Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[GenemZ]

Actually what you quoted is NOT the prayer for the dead.........sorry I was drowzy and could not recall the name, but it is called the Kaddish AND is the prayer for the dead.

Kaddish is what is prayed during "sitting shivah." Shiva was practiced for about a week in the home of the one mourning. If I recall correctly, no comfortable chairs were allowed for sitting. Men sat on milk crates and the one mourning for his loved one did not shave.

They pray 11 months for their departed. AND even if you do not agree with Macabbees as scripture, you certainly must agree it is part of Jewish history.

Not at all. Ask a Rabbi if what you say is accurate. Kaddish was prayed in Temple as a memorial to the departed. Not for their soul to receive special favor from God. Jews do not feel they can pray that way to begin with.

They [Maccabees and company] prayed for the dead,,,,and the reason was because they knew they had been using idols, but because the departed helped the Jews, the Jews had hoped God would show them mercy.

What ever the motivation was for the prayer. It does not matter. It is not Jewish practice. Not the way you make it out to be. It may have simply been a jesture of good will towards those whom were departed. But, it was not a Jewish pratice.

Romans 9:14-16 (New International Version)
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

Not at all!

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."




​

Praying to God for the dead is trying to bend God's will based upon our desire and effort. It does not depend on our desire or effort! If it did? Every mudrerer who has a mother would be in Heaven, because his mother prayed for him after execution. Where's God's justice in all this? We are to put in our petition? And God changes the rules? Because of our desire and effort? Not what God told Moses. Maccabees understood Moses.

Nevertheless.......Traditions do not change. DOCTRINES do not change. IF that were true, again, no one in 2006 would have the truth. Reading and interpretting is not having truth or else anyone could choose what it means and claim the Spirit told them.

1 John 4:1 niv
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."



​

John told those who have the Holy Spirit, that they still need to test the spirits speaking to them. Only one standard reveals what is of the true Spririt. The Word of God.

Proverbs 14:12 niv
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."



​

That does not have to mean physical death.

Hebrews 6:1 kjv
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God."



​

Dead works is 'religiously' following traditions that are not from God, but come in the pretense of being from God.

And so many ppl do this.....it makes NO sense the Spirit tells individuals many different things.

Test the spirits! You wrestle not against flesh and blood!

Ephesians 6:12 niv
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."



​

HE was promised to the Apostolic Church and He remains with the Apostolic Church whether men agree with Him or not.

That is what you have been told. So?

Colossians 2:4 niv
"I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."

​

We are commanded to prove what you just stated as being true. Not, just blindly accept it. We are commanded to prove all things. Not, just settle in with what may turn out to be a fine sounding argument. We are to prove what we believe, so we can know it, rather than just believe it.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 kjv
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."



​

What was the reaction of the RCC to the Reformation?

"How dare you question our authority!"

Yet? The believer is commanded to prove all things with the Word of God as the standard to live by.

At this juncture.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ



​

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Kaddish is what is prayed during "sitting shivah." Shiva was practiced for about a week in the home of the one mourning.

Correction the Mourners Kaddish is practiced. Also, it is prayed every year on the anniversary of their death.

If I recall correctly, no comfortable chairs were allowed for sitting. Men sat on milk crates and the one mourning for his loved one did not shave.

Milk crates In the first century? Where do you get your (mis)information?

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/i]

Kaddish is what is prayed during "sitting shivah." Shiva was practiced for about a week in the home of the one mourning. If I recall correctly, no comfortable chairs were allowed for sitting. Men sat on milk crates and the one mourning for his loved one did not shave.

FOR 11 months to be precise. If I were you I would find a new source for info.
Also this prayer is ancient and not since the time of Christ either......and Macabees prayed prayers........that is genuine Jewish history even if it is discreditted by Protestants as Inspired.

Not at all. Ask a Rabbi if what you say is accurate. Kaddish was prayed in Temple as a memorial to the departed. Not for their soul to receive special favor from God. Jews do not feel they can pray that way to begin with.

Why would I ask a modern Jew?
Macabees from 200 BC is sufficient for me.

Unless I ask an Ethiopian Jew...who would rather agree with me.

What ever the motivation was for the prayer. It does not matter. It is not Jewish practice. Not the way you make it out to be. It may have simply been a jesture of good will towards those whom were departed. But, it was not a Jewish pratice.

Genuine history is Macabbees disagrees with you, it very concise in stating 'pray for the dead'........

Romans 9:14-16 (New International Version)
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

Not at all!

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."




​

Praying to God for the dead is trying to bend God's will based upon our desire and effort. It does not depend on our desire or effort? If it did? Every mudrerer who had a mother would be in Heaven, because his mother prayed for him after execution. Where's God's justice in all this? We put in our petition? And God changes the rules because of our desire?

So you think God is ONLY Mercy........and yet ignore He is also justice?
Yes, by His mercy we have purgatory, because as been explained for umpteen hundred times already.......... NOTHING defiled [no sin] can enter heaven and abide therein.

AND John tells us there are two kinds of sins....one unto death, one not unto death.

YOU have some reckoning the scriptures...... and you cannot do it as long as those two passages are completely and utterly ignored.

NO SIN shall enter Heaven, yet JOHN says there is a sin not unto death.

SO sinners go somewhere.........!!!!

And are purged by fire....so scripture tells us.

1 John 4:1 niv
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."



​

John told those who have the Holy Spirit, that they still need to test the spirits speaking to them. Only one standard reveals what is of the true Spririt. The Word of God.

WHO was John's audience Genez...???
WHO?
They were the FIRST Christians, the same ones who are here today. The same Church that has the keys to Heaven.........the same who has Apostolic Succession.
WITHOUT which you should REALLY should think about the above passage. I need not further state WHY he said that..........we all know it has happened, hasnt it??
I will say this.......that verse should sink in.

Proverbs 14:12 niv
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."



​

That does not have to mean physical death.

Indeed, it means hell.

Hebrews 6:1 kjv
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God."



​

Dead works is 'religiously' following traditions that are not from God, but come in the pretense of being from God.

Um, look at that....the DOCTRINES of Christ. Yes, the same unchanged doctrines the Church has held for 2000 years since the Lord.

Anyone who does works without faith in THOSE doctrines might have dead works.

Test the spirits! You wrestle not against flesh and blood!

Ephesians 6:12 niv
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."



​

What ever. That is what you have been told. You are commanded to prove that is true. Not, just blindly accept it!

1 Thessalonians 5:21 kjv
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."




​

What was the reaction of the RCC to the Reformation?

"How dare you question our authority!"

Yet? The believer is commanded to prove all things. With the Word of God as the standard to live by.

At this juncture.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ



​

AGAIN, anyone OUTSIDE the Church had to proove themselves.

Putting the iron to the fire, Luther who pushed for the reform went outside the SAME OLD HISTORICAL APOSTOLIC CHURCH and all her doctrines because he disagreed with the 'Indulgences' [which are penances]
Maybe the particular way they were handled might have needed fixed, but to break off the ONLY CHURCH SINCE CHIRST....came with a price, and one even Luther lamented.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Milk crates In the first century? Where do you get your (mis)information?

I also wondered.

 

[GenemZ]

Correctiont the Mourners Kaddish is practiced. Also, it is prayed every year on the anniversary of their death.



Milk crates In the first century? Where do you get your (mis)information?

I was simply telling you what the present custom is.

Men apparently were disallowed creature comforts while sitting Shivah. Today, the 'tradition' took on the form of milk crates.

Like I have been saying, traditions will change according to times and cultures. In ancient Israel? Thay may have sat on stones. Who cares? Traditions are not critical in this matter. But, some folks are, as to try and create errors (that are not there) to find fault in the one they oppose.

Grace and truth, Gene

 

[GenemZ]

I also wondered.

Wonder? I wonder, why you wonder.

Having grown up a Jew. I can verify what I told you is accurate. Why take a modern version of a tradition, and impose it upon the ancient one? As I have been saying many times. Traditions were created for the benefit of the believer. It was not designed to make the believer a slave to the tradition. Do we still water our horses? I bet if you search, you will find certain ancient traditions which involve camels, or horses. Do they apply now to our cars?

Things change. So do traditions. To think otherwise, is to lock oneself into the past.
Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[Trento]

Not at all. Ask a Rabbi if what you say is accurate. Kaddish was prayed in Temple as a memorial to the departed. Not for their soul to receive special favor from God. Jews do not feel they can pray that way to begin with.



What ever the motivation was for the prayer. It does not matter. It is not Jewish practice. Not the way you make it out to be. It may have simply been a jesture of good will towards those whom were departed. But, it was not a Jewish pratice.

Grace and peace, GeneZ




​

This is an absolutely wrong conclusion as this Orthodox Jewish site proves.


The Yahrzeit Organization -
PastQuestion’s and Answers

Click on Is this what Catholics do and you will find this.


Q) I was reading about the Kaddish and in it you state: "The Rabbis teach us that Kaddish is a source of merit for the soul. Also, when you give charity in the name of a deceased, it can abolish evil decrees." My question: Is this like what the Catholics do in their belief of purgatory? When you say "charity... [abolishing] evil decrees," is this comparable to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences? Are these prayers for purification of the dead, or are they used to provide a greater experience of peace and happiness for the dead? Also, when did the Kaddish come into being? Is it Scriptural (Torah or otherwise) or is it a tradition? Please let me know. I am really interested in so many things on your website

A) If a soul is in purgatory, the recitation of kaddish or the act of charity can help to get that soul out. The way this works is that the reward for the act of sanctifying G-d's name through reciting the kaddish or doing an act of kindness is transferred to the soul in purgatory by the person who does the mitzva by thinking, before the act, "I'm doing this act of charity or reciting this kaddish in the merit of ________." The kaddish is not Scriptural, it is Rabbinic. It was composed in Mishnaic times circa 100 B.C.E.
The Jewish religion came before catholic and therefore the custom of kaddish and that of charity was from the Jewish religion.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The Jewish religion came before catholic and therefore the custom of kaddish and that of charity was from the Jewish religion.

So the Early Church inherited these practices from the Hebrews at the time the Church was formed?

 

[WarriorAngel]

The way I see it, purgatory or another name for it, has been around for a long time.

And the Apostles never condemned the belief of such a state.

Paul even prayed for his friend....asking mercy in THAT DAY.

 

[lionroar0]

And everything stated in those words are to be verified in Scripture. Sola Scriptura types would find those words passing the test!

If the creed never existed before?

And was written for the first time today?

Someone knowing Scripture could have written the same thing, for the first time.

That's the beauty of being Sola Scriptura. It must agree with the Word of God. When it does? Ten people around the World can all write the same creed and have never met each other, nor seen each other's writings. But? Tradition? Unless its Scriptural? It will not happen that way. For it must be made up if its not Scriptural (based upon Sola Scriptura).

[/size]Grace and truth, GeneZ

Also those words were writen about 200yrs. before there was the Bible. There was no Bible, chapter or verse that he culd have pointed and referenced, which he doesn't. He spoke solely from Tradition.

We have been taught the Tradition of the Creed therefore we can look for it in the Bible.

Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand.

I can argue the Arian case from the Bible. I can argue that Jesus was not 100% percent Human and 100% devine using Scripture. I can even argue that Jesus is not God from Scripture. I can argue that Jesus became God and was adopted later by God as His Son well after His conception from Scripture.

I can argue for all of the ancient heresies from Scripture.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

But, this information is Biblical, SCRIPTURAL, and nothing that Ignatius says can not be found in Scripture. So, I'm missing your point. What you have here is historical writing affirming what we have in Scripture. Nobody denies that history supports Scripture. You and I are just as privy to this information as was Ignatius, because we have the Bible. Of course, Ignatius was taught directly by John, but there's nothing in this particular quote that's not in Scripture.

I agree that they are in Scripture. Now take into considertion that there was no Bible when St. Ignatius wrote his letter. He doesn't even quote the Scriptures. He was speaking from Traditions.

We see it in Scripture because we have been given this Tradition and has been passed down and taught through the generations.

I just wanted to show this connection between Tradition and Scripture.

One thing that does come to mind that is not explicitly in Scripture and needed to be stated explicitly by the 4th Ecumunical council was that Jesus is 100%human and divine from His moment of His conception. This is also why Mary was explicitly given the title. Theotokos(God-bearer, Mother of God).

Nestorious argued from Scripture that Mary was not Mother of God but rather Mother of Christ. It implied that Jesus became divine at later moment in his life.


This was argued from Scriptures but this view was contrary to the Faith that was taught. The Faith that had been taught had to be explicitly stated by this council. In this particular instance. Once this was done then the correct context is there to reach the correct conclusions from Scripture.

There are no verses that explicitly say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, from the moment of His conception. It is from this lack of explicit information that these heresies came to be. This is were we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through these councils to pass on the Truth.

This is why we say that the Scriptures are part of Tradition. They point to and compliment each other.

There are still Nestorian churches to this day. They defend themselves with their interpretation of Scriptures that is outside of Tradition.

Peace

 

[GenemZ]

God's Trinitarian essense...for one.
The NT Bible [The Church choose which was Divinely inspired.. ]
IN fact, I have yet to see a Christian disclaim the Trinity...and yet the WORD IS NOT in scripture.
[Non Trinitarians dont count]

I really think you have an entirely wrong concept of what Sola Scriptura means.

It does not mean that a pastor is to get up before his congregation, read Mark 4:19, then sit down.

When the Apostles write that they wished not to write but to teach face to face, it did not mean they were to be saying things beyond what is written in Scripture.

It simply meant they were going to give a message that will require lots of oral teaching, with and enjoyable emotional exchange between the Apostle and congregation!

I have felt that way myself. When asked to post something to explain a doctrine? There have been times I would rather teach it in person and maybe take an hour for explaining and running through chapters and verses with those listening. To do that in writing? It would end up being a book that would take weeks to write. But, orally? It can be taught verbally in an hour. That is why the Apostles could not wait to be before the congregation to teach, and perferred not to have to write certain things.

Some things are 'better read, than said.'

Others, 'better said, than read.'

It did not mean that what they would give teachings orally would be expressing truths that were not contained in Scripture! It meant they wanted to expound Scriptural truths, and get excited with the congregation in their mutual celebration of the amazing truths we have in Christ! That their joy may be full!


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[calmcoolandelected]

I agree that they are in Scripture. Now take into considertion that there was no Bible when St. Ignatius wrote his letter. He doesn't even quote the Scriptures. He was speaking from Traditions.

We see it in Scripture because we have been given this Tradition and has been passed down and taught through the generations.

I just wanted to show this connection between Tradition and Scripture.

One thing that does come to mind that is not explicitly in Scripture and needed to be stated explicitly by the 4th Ecumunical council was that Jesus is 100%human and divine from His moment of His conception. This is also why Mary was explicitly given the title. Theotokos(God-bearer, Mother of God).

Nestorious argued from Scripture that Mary was not Mother of God but rather Mother of Christ. It implied that Jesus became divine at later moment in his life.


This was argued from Scriptures but this view was contrary to the Faith that was taught. The Faith that had been taught had to be explicitly stated by this council. In this particular instance. Once this was done then the correct context is there to reach the correct conclusions from Scripture.

There are no verses that explicitly say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, from the moment of His conception. It is from this lack of explicit information that these heresies came to be. This is were we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through these councils to pass on the Truth.

This is why we say that the Scriptures are part of Tradition. They point to and compliment each other.

There are still Nestorian churches to this day. They defend themselves with their interpretation of Scriptures that is outside of Tradition.

Peace

Was it that Scripture wasn't cannonized as we know it today? Certainly, there were writings that were considered to be Scripture from the get-go. So to say that there wasn't a Bible isn't exactly accurate.

CC&E

 

[WarriorAngel]

I really think you have an entirely wrong concept of what Sola Scriptura means.

It does not mean that a pastor is to get up before his congregation, read Mark 4:19, then sit down.

FOR the last time, stop telling me I do not know what it means.

No indeed you are correct he wont just sit down...... the pastor will take the verse, and conclude what HE THINKS it means, without ever being HISTORICALLY taught what it means.

The pastor will open the Bible and preach to the ppl what his own ideas are regarding that passage, and even if history and archeological proof can back up the Catholic understanding, the pastor still has his own theory or idea what it means and will preach it that way.


THAT is what all 'Bible Only' Churches do.

And then when it comes to anything about Christ's doctrines spoke of in the Bible, then what?

What about the Paraclete staying with the Church?

Look, if I owned a house and gave my servants orders on how to tend to it, and then some folks came looking into my yard while my servants were working and then came in and started telling everyone HOW things should be........are they right in deciding what should be, yet even though they can SEE the yard, they do not know what I WANT!

That is just like Christianity at the start. The Apostles KNEW what Christ taught them, and they passed that knowledge on, and laid hands so their disciples would also be led by the Spirit, because the Spirit and Christ remain in the CHURCH....so the FIRST CHURCH cannot fail. They just CANNOT fail. MIND you corrupt men could not even change her.

Jesus told them how he wanted things done, and the Paraclete is with them and they will know ALL things. And the Spirit of God shall remain forever.....

SO how does the CHURCH Christ established and will be with until the end of time....NOT know or is unable to keep all things as He wanted??

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and no one can defile that which HE is with.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Was it that Scripture wasn't cannonized as we know it today? Certainly, there were writings that were considered to be Scripture from the get-go. So to say that there wasn't a Bible isn't exactly accurate.

CC&E

They had scrolls, and it was NOT called the Bible. It was called scripture.

And the New Testament was hand picked by men & discussed in the councils in 389 AD, and finalized in 397 AD...or rather close to that time. THEY CHOOSE what they [the men] felt were inspired.

NOW can you trust that the Spirit of God worked in the men to know what should be inspired writing??

IF APOSTOLIC line of succession was inconclusive, and it does not merit anything whatsoever because it is not written in the Bible.......then by this line of thinking, then the BIBLE itself cannot be Inspired....even if we are told it is....... because the successors to the Apostles are not given credit in the CHURCH for keeping the same Paraclete.

Therefore, if a protestant protests the Spirit is within the same Church since the beginning.......then HOW can they honestly trust the Bible which men of the CHURCH decided was inspired???

See how this comes full circle? Do you understand HOW WE MUST acknowledge that God uses man, and that His Spirit remains with even the men in the same Church til the end of time.

IF He did NOT, then we all have absoluetly nothing if we cannot trust HIM to remain even with His own Church.

Peace!!!

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Wonder? I wonder, why you wonder.

Having grown up a Jew. I can verify what I told you is accurate. Why take a modern version of a tradition, and impose it upon the ancient one? As I have been saying many times. Traditions were created for the benefit of the believer. It was not designed to make the believer a slave to the tradition. Do we still water our horses? I bet if you search, you will find certain ancient traditions which involve camels, or horses. Do they apply now to our cars?

Things change. So do traditions. To think otherwise, is to lock oneself into the past.
Grace and truth, GeneZ

It a fallacy to suggest that Rabbinic Jews hold fast to the customs of the common ancestors of Rabbinic Jews and Christians moreso than do Apostolic Christians. IOW, taking the ethos and praxis of the modern Rabbinic (if one can decide which of the streams of Rabbinicism one should view as an authorative voice of Judaism) and superimposing it over the views and practice of the Jewish believers in Christ of the first century is misleading and errant.

If one wishes to know how early Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped in the primitive Christian Church, one need look no further than the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, who have maintained a Semitic sensibility within a mixed and integrated synaxis. What sets us apart from Rabbinic Jews is just exactly what set Paul and Peter apart from them: we do not reject Christ.

 

[ETide]

If one wishes to know how early Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped in the primitive Christian Church, one need look no further than the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, who have maintained a Semitic sensibility within a mixed and integrated synaxis. What sets us apart from Rabbinic Jews is just exactly what set Paul and Peter apart from them: we do not reject Christ.

Although isn't it true that the OO and EO churches are amillennial.. ie, they reject a future millennial kingdom of Christ on this earth with Jerusalem as its center..?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Although isn't it true that the OO and EO churches are amillennial.. ie, they reject a future millennial kingdom of Christ on this earth with Jerusalem as its center..?

This is not a discussion of eschatology. But since you asked, it is not only OO and EO Christians who hold to what is known as amillenialism (a misleading name):

Purvey the following to view the historical Reformed position on this matter. Pay close attention, please, to the second part.

http://www.prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html

 

[ETide]

This is not a discussion of eschatology. But since you asked, it is not only OO and EO Christians who hold to what is known as amillenialism (a misleading name):

Purvey the following to view the historical Reformed position on this matter. Pay close attention, please, to the second part.

http://www.prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html

I'm well aware of the fact that amillennialism extends much further than the OO and EO.. although the fact of the matter is that this doctrine rejects the fact of Israel ultimatey receiving Christ as their king as prophecied in many OT scriptures.. and has a different view of the NT fact concerning Israel being currently blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

In essence.. amillennialism teaches that we're already in the millennial kingdom of Christ.. so yes, I agree that its name is misleading..

All of these issues are pertinent of course as they touch the heart of what people see as their tradition or Tradition..

It's odd that the Tradition of a church which claims that IT IS the church, would miss the fact that we're currently within the times of the Gentiles, and that Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled..

Yes, Israel will one day receive their King.. and yet many in Christendom persist in stating that they reject Christ (as the nation is still blinded in part) without acknowledging the prophetic reality of their receiving Him in that Day..

 

[Tonks]

Although isn't it true that the OO and EO churches are amillennial.. ie, they reject a future millennial kingdom of Christ on this earth with Jerusalem as its center..?

Among other things....such as the fact that wooly-headed modernist "eschatologists" confuse the Church as Israel with the State of Israel.