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

[Meowzltov]

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!

If you understood Pharisaical politics, Jesus' comments would make more sense. It wasn't all the Pharisees that Jesus was referring to, but one very specific group: the school of Shammai, which was incredibly legalistic and DID interpret Torah in ways that were burdensome to people. These interpretations were not old enough to be considered Oral Torah. And in fact Judaism rejected them. The other, school of Hillel, was easier going in their interpretations and more in tune with the spirit of the laws.

When you compare the teachings of Jesus to Hillel, you will find them almost identical. So just as the two schools argued with one another over how to interpret Torah, so Jesus joined into that debate. All his encounters with the Pharisees need to be understood under this umbrella of the contest between the two schools for how to interpret Torah.

But these were not debates about Oral Torah. The schools had only been around for about 30 years. Hillel lived from 110 BC to 10 AD and many scholars say he would have been head of the Sanhedrin when Jesus visited the Temple in Jerusalem. Shammai lived from 50 BC to 30 AD. He would have died just before Jesus started his ministry.

 

[Meowzltov]

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

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not books about Judaism. They don't give all the cultural and political background that give context to what they wrote.

 

[Meowzltov]

That is the thing though. Catholics from both sides of the argument quote the pope against each other, and for all appearances, authentically too.

Not on things that are resolved.

When Progressives bring up their issues with women in the priesthood and the like, they are not quoting former popes (there are none who agree). Progressives know what the Magisterium teaches, but they consider their own consciences to be their real Magisteriums.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

And this all reflects on what?
The laity? The clergy? Both? All of it?

 

[ebedmelech]

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

This is not a slam Open Heart, it's a fact. You demonstrated it with your response. God is very specific about tithing in the Law. I encourage you to investigate that from the Law.

If you understood Pharisaical politics, Jesus' comments would make more sense. It wasn't all the Pharisees that Jesus was referring to, but one very specific group: the school of Shammai, which was incredibly legalistic and DID interpret Torah in ways that were burdensome to people. These interpretations were not old enough to be considered Oral Torah. And in fact Judaism rejected them. The other, school of Hillel, was easier going in their interpretations and more in tune with the spirit of the laws.

When you compare the teachings of Jesus to Hillel, you will find them almost identical. So just as the two schools argued with one another over how to interpret Torah, so Jesus joined into that debate. All his encounters with the Pharisees need to be understood under this umbrella of the contest between the two schools for how to interpret Torah.

But these were not debates about Oral Torah. The schools had only been around for about 30 years. Hillel lived from 110 BC to 10 AD and many scholars say he would have been head of the Sanhedrin when Jesus visited the Temple in Jerusalem. Shammai lived from 50 BC to 30 AD. He would have died just before Jesus started his ministry.

You can buy into such thinking if you wish...but Jesus wasn't concerned with "personal politics", or schools of thought Open Heart! That's the first thing that shows why you respond the way you do. You've bought into explanation that isn't in scripture. What Jesus came to do was clearly stated by Luke 4:18, 19:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed,
19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

Do you realize what Jesus is saying there? I'm not being condescending with you either. I encourage you to think about that and not buy into the view of what Jesus was doing you have. It's not about Shammai nor Hillel...it was setting people free from their burdensome religious teaching to a true relationship with God. Though there's *some* truth in what you say of those two schools of thought, they were not Jesus concern. What Jesus was doing was pointing out their error for their benefit to help them see how far from God they had gotten. They were about self righteousness...so much so that they were blind to what Jesus was saying.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not books about Judaism. They don't give all the cultural and political background that give context to what they wrote.

Really? When did Jesus institute the New Covenant...or does that matter? Jesus obeyed the Old Covenant, fulfilling it by being obedient to every command of God in it. He then instituted the New Covenant and laid His life down.

In doing so He practiced "Judaism" to the nth degree...and Matthew, Mark. Luke, and John are trying to point that out. If I encourage you to rethink that.

 

[Meowzltov]

And this all reflects on what?
The laity? The clergy? Both? All of it?

It testifies to the unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Meowzltov]

This is not a slam Open Heart, it's a fact. You demonstrated it with your response. God is very specific about tithing in the Law. I encourage you to investigate that from the Law.

Please quote the chapter and verse in the Torah where God specifies the tithe of "tithe of mint and anise and cummin," but not i.e. caraway or nutmeg.

 

[SolomonVII]

Not on things that are resolved.

When Progressives bring up their issues with women in the priesthood and the like, they are not quoting former popes (there are none who agree). Progressives know what the Magisterium teaches, but they consider their own consciences to be their real Magisteriums.

I have not seen a single issue which is not a bitter controversy amongst Catholics.
Many once thought that a lot of the issues that were resolved post JPII were resolved forever.
Now everything is open once more.

 

[Meowzltov]

I have not seen a single issue which is not a bitter controversy amongst Catholics.

Let's start with the Nicene Creed that Catholics recite at every Mass--all these issues are resolved:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[ebedmelech]

Please quote the chapter and verse in the Torah where God specifies the tithe of "tithe of mint and anise and cummin," but not i.e. caraway or nutmeg.

One is to tithe from their increase Open Heart. Do you forget that during that time much of peoples income were from agriculture and bartering? One's increase didn't always involve money, but trade...and much of it was in the form of spices too. Whatever the increase one was to tithe from it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One is to tithe from their increase Open Heart. Do you forget that during that time much of peoples income were from agriculture and bartering? One's increase didn't always involve money, but trade...and much of it was in the form of spices too. Whatever the increase one was to tithe from it.

So then, people in debt are exempt.

 

[Meowzltov]

One is to tithe from their increase Open Heart. Do you forget that during that time much of peoples income were from agriculture and bartering? One's increase didn't always involve money, but trade...and much of it was in the form of spices too. Whatever the increase one was to tithe from it.

The Oral Torah was that one tithed the dill, cumin, and mint, and not any of the other spices. That is NOT what is specified in Torah. Jesus backed this up in Matthew 23:23

 

[ebedmelech]

The Oral Torah was that one tithed the dill, cumin, and mint, and not any of the other spices. That is NOT what is specified in Torah. Jesus backed this up in Matthew 23:23

No. That's what you think...and why you have this hang-up on the "Oral Torah" is beyond me...because it bore NO weight with Jesus. Don't you realize much of what Jesus railed on the Pharisees about is Oral Torah? That was because they added to what God said!

What's specified in the Torah is tithing from "produce"...now dill, cummin and mint is produce (obviously someone grew it. Now...take it a step further and understand it was brought to the priests...who was awarded a portion of all the people brought and they had to tithe from what they received.

Tithing was spices, wheat, olives, grapes, barley, salt, wine,...you can go on and on...but you tithed on whatever brought income!!!

 

[Basil the Great]

The experts claim that Matthew was especially written from a Jewish perspective.

 

[Meowzltov]

What's specified in the Torah is tithing from "produce"...now dill, cummin and mint is produce

Don't you think nutmeg and caraway aren't also produce? And yet they were't tithed. The ONLY spices that were tithed were dill cumin and mint.

 

[SolomonVII]

Let's start with the Nicene Creed that Catholics recite at every Mass--all these issues are resolved:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is what everybody in the Christian only part of these forums adhere to, some more literally than others too.
Catholics are all across the range of belief on these non-negotiables too, probably even more so between ourselves than is the case of Protestants among themselves.
All that means, in terms of fellowship, is that Catholics will find more authentic unity of spirit and belief between other like-minded Protestants than they will find amongst themselves.

And does not the actual fellowship, the actual, authentic meeting of minds and hearts, mean even more than 'book' unity?
If the unity brought to Catholics through the catechism is to be of any practical purpose, if it was a real unity of purpose and intent, wouldn't that be at least as important as sharing the same words vocalized together?
Is the love that we profess but do not experience really even love?

That is a real problem in the oft-stated belief among Catholics that the unchangeable, immalleable Church teaching is what set the Catholic Church apart. It is not just that everybody interprets the pope differently and in effect become their own pope in that way, but it is the pretense that we are all believing the same thing, when we know that we are not, that turns things particularly malicious.

 

[Victor E.]

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

Well this is an interesting claim, for an interesting discussion. I believe it is overrated but only overrated to a specific understanding of Scripture. While Scripture is the objective authority, I believe it is so objective that it can be a hindrance to a liberal discussion. To elaborate, I believe liberal discussion in the freedom that was granted through Christ is restrained the moment someone brings up Scripture to "correct" a claim. The atmosphere can "change" to that of a theological one instead of that of a spiritual one. Personally, I speak for myself, I believe I was restrained by a religious spirit for years, until I finally realized...I don't have to grow to be like other people in my personal relationship with the Lord.

I will list a prophetic word I was given by 2 people tonight in communion that I wasn't expecting for an example. One said they saw a turtle and the turtle was me. "You grow in solitude and you can retract into your home to grow spiritually but even in communion you can choose at will to bring your home with you to share with others whenever you want" another was just a simple word saying they saw the word "humble" and wanted to validate this to me. I haven't received honoring words like this for a long time and the Lord laid it on the hearts of two people who didn't even know me very well (one of which I have never seen in person) to honor me with those prophetic words).

I feel the main issue with sharing things of this nature (what appears to be "spiritual braggadocio") is simply boasting in Truth in what the Lord is capable of accomplishing in our life without us having to talk about it. Our actions speak for themselves. Even if it takes a very long time for someone to honor us for that...this secret work we do is not in vain and will eventually be brought to light, but not by us.

It seems harder to boast about the cool things because I feel many have yet to get past that point where everything one might say appears...arrogant and prideful. It's all boasting about what God can do in someone's life but the sensuous/carnal mind doesn't want to accept that. It wants to live by "Sola Scriptura". I will say that Scripture is very important, it's the foundation on which we build our Spirituality but there is a point I believe where it's possible to just speak things from the Spirit in liberty because no one around us will be caused to stumble in faith. Where everyone has an extensive command of Scripture already and all of that theological "stuff" goes without saying.

In conclusion, I want to validate your claim that "Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we" but at the same time I believe it's important to conform to a different understanding so we can be intelligible from a Scriptural basis which is what is generally "acceptable". Also, I believe too much Spirituality "can" be detrimental. It's important to be able to connect effectively in communion if they can't understand through words alone, SHOW them what it means to walk in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. Love in action and DO. Typically conforming to tradition for the purpose of communion guidance is advisable but we do as we feel led by the Spirit and I don't see that turning out badly with a high relationship of Spiritual discernment in Christ.

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits." Hebrews 6:1-3

"if God permits."

Every member has a part to play. The five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4:11-16

"And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Christ Himself, who is the head. From Him the whole body is fitted and held together by every supporting ligament. And as each individual part does its work, the body grows and builds itself up in love."

To be a child of God who understands nothing is to be a child of God who understands...everything. I believe this is a spiritual journey that is not over until it is...over.

I believe teachers will never stray from Sola Scriptura because that was their calling of servitude in Christ. It is also possible that they will never put any credence into modern prophets or apostles.

1 Corinthians 9:1-18 (did Bible study on it tonight in communion) sheds light onto Paul giving up his "rights" in order so others won't be able to disqualify him from what he preaches in the gospel. It was all to be an example for the sake of the gospel of the Word. He sums it up in verse 18.

"So what is my reward? It is to spread the Good News free of charge. In that way I won’t use the rights that belong to those who spread the Good News" 1 Corinthians 9:18. This appears to have subtly vexed him throughout all of his writings. This is all merely personal speculation.

 

[Rick Otto]

It testifies to the unity of the Catholic Church.

That's one word for it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well this is an interesting claim, for an interesting discussion. I believe it is overrated but only overrated to a specific understanding of Scripture. While Scripture is the objective authority, I believe it is so objective that it can be a hindrance to a liberal discussion. To elaborate, I believe liberal discussion in the freedom that was granted through Christ is restrained the moment someone brings up Scripture to "correct" a claim. The atmosphere can "change" to that of a theological one instead of that of a spiritual one. Personally, I speak for myself, I believe I was restrained by a religious spirit for years, until I finally realized...I don't have to grow to be like other people in my personal relationship with the Lord.

I will list a prophetic word I was given by 2 people tonight in communion that I wasn't expecting for an example. One said they saw a turtle and the turtle was me. "You grow in solitude and you can retract into your home to grow spiritually but even in communion you can choose at will to bring your home with you to share with others whenever you want" another was just a simple word saying they saw the word "humble" and wanted to validate this to me. I haven't received honoring words like this for a long time and the Lord laid it on the hearts of two people who didn't even know me very well (one of which I have never seen in person) to honor me with those prophetic words).

I feel the main issue with sharing things of this nature (what appears to be "spiritual braggadocio") is simply boasting in Truth in what the Lord is capable of accomplishing in our life without us having to talk about it. Our actions speak for themselves. Even if it takes a very long time for someone to honor us for that...this secret work we do is not in vain and will eventually be brought to light, but not by us.

It seems harder to boast about the cool things because I feel many have yet to get past that point where everything one might say appears...arrogant and prideful. It's all boasting about what God can do in someone's life but the sensuous/carnal mind doesn't want to accept that. It wants to live by "Sola Scriptura". I will say that Scripture is very important, it's the foundation on which we build our Spirituality but there is a point I believe where it's possible to just speak things from the Spirit in liberty because no one around us will be caused to stumble in faith. Where everyone has an extensive command of Scripture already and all of that theological "stuff" goes without saying.

In conclusion, I want to validate your claim that "Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we" but at the same time I believe it's important to conform to a different understanding so we can be intelligible from a Scriptural basis which is what is generally "acceptable". Also, I believe too much Spirituality "can" be detrimental. It's important to be able to connect effectively in communion if they can't understand through words alone, SHOW them what it means to walk in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. Love in action and DO. Typically conforming to tradition for the purpose of communion guidance is advisable but we do as we feel led by the Spirit and I don't see that turning out badly with a high relationship of Spiritual discernment in Christ.

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits." Hebrews 6:1-3

"if God permits."

Every member has a part to play. The five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4:11-16

"And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Christ Himself, who is the head. From Him the whole body is fitted and held together by every supporting ligament. And as each individual part does its work, the body grows and builds itself up in love."

To be a child of God who understands nothing is to be a child of God who understands...everything. I believe this is a spiritual journey that is not over until it is...over.

I believe teachers will never stray from Sola Scriptura because that was their calling of servitude in Christ. It is also possible that they will never put any credence into modern prophets or apostles.

1 Corinthians 9:1-18 (did Bible study on it tonight in communion) sheds light onto Paul giving up his "rights" in order so others won't be able to disqualify him from what he preaches in the gospel. It was all to be an example for the sake of the gospel of the Word. He sums it up in verse 18.

"So what is my reward? It is to spread the Good News free of charge. In that way I won’t use the rights that belong to those who spread the Good News" 1 Corinthians 9:18. This appears to have subtly vexed him throughout all of his writings. This is all merely personal speculation.

Some good insights.
Basically, too much of a good thing is not a good thing.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is what everybody in the Christian only part of these forums adhere to, some more literally than others too.
Catholics are all across the range of belief on these non-negotiables too, probably even more so between ourselves than is the case of Protestants among themselves.
All that means, in terms of fellowship, is that Catholics will find more authentic unity of spirit and belief between other like-minded Protestants than they will find amongst themselves.

And does not the actual fellowship, the actual, authentic meeting of minds and hearts, mean even more than 'book' unity?
If the unity brought to Catholics through the catechism is to be of any practical purpose, if it was a real unity of purpose and intent, wouldn't that be at least as important as sharing the same words vocalized together?
Is the love that we profess but do not experience really even love?

That is a real problem in the oft-stated belief among Catholics that the unchangeable, immalleable Church teaching is what set the Catholic Church apart. It is not just that everybody interprets the pope differently and in effect become their own pope in that way, but it is the pretense that we are all believing the same thing, when we know that we are not, that turns things particularly malicious.

Indeed.
Forgiveness is too often sacrificed for self righteousness.