Biblical Authority

[JohnDB]

All of this is true. I was focusing on the distinction between the Masoratic vs the LXX that often shows up in catholic apologetics. I have yet to have anyone mention the BHS even though it is the underlying OT text of most modern bibles.

The New American Bible (NAB) is a specifically catholic translation that I have never heard of being in print without the Apocrypha. All versions of the NAB by definition are "CE". I think you may be thinking of the NAB-RE which is the latest revision though there is another forthcoming revision due out in the next few years.
I am aware that American catholics are different especially from those hailing from the global south.

I am not sure what you think I am denigrating.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally are denigrating Catholics....it comes up often enough that it needed to be said. And the Catholics I've met in Europe can vary widely from region to region....all depending upon their leadership. Those in Eastern Europe vx those in Western Europe are different from those in South America. I haven't been to Africa yet so I don't know about them.

The NAB isn't solely a Catholic translation. The Jerusalem Bible is..... well at least the copy I have is...it has all sorts of notes like a study bible that are decidedly Catholic in origin.

The Catholics tried to make a Bible from the various Latin Vulgate manuscripts....it again was highly unpopular. There exists two LXX translations. The ones before Jerome and the ones after. Jerome compiled a more accurate LXX himself. (It eventually became the Latin Vulgate) Because the dedication to accuracy wasn't there. Masoretics spent a lifetime being accurate. It was(still is) their whole job. As the scriptures proliferated around the world with various individuals all creating their own personal copies....the dedication to exacting accuracy wasn't there among the various continents. Phylacteries are still made by hand today with hand transcribed scriptures on vellum. (The process is fascinating) Torah and Tenakhs can also be purchased today that are completely hand transcribed.....but we are talking about a LOT of money. I go with the Goyim printed versions.

The huge rift between Christians and Jews kinda kept this from happening.

 

[GodsGrace]

It doesn't require a scholar....
Look at this whole concept of what you just learned about Jesus's statement "I am the Light of the world" not very scholarly...simple and easy to grasp.
BUT
what it does require is someone to be more interested in expositional teaching instead of exegetical morality lessons. The modern churches do not do this....and try with all their cunning to make the scriptures seem too difficult for anyone but a scholar (like themselves) to study. Sure they may say "Read the Bible" but their behavior says, "Come to me for what it means because you aren't a scholar".
Kinda insulting IMHO.

I think of expositional teaching to be the same as exegeting a verse.
In order to exegete a verse, I have to go back and read what came before and what came after in order to get context.
Never thought about whether exegeting a verse is always a morality lesson or not. Guess you're saying that it's not.

I don't know what churches are teaching anymore these days. It's like they're afraid of speaking the clear truth. Topics are danced around and nothing is ever clearly stated. Divorce is rampant, even here, and I NEVER hear the priest at my church or any priest speak about this except in private. Why I wonder? The pews are empty anyway and I do believe the young generation (those interested) are looking for guidance in a world they don't understand. I don't think they're getting this from church.

I was teaching a Communion class (4th grade) a few years ago and told the kids they had to dress a certain way when going to church and ESPECIALLY when going up to receive communion. I told the priest I was going to do this because none of the other catechists ever did this. He said OK, but he also commented that we're happy to just have them attend Mass. Fluff. We have to get away from the fluff.
I thought to call it that....I don't know how else to call it.

When was the last time someone had a Hermeneutics class as a small group which explained resources and expositional guides like an atlas, dictionaries, theological dictionaries, history books, types of Concordances, and etc?

Had to giggle at the above.
Many many years ago (40?) when I became Christian I went out and bought all the study tools you mentioned above. Of course I used to read a lot back then. Now they're sitting on a shelf....everything I need is online and, to be honest, it makes my work easier (preparing lessons).
But yes, agreed.

What are some common mistakes in logic and symbolic understandings?

This would be interesting.
Hope it's in your book.

A REAL way for someone to study for themselves as an average person and not a PhD....also one that doesn't insult your intelligence by being so juvenile or have you follow predetermined paths that lead to predetermined outcomes. Sure, it includes the scholarly stuff...but also a caution. It is an exercise in spinning plates on sticks.

Well....that course is currently in development by my wife and I. Beta readers in January. User acceptance testing and feedback questionnaires. first classes? Dunno, but when it's done they will be thoroughly examined, tested, and questioned.
Publishing will be before first classes by vanity presses and afterwards? Maybe by someone else. 50-250 copies are not cheap.

It's time to stop getting our morality from the pulpits and instead straight from the source.

Ha! I don't know that we're getting it from anywhere.
The AofG seem to have their act together.
(but I feel disconnected from a lot since I've been here so long).

 

[GodsGrace]

I wasn't suggesting that you personally are denigrating Catholics....it comes up often enough that it needed to be said. And the Catholics I've met in Europe can vary widely from region to region....all depending upon their leadership. Those in Eastern Europe vx those in Western Europe are different from those in South America. I haven't been to Africa yet so I don't know about them.

The NAB isn't solely a Catholic translation. The Jerusalem Bible is..... well at least the copy I have is...it has all sorts of notes like a study bible that are decidedly Catholic in origin.

The Catholics tried to make a Bible from the various Latin Vulgate manuscripts....it again was highly unpopular. There exists two LXX translations. The ones before Jerome and the ones after. Jerome compiled a more accurate LXX himself. (It eventually became the Latin Vulgate) Because the dedication to accuracy wasn't there. Masoretics spent a lifetime being accurate. It was(still is) their whole job. As the scriptures proliferated around the world with various individuals all creating their own personal copies....the dedication to exacting accuracy wasn't there among the various continents. Phylacteries are still made by hand today with hand transcribed scriptures on vellum. (The process is fascinating) Torah and Tenakhs can also be purchased today that are completely hand transcribed.....but we are talking about a LOT of money. I go with the Goyim printed versions.

The huge rift between Christians and Jews kinda kept this from happening.

Just wanted to mention that the CC finally has a translation from the Greek manuscripts instead of the Latin.
They're pouting it as being more precise.
I bought a copy: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
It's edited by Dr. Scott Hahn.
I checked 1 Cor 3:13...... to see the comments.
(I just did this)
It's very good and exegetes the verses exactly as they are meant....
The workmanship of Apostles, missionaries - builders of Jesus' church -
but, in the end, I guess he just HAD to mention purgatory....at least he exegeted correctly - in some Catholic bibles it goes directly to explaining that it refers to purgatory (which it does not). A little disappointed.
Alas, sometimes the theology is BROUGHT TO THE BIBLE, instead of the other way around...

 

[JohnDB]

Just wanted to mention that the CC finally has a translation from the Greek manuscripts instead of the Latin.
They're pouting it as being more precise.
I bought a copy: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
It's edited by Dr. Scott Hahn.
I checked 1 Cor 3:13...... to see the comments.
(I just did this)
It's very good and exegetes the verses exactly as they are meant....
The workmanship of Apostles, missionaries - builders of Jesus' church -
but, in the end, I guess he just HAD to mention purgatory....at least he exegeted correctly - in some Catholic bibles it goes directly to explaining that it refers to purgatory (which it does not). A little disappointed.
Alas, sometimes the theology is BROUGHT TO THE BIBLE, instead of the other way around...

Just to clarify....
Exposition is explaining
Exegetical is more "what it means today for you"

Expositional will discuss grammar, language, history and/or anthropology that is critical to understanding the section it refers to. It also will mention other scriptures that the writer is referencing that might not seem apparent due to the LXX not following the Old Testament the same as we see it today. Also the writers usually didn't have a Bible around and relied upon their memories.

There are literally millions of exegetical teachings and teachers but only a few expositional teachers.

 

[GodsGrace]

It was the part where a few disciples came to Jesus privately and asked Him 3 questions. He answered all three questions but not in chronological order. It was in the middle of Him answering them. He said some sort of obscure word that we usually gloss right over as it seems inconsequential. It meant in Greek, now regarding or something like that and he went on tospeak of the rapture. It's in Matthew 24 somewhere. I dont have the rapture notes in front of me and I dont remember the exact verse off the top of my head.

I'm not kidding though at all. I heard a teaching on the rapture and he went all through that, why most people think it is one event when it is two events. And I followed along and looked it up with my BLB and he was right in what he said.

I dont have time to look it up right now, I have to prepare for something. But you can take a look and try to gean the verse for yourself in the meantime? Sorry for now!

OK
Read Matthew 24.
It's speaking about different times.
It seems to me that Jesus shifts from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD
to the end of the world.

 

[MA2444]

OK
Read Matthew 24.
It's speaking about different times.
It seems to me that Jesus shifts from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD
to the end of the world.

I'll look for the exact verse today. I had company yesterday and couldnt look.

 

[MA2444]

OK
Read Matthew 24.
It's speaking about different times.
It seems to me that Jesus shifts from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD
to the end of the world.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the Olivet Discourse. Maybe it wasnt in Matthew at all but in Luke when we compare it to Matthew. Matthew 24, and Luke 21. Luke 21 it almost word for word what Matthew 24 says but not all of it. Luke's rendition includes something that Matthew 24 doesnt say. So let's comapre them. In Matthew 24 it says,

Matthew 24:7-8
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows..../KJV

So we pick it up at the same place in Luke!

Luke 21:10-12
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake..../KJV

But you see you verse 12? Jesus jump backwards and backtracks, but before all that He tells them!..you see? He basically changed the subject to go to another of the questions that they asked. Jesus didnt answer those questions they asked Him chronologically.

 

[MA2444]

OK
Read Matthew 24.
It's speaking about different times.
It seems to me that Jesus shifts from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD
to the end of the world.

The way I read it:
Verses 1&2- the historical setting.
Verse 3 is the three questions.
Verses 4-6 General chracterisitcs of the church age.
Verses 7&8 The sign of the end of the age.
Verses 9-28 are about the Great Tribulation. (9-14 the first half/15-28 senond half)
V 29& 30 The sign of the 2nd coming of Jesus.
V 31 The regathering of Israel.
V 32-35 The parable of the Fig tree.

Up until this, Matthew has been chronological. Where he deviates is verse 32 and Jesus begins adding things because He has been talking about the end of the age and what will happen but now He is talking about Israel so that we know we are the final generation then goes on to talk about the rapture.

Verses 36-42 ia talkig about the Rapture.

And so this is where Matthew deviates from chronoogical order. It is over in Luke 21 that you get to hear....But before that...at this point. Mathhew doesnt say it. Luke is probably a more accurate account of Jesus message that day because it lets you see where Jesus started adding stuff and was backtracking saying but this will be first...

And the reason that we know that the Rapture is pre trib, is that the Rapture is imminent. t could happen at any moment. No one one knows when and no prophetic event must precede it from happening....!

Matthew 24:44
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh..../KJV
So it has to be pre trib because when the 7 year treaty is signed we can count the days until Jesus comes! No so with the rapture.

 

[GodsGrace]

The way I read it:
Verses 1&2- the historical setting.
Verse 3 is the three questions.
Verses 4-6 General chracterisitcs of the church age.
Verses 7&8 The sign of the end of the age.
Verses 9-28 are about the Great Tribulation. (9-14 the first half/15-28 senond half)
V 29& 30 The sign of the 2nd coming of Jesus.
V 31 The regathering of Israel.
V 32-35 The parable of the Fig tree.

Up until this, Matthew has been chronological. Where he deviates is verse 32 and Jesus begins adding things because He has been talking about the end of the age and what will happen but now He is talking about Israel so that we know we are the final generation then goes on to talk about the rapture.

Verses 36-42 ia talkig about the Rapture.

And so this is where Matthew deviates from chronoogical order. It is over in Luke 21 that you get to hear....But before that...at this point. Mathhew doesnt say it. Luke is probably a more accurate account of Jesus message that day because it lets you see where Jesus started adding stuff and was backtracking saying but this will be first...

And the reason that we know that the Rapture is pre trib, is that the Rapture is imminent. t could happen at any moment. No one one knows when and no prophetic event must precede it from happening....!

Matthew 24:44
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh..../KJV
So it has to be pre trib because when the 7 year treaty is signed we can count the days until Jesus comes! No so with the rapture.

MA
I read the above but am away from home for a few days. Will need some time to go over it.
See you on Friday....

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church to do so. The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, preceded the New Testament. In fact the athors of the New Testament were Catholics, inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, reviewed over 300 letters, books, writings, etc., and selected the 27 we today call the New Testament as being worthy of being called Holy Scripture. It is the Church that has the authority to interpret Scripture without error, not the individual. In fact, St. Peter warned against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to prophecy (official teachings) in 2 Peter 1:20, which says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation". And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Someone's personal interpretation of Scripture. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing denominations (and counting). Hardly the grounding for truth and unity.

I respectfully disagree, because the Bible began long before the church with Moses being inspired to write the first five books and the prophets and Apostles also being inspired to write the rest of it. God started the Bible, which interprets itself with word meanings and his history and teachings.

The main problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is their development of a tradition alongside of the Bible that seems to have as much inspiration as the Bible. It's not true that Mary is the one to whom we are to pray, for example, since Jesus himself taught us to pray to the Father, for example.

Let's discuss it.

 

[Brakelite]

CE is short for "Catholic Edition".
If I wrote it funny....I meant that Catholics DO USE and their Bibles contain the apocryphal sections....it's where the whole concept of Purgatory originated from...which is strictly a Catholic doctrine.

To me,
The apocryphal sections are not scriptures and theologies are not supposed to come from them at all. However, just like the Book of Enoch they contain commonly held myths or history which were considered common knowledge...which does shed light on some things mentioned in the New Testament....such as the Festival of Lights being what we call Hannakah today. Which makes the statement "I am the light of the world" mean something more than a soft symbolic reference....because the celebration is that the lamp never went out during the seige.
Making Jesus's statement so much more. It's a promise...not a reference.

I think the light of the world that Jesus claimed to be was more in connection with the sanctuary. He was also the sacrifice, the door, the High Priest, the cleansing water by the word, the bread of life, the Intercessor and Mediator, the Light, the veil, and the law under the mercy seat. Everything in the sanctuary pointed to Him.

 

[Brakelite]

By what are we converted? It is the word of God. Either read, or preached. But we are not converted by commentaries, expositories, the church, church manuals, councils, canons or creeds.

“20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. ”
Isaiah 45:20-24 KJV

“7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. ”
Isaiah 55:7-11 KJV

If you are trusting in the authority of the church, or the wisdom and teaching of man, you have abandoned the scriptures and your hope and faith is in vain. Jesus promised that He would give the holy Spirit in order to teach truth. Catholics love to point out the multitude of discordant doctrines that are in the world, and encourage everyone to trust in them, the catechism, or ultimately the magisterium. Them they attempt to make the point that Jesus's promise concerning the holy Spirit guiding into all truth was only for them. History has recorded that in order to encourage such submission to their authority, they have resorted to armed force and threats of violence and Inquisition. In other words, their own actions deny the very thrust of what they try to prove. In using force, they are in effect saying they no longer trust in the holy Spirit, but they have to help God by coercion.
Again, the word of God, even Jesus Himself, is God's selected vehicle through which salvation and sanctification is made effective.
"And the Word was made flesh..."
"Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth".
“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ”
Ephesians 5:25-32 KJV
“16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. ”
Romans 1:16-17 KJV
“3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. ”
2 Peter 1:3-4 KJV

 

[JohnDB]

I think the light of the world that Jesus claimed to be was more in connection with the sanctuary. He was also the sacrifice, the door, the High Priest, the cleansing water by the word, the bread of life, the Intercessor and Mediator, the Light, the veil, and the law under the mercy seat. Everything in the sanctuary pointed to Him.

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Brakelite]

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Amen. Everything points to Jesus. In Him we live and move and have our being.

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church to do so. The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, preceded the New Testament. In fact the athors of the New Testament were Catholics, inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, reviewed over 300 letters, books, writings, etc., and selected the 27 we today call the New Testament as being worthy of being called Holy Scripture. It is the Church that has the authority to interpret Scripture without error, not the individual. In fact, St. Peter warned against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to prophecy (official teachings) in 2 Peter 1:20, which says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation". And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Someone's personal interpretation of Scripture. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing denominations (and counting). Hardly the grounding for truth and unity.

However, those people's many interpretations only carry weight when they agree with the entirety of the Bible's teachings and history. The Bible is our authority because God inspired it. We need to recognize that any man's authority must be measured against the Bible's (God's).

 

[Augustin56]

However, those people's many interpretations only carry weight when they agree with the entirety of the Bible's teachings and history. The Bible is our authority because God inspired it. We need to recognize that any man's authority must be measured against the Bible's (God's).

Well, the Bible is certainly inspired by God, but it is a tool of His Mystical Body, the Church. The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It it the Church which is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. And the Church wrote the New Testament from Holy Tradition, i.e. Oral Tradition (teachings) that Christ gave the Apostles. See 2 Thes 2;15, where St. Paul puts Oral Tradition on an equal footing with written Tradition (Scripture).

 

[Augustin56]

I respectfully disagree, because the Bible began long before the church with Moses being inspired to write the first five books and the prophets and Apostles also being inspired to write the rest of it. God started the Bible, which interprets itself with word meanings and his history and teachings.

The main problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is their development of a tradition alongside of the Bible that seems to have as much inspiration as the Bible. It's not true that Mary is the one to whom we are to pray, for example, since Jesus himself taught us to pray to the Father, for example.

Let's discuss it.

Bruce, the Old Testament was certainly there long before Christ founded the Church. But the Church wrote the New Testament.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Bible wasn't compiled until the late 4th century. The writings were there, but they weren't officially considered Scripture or compiled into the New Testament until then. There were actually three categories of writings in the 300+ documents they considered at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century. Category 1 was writing they were sure should be Scripture (Gospels, for instance). Catgory 2 were writings they weren't sure of. There were also writings that made it into the New Testament that most had never heard of. And there were writings they were sure would make the cut that didn't (Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, etc.). Then, Catgory 3, were writings they were sure wouldn't make the cut.

The Bible is an important TOOL of the Church. Inspired buy God? Absolutely! But Christ founded a Church to spread His truths. He didn't write a book, nor do we see Him instructing the Apostles to do so. He commanded that they teach all that He had taught them. (Matt. 28:20)

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

Well, the Bible is certainly inspired by God, but it is a tool of His Mystical Body, the Church. The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It it the Church which is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. And the Church wrote the New Testament from Holy Tradition, i.e. Oral Tradition (teachings) that Christ gave the Apostles. See 2 Thes 2;15, where St. Paul puts Oral Tradition on an equal footing with written Tradition (Scripture).

On what Scriptural passage do you base your opinion? The Bible itself is the authoritative set of teachings and history for us to be saved and built up in the faith. Any other people's added interpretations without the authority of the Bible is very questionable and have to be verified by the Bible, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's get down to specifics. What interpretations of which church are you talking about? I'm curious.

 

[Augustin56]

On what Scriptural passage do you base your opinion? The Bible itself is the authoritative set of teachings and history for us to be saved and built up in the faith. Any other people's added interpretations without the authority of the Bible is very questionable and have to be verified by the Bible, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's get down to specifics. What interpretations of which church are you talking about? I'm curious.

Not quite. The Church founded by Christ (the Catholic Church) is the authoritative teacher, not the Bible. The Church preceded the Bible, not vice versa. Jesus taught the Apostles orally. They called Him "Rabbi" (Teacher). SOME of what He taught them orally was eventually written down, and SOME of what was written down was eventually selected to be in the New Testament. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15 refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth." Nowhere does he say the Bible, personally interpreted, is anything of the sort.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support the notion of Sola Scriptura. Not written or implied. It is absolutely a man-made doctrine that came much, much later after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The Bible itself says that not everything Jesus did and taught is IN the Bible. (John 21:25) And, yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach ALL that He had taught them. (Matt. 28:20)

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

How can you say that the Catholic church preceded Moses, who wrote the first five books; the prophets, who wrote the rest of the Old Testament; and the Apostles, who wrote the New Testament?

I believe that every interpretation outside the Bible must be measured by the Bible, including all Christian traditions. Otherwise, we can set traditions up as authoritative, even if they differ from the Bible.