Kosta50, if anyone’s hold here should be considered tenuous it would be yours.
No one is forcing you to post to me. I merely reminded you to stop using personally disparaging remarks (such as "you seem incapable" or "your narrow-minded denigrations") with someone you choose to debate.
I don't go around making personal comments about you capabilities or lack therefor, or your narrow-mindedness even if I thing you are. You believe the Bible and I don't, so stop quoting it to me unless you are prepared to allow me to respond without classifying it as "denigration."
This is one of your retreats into formalism which you have resorted to before.
Well, this is your retreat to "lableism," which you have resorted to before. What I said is that the disciples were sent to proclaim the good news and not to engage in theological lectures. They were supposedly simple fisherman after all.
And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm,
Who says?
and which Jesus Christ implicitly affirmed, and even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (LK. 24:25-27)
There are numerous sites, to use your argument, that shown that there is nothing written about Jesus in the OT, but that it is a Christian innovation.
He expected them to eventually write down what they had seen and heard, and to promote fluency in the Scriptures.
Where did he command them to write anything down and to promote "fluency in the Scriptures"?
[That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Christ never said what Paul said] That is irrelevant as regards Rome's opposition to private interpretation, which was the issue, as she affirms the opposite of what you oppose.
You have this fixation with Rome, and I don't understand why you keep referencing it to me. I already told you that private interpretation leads to relative morality, that every individual creates his own "theology." That's why you have endless denominations and interpretations and no one is of the same mind as they are supposed to be. Something's wrong with private interpretation. Jesus never promoted it., so why should Christians? Because Paul said so. But Paul is no Christ.
Kosta50, if anyone’s hold here should be considered tenuous it would be yours.
No one is forcing you to post to me. I merely reminded you to stop using personally disparaging remarks (such as "you seem incapable" or "your narrow-minded denigrations") with someone you choose to debate.
I don't go around making personal comments about you capabilities or lack therefor, or your narrow-mindedness even if I thing you are. You believe the Bible and I don't, so stop quoting it to me unless you are prepared to allow me to respond without classifying it as "denigration."
You are warning about disparaging remarks? You excel at them as the evidence shows, while my question, “as you do seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations..why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?” was well-justified as that is your propensity even if one attempts a civil discussion which touches on the integrity of the Bible or Protestantism.
This is one of your retreats into formalism which you have resorted to before.
Well, this is your retreat to "lableism," which you have resorted to before. What I said is that the disciples were sent to proclaim the good news and not to engage in theological lectures. They were supposedly simple fisherman after all.
It is neither a retreat nor a need, as you look for an explicit command to the apostles to write down the gospel, and suppose that the commission to preach the gospel precluded writing the message down so that common people could read it. Yet Jesus obviously affirmed the practice of writing Divine revelation, and tutored his unlettered disciples by them, and commanded them to teach others, and there is more than one way to preach.
In addition, the issue was about the basis for Rome's rejection of private interpretation, and she bases her doctrine on more than the gospels, while you reject accepts 2Tim. 3 as being inspired by the Spirit of Christ. Your argument that it is “clear” based upon silence that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read is simply unreasonable.
And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm,
Who says?
Do you mean who says it cannot be permitted? That is apparent by your rejection of the warrant for it versus an argument from silence and restricting preaching to only being orally. As for who says that was the norm to write Divine revelation, below are references on Scripture being written and having been so. And while there some evidence of revelation being not written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4) it is interesting that i find no place where the specific term “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to revelation for which the content was not subsequently written down. Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Refs to Scripture in the New Testament: Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:4; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2; 7:3; 9:12,13; 10:5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 2:17; 5:39,46,47; 6:31,45; 7:42,52; 8:17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33; 15:15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; 24:14; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 10:7; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)
and which Jesus Christ implicitly affirmed, and even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (Lk. 24:25-27)
There are numerous sites, to use your argument, that shown that there is nothing written about Jesus in the OT, but that it is a Christian innovation.
That issue is another thread, while the argument was your assertion that 2Pt. 1:20 forbade PI, and Rome's restriction on it, with interpretation being restricted to the magisterium.
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
..even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (LK. 24:25-27) that He expected them to eventually write down what they had seen and heard, and to promote fluency in the Scriptures.
Where did he command them to write anything down and to promote "fluency in the Scriptures"?
In context, i was referring to the unreasonable nature of your disallowing this as a conclusion based upon the established pattern which He implicitly affirmed. Jesus often invoked Scripture from the beginning of His ministry to the end, which He would not have had the texts unless it was the practice to write it, and He specifically opened up the minds of the disciples to the understanding of the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:45) If they were to follow Jesus, they would have done likewise. And in the rest of the New Testament, which the Church of Rome accepts, it shows that writing of Divine revelation continued as a pattern.
[That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Christ never said what Paul said] That is irrelevant as regards Rome's opposition to private interpretation, which was the issue, as she affirms the opposite of what you oppose.
You have this fixation with Rome, and I don't understand why you keep referencing it to me.
Fixation? Your assertion that Protestants are to submit to Rome as being the authority over Scripture was how this exchange began and was primarily about, only to have you reject her definition of inspiration, etc.
I already told you that private interpretation leads to relative morality, that every individual creates his own "theology." That's why you have endless denominations and interpretations and no one is of the same mind as they are supposed to be. Something's wrong with private interpretation.
Actually, the things which Catholics must give assent to faith in corresponds to the core essentials evangelicals most universally consent to, while very little all of the Bible has been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church, and they can have varying degrees of disagreement on non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums. And as there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, there is disagreement upon all of which ones are. This is pointed out by the Orthodox.
Related to this, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
Moreover, Rome's official doctrinal unity is not necessarily greater than that of any single Protestant denomination. And if doctrinal conformity is the real goal itself, then the Watchtower Society would have the preeminence. And in this case the means of such unity is by implicit trust in an ecclesiastical office, versus men being persuaded by “manifestation of the truth.” The former means has greater quantity, while I would submit of the latter is of greater quality, however more rare it may be. Meanwhile, the basic unity the among evangelicals, which is manifest in many ways, is overall greater than the divisions among them, however deleterious they are.
Jesus never promoted it., so why should Christians?
Jesus appealed to man's reasoning as a means of discerning spiritual meaning, including from Scripture, from the fallible Pharisees to the common people (Mk. 12:36,37) to his disciples, (search refs above), and Rome actually realizes this this appeal is valid and necessary in bringing people to submit to Rome. However, once they have they are discouraged from objectively using it in order to ascertain the validity of her infallible teachings.
Because Paul said so. But Paul is no Christ.
Well again, since it is Rome's restriction that is at issue, and she accepts the plenary inspiration of all Scripture, and derives her doctrine from more than the Gospels, this must be included.