How do we know . . . .

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You guys are getting rude.

I'll bow out now.

Racer... have a good day.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I didn't say he needed it. I said the Apostles did.

Forgive me...

and how could they do better with the LXX, than the pure source of the scriptures that is Christ?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

and how could they do better with the LXX, than the pure source of the scriptures that is Christ?

Do you think that the Apostles memorized the entire OT? I'm not saying it's not possible... just wandering what your thinking.

Forgive me...

 

[GenemZ]

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

See the examples of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al.

Then? We have no way of knowing we are being taught a false gospel. Do we?

Problem is.... all false teachings have a specific target. Its for the ego of each believer who functions in pride, not grace.

One type of false teaching will appeal to one kind of believer who is grieving the Holy Spirit (but he feels pleasure about something emotionally), and another type of teaching, will appeal to another.

Example? Judgmental people who lust to put down others will be attracted to various forms of legalism teachings. Pride is kept intact. Sound doctrine is pushed out.

Those who are weak and nice who can be stepped all over by more aggressive souls; will find a teaching to glorify their wimpy disposition. Pride is kept intact. Sound doctrine is pushed out.

Those who lust for religion? Religious pride? Seeking immediate results that can be seen by the eye by following a system of works? They will find religion adorned with the name of Christ, so they can feel satisfaction by thinking they can receive merit with God by following orders and doing certain rituals, etc. Pride is kept intact. Sound doctrine is pushed out.

Those who suffer from intellectual pride? There will be teachings that integrate science, philosophy, etc.. with Scripture in such a way that Scripture takes second place, yet is used to justify the anti-Scriptural position. Pride is kept intact. Sound doctrine is pushed out.

2 Timothy 4:3 (New International Version)
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
​

Sound doctrine will trample on our preconceived ideas. It tears down pride by revealing how stupid we are in truly coming to know the real nature of God. It dethrones our opinions and leaves us feeling helpless to defend ourselves emotionally by the old way of setting up a wall of opinion. We must depend fully on God to sustain us. We are born again. And, in a sense, we are like helpless babes who must learn how to live this new life we have been given, as to be learning to live all over again.

Many refuse to give up the pride of their way to get through life. They will not put up with sound doctrine, as to lose their life. They refuse, and counter with false teachings to try and save their life (their position of natural strength that they have become accustomed to to get through in life).

Matthew 16:25 (New International Version)
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."


​

Many refuse to give up their life in their natural ability to survive in the world, and as a result; lose out on the transformation into the new life to be found only in grace and truth.

2 Peter 3:18 (New International Version)
"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen."


​

Pride will always argue against the truth. It will produce anti-truth (evil) as its means to attempt to save its own natural life and survival.


I could write a book about this, but realize I must keep this brief. So?

That's why!

t t t





.
​

 

[Uphill Battle]

Do you think that the Apostles memorized the entire OT? I'm not saying it's not possible... just wandering what your thinking.

Forgive me...

no. I'm not forwarding that they did.

It's just you were stating that Christ was teaching the Apostles from the LXX.... I see no reason to believe he'd need to do any such thing. Perhaps the Apostles referred to it themselves... but I doubt strongly that Christ used it in his teaching.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Very well.

Would it be fair to say that you might have expected Christ to speak against the LXX to his Apostles if he did not want them to use it?

The Apostles quote the LXX verbatim in the NT.

Christ didn't speak against it. The Church maintains that he taught the Apostles from it.

I think you guys just hate that you cant prove it away.

Your being spiteful.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You're making a strong case for oral traditioning.

The scrolls existed in Christ life on earth and so did the LXX.

Hebrew was used in Liturgical service. Everyone spoke Greek (witness that the Apostles wrote in Greek and used the exactly language of the LXX).

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=24&verse=27&version=kjv#27

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=24&verse=27&version=kjv#27http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=24&verse=27&version=kjv#27http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=24&verse=27&version=kjv#27

If you want to say that it was all taught verbally... I have no problem with that. However, you are making my case concerning verbal tradition.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Very well.

Would it be fair to say that you might have expected Christ to speak against the LXX to his Apostles if he did not want them to use it?

perhaps. I don't know. Doesn't really matter much, IMO.

The Apostles quote the LXX verbatim in the NT.

if you say so.

Christ didn't speak against it. The Church maintains that he taught the Apostles from it.

good for "the church." I just don't believe Christ would need to do any such thing

I think you guys just hate that you cant prove it away.

prove what away? what "the church" teaches? most of it we couldn't anyway. how do you prove against circular self claimed authority?

Your being spiteful.

thank you sir. May I have another sir.

Forgive me...

sure.

 

[Philothei]

perhaps. I don't know. Doesn't really matter much, IMO.


I like the way you "duck" at the issues...lol...

 

[Uphill Battle]

You're making a strong case for oral traditioning.

not really.

The scrolls existed in Christ life on earth and so did the LXX.

Hebrew was used in Liturgical service. Everyone spoke Greek (witness that the Apostles wrote in Greek and used the exactly language of the LXX).



If you want to say that it was all taught verbally... I have no problem with that. However, you are making my case concerning verbal tradition.

Forgive me...

the only point I was making, was that Christ had no need of the scrolls, or the LXX, or the Masoretics, or.... any of that. I don't even BEGIN to suggest that someon other than Christ has that capability.

perhaps. I don't know. Doesn't really matter much, IMO.


I like the way you "duck" at the issues...lol...

duck? duck what? what issue?

I'm sure you like ANYTHING that you can pull out of someones post to try and make them look bad.

 

[Philothei]

I'm sure you like ANYTHING that you can pull out of someones post to try and make them look bad.

I am just observing your answers here that is all.. I am not the one that rejects oral tradition... then again you are wishy washy about it... How can you deny that oral tradition was alive and well in the times of Christ and at least 400 years after Christ?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am just observing your answers here that is all.. I am not the one that rejects oral tradition... then again you are wishy washy about it... How can you deny that oral tradition was alive and well in the times of Christ and at least 400 years after Christ?

I'm sure there was oral tradition. People like to talk.

I just don't place my faith in people.

 

[Philothei]

You already did ... cause prior to Bible there was oral tradition...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hi, sweetheart.
I been busy & this forum's been too squirrely to hang with lately...

I'm thinkin' He "had to" learn the scriptures simply as an exercise of the same obedience expected of most Jewish males, except He probably enjoyed it more than most Jewish males.

I hope this posts successfully...
copy your posts before you hit Submit Reply, just in case.

Actually back then, there were no such things as school. And basically Jesus learned the scriptures [in human form as He developed] thru His Mother.

Another reason He created her as He did.

any evidence that he sat them down with a textbook? Or, is it like the NT seems to point to, that he taught them word of mouth, because he knew the scriptures word for word?



I'm not stating that he didnt' know scripture. I'm stating I doubt that he needed any text to know it.

Once taught, I am sure He knew them.
Remember He lowered Himself lower than the angels to become man, and to be fully man [ and God] He was taught as a child.
So He would have everything we had.
But assuredly, altho He was taught the scriptures, He knew what they meant - whereas only outside of Himself did His Mother understand them.

WA, you know that you have been told numerous times that is not what the ideology of Sola Scriptura means.

You might get some things right.

Huh?

So, you are saying that we do not find in Scripture where pre-marital sex is sinful?

Where?

No one argues that Sola Scriptura prevents wrong discernment or misinterpretation. Sola Scriptura does not negate the teaching authority of the Church. I've said it before and I'll say it again, WA. It's just like taking a biology class--they don't just throw students in a room with a book and say figure it out on your own--though there will be those who can and will. However, teachers are provided to "teach" and "clarify" for us what is in the Biology "text book." The Bible is the Churche's text book.

I mean seriously, if a teacher just stood up in front of Biology class and fed us information without any concrete source to support her teachings, how would we know she had a clue as to what she was saying?

I will say I agree with your summation on NOT using sola scriptura....because honestly, the reformation borrowed much of Tradition.
Altho the further we get from Luther's day, the more we see less Tradition being used.
Example; JW's deny the Divinity of Christ - based 'solely' on the scriptures.

NOW - would you say their interpretations are as valid as someone else's ?

In fact JW believe Jesus is St Michael the Arch Angel because revelation says 'with the voice of an angel'.
[DOnt aSK ME...]

Anyway, the Trinitarian belief came from [drum roll please] the councils of the Church.
Hypostatic Union came from the councils of the Church.
The Incarnation came from the councils of the Church.

So you see, altho the 'allusion' of the truth can be found, no where does the scriptures tell us with uncertainty that the Trinity exists.

So you see, altho Tradition is vehemently denied, it is still used. So it's a question of what Tradition some keep and take with them, and which they throw out.



Its context... it really is.
And the only way we know anything today was brought to us by...[ring the bells]
The Church.

Protestants wouldnt exist without THE CHURCH.
God Bless.

[I felt musical today]

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

[SIZE=-1]Occasions where[/SIZE]
a Masoretic Reading
Is Quoted in the
New Testament
[SIZE=-1]against the sense of the Septuagint[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]He that taketh the wise in their craftiness[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Who hath first given to him[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Out of Egypt did I call my son[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]They shall look on him whom they pierced[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Behold, I send my messenger before thy face[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27[/SIZE]

Forgive me...

 

[WarriorAngel]

I'm sure there was oral tradition. People like to talk.

I just don't place my faith in people.

I dont either unless God gave them a certain charism.
Unless of course you dont think the ordinations from God kept the truth intact.

Then that opens a can of worms. Like the fact the Apostles were men.
And they said to those they taught to teach what they learned.

So either the Apostles believed the truth would be carried on in spite of their deaths...or they 'spoke to the air'.

SO you don't or i should say shouldnt say God doesnt use men...
Then that would remove the entire Bible as man made.
Yes God inspired...no doubt, BUT so is the teachings carried on in the Church thru all the ages.

Know what I mean?

DOnt 'look' at the laity, look at the ordained hands to carry on the truth.

Or again, the Apostles were speaking to the air.

God Bless.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Who says differently? The fact there are now different beliefs, is not evidence that any one church has everything correct.

Here's an interesting passage:

Acts 15:23; And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.

How can you say that IF you profess faith in the scriptures?

'The gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail'
And error shall never enter the Church or else, ya know, the gates prevailed.
Christ didnt do this willy nilly as though His agony was meant to be displaced with relativism.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually back then, there were no such things as school. And basically Jesus learned the scriptures [in human form as He developed] thru His Mother.

Another reason He created her as He did.

Once taught, I am sure He knew them.
Remember He lowered Himself lower than the angels to become man, and to be fully man [ and God] He was taught as a child.
So He would have everything we had.
But assuredly, altho He was taught the scriptures, He knew what they meant - whereas only outside of Himself did His Mother understand them.



I will say I agree with your summation on NOT using sola scriptura....because honestly, the reformation borrowed much of Tradition.
Altho the further we get from Luther's day, the more we see less Tradition being used.
Example; JW's deny the Divinity of Christ - based 'solely' on the scriptures.

NOW - would you say their interpretations are as valid as someone else's ?

In fact JW believe Jesus is St Michael the Arch Angel because revelation says 'with the voice of an angel'.
[DOnt aSK ME...]

Anyway, the Trinitarian belief came from [drum roll please] the councils of the Church.
Hypostatic Union came from the councils of the Church.
The Incarnation came from the councils of the Church.

So you see, altho the 'allusion' of the truth can be found, no where does the scriptures tell us with uncertainty that the Trinity exists.

So you see, altho Tradition is vehemently denied, it is still used. So it's a question of what Tradition some keep and take with them, and which they throw out.



Its context... it really is.
And the only way we know anything today was brought to us by...[ring the bells]
The Church.

Protestants wouldnt exist without THE CHURCH.
God Bless.

[I felt musical today]

ah, how to find another way to slip Mary into the conversation.... you found it, well done.

did the 12 year old Jesus knowing the scriptures better than the collective Rabbi's in the temple escape you? You believe that knowledge was gleaned from Mary's teachings?

I'm sorry, I cannot agree with you on that.

if Jesus depended on the teachings of his Mother, in the normative fasion of learning scripture, that would not have happened. He would have had a 12 year olds understanding of scripture.

Mary is NOT responsible for Christ's knowledge of Scripture.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You already did ... cause prior to Bible there was oral tradition...

no, I didn't.

I use what has been given us as divine revelation, and inspired in scripture.

I suppose if I was a 1st century diciple, I may have had to wait awhile, and depend on oral teachings. That is not the case.

there is a REASON it was recorded, and God inspired at that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

who ever writes the bigger letters and most colorful wins.... WA should not have a problem matching up with Racer...lol....(just kidding ya )

x =
I paid 38 blessings each for my color [which i have been thinking about changing lately - except the bugs - not sure it would work]
For the size [it helps me read - and thats what matters]...did i mention ?
And for the font.
A total of [whatever 38 x 3 equals]
Hey i got off work...done thinking.

You could alway flog me until I shut up.

Forgive me...

One wet noodle coming up.