Jesus Held to Sola Scriptura

[Noxot]

So, did Jesus violate the Sabbath by telling the man to pick up is mat?

it depends on who you ask. I would say no. some of the jerks "in charge" would say yes.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Because Moses gave authority to the Priests and Elders to rule on the Law and that they were to be obeyed. So Abraham's appeal to Moses includes this passage in Deuteronomy. Scripture alone was not adequate or there would have been no need for priests and elder to interpret it for the people.

Priests and elders used scripture as their guide. Their authority is meaningless outside of scripture, is it not?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Priests and elders use scripture as their guide. Their authority is meaningless outside of scripture.

Scripture doesn't cover every eventuality. So there is a need for the priests and elders to interpret apply some interpretive principles and to make rulings.

This leads to the question, what are the interpretive principles?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Scripture doesn't cover every eventuality. So there is a need for the priests and elders to interpret apply some interpretive principles and to make rulings.

This leads to the question, what are the interpretive principles?

I agree that elders are to lead the church, but they are never to travel outside the bounds of scripture when doing so. If there did, we could use scripture to rebut them, as Paul did to Peter.

The apostles gave us some examples of interpretive principles.

 

[concretecamper]

What scripture did Paul use to rebuke Peter?

 

[Targaryen]

What scripture did Paul use to rebuke Peter?

I assume he's going to refer to Galatians 2:11, however I've added the full passages from 11 to 21.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’*

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is justified* not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.* And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ,* and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,* who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification* comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

 

[concretecamper]

I assume he's going to refer to Galatians 2:11, however I've added the full passages from 11 to 21.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’*

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is justified* not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.* And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ,* and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,* who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification* comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Do you really think he will try to point to the story in scripture and say Paul used that story in scripture as scriptural support for rebuking Peter?

 

[AarontheStudent]

In Galatians chapter 2, Paul rebuked Peter using the oral teaching of the gospel. Not quite sola scriptura. Jesus isn't recorded as telling his apostles to write the gospel -- he told them to share it by word of mouth, which Paul makes frequent mention of. That doesn't sound very much like Jesus taught sola scriptura to me. The Gospel of Mark wouldn't be written for another 10-20 years after Galatians.

 

[Noxot]

scriptures are important because in some ways they remove the authoritarian nature from others though it might provoke your own faults to be projected on the scriptures as well. so one angel that God sends tells a person this and a different angel that God sends to someone else tells a person that. it does not mean one is wrong and the other is right because God orders all things well and he knows what we each need.

 

[Targaryen]

Do you really think he will try to point to the story in scripture and say Paul used that story in scripture as scriptural support for rebuking Peter?

Probably, given his need to prove sola scriptura is some how established by Scripture itself. But as Aaron points out:

In Galatians chapter 2, Paul rebuked Peter using the oral teaching of the gospel. Not quite sola scriptura. Jesus isn't recorded as telling his apostles to write the gospel -- he told them to share it by word of mouth, which Paul makes frequent mention of. That doesn't sound very much like Jesus taught sola scriptura to me. The Gospel of Mark wouldn't be written for another 10-20 years after Galatians.

It doesn't even sound as if the Disciples relied on Sola Scriptura.

 

[The Times]

What scripture did Paul use to rebuke Peter?

Galatians 2:11–13 says: When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.

Paul used scripture from the mouth of Jesus as follows.....

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Today in the great interfaith ecumenical falling away from the faith instituted by Rome, the priests behind the pulpits desecrate the house of prayer by allowing Hindus and Buddhists to make their intercession with their false gods in the house of the Lord.

Go and look at the ecumenical interfaith gathering on 1987 in Assisi and understand that what I have stated is fact.

The original poster is exposing those priests and religious institutions who have forsaken the Holy Covenant of Christ.

 

[Targaryen]

scriptures are important because in some ways they remove the authoritarian nature from others though it might provoke your own faults to be projected on the scriptures as well. so one angel that God sends tells a person this and a different angel that God sends to someone else tells a person that. it does not mean one is wrong and the other is right because God orders all things well and he knows what we each need.

I don't think anyone hear is debating the necessity for the Scriptures.

 

[Targaryen]

Galatians 2:11–13 says: When Petercame to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.

Paul used scripture from the mouth of Jesus as follows.....

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Today in the great interfaith ecumenical falling away from the faith instituted by Rome, the priests behind the pulpits desecrate the house of prayer by allowing Hindus and Buddhists to make their intercession with their false gods in the house of the Lord.

Go and look at the ecumenical interfaith gathering in 1987 and understand that what I have stated is fact.

The original poster is exposing those priests and religious institutions who have forsaken the Holy Covenant of his Christ.

Where on earth did you get that from when the passage refers to Paul rebuking Peter's behaviour which was splitting the infant Church?

 

[The Times]

Probably, given his need to prove sola scriptura is some how established by Scripture itself. But as Aaron points out:



It doesn't even sound as if the Disciples relied on Sola Scriptura.

Paul used Jesus, who was clearly documented saying those things, that led to hypocritical actions of priests. Peter fell within the hypocritical priests and double standards and Paul caught him in the act and confronted him.

 

[The Times]

Where on earth did you get that from when the passage refers to Paul rebuking Peter's behaviour which was splitting the infant Church?

Go back and study what I have referenced and apply the terms hypocritical and double standard, when it came to the Pharisical religious practices that Jesus hated.

Remember Jesus saying many times to the Pharisees, you hypocrites.

 

[Targaryen]

Ok, and yet Hindus and Buddhists apply to Sola Scriptura biblicly to prove Jesus was Sola Scriptura how?

You see, when you run off on a tangent that has really zero to do with the point, it makes your point look weak.

 

[The Times]

Peter behaved like a hypocritical Pharisee by showing double standards between Jews and Gentiles and Paul caught him in the act and exposed him.

Jesus did the same with the Pharisees as follows.....

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? (Matthew 12)

 

[The Times]

Ok, and yet Hindus and Buddhists apply to Sola Scriptura biblicly to prove Jesus was Sola Scriptura how?

You see, when you run off on a tangent that has really zero to do with the point, it makes your point look weak.

Dont deflect the issue. The context of Matthew 12 also applies to Rome and the interfaith ecumenical gathering in Assisi in 1987. There is a desecration of the Temple by the priests that Jesus clearly condemns and the priests and bishops of Rome are guilty of, in the same charge that Peter and the Pharisees were charged by in Matthew 12...

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

In this regard scripture in what Jesus pointed to the written law, highlights how Romam priests also desecrate God's house of prayer. Peter fell within the same hypocritical and double standard.

The priests are not above the scriptures which are referred to by Jesus as the law.

 

[Noxot]

I don't think anyone hear is debating the necessity for the Scriptures.

right. but they are debating the roles they play and how we are to understand them and where in the dominance hierarchy are they placed relative to other factors in our religion.

I don't think scriptures can be a final authority due to human subjectivity. I think the final authority is what a person accepts, understands, or decides on and of course God.

I could debate the necessity of scripture with scripture. it's not a necessity but it is a really great gift from God and his people.

 

[Targaryen]

Dont deflect the issue. The context of Matthew 12 also applies to Rome and the interfaith ecumenical gathering in Assisi in 1987. There is a desecration of the Temple by the priests that Jesus clearly condemns and the priests and bishops of Rome are guilty of, in the same charge that Peter and the Pharisees were charged by in Matthew 12...

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

In this regard scripture in what Jesus pointed to the written law, highlights how Romam priests also desecrate God's house of prayer. Peter fell within the same hypocritical and double standard.

The priests are not above the scriptures which are referred to by Jesus as the law.

I'm not "deflecting" the issue. I'm telling you, that your point has ZERO relevance to this thread and is therefore also a weak point to make cause of that. And frankly, IMO is no better then most of the tin-hat nonsense spewed out by heterodoxers.