added when it was there all along?

*cough* *cough*... :D

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

Both.

I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise... Tradition without Scripture is WORTHLESS (not to mention logically impossible).

Hoping you'd clear this up for me.

They were included in one version in the 1611 King James Bible and they were always part of the Catholic Bible.

I have many reference materials in the study Bibles that I have around here. Are you saying that reference material bound with a Bible is authomatically canonical?

I doubt that any Bible publishers would agree, nor would I expect that many if any theologians would agree.


The idea they were not part of the Catholic bible originally is merely not true. It is that the Protestants took them out because part of them did not follow their ideas and teachings.

Sigh! This has been addressed sop many times. As I pointed out, even one of the Catholic Encyclopedias stated clearly that it was the Roman Church that added them in.

You denied they were in the Bible. You said they were added by the Church. But I have shown you that they were considered canonical by the Church since the time of Christ.

They never were part of the canon - that is right. The Church did not add them. The Roman catholic denomination added them. You have shown me nothing of the sort.


And you would be wrong. The only criteria for selecting the canon of the New Testament was because they were written by Apostles.

I have shown you the evidence that one of the books does not even claim to be inspired, and the contradictions between Sirach and scripture are numerous. And yet you hold these to be canonical because of a denominational decision in the 16th century?

You said,


And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

Sigh! First, do you know the difference between Jesus and the Apostles? And second, I already addressed your other point in my last message. Please do not waste my time by going back over things over and over.

[quote]Jesus commanded Tradition, not new Scriptures. [/quote

And I understand why you won't give any reference to this claim which I requested a number of times.

They never were part of the canon - that is right. The Church did not add them. The Roman catholic denomination added them. You have shown me nothing of the sort.

Not only did I show you, but the very evidence you presented showed that the Deuterocanonicals were included in the Latin Vulgate circa 393ad, in the Jewish canon, circa 100 ad and in the Septuagint, before Christ.

You simply shot off your own foot.


I have shown you the evidence that one of the books does not even claim to be inspired,

No you didn't. You simply said so, with no reference.


and the contradictions between Sirach and scripture are numerous.

Again a say so with no proof.


And yet you hold these to be canonical because of a denominational decision in the 16th century?

Because Jesus held them so.


Sigh! First, do you know the difference between Jesus and the Apostles?

Yes.


And second, I already addressed your other point in my last message. Please do not waste my time by going back over things over and over.

No you didn't. You simply made a remark with no explanation or proof. In essence a denial. So what?


And I understand why you won't give any reference to this claim which I requested a number of times.

All you have to do is look at the OP. Isn't it on every page?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Your whole reply - just deny, deny, deny.

Your whole reply - just deny, deny, deny.

You're whole response is to befuddle and obfuscate. Obviously, the verses that you asked for are looking at you in the face in the OP. But you pretend they aren't there.

You're whole response is to befuddle and obfuscate. Obviously, the verses that you asked for are looking at you in the face in the OP. But you pretend they aren't there.

If they were there, you'd quote 'em!

If they were there, you'd quote 'em!

I did.

I did.

A claim is not as good as doing it.

A claim is not as good as doing it.

As I said, look at the OP. Did you not realize that I wrote the OP?

As I said, look at the OP. Did you not realize that I wrote the OP?

Maybe you ought to look at it again. Or don't you remember that I was one of the first to respond?

I still see no reference to your claim.

Maybe you ought to look at it again. Or don't you remember that I was one of the first to respond?

I still see no reference to your claim.

I remember your reply. In it you mentioned that God told Moses to write. But you did not show Jesus instructing the Apostles to write. Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach and to baptize. Those are Traditions passed on by word.

And your reference to the book of Revelations is Jesus telling St. John to write about what he sees in heaven. That book was written 40 years after Jesus ascension by the most conservative estimates. And nowhere in that book did Jesus instruct St. John to write down His teachings.

So essentially you're stuck. You don't want to accept what Jesus provided. You want to worship your way. Regardless of what God wants.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I remember your reply. In it you mentioned that God told Moses to write. But you did not show Jesus instructing the Apostles to write. Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach and to baptize. Those are Traditions passed on by word.

But I did, and pointed that out to again afterward. It was then that you said that it did not matter what Jesus said then because He was in heaven. But what does it matter - throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation, God told men to write down his revelations. If you separate out what God said in the OT from the NT, then I must ask once again if you are denying that Jesus is God?

It appears to me that you are trying to distract from your failure to provide scriptural validation for your claim that Jesus commanded tradition but not scripture.

But I did, and pointed that out to again afterward. It was then that you said that it did not matter what Jesus said

I want to see that quote.


then because He was in heaven.

I said that it didn't relate to the matter we are discussing. Not that Jesus words didn't matter.


But what does it matter - throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation, God told men to write down his revelations.

Actually, only in a few places. However, throughout salvation history God told men to preach, teach and prophecy.


If you separate out what God said in the OT from the NT, then I must ask once again if you are denying that Jesus is God?

No. I am recognizing a New Covenant. In the Old Covenant God required animal sacrifices. In the New, it is replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the clean oblation.

So, in the Old Testament, God told Moses to write. In the New Testament, Jesus told the Church to teach.


It appears to me that you are trying to distract from your failure to provide scriptural validation for your claim that Jesus commanded tradition but not scripture.

I have validated that Jesus taught tradition.

I can't find where Jesus told the Apostles to write down His teachings. Nor have you provided any such verse. If you are keeping it to yourself, please provide it now.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Having read this thread, and the works cited, I find Fr. Chuck and De Maria to be consistently on target and truthful. I'm sorry, but I find TJ3 consistently disingenuous, especially in the matter of the book Sirach.

What got me started on this question was - if the book only made it into the canon with the Council of Trent, why in the world did Luther, who was prior to that Council, find it necessary to delete it from the canon? Apparently, the canon and the entire Catholic Canon was "re-canonized", so to speak, at Trent in reaction to Luther. TJ3's position was a half-truth and very misleading. For ALL the details, go to De Maria's post and click on his blue link. I think it's on Page 3. I would re-link it myself but I don't know how to do it.

I don't much care whose Church is better than whose Church, but, in this "debate", De Maria, for the most part, backs up his positions with pretty specific references and good logic while TJ3 tends to the ad hominem.

Anyway, thank you both. It has been most interesting reading.

Well I think the early A.D. Hebrew tradition just tossed out Sirach because they wanted nothing to do with that upstart troublemaker Jesus. Same as the other books titled Maccabees that were wqritten by Judas, I mean the Book of Jesus and the Book of Judas would just have caused trouble. Have you read about how God's name, called the tetragrammaton since it is 4 Hebrew characters was removed from the ChristianBibles too when they were written in Greek and Latin, replaced with the word "Lord" because people were mixing up the unfamiliar Hebrew letters with Greek letters, they thought God's name was "Pippi" like Pippi Longstocking... so when the Reformation happened and the Protestant denominations split off, if they wanted to make copies of the Bible from the original texts the Catholic Church had those in it's possession. So they maybe had to use less reliable sources. Just my thought. Even the apostles had a problem with division, some would say I belong to Paul, others would say I belong to Peter. And the apostles themselves debated about who among them was the most important. Christ told them the first shall be last, more important to serve than to seek status

De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!
De Maria !!!!!

Hope that finally got your attention.:D
Third request:

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

Both.

I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise... Tradition without Scripture is WORTHLESS (not to mention logically impossible).

Hoping you'd clear this up for me.

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?


So, if you can provide the evidence that Jesus wrote a Scripture, please show me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you beleive in the Trinity?

If so then I offer the answer of The Spirit of Truth

John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 19:13 And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

Warning

Galatians 1: 9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Not of Man

Galations 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Paul proclaims the gospel was the revelation of Christ

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ


Paul speaks of His previous error.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

I find TJ3 consistently disingenuous, especially in the matter of the book Sirach.

I've read it - have you? Perhaps if itself of using personal attacks, if you have chosen to discuss it, we could examine what it says in contrast to scripture. But choosing to attack first and never addressing the point speaks loudly.


What got me started on this question was - if the book only made it into the canon with the Council of Trent, why in the world did Luther, who was prior to that Council, find it necessary to delete it from the canon?

Strawman - Luther did not delete it.

I find it interesting how much power you attribute to Luther - you appear to suggest that this one man could singlehandly alter the Bible for the entire Christian Church! Wow! The suggestion is in and of itself laughable, and certainly lack historical credibility. I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.

I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.


This is an excellent example of how you play loosely with the truth. I re-read the entire thread to find the reference and YOU NEVER MADE SUCH A REFERENCE. On page 3 you simply referred to "one of the Catholic Encyclopedias" without ever stating which one. That is NOT a reference.

Do you beleive in the Trinity?

If so then I offer the answer of The Spirit of Truth

John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 19:13 And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

Warning

Galatians 1: 9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Not of Man

Galations 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Paul proclaims the gospel was the revelation of Christ

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ


Paul speaks of His previous error.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

None of these depict Jesus telling the Apostles to write.

And the verses in the OP explicitly depict Jesus telling the Apostles to teach, to baptize and to pass on other Traditions.

I have even referenced a Catholic encyclopedia that has the honesty to acknowledge that the RCC added these books to their canon at Trent.


This is an excellent example of how you play loosely with the truth. I re-read the entire thread to find the reference and YOU NEVER MADE SUCH A REFERENCE. On page 3 you simply referred to "one of the Catholic Encyclopedias" without ever stating which one. That is NOT a reference.

You clearly have not been on the board long enough. Maybe you should make sure of your facts first.

Seems to me that your intent on here is to attack that which disagrees with you rather than seeking truth.

None of these depict Jesus telling the Apostles to write.

And the verses in the OP explicitly depict Jesus telling the Apostles to teach, to baptize and to pass on other Traditions.

I noticed that when I have specific commands from God to write down what He said, and in the NT testament, a specific command from Jesus to write down what He said, the Roman Catholic response was to toss those commands aside as not meaning what they explicitly said.

Clearly there is no value in discussing scripture with you if you will just redefine it to be whatever you want it to be.

Thread closed, attacks on Faith not discussion of ideas.