The Apostles Didn't Need A Bible To Evangalize.

[Jake Huether]

Interesting:

In Marks Gospel this Sunday we learn that Jesus sent his Desciples out in pares. But note HOW he sent them. He told them not to carry anything with them except a walking stick. Now I know that there weren't Bibles at that time yet, so it wouldn't be fare to say that they didn't use Bibles. However, the Old Testimant WAS available to them, yet they didn't even carry that with them.

So, how do Protestants justify this theology of always carrying their Bibles with them. Or always evangelizing with Scripture. What gives with such an emphasis on Scripture, when Christ sent the first Church leaders out with NOTHING?

Any thoughts?

[mulls]

well, considering they were each given the Holy Spirit in a way which no man has received since then, with tongues of fire appearing over their heads, you can't really say they had 'nothing.'

[Jake Huether]

Mulls,

Yes, they recieved the Holy Spirit like no other (whith tongues of fire), but as Christians we recieve the Holy Spirit at Baptism. Recieving the Spirit one way or another doesn't matter.

So to say that they had more than us is not correct... They had more faith, yes, I agree with that. I think sometimes Protestants (and Catholics too) get scared if they don't have there Bible with them - like they won't know what to say. Or even if they don't have their Bible, they at least want to prepare by memorizing Scripture. But I think all that preperation and memorization can be restrictive, which is why Christ told His Apostles to go with NOTHING. The Spirit can use Scripture (in which case you wouldn't need to prepare anyway) or not.

If you read Scripture it shouldn't be to "some day show those heathan they're wrong". Scripture is food for your soul. It should be personal. Christ bids us not to prepare. Just as he told his Apostles not to prepare, for the Spirit of Truth shall show you all things! Jesus wants us to put our faith in Him.

For instance, a couple of days ago some JWs (not really Christian I suppose) came over my parents house. My parents talke a good long time with them, and my mom felt called to pray with them. The JW's tried to pray but really couldn't (according to my mother). It came out all versed with thee's and thou's. They had done all the preperation, all the memorization. But when the Spirit should have flown, He was restricted by attempst to stick with the book (so to speak). Way to Scriptural and not Spirit filled.

You see. If you put trust in the Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, then you wouldn't even need to prepare Scripturally! Who knows Scripture better than the Author?

That's not to say we shouldn't read the Bible. But to do so simply as preporation, as a memory excercise, I think it's an abuse.

[Katholikos]

The Apostles taking scrolls to potential converts would be like taking a steak to a hungry man who had no teeth. Most people could not read or write. If one wanted something written or read, one had to hire a scribe. Only an estimated 10% of people were literate for many centuries.

Jesus could read and write (John 8:6), but we don't know that all the apostles were literate. Only 5 of them wrote anything.

Literacy became more common with the advent of the printing press (1450 A.D.) Even in the U.S., before the 18th century, literacy was uncommon, and it was not until the 19th century that a majority learned to read and write. My grandfather was illiterate, as were most of the farmers he knew. My grandmother could read and write, but not fluently.

Would God give a book to an illiterate man and tell him, 'here are the instructions on how to get to heaven, study this'?

Fifty percent of the world's population is still illiterate. And 20% of the U.S. is functionally illiterate (i.e., can't read and write beyond the fifth-grade level, meaning cannot function well enough to hold a job).

Illiteracy is another stake in the heart of the illogical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

JMJ Jay (Likos)

Literacy estimates: Literacy Volunteers of America

[Jake Huether]

As always, excellent point Likos.

[marielapin]

Would God give a book to an illiterate man and tell him, 'here are the instructions on how to get to heaven, study this'?

Fifty percent of the world's population is still illiterate.  And 20% of the U.S. is functionally illiterate (i.e., can't read and write beyond the fifth-grade level, meaning cannot function well enough to hold a job).

Illiteracy is another stake in the heart of the illogical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

JMJ Jay (Likos)

Literacy estimates:  Literacy Volunteers of America

You know, even though I knew this I never put these two together like that. Excellent point, Likos (as always)...

Do I hear an echo..............echo...................echo............?

Edited July 14, 2003 by marielapin

[Anna]

(((e))) (((x))) ((©)) (((e))) (((l))) (((l))) (((e))) (((n))) (((t)))

(((p))) (((o))) (((s))) (((t)))

(((L))) (((i))) (((k))) (((o))) (((s)))

[Anna]

well, considering they were each given the Holy Spirit in a way which no man has received since then, with tongues of fire appearing over their heads, you can't really say they had 'nothing.'

Sorry, Mulls, but I disagree with this statement. (I also have to disagree with Jake, in that the apostles were unprepared...The Master prepared them for three years before sending them forth with nothing but a walking stick.)

While the tongues of fire signify the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Blessed Mother, the Apostles, and disciples, we receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation. In that Sacrament's special annointing, we becomes soldiers of Christ's army...we put on the full armor of God, and if we've prepared well, we should be ready to present or defend the Truth, as needed.

That is why, customarily, the bishop confers the Sacrament of Confirmation on the Feast of Pentecost.

Through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a seminarian becomes a consecrated priest, and is especially commissioned by the Church to preach the Good News. His worldly possessions are few; his commission is to go out and preach to the people, administering the same seven Sacraments that the Apostles did.

Pax Christi. <><

[cmotherofpirl]

When Jesus took the Apostles to (literally ) take a hike, they had not yet recieved the Holy Spirit. All they had was his words and deeds.

Protestants say the Bible is an inspired book written by God and is a rule of life. Its inspired because it says it is.

Catholics say the bible (specifically the NT) is an historical reliable document written by the Church to record its own history. Together with Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium it is the Church left by Jesus Christ.

[Katholikos]

When Jesus took the Apostles to  (literally ) take a hike, they had not yet recieved the Holy Spirit. All they had was his words and deeds.

Protestants say the Bible is an inspired book written by God and is a rule of life. Its inspired because it says it is.

Catholics say the bible (specifically the NT) is an historical reliable document written by the Church to record its own history. Together with Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium it is the Church left by Jesus Christ.

The "Bible" doesn't say it's inspired. It couldn't. The Bible is not a continuous writing, but a collection of writings. Each of the writings would have to make that statement about itself. They don't. None of them. Protestants claim 2 Tm 3:14-17 proves it, but St. Paul was writing about the Septuagint OT, the only scriptures Timothy had known since childhood. The NT didn't yet exist.

The Catholic Church says all of the 73-book Bible is "inspired" -- i.e., "God-breathed." Protestants deny that. They'll have some of it, but not all of it.

The Bible has nothing to authenticate it except the authority of the Catholic Church.

I know we're on the same team, cmom. I just wanted to make the point that the Bible makes no claims for itself -- it is the Catholic Church that declared it to be the "inspired Word of God." Protestants want only part of the Bible, and reject the Church that wrote the New Testament. Very strange, those Protestants.

Ave Cor Mariae

JMJ Jay (Likos)

Edited July 15, 2003 by Katholikos

[Jake Huether]

"(I also have to disagree with Jake, in that the apostles were unprepared...The Master prepared them for three years before sending them forth with nothing but a walking stick.)"

Sorry to imply that Anna, actually, I think you and I agree.

Though the Apostles were indeed prepared by Christ, it wasn't their intention to memorize Scripture, etc. for the express purpose of evangelization. While they were learning with Christ ONLY Christ new their mission. They only wanted to serve God.

I guess by "preperation" I mean a more formal "cram" session. I think many Protestants in particular memorize key lines or have their Bibles marked in key locations in order to respond fast to classic questions. A formula approach. My point was that, yes we need to be prepared, but our preperation *for evangelization* should be secondary to our preperation by simply doing what Christ wanted. You see, the Apostles weren't really perparing themselves. They were serendering themselves to God, and it was God who was doing the preperation. I was simply pointing out that we should not try to prepare ourselves for "those questions". Like Theos' insident. How can we let the Spirit work in us if we smother Him out with our own prepared speaches, etc.

That is exactly why Christ sent His Apostles out with Nothing, save their knowlege and Love for Jesus. He wanted them to be complete vessels with none of their own "prepared" speaches, etc.

Hope that explaines it better.

[Brother Adam]

So, how do Protestants justify this theology of always carrying their Bibles with them. Or always evangelizing with Scripture. What gives with such an emphasis on Scripture, when Christ sent the first Church leaders out with NOTHING?

It's not theology. It's common practice. And we don't always evangilize with scripture, we try to use actions, but what better words do we have, when necessary to use words, than the Word of God.

[mulls]

Psalm 119

verse 9: How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word.

verse 16-17: I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word. Do good to your servant, and I will live; I will obey your word.

verse 37: Turn my eyes away from worthless things: preserve my life according to your word.

James 1:17-18

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of all he created.

I didn't realize how much less importance Catholics place on the bible until now.

[Jake Huether]

"but what better words do we have, when necessary to use words, than the Word of God."

In all honesty Bro. the answer to your question, is we don't have better words than the word of God. However, you fail to comprehend that God doesn't JUST speak through the Scriptures. Scriptures are no doubt the Word of God. But God isn't silent for ever more once the Bible is closed.

Bro. That is the problem, the text read outloud with no explenation behind it is NOT the Word of God. It has potential to be the Word of God, but unless it is interpreted correctly, it is not the Word of God.

God might or might not want us to evangelize using his written Word. But at times He want's to speak through us. Through our own words! That's how the NT began by the way. God speaking through the Apostles in their own words. He does still speak through His people, Bro. The Bible has been finished, but the Word of God (outside the written Word) is still being manifest through His Church and through His people.

Like, if you say to me, (I'm using one of those "classic quesiton"), why do Catholics beleive in the Euchairst.

Then I flip my Bible to John 6. by shear memory and start blabbing about how Christ said unless we eat his flesh. Or even if I flip back to the OT and start making a connection between the Passover and the lamb and eating the lamb, etc. Is that really doing what God wants? It could be, but not necessarily. What if God didn't want me to use those Scriptures that I had memorized for that specific question. What if instead all God wanted me to do was explain how wonderful I felt when I recieved Him in the Eucharist? What if I, because I had memorized a canned response, had just extinguished God's chance to bring someone to Him?

Christ sent the Aposltes out empty handed so that there were no bounderies, no walls for them to set up for themselves. The Bible is the Word of God. But in human hands it has the potential to actually constrict itself. It has the potential, because of human err, to actually blot out the Work of the Spirit.

The Bible is in itself inerrant. That is to say, when read with the correct interpretation, it is infallible. However, since it is a concrete object, inerrant or not, it has the ability to be misinterpreted, in which case it is no longer the Word of God, and no longer infallible.

We cannot use the Word of God (the Bible) without its Author's consent. When we evangelize, we need to evangelize with the intent to do God's will, like Theo did. If He so chooses, we may indeed use His written word. But likewise if he chooses to use our own experiences, we need to be open.

[Brother Adam]

John and Paul seem to disagree with you. Gods word remains his word even when misused by others