[De Maria]

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

[wildandblue]

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

[Tj3]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[De Maria]

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.

[De Maria]

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?

[Tj3]

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.

[De Maria]

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?

[Tj3]

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.

[wildandblue]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[wildandblue]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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)

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.

[De Maria]

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

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

[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

[Tj3]

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.

[ScottRC]

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: