Stand Fast and Hold the Traditions

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
The RCs or EO may be able to better answer that.
Tis too complicated for me

http://www.christianforums.com/t6866068-101/#post43602184
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

Thanks.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 21, 2012

Rick Otto said:
Part of the problem is with metaphor (again).
The description of their experience of hearing our prayers is described as insence rising.
That does not to me in any way depict one-to-one communication.
It's more like a description of spiritual atmosphere, like the somberness of a sanctuary.

Glad to see I am not the only bad speller here on GT

http://www.christianforums.com/t7353882-10/#post51186365
Incense?

Originally Posted by E.C. Do you mean "anybody" as in: anyone within Protestantism or anyone within Christianity as a whole?

I should have been more clear. As far as I know, only Orthodox Christians and occasionally Roman catholics use incense. But in my 36 years, I have never been in a Protestant Church where there was incense.

Like I said, I could be reading this wrong, but it seems pretty clear that God is telling us that we need to be offering incense to Him. So, I wonder what the aversion is among Protestants to using incense. Could it be that it is simply "too Catholic"?
Thanks,
Red

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

sculleywr said:
However, where does your Bible say only use the Bible? Why does it say to hold to Tradition?

Back to the OP.

The question is always what Tradition? The one that changed into RC? The one that changed into EO? The one that changed into OO or P?

Irenaeus, however, specifically has tied the oral preaching of apostles with their written record. Now we know what Tradition is spoken about. The answer is ALL, prior to their schisms, in the form of the Nicene Creed.

All the other "Traditions" lead to schism, being later bishop opinion.

Hold to Tradition whether spoken or written; that is, I believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth ... (see the OP).

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

One tradition i cant seem to get around. Is the Pope justified by carrying a weapon? That's the question. ITs OK for a cop to shoot a man in the line of duty, at least i think so. But a christian carrying a gun in one hand and the gospel in the other? Were the holy crusades justified? Is the Chief of bishops justified in having armed guards? Im sure many will say there is nothing wrong with it, yet i cannot see any apostle dong this, it just doesnt fit

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
One tradition i cant seem to get around. Is the Pope justified by carrying a weapon? That's the question.

Only when touring the Middle East

New_Wineskin · Oct 21, 2012

sculleywr said:
However, where does your Bible say only use the Bible? Why does it say to hold to Tradition?

None of the bibles used by christians say to use a "bible" at all - let alone to use it exclusively .

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

Standing Up said:
Different thread folks as to which scripture to use.

Right now, we're just talking about which tradition to use. Is the Nicene Creed good enough or not?

From Sculley:

"d) The Creed of the Church

Western Christianity utilizes these Creeds, referred to as "ecumenical":

the Apostolic Creed
the Athanasian Creed and
the Creed of Nicaea/Constantinople
In actuality, the first two creeds are not "ecumenical," i.e. "universal." The Apostolic Creed is actually the Creed of the Church of Rome, which reflects the common apostolic faith. The Athanasian Creed is also a Western creed, created in the West (probably in Southern France) around the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. It reflects the developments of the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas up to that time.

The only true "ecumenical creed" is the Creed of Nicaea/Constantinople, or, simply the Creed. It was first promulgated by the Council of Nicaea [325]. It was edited and completed by the first Council of Constantinople in 381. Since that time, the Creed is universally accepted as the summary of all the important Christian doctrines, and is used both for catechism and for the worship of the Church."

The answer is yes. So, what this means is-

Stand fast and hold the traditions whether oral or written. What was orally spread by apostles, written in scripture, picked up by Irenaeus, and codified as the Creed, is the "oral Traditions". That is all we know and can agree upon. Everything else about "papacy, peter/rock, nature of sin, etc" can only be hammered out by using the written scriptures first and foremost. That is the rule of faith.

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

New_Wineskin said:
None of the bibles used by christians say to use a "bible" at all - let alone to use it exclusively .

Yes but the bible does tell us the scriptures are for our learning. And the Gospel along with NT doctrine is scripture which must be preached and lived by.

New_Wineskin · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
Yes but the bible does tell us the scriptures are for our learning. And the Gospel along with NT doctrine is scripture which must be preached and lived by.

Even if that were so , it talks about the Scriptures - not a bible . If the Scriptures are so important , why use a term not used in them ? Only Tradition does that .

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

sculleywr said:
That was not a direct violation of the law. With David, there was specific permission given by God. With the wheat berries, it was a violation of the pharisaical nitpicking, and not the law itself, as Christ Himself explains.

If James was the biological son of Mary, then Christ directly disobeyed God's delivered law according to the book of Leviticus. Hilary of Poitiers explains it best:
If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Exactly what law in Leviticus do you think was broken?

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
Is any tradition needed? That is the question. If a man has the bible and a desire to learn about the Lord and repents, humbles himself, strives to obey the law of love and observe holiness, and prays to God with his heart then that would be enough. That's what i believe. That's the faith i have in Him.

Not as it has come to be defined by the schismers.

Clearly, the apostles went forth and taught orally. What was that?

Then they wrote it down. Was it the same salvific Good News?

Some of us believe what they said and what they wrote was basically indentical. The quote from Irenaeus confirms this scenario.

The main thing is there is nothing about later bishop traditions like papacy, filioque, marian dogmas, prayer to deceased, etc, as even important on any level. These things divide the Body.

So yes, stick with what apostles said.

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
The RCs or EO may be able to better answer that.
Tis too complicated for me

http://www.christianforums.com/t6866068-101/#post43602184
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

Mother of all nations (IIRC), formerly known as Mary, is the new revelation upon which this is moving forward.

"taking their stand on visions..."

Standing Up · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
Its not that simple, it calls for speculation about different things

Exactly. That's all 'praying to the deceased' is at best. At worst, it schisms the Body.

Abide the oral traditions or written. There is nothing from the early Church about 'praying to the deceased'. That idea is found in Jewish (non canon OT) and pagan tales.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 21, 2012

Standing Up said:
Exactly. That's all 'praying to the deceased' is at best. At worst, it schisms the Body.

Abide the oral traditions or written. There is nothing from the early Church about 'praying to the deceased'. That idea is found in Jewish (non canon OT) and pagan tales.

NKJV) Titus 1:14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

Fidel's Fantasy - War - YouTube

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

New_Wineskin said:
Even if that were so , it talks about the Scriptures - not a bible . If the Scriptures are so important , why use a term not used in them ? Only Tradition does that .

The bible is a collection of scripture.

New_Wineskin · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
The bible is a collection of scripture.

There are at least four such collections . Yet , none are mentioned in any of the "bibles" . Again , the term is a Tradition and not based on the Scriptures .

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

Standing Up said:
Not as it has come to be defined by the schismers.

Clearly, the apostles went forth and taught orally. What was that?

Then they wrote it down. Was it the same salvific Good News?

Some of us believe what they said and what they wrote was basically indentical. The quote from Irenaeus confirms this scenario.

The main thing is there is nothing about later bishop traditions like papacy, filioque, marian dogmas, prayer to deceased, etc, as even important on any level. These things divide the Body.

So yes, stick with what apostles said.

Many times they wrote it down as a way of teaching not just to record it, they wrote instructions and then sent them out to various churches. Paul communicated by letter. And it has always been considered scripture i think. What Paul teaches established the Church, how it should function as a body and what is pleasing to the lord.

Many times people say there are errors, and other books not in the bible. Yet the books we do use teach the same things over and over. Its hard to miss the Gospel and doctrine of Christ given to gentiles. And there is only one Gospel so that means the Jews are given the same Gospel. IF a Gentile is free from the law under Christ so is the Jew it seems.

MamaZ · Oct 21, 2012

weariedsoul said:
Hes comparing armed guards with owning a car. Neither is in the bible according to him, and so that means its ok to have a car and armed guards.

Awe okay. Thanks.

Forge3 · Oct 21, 2012

Poetry is coming soon. Be forewarned

weariedsoul · Oct 21, 2012

New_Wineskin said:
There are at least four such collections . Yet , none are mentioned in any of the "bibles" . Again , the term is a Tradition and not based on the Scriptures .

True. And that's a tradition i keep that doesn't go against scripture. I admitted before that i do keep traditions if they don't contradict scripture but i wasn't sure what they were, i knew i had some most likely. That's one of them. Thanks for pointing that out.

Stand Fast and Hold the Traditions

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

On and on

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Contributor

On and on

Well-Known Member

Contributor

On and on

On and on

On and on

On and on

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

Forge

Well-Known Member

Similar threads