Jesus Held to Sola Scriptura

[AarontheStudent]

Show me.

Addressed earlier in the thread:
"Good point about Enoch. Jesus may have quoted from it himself. In this example he may even have called it scripture:
"Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30, NRSV)

"But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven." Enoch 19 :6-7

The passage from Enoch is talking about the angels."

If Jesus in fact was quoting from Enoch and referring to it as scripture, there's a problem here: Enoch includes some doctrines we would have to conclude, from using other scriptures, are false.

The only way to reconcile this is Jesus did not teach sola scriptura, but that he is the ultimate authority.

 

[Targaryen]

How can one comment on if Christ applied SS if there has already been a demonstration most here have an incomplete understanding of SS?

Cause simply put, among a certain section of Protestants, there are varying ideas about what Sola Scriptura is.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jesus was authority unto himself, being the very word of God and all. Sola Scriptura as practiced by Protestants today cannot apply to Jesus any more than saying Jesus held to a traditional Christian perspective because he experiences authority differently than the rest of us.

It makes more sense to ask if the Apostles held to Sola Scriptura or if the early Church held to Sola Scriptura. As for why I don't, that I don't think sola Scriptura solves the problem of interpretation and authority. It's one extreme of individualism which cannot sustain unity or cohesion within Christianity.

 

[Alithis]

Jesus held to the idea that He was the ultimate authority for the believer.

Even the crowds He taught to recognized this:



When Christ said that "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing," it was not due to having read that conclusion.

Furthermore, how could He possibly justify Himself as "Lord of the Sabbath" if he held scripture alone to be the ultimate authority?

His own word is ultimate authority.

 

[The Times]

Which means His spoken Words became Holy Scriptures.

That's why the Gospel writers wrote His words down.

Yes that is right! Scripture is the biography of our Crowned Monarch Jesus and his binding instructions, that are to be considered as commandments, the very law and the very prophets of the constitution of the commonwealth of Israel.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Because the discussion isn't "Is sola scriptura right?"; rather, the discussion is an unsubstantiated claim that Jesus adhered to it.

Jesus submitted Himself to scripture countless times. If you have never read the New Testament, I can list list them for you, otherwise, you would easily understand that.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery. They reminded him the law stated she must be stoned to death.
Why did Jesus not respond, according to what was written:
Stone her to death

Because they hadn't fulfilled the requirements of the Law. BOTH parties were to be stoned. Also, the Law does not authorize vigilantism. There is no indication in the story that the courts had been involved at all. The courts were the only party authorized to decree death. See Deuteronomy 17.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Because then they would have to follow the word and lay down their phony titles and false authority.

I suppose that when one hold to a presupposition over God's word, He will in fact "turn them over". He will give them what they want, which is not His word, but a system.

 

[The Times]

The Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery. They reminded him the law stated she must be stoned to death.
Why did Jesus not respond, according to what was written:
Stone her to death

Oh, I don't believe how you spelled it out so beautifully in the opposite to what the context is.

Listen friend, what did Jesus do?

The Pharisees said...

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Jesus wrote scripture on the ground to be regarded as law in proper as follows....

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

He ratified the law by instruction of what he asked, that the Pharisees were no longer able to question him in regards to the law of Moses..

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Jesus played the defendants barrister and defended the written law whilst clearing up the interpretations of the law, which states that sinners cannot cast stone on sinners.

He wrote the law of scripture on the ground and defended the sinner using the law of Moses. Do you understand what you have revealed?

 

[The Times]

Because they hadn't fulfilled the requirements of the Law. BOTH parties were to be stoned. Also, the Law does not authorize vigilantism. There is no indication in the story that the courts had been involved at all. The courts were the only party authorized to decree death. See Deuteronomy 17.

So Jesus wrote the law on the ground and interpreted it for the Pharisees, revealing to then that they had no authority to stone a sinner.

This is case in point that Jesus acted as the woman's barrister and refuted the accusations on the basis of the technicality of the law whilst always upholding the law. I love it how people set their own traps. Good point you made.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"Jesus held to the idea that scripture, not church office-holder, "

WHERE did you get this? Well when Jesus walked this earth..there was no Church. And then "Jesus held the idea"?

I've read the NT many times. Have you? Jesus breathes scripture, and He looks to it as authoritative. A plain reading of the gospels would cure anyone of another ideas.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So Jesus wrote the law on the ground and interpreted it for the Pharisees, revealing to then that they had no authority to stone a sinner.

This is case in point that Jesus acted as the woman's barrister and refuted the accusations on the basis of the technicality of the law whilst always upholding the law. I love it how people set their own traps. Good point you made.

Yes. And now, He acts as our barrister. He does not plead for mercy for those who put their trust in Him. He pleads for justice. He stands in our defense, and reminds the court that the debt has been pain in full. Justice cannot demand double payment for the same offense.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So Jesus wrote the law on the ground and interpreted it for the Pharisees, revealing to then that they had no authority to stone a sinner.

This is case in point that Jesus acted as the woman's barrister and refuted the accusations on the basis of the technicality of the law whilst always upholding the law. I love it how people set their own traps. Good point you made.

We don't know what Jesus wrote on the ground. John 7 and 8 indicate that it was at or near the Feast of Tabernacles when this took place. Notice the reference to 'living water.' According to the Mishnah, 'living water' was drawn from the Gihon spring and poured on the altar in the Temple during the Feast. Now, notice this passage in Jeremiah and see how it may connect to the episode of Jesus writing on the ground:

Jeremiah 17:12 A glorious throne, [set] on high from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary. 13 O Jehovah, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be put to shame. They that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken Jehovah, the fountain of living waters.

 

[The Times]

The real question is: why would Jesus teach sola scriptura to a largely illiterate audience?

The apostles themselves were mostly illiterate. He taught them to spread the gospel through word of mouth.

Whether word of mouth or scripture, the documents are those to which the word of mouth refers to in the first place.

Jesus is the same God of the Old Testament who would give this example....

The rich man answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16)

The Holy Writ is the Law (Moses) and the Prophets, whether you read it or hear it.
The control document still exists on some form of media.

Here is Jesus declaring it for the layman...

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. (Rev 1:3)

This Holy Writ is the Law and the Prophets, do you people understand. Look regardless of whether you accept, but do you understand?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Whether word of mouth or scripture, the documents are those to which the word of mouth refers to in the first place.

Jesus is the same God of the Old Testament who would give this example....

The rich man answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16)

The Holy Writ is the Law (Moses) and the Prophets, whether you read it or hear it.
The control document still exists on some form of media.

Here is Jesus declaring it for the layman...

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. (Rev 1:3)

This Holy Writ is the Law and the Prophets, do you people understand. Look regardless of whether you accept, but do you understand?

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16)

 

[The Times]

We don't know what Jesus wrote on the ground. John 7 and 8 indicate that it was at or near the Feast of Tabernacles when this took place. Notice the reference to 'living water.' According to the Mishnah, 'living water' was drawn from the Gihon spring and poured on the altar in the Temple during the Feast. Now, notice this passage in Jeremiah and see how it may connect to the episode of Jesus writing on the ground:

Jeremiah 17:12 A glorious throne, [set] on high from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary. 13 O Jehovah, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be put to shame. They that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken Jehovah, the fountain of living waters.

We know that Jesus came to the defence of the woman, after the Pharisees put him in a position of advocate of the law, as a rabbi, right?

Knowing this, Jesus would write on the ground the interpretation of the law of Moses in two parts, a statement and a response. Therefore Jesus took the position of Barrister and asked a probing question to the Pharisees.

The question was to do with the technicality of the law, that would allow the woman a pardon through the response, that those Pharisees Jesus knew had shady pasts and he used it against them, which is why they had no response, for if they did respond it would incriminate them as breakers of the law. So Jesus wrote the response to the statement which relates to no sinner can condemn another sinner as far as the law of Moses is concerned. What he wrote on the ground, is what the interpretation of the law of Moses is and those Pharisees standing there knew exactly what he was writing, because he did so in front of their eyes. They certainly were not illiterate and could understand the parts of the law that Jesus referred to. What Jesus did is what a Barrister would do when referring to the specific clauses of the law and their implications. The Pharisees would not have left Jesus without an answer or a quarrel, if he did not confront them and correct them on the issue of the law itself.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Oh, I don't believe how you spelled it out so beautifully in the opposite to what the context is.

Listen friend, what did Jesus do?

The Pharisees said...

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Jesus wrote scripture on the ground to be regarded as law in proper as follows....

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

He ratified the law by instruction of what he asked, that the Pharisees were no longer able to question him in regards to the law of Moses..

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Jesus played the defendants barrister and defended the written law whilst clearing up the interpretations of the law, which states that sinners cannot cast stone on sinners.

He wrote the law of scripture on the ground and defended the sinner using the law of Moses. Do you understand what you have revealed?

I guess I'm just a bit slow. I thought Jesus simply invoked, what he termed one of the higher points of the law:
Mercy
Matt23:23

 

[The Times]

I guess I'm a bit slow. I thought Jesus simply invoked, what he termed one of the higher points of the law:
Mercy
Matt23:23

No friend, he was dealing with Pharisees of the law and they would not have left him so quickly without confrontation, unless Jesus had the dirt on them, by pointing the technicalities of the law. This reveals that those Pharisees were shady characters and they knew that Jesus knew and they put their tails between their legs and fled in a hurry, before they would be incriminated.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Matt23:23

You glossed over a bit:

"justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

“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.

Mercy is not the lowering of the law. It is the just application of the law.

 

[The Times]

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16)

Jesus gave that scenario, whilst confirming the importance of Holy Writ to the living.