Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[Gregory Thompson]

My point in calling every Protestant his own pope (an observation I wasn't the first and won't be the last to make) is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that rather than look to an external source for guidance on studying Sacred Scripture, Protestants trust in their own judgments and interpretations. A plethora of interpretations has led to a plethora of denominations, some of which are at each other's throats. This cannot be what Our Lord meant when He prayed to God the Father for unity.

Yeah the unity of John 17 is one in which the son is in the father and the father is in the son, this unity transcends languange, space, and time ... much like the Kingdom of God.

 

[ebedmelech]

My apologies. I respond in so many similar threads that sometimes I get them confused. Here are the verses where Jesus supports the ORAL TORAH:

1. Jesus got all over the Pharisees' cases because they were only following the Oral Torah and not the basics of the Torah, when, as Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, they should be doing BOTH.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

I think you're assuming what isn't fact. Tithing isn't Oral Torah...it's commanded in the Old Covenant very clearly. Nothing Jesus condemned them for is Oral Torah...it's written in the Law, simply read it

2. In Matthew 23:1-3, Christ confirms the AUTHORITY of the Pharisees to correctly teach (based on Deuteronomy 17:8-13) and instructs his Jewish followers to do ALL they instruct. ALL instructions include both Torah AND Oral Torah (Talmud).

Once again you need to be careful in what you're asserting here! Look at the prelude to what Jesus told them...Matthew 23:1-3:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
The point here is not Oral Torah...but respect for the authority the have...that's why Jesus said "DO NOT DO ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS". Jesus then goes on to say all the things the Pharisees add to the Law from their authority, that are NOT proper. He the qualifies what he says by stating their error...Matthew 23:5-7
5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.
Jesus picks apart their motives...it has NOTHING to do with Oral Torah because He clearly states "they sit in THE CHAIR of Moses". The point being they have the authority of Moses but they aren't even closes to Moses. Moses obeyed God in the theocracy!

Once again Open Heart...you're assuming. I say that ont the basis that Jesus qualifies what He says when He said "DO NOT do according to their deeds". Part of their deeds was their Oral Torah. How about you look up the Oral Torah...and know what it really is?

 

[ebedmelech]

Here is the passage you cited:
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

No where in that verse does it say to stop observing the traditions (Oral Torah). The emphasis is to get them to get back to the basics of observing Torah. Which is WHY I directed you to Matthew 23:23, where Jesus quite clearly says to do BOTH.

Really? This our Lord telling them they sin (transgress) against the commandment. "The Commandment" is not Oral Torah...Jesus never mentions Oral Torah...that's your idea. What do you think the BURDENS the Pharisees put on the people are? It's they're interpretation of what they thought the Law really says.

 

[SolomonVII]

The big difference between the early Christians and us is that we are (potentially) a literate people.
Literacy and even paper were rare commodities in the days of the early Christians, especially amongst the poor.
What scripture does is to enable us, as a literate people, to enter into the lives of the early Christians, and to share their faith with them in a way that is unencumbered by all the schisms and the dissensions and the frills and encumbrances that have come after.
The New Testament is, among other things, a living testimony to the faith of the period in which it was written. Through Scripture we enter into the lives of the first generations of Christians and into the lives who breathed the same air as Jesus did in his earthly ministry.
There is nothing else quite like that. It is because we are a literate people now that this has even become possible. Through actively participating in Scripture, we actively become involved in the lives of the early Christians, like only a literate people are able to. That is the genius of literature. Through the blessing of reading through one's imagination, one literally (pun intended) becomes transported 2000 years back into time.
For those who love Jesus, there is no way that this could be overrated.

 

[Rick Otto]

...unless you adhere to Sola Ecclesia.
The mysteries of tradition.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah the unity of John 17 is one in which the son is in the father and the father is in the son, this unity transcends languange, space, and time ... much like the Kingdom of God.

Is swooning a symptom of transcendence?

 

[Rick Otto]

My point in calling every Protestant his own pope (an observation I wasn't the first and won't be the last to make) is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that rather than look to an external source for guidance on studying Sacred Scripture, Protestants trust in their own judgments and interpretations. A plethora of interpretations has led to a plethora of denominations, some of which are at each other's throats. This cannot be what Our Lord meant when He prayed to God the Father for unity.

Some of my best friends are plethoras.
I miss the diversity of opinion and belief within the Catholic Church.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Is swooning a symptom of transcendence?

No, but this is:

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Is swooning a symptom of transcendence?

But that peace that transcends understanding, that's awesome.

 

[Open Heart]

I think you're assuming what isn't fact. Tithing isn't Oral Torah...it's commanded in the Old Covenant very clearly. Nothing Jesus condemned them for is Oral Torah...it's written in the Law, simply read it

Once again you need to be careful in what you're asserting here! Look at the prelude to what Jesus told them...Matthew 23:1-3:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
The point here is not Oral Torah...but respect for the authority the have...that's why Jesus said "DO NOT DO ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS". Jesus then goes on to say all the things the Pharisees add to the Law from their authority, that are NOT proper. He the qualifies what he says by stating their error...Matthew 23:5-7
5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.
Jesus picks apart their motives...it has NOTHING to do with Oral Torah because He clearly states "they sit in THE CHAIR of Moses". The point being they have the authority of Moses but they aren't even closes to Moses. Moses obeyed God in the theocracy!

Once again Open Heart...you're assuming. I say that ont the basis that Jesus qualifies what He says when He said "DO NOT do according to their deeds". Part of their deeds was their Oral Torah. How about you look up the Oral Torah...and know what it really is?

1. Tithing is part of Torah. However, Torah does not state the specifics. Israel had to go to the Judges to get rulings on exactly how to observe the tithing (per Deuteronomy 17:8-13, God grants the Sanhedrin the authority to interp4et the law). The SPECIFICS of the Spice tax are not in Torah--the Torah never mentions spices. They are found in the rulings of the Judges, aka Oral Torah.

2. Yes, Jesus berates the Pharisees for their hypocrisy--they were not themselves following the law they taught. We are in perfect agreement on this point.

3. However, the fact that the Pharisees were sinners did not take away their teaching authority. They STILL sat on the seat of Moses.

4. I'm reading the verses you quoted from Matthew 23:5-7 and no where does it say they added to the law, or that they were overburdening the people. You have simply heard this over and over from your pastor so many times that you are imagining it in places where it is not. This passage simply chides (and rightly so) the selfish motives of these Pharisees. It doesn't even say they are doing wrong in this passage, only that they are doing good for the wrong reasons.

5. If you wish, look up "bet Hillel" and "bet Shammai," the two schools of Pharisees, and learn more about them. It will help you understand Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees a whole lot more. Bet Hillel taught more the spirit of the Law (Jesus was bet Hillel), while bet Shammai was very strict and legalistic and demanding -- and bet Shammai ruled the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day. If you ever read the Talmud, you would see how perfectly normal it was for the two schools to debate and argue with each other. Jesus' run ins with bet Shammai fit well into this context.

 

[Open Heart]

Really? This our Lord telling them they sin (transgress) against the commandment. "The Commandment" is not Oral Torah...Jesus never mentions Oral Torah...that's your idea. What do you think the BURDENS the Pharisees put on the people are? It's they're interpretation of what they thought the Law really says.

You don't see it because you are not a Jew and don't recognize it. But any Jew reading the Gospel sees Jewish law all over the place. The Gospels are incredibly, incredibly Jewish. Jesus was an observant Jew living in Jewish society where Torah and Oral Torah predominated -- he could not help but talk about Torah and Oral Torah.

 

[SolomonVII]

Some of my best friends are plethoras.
I miss the diversity of opinion and belief within the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is a cafeteria like no other. There is no end to the courses of the meals being served.
And every pope is a plethora. It is amazing to see how the pope's words can be used by Catholics-and with full authenticity too- to support all opposing sides of the same argument.

That is really a great observation really.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more genuine unity and good will expressed by Protestants of the various denominations that there ever will be between Catholics bonded underneath the unity of the same pope.

Experience itself has taught me to take the 'unity in dogma' argument for Catholicism with a grain of salt.

Catholics fight on all sides of all wars. Maybe that has been true historically too, but it most certainly is true in our era.

 

[ebedmelech]

1. Tithing is part of Torah. However, Torah does not state the specifics. Israel had to go to the Judges to get rulings on exactly how to observe the tithing (per Deuteronomy 17:8-13, God grants the Sanhedrin the authority to interp4et the law). The SPECIFICS of the Spice tax are not in Torah--the Torah never mentions spices. They are found in the rulings of the Judges, aka Oral Torah.

With that...I can conclude that you've never read the Torah.

2. Yes, Jesus berates the Pharisees for their hypocrisy--they were not themselves following the law they taught. We are in perfect agreement on this point.

Indeed

3. However, the fact that the Pharisees were sinners did not take away their teaching authority. They STILL sat on the seat of Moses.

"Moses seat" is a position of authority. Read Matthew 16:1-12. Then go alittle further in all the gospels and count the number of time Jesus corrected the teaching of the Pharisees. Obviously you don't understand that is "Oral Torah" which Jesus rejected every time. How many time did Jesus correct them on their error when it came to the Sabbath Day alone?

4. I'm reading the verses you quoted from Matthew 23:5-7 and no where does it say they added to the law, or that they were overburdening the people. You have simply heard this over and over from your pastor so many times that you are imagining it in places where it is not. This passage simply chides (and rightly so) the selfish motives of these Pharisees. It doesn't even say they are doing wrong in this passage, only that they are doing good for the wrong reasons.

What do you think Jesus meant by saying "they put burdens on the people? Those burdens were their "Oral Torah", which added to the written Law of Moses!

5. If you wish, look up "bet Hillel" and "bet Shammai," the two schools of Pharisees, and learn more about them. It will help you understand Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees a whole lot more. Bet Hillel taught more the spirit of the Law (Jesus was bet Hillel), while bet Shammai was very strict and legalistic and demanding -- and bet Shammai ruled the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day. If you ever read the Talmud, you would see how perfectly normal it was for the two schools to debate and argue with each other. Jesus' run ins with bet Shammai fit well into this context.

Trust me...I understand quite well about that. I don't think you do though. Both schools put burdens on the people by their interpretations of the Law...which was quite legalistic.

 

[ebedmelech]

You don't see it because you are not a Jew and don't recognize it. But any Jew reading the Gospel sees Jewish law all over the place. The Gospels are incredibly, incredibly Jewish. Jesus was an observant Jew living in Jewish society where Torah and Oral Torah predominated -- he could not help but talk about Torah and Oral Torah.

I don't have to be a Jew...Matthew Mark, Luke, and John give me a good understanding. Remember? They were there!

 

[Rick Otto]

The Catholic Church is a cafeteria like no other. There is no end to the courses of the meals being served.
And every pope is a plethora. It is amazing to see how the pope's words can be used by Catholics-and with full authenticity too- to support all opposing sides of the same argument.

That is really a great observation really.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more genuine unity and good will expressed by Protestants of the various denominations that there ever will be between Catholics bonded underneath the unity of the same pope.

Experience itself has taught me to take the 'unity in dogma' argument for Catholicism with a grain of salt.

Catholics fight on all sides of all wars. Maybe that has been true historically too, but it most certainly is true in our era.

That's how the bankers plans it.

Well! You honor your forum handle.
And I see you remain Catholic as well.
Do we both favor gallows humor?
I sense deep faith.
One that has survived the obstacle course of religion.
Unity is wherever His name is being gathered under.
You have to watch for it, and keep your wits about, because the ground can shift beneath our feet.
"It is written" has lent weight and permanence until recently anyway. There are rumors of quantum pollution causing changes like "wineskins" changing to "bottles" (as in you can't put new wine into ~) , Now Isaiah has a wolf instead of a lion laying down with the lamb, and God wrote the ten commandments on tables instead of tablets.
It's a subject for the CT forum.

 

[Rick Otto]

You said every protestant was a pope, so as a catholic it is assumed they are considered wrong, so then taking the pattern back to it's root .. is the concept of the pope wrong? But I was half joking.

The assertion can only be taken half seriously.
The serious half is that from a protestant viewpoint, the individual is ultimately responsible for discerning truth.
That a single human man should & could be responsible for defining truth, is an idea born of the need to manage conflict.
That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, but it gives limiting context to its implications and jurisdiction, contrary to the Two Swords doctrine outlined in the papal bull titled Unum Sanctum.
Apologists will limit it's import and deny its legal dimension, but it is in conformance with Roman law, and didn't get formal legal challenge until Martin Luther nailed his thesis.

Way better than anything you can find on TV.

 

[Rick Otto]

With that...I can conclude that you've never read the Torah.

Indeed

"Moses seat" is a position of authority. Read Matthew 16:1-12. Then go alittle further in all the gospels and count the number of time Jesus corrected the teaching of the Pharisees. Obviously you don't understand that is "Oral Torah" which Jesus rejected every time. How many time did Jesus correct them on their error when it came to the Sabbath Day alone?

What do you think Jesus meant by saying "they put burdens on the people? Those burdens were their "Oral Torah", which added to the written Law of Moses!

Trust me...I understand quite well about that. I don't think you do though. Both schools put burdens on the people by their interpretations of the Law...which was quite legalistic.

"Oral Torah" is a phrase that reminds me of "more equal".

 

[Open Heart]

Experience itself has taught me to take the 'unity in dogma' argument for Catholicism with a grain of salt.

And yet it cannot be denied that we have a big thick catechism full of official Catholic doctrine. Even Catholics who choose to disagree know they are disagreeing with official teaching.

 

[SolomonVII]

And yet it cannot be denied that we have a big thick catechism full of official Catholic doctrine. Even Catholics who choose to disagree know they are disagreeing with official teaching.

That is the thing though. Catholics from both sides of the argument quote the pope against each other, and for all appearances, authentically too.
That is the part of my post that you never quoted. It's the inconvenient truth, in the popular lexicon.

"Plethora" really, really describes the reality of bishops metaphorically stabbing bishops in the scramble to the top, all in delightfully perfectl charitable language too.

 

[Open Heart]

With that...I can conclude that you've never read the Torah.

I've grown accustomed to receiving this personal slam when the other person has no reply to my points.