Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Forbidding marriage was advocated by all of the church not only some.

Again, no. Not at all by all.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Therefore any traditions that were taught by the entire church are not apostasy otherwise evil would have prevailed over the church.

selah .....

dwell on this. think on this.

DamianWarS · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Again, we can go back and forth with word games involving the dictionary until the cows come home (Which would probably be never), but you are ignoring the big elephant in the room. If the word "traditions" meant a teaching passed down over many generations it would simply not be true based on what we know about the dates involved. Jesus was crucified sometime between 30AD to 36AD (approximately). Paul's letter to the Thessalonian church is dated about 50 AD (approximately). So that is fourteen or twenty years of time. That is not enough time to be a "tradition" in the sense of being a generation to generation teaching (Which is the stressing of importance upon that word so as to validate a generation to generation type teaching that many Catholic and Orthodox stress). Also, nothing is said in the context that Paul said to the Thessalonian church that they had to keep two unique forms of teachings as a way of preservation. He merely wanted them to obey him in what he taught them in person and by epistle (the written Word of God, Scripture). Paul never said,

"Now when you keep my words, keep them in two unique ways. I want you to teach from generation to generation in both an auditory way only and also in written form that I have given to you."

But this is not what Paul or another part of Scripture says. Folks have merely twisted Paul's words around on seeking the obedience of the Thessalonian church so as to justify their extra biblical church traditions that violate Scripture (God's Word). No doubt this is why you have not answered this point so far.

Furthermore, the Bible also makes no mention that if we do not obey church traditions that we are condemned, either. But the Bible does say that if we do not keep the words of Jesus, those words will condemn us on the last day (See John 12:48). In fact, Jesus and the apostles never quoted "extra biblical traditions," either. There is no reference to any of the extra biblical traditions that we see in the many churches today.

there are other contexts involved with this word that suggest a much longer period of passing down through generations such as the traditions of the Pharisees. This word is used in these long term contexts and it is also used in these short term contexts like with the Thessalonians. It's the same word used so although the context in Thessalonians is talking about new traditions it doesn't take away from what this word means or that "traditions" used in a natural still can be used.

I don't think any reads Thessalonians and sees Paul talking about old traditions that he is passing down to the church. Of course, he is talking about new traditions but the emphasis is with this word "tradition".

the KJV actually doesn't have the word "teachings" in a noun sense they only carry the verb "teaching" which of course is abundant but this word in question is not that specific.

paradosis is the bible word in question and it literally means "giving over" giving over what? well, it it doesn say. The word more properly means to "giving into the hands of another". This is where the "passing on" comes from and in a more abstract context can be regarding teaching being passed to another or even passing down teachings from generation to generation which is tradition. It's a type of colloquialism where everyone knows what it means even with the missing information.

in the Thessalonians text it reads:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

what is being said is to hold to the "giving over from my hand to your hand" which you were taught.

the words here are to take hold. what do you take hold of? that which is given to you, that which is passed from Paul over to the Thessalonian church so they may, in turn, pass it to another. How did they receive this? they received by being taught it. These are not just the English words, they are the Greek words and meanings, "take hold" (krateo) of "what I handed to you" (paradosis) which you were "taught" (didasko).

If were are to force teachings here it would be "take hold of the teachings you were taught". it's a little wordy and redundant like saying "he paints the painting". but this isn't what translations like the NIV are doing here. The NIV says

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

we are to "hold fast" (krateo) to the "teachings" (didasko) we "passed on" (paradosis) to you. So paradosis is actually not being translated as "teachings" as you assume it is being translated as "passed on" which is a more fluid translation but captures the word well. The NIV is just trying to make it more natural than literal like the KJV or NASB but all the stuff is still in there.

paradosis, even in the NIV is typically translated as "tradition" but they make choices to translate it in different ways to make the text more readable, they don't translate it as "teachings". unfortunately, Strong's NIV is not available free online like the KJV or NASB is so you just have to correspond the verses to know what word they use to translated it as.

For example:
Mat 15:2
KJV - Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
NASB - Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
NIV - Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!

as you can see KJV, NASB, and NIV are in agreement that paradosis can be translated as tradition. now the NIV could have said "break what the elders passed down" but they thought tradition fit better. So jumping to Thessalonians the NIV could have also said "stand firm and hold fast to the teachings of traditions given to you" and it would be completely consistent with how they translated the word in other uses. If Mat 15:2 can be traditions why can't Thessalonians?

the point being made by traditional faiths is that a verse like this speaks of a passing on from one to another in order to preserve it and this is why they value the same even if it's not explicitly in the Bible. Simply because it was passed on to them they value it similar to how Thessalonians were passed on teachings from Paul and were told to hold on to it.

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

DamianWarS said:
there are other contexts involved with this word that suggest a much longer period of passing down through generations such as the traditions of the Pharisees. This word is used in these long term contexts and it is also used in these short term contexts like with the Thessalonians. It's the same word used so although the context in Thessalonians is talking about new traditions it doesn't take away from what this word means or that "traditions" used in a natural still can be used.

I don't think any reads Thessalonians and sees Paul talking about old traditions that he is passing down to the church. Of course, he is talking about new traditions but the emphasis is with this word "tradition".

the KJV actually doesn't have the word "teachings" in a noun sense they only carry the verb "teaching" which of course is abundant but this word in question is not that specific.

paradosis is the bible word in question and it literally means "giving over" giving over what? well, it it doesn say. The word more properly means to "giving into the hands of another". This is where the "passing on" comes from and in a more abstract context can be regarding teaching being passed to another or even passing down teachings from generation to generation which is tradition. It's a type of colloquialism where everyone knows what it means even with the missing information.

in the Thessalonians text it reads:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

what is being said is to hold to the "giving over from my hand to your hand" which you were taught.

the words here are to take hold. what do you take hold of? that which is given to you, that which is passed from Paul over to the Thessalonian church so they may, in turn, pass it to another. How did they receive this? they received by being taught it. These are not just the English words, they are the Greek words and meanings, "take hold" (krateo) of "what I handed to you" (paradosis) which you were "taught" (didasko).

If were are to force teachings here it would be "take hold of the teachings you were taught". it's a little wordy and redundant like saying "he paints the painting". but this isn't what translations like the NIV are doing here. The NIV says

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

we are to "hold fast" (krateo) to the "teachings" (didasko) we "passed on" (paradosis) to you. So paradosis is actually not being translated as "teachings" as you assume it is being translated as "passed on" which is a more fluid translation but captures the word well. The NIV is just trying to make it more natural than literal like the KJV or NASB but all the stuff is still in there.

paradosis, even in the NIV is typically translated as "tradition" but they make choices to translate it in different ways to make the text more readable, they don't translate it as "teachings". unfortunately, Strong's NIV is not available free online like the KJV or NASB is so you just have to correspond the verses to know what word they use to translated it as.

For example:
Mat 15:2
KJV - Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
NASB - Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
NIV - Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!

as you can see KJV, NASB, and NIV are in agreement that paradosis can be translated as tradition. now the NIV could have said "break what the elders passed down" but they thought tradition fit better. So jumping to Thessalonians the NIV could have also said "stand firm and hold fast to the teachings of traditions given to you" and it would be completely consistent with how they translated the word in other uses. If Mat 15:2 can be traditions why can't Thessalonians?

the point being made by traditional faiths is that a verse like this speaks of a passing on from one to another in order to preserve it and this is why they value the same even if it's not explicitly in the Bible. Simply because it was passed on to them they value it similar to how Thessalonians were passed on teachings from Paul and were told to hold on to it.

So you actually believe that Paul is talking about something that is not Scripture (or it would be a teaching that would not turn out to later be Scripture) when He says "traditions" (teachings)? This to me seems like you have a bias towards extra biblical traditions and it is not a belief that you have come to based on what the text actually says. For the text makes no mention of external teaching that is separate from Scripture here in 2 Thessalonians 2.

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is the gospel and living holy. We know that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So if Scripture is sufficient for the man of God to be perfect unto all good works, then what does an extra biblical tradition do?

Short answer?

Absolutely nothing.

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
I agree that the church insisting on bishops and priests to be called Father is probably not a good idea but it was accepted by the entire church. As far as forbidding marriage Paul also told us

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
‭‭2 CORINTHIANS‬ ‭6:14‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Your quote of 1 Timothy 4:3 is out of context tho. Paul says in verse 1

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,”
‭‭1 TIMOTHY‬ ‭4:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Forbidding marriage was advocated by all of the church not only some. Since we know that the gates of hell cannot prevail over the church, then anything that was taught by the entire church is not apostasy including calling priests & bishops father. Therefore any traditions that were taught by the entire church are not apostasy otherwise evil would have prevailed over the church.

Sorry, this is not wanting to see the text for what it says plainly. I don't see how forbidding to marry unbelievers has anything to do with those who forbid to marry in general. Obviously we see a church forbidding to marry even between two believers (when it comes to a special holy class of men), but there is no such description of such an office or leadership position in the Bible. This is completely made up and the Bible actually warns against those who forbid to marry (obviously in a general sense). Again, this is a violation of God's Word by a man made tradition.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
No.
It never was accepted by all the followers of Jesus,
and still is not.

Can you please name some Christians who refuted this in the early church? Preferably before 1500AD.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Again, no. Not at all by all.

Again can you provide some examples of who didn’t agree with this teaching?

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
selah .....

dwell on this. think on this.

Think on what can you please be more specific and give an actual explanation? I mean you can’t simply say “nuh uh” and expect that to have any weight in the discussion if you don’t provide any explanation or examples.

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Again can you provide some examples of who didn’t agree with this teaching?

History should not be your standard, lens, or world view. History is written by the victors. The Bible should be the lens of your world view here.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Can you please name some Christians who refuted this in the early church? Preferably before 1500AD.

BNR32FAN said:
Again can you provide some examples of who didn’t agree with this teaching?

BNR32FAN said:
Think on what can you please be more specific and give an actual explanation. I mean you can’t simply say “nuh uh” and expect that to have any weight in the discussion if you don’t provide any explanation or examples.

No, not in this section of the forum.

It is permitted to state when an error was posted (as far as I know) as you posted,

but not to post why in this section of the forum. Move on to controversial and perhaps then
we can followup ?

ViaCrucis · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
The teaching and the faith that was preserved is God's Word, i.e. the Bible; There is nothing else besides that. In fact, in most cases the extra biblical added traditions usually contradict God's Word (i.e. the Bible). This is a repeat of history. For there is nothing new under the sun.

The Biblical Canon is itself an extra-biblical tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
History should not be your standard, lens, or world view. History is written by the victors. The Bible should be the lens of your world view here.

So you are saying that evil prevailed over Jesus’ church? Because it seems like your saying “the victors” overtook His Church.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Sorry, this is not wanting to see the text for what it says plainly. I don't see how forbidding to marry unbelievers has anything to do with those who forbid to marry in general. Obviously we see a church forbidding to marry even between two believers (when it comes to a special holy class of men), but there is no such description of such an office or leadership position in the Bible. This is completely made up and the Bible actually warns against those who forbid to marry (obviously in a general sense). Again, this is a violation of God's Word by a man made tradition.

Oh I’m sorry brother I misunderstood your position. Your talking about priests being forbidden to marry. Well the Catholic Church (Orthodox Church) does not forbid priests to marry. In fact that was one of the many issues that led to Rome’s excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Eloy Craft · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
The Spirit guides a person into all truth by the Scriptures:

Jason, what does ALL Truth mean to you and how is it distinguishable from truth without the all in front.

DamianWarS · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
So you actually believe that Paul is talking about something that is not Scripture (or it would be a teaching that would not turn out to later be Scripture) when He says "traditions" (teachings)? This to me seems like you have a bias towards extra biblical traditions and it is not a belief that you have come to based on what the text actually says. For the text makes no mention of external teaching that is separate from Scripture here in 2 Thessalonians 2.

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is the gospel and living holy. We know that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So if Scripture is sufficient for the man of God to be perfect unto all good works, then what does an extra biblical tradition do?

Short answer?

Absolutely nothing.

I have no such bias nor did I suggest anything like that and I also do not value traditional faith. it doesn't matter if the context of "paradosis" (passed down, tradition) is biblical or extra-biblical. This doesn't take away what the word is and I'm not trying to add or remove something to the text because I don't like what it points to. Thessalonians were taught something passed down or traditions from Paul and this is what the passage says.

DamianWarS · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
So you actually believe that Paul is talking about something that is not Scripture (or it would be a teaching that would not turn out to later be Scripture) when He says "traditions" (teachings)?

Paul doesn't actually say what he passed down was but let's just do a logic test comparing words to see what word is what using the KJV, NASB and NIV

KJV: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

NASB: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter [from us.

NIV: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

here are the words highlighted above

KJV
stand fast
hold
traditions
taught

NASB
stand firm
hold
traditions
taught

NIV
stand firm
hold fast
teachings
passed on

so let's match them, leaving traditions for last

KJV: stand fast, NASB: stand firm, NIV: stand firm
KJV: hold, NASB: hold, NIV: hold fast
KJV: taught, NASB: taught, NIV: teachings

are you still with me? what's left?
KJV: traditions, NASB: traditions, NIV: passed on

what does the word "traditions" mean in context? not teachings... teaching is that which was taught, so what was taught? That what was "passed on", "traditions" or "paradosis"

Bible Highlighter · May 14, 2019

DamianWarS said:
I have no such bias nor did I suggest anything like that and I also do not value traditional faith. it doesn't matter if the context of "paradosis" (passed down, tradition) is biblical or extra-biblical. This doesn't take away what the word is and I'm not trying to add or remove something to the text because I don't like what it points to. Thessalonians were taught something passed down or traditions from Paul and this is what the passage says.

Well, I believe the word "traditions" in the Bible is a teaching passed down (or given, delivered) by Jesus Christ to Paul. Paul went to Arabia and he no doubt learned of the Lord so as to be a minister unto the Gentiles. Paul did not learn from the passing down of teachings from one generation to the next. So I am not in disagreement with the variation on the word "traditions" in Scripture.

Also, you were pretty negative in attitude towards the thread idea to begin with; This tells me that you do not see a problem with certain church traditions in various denominations. Do you see a biblical problem with Catholic traditions? Do you see a biblical problem with Orthodox traditions? Do you see a biblical problem with Lutheran traditions? Does your church have traditions?

To put it to you another way, while you said you do not value traditional faith yourself, if you do not see a problem with the traditions I mentioned above, then you would be biased.

Bible Highlighter · May 14, 2019

DamianWarS said:
Paul doesn't actually say what he passed down was but let's just do a logic test comparing words to see what word is what using the KJV, NASB and NIV

KJV: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

NASB: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter [from us.

NIV: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

here are the words highlighted above

KJV
stand fast
hold
traditions
taught

NASB
stand firm
hold
traditions
taught

NIV
stand firm
hold fast
teachings
passed on

so let's match them, leaving traditions for last

KJV: stand fast, NASB: stand firm, NIV: stand firm
KJV: hold, NASB: hold, NIV: hold fast
KJV: taught, NASB: taught, NIV: teachings

are you still with me? what's left?
KJV: traditions, NASB: traditions, NIV: passed on

what does the word "traditions" mean in context? not teachings... teaching is that which was taught, so what was taught? That what was "passed on", "traditions" or "paradosis"

Actually, the context is the gospel and holy living, so this would be the teachings (traditions) that were taught to them in person and via the written Word of God that was being formed at that time.

The context does not say or suggest that there was some kind of outside additional tradition or teaching that was separate from Scripture. The teaching or tradition Paul taught them was directly from God via by teaching them in person and by the writings of the followers of Christ. Written teachings we regard today as Scripture and not as an extra biblical tradition. The Word of God is the tradition or teaching that Paul is referring to here. Paul again never says, "I now speak of a different kind of teaching to you called traditions that is outside the Scriptures." This is what needs to be in the context in some way in order for the Bible to mean what it says from your point of view.

In other words, you are taking a word and you are enforcing a meaning upon the text that goes beyond what the context (or surrounding words) actually say. The context has to fit the word you define. But you let the word define the context even when the context does not support your view that the Bible is talking about extra biblical traditions here.

Bible Highlighter · May 14, 2019

Eloy Craft said:
Jason, what does ALL Truth mean to you and how is it distinguishable from truth without the all in front.

This would obviously not be all godly knowledge or truth that could possibly ever be known. This is in reference to all truth in regards to the teachings of the New Covenant that they were supposed to have. They were given the full and complete teaching that was required. All truth for them. The Bible is all the truth that we as believers need today. While the early church had known certain other truths, we also have access to the Word of God (truth) in a way that was not possible for them. So while they provided the living word via under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and knew many things we do not probably know, there are things today that I believe the Spirit uses within God's Word (the Bible) to communicate to us that is unique to us today by comparing Scripture with Scripture on a whole new level with many years of study from other believers. But even for believers today, the "all truth" (in the Bible or the Scriptures) that we are to be guided into by the Spirit is limited and not infinite knowledge like God has infinite knowledge.

The knowledge or amount of truth we have is perfectly the right amount we need (Which can be found in the Bible or God's Word).

Bible Highlighter · May 14, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Oh I’m sorry brother I misunderstood your position. Your talking about priests being forbidden to marry. Well the Catholic Church (Orthodox Church) does not forbid priests to marry. In fact that was one of the many issues that led to Rome’s excommunication from the Catholic Church.

But the Roman Catholic Church forbids priests to marry.
This proves that men can violate Scripture as a result of their traditions.
As for the Orthodox Church: I also see their traditions as violating God's Word as result of their kissing of icons (idols). The Bible tells us to put away idols, destroy them, and or to flee from them. The New Covenant also teaches that we are to not to dress in a way that would draw attention to ourselves that we are holy. Yet, the Orthdox church does this.

Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Confessional Lutheran

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Myth only points, Truth happened!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads