Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

Clearly · Feb 27, 2012

[FONT=&quot]root of Jesse, I wrote a response to all of the prior points and then realized it was so large as to be a bit overwhelming to read. Perhaps I can break it down into parts. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Post REGARDING THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION THAT THE ROMAN CONGREGATION WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF (AND BY) “SAINT PETER”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear said in post #30 : “I offered examples of new traditions created by the catholic congregation. For example, the tradition that the congregational Bishop Titus was given apostolic power over all other apostles was an entirely new tradition to early Christianity that NEVER existed in any text or congregation in earliest Judao-Christianity but rather, it was a tradition created at a later time than the occurrence was supposed to have occurred. One may debate WHY Romans created this tradition, but it is obvious historically, that it was a created tradition and was not part of original Christian tradition.

If you remember, you were never able to offer any period appropriate data supporting this tradition of apostolic power in a bishop, but rather you speculated as to WHY there WASN’T data supporting this tradition. Unless you have discovered data since last we discussed the creation of this tradition, we don’t need to revisit speculations as to why no data exists to support this claim.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse responded in post #32 Regarding Titus, I don't think he was ever a bishop 'over all the apostles'. He was Bishop of Crete. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. But he wasn't 'over all the apostles'. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesse, I might remind you that many readers of these threads both recognize intellectual “hide and seek” and all of us realize that it makes straightforward communication more difficult. You and I both know that I am referring to Titus, the first Bishop of ROME and the creation of the catholic claim that Peter gave his apostolic authority to a roman Bishop (who then gave it to others).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To bring us all to the same page, early lists of Bishops of Rome are :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Linus as ROMES first bishop, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus as enumerated by the Christian historian, Eusebius. Anastasius' also tells us that Linus was ROMES first bishop, followed by 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus. The Liberian Catalogues list also confirms Linus was ROMES first bishop, followed by 2. Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus. Eusbius also confirms that after Paul and Peter were martyred, “Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.” (eusebius of caesaria – eclesiatical hx) This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled “The first ruler of the Church of Rome”. Eusebius repeats this same claim in chapter thirteen which is entitiled “Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In constitutions it confirms : “Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] LINUS IS THE ONE I AM REFERRING TO JESSE. However, regardless of any Linus or any other Bishop or “pope” you refer to, I am referring to the myth that Peter gave his authority to the Roman Congregation. Historically, this did not happen but was a tradition created in later years.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse then tells us in post #32 “If you're talking about apostolic power conferred to bishops, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. …. Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is an abuse of logic Jesse. Paul, in entrusting Timothy with the task of furthering the Christian witness is not giving Timothy “apostolic” authority such as was given to Peter. Timothy does not become one of the 12 nor can Timothy ordain anyone else to an apostleship he does not have. Please Root of Jesse. If you do not have actual data, this exchange will be just as painful this time around as it was the first time we discussed it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Root of Jesse claims in post #32 “...Apostolic Tradition, with the teaching authority given the apostles, is what tells us how to interpret the Bible. That's it. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is just the point. You do not HAVE the “authority given the apostles” which is why your interpretations are no better than any other denominations. I think your prior reference to and interpretation of Timothy 2:2 is as good an example as any as to how tenuous a stretch you must make in your speculations and “interpretations” in order to justify [/FONT][FONT=&quot]your doctrines.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is there anyone in the forum who thinks this interpretation and usage of 2 Timothy 2:2 is evidence of a superior "interpretation of" and "usage of" scripture? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This has always been my point. The claim to “tradition” as a means of confirming truth is only as accurate as the tradition itself. Holding on to an inaccurate or counterfeit tradition is not helpful. Just as a hypothetical “sola scriptura” has never worked, creating an inaccurate tradition and then holding fast to it fares no better. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’ll post further later regarding your descriptions of Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and it’s characteristics; regarding catholic doctrine as to the purpose of creation and regarding catholic doctrine concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives. Meanwhile, are you sure you don’t want to add some data to these descriptions since these descriptions of catholic doctrine on these subjects seems to be very superficial and lack detail? Let me know if you need more time on these descriptions, otherwise I’ll post how they differ in doctrine, direction and detail from the early Judao-Christian traditions. I would like to give you a chance to accurately represent catholic doctrine in these issues, otherwise, the comparison will be less valid.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse; I would like to repeat my respect for your commitment to your beliefs. I do not want to harm any belief in Jesus as our redeemer since I believe that this core doctrine has nothing to fear from any historical discoveries, but rather it is the myriads of peripheral speculations and peripheral doctrines that must be adjusted if they are to remain historically accurate. I appreciate your patience and understand that these sorts of comparisons appear to set us at odds on our claims. I apologize in advance if I appear insensitive and hope you will let me know where I might err in or need to adjust any historical claim I make.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]clearly
drtzviok
[/FONT]

Pfaffenhofen · Feb 28, 2012

Up to now I dealt with Papacy, as commanded by Jesus in the Gospels, and fulfilled in the last 2000 years.

Now, let's see what the problem of Scripture and Tradition (SaT) is. Some call it the "Holy Tradition", and such wording I never heard of.

From what I see the SaT is a problem between Protestant and Catholics, not a problem that divides Catholics with many other Churches like the Eastern Church, who think that Catholics were NOT traditional.

And, as I prepare these texts, I have wondered why Reformation put this problem and I came out with this Theory. I think that Reformation did not like the Church as it had at the time of Luther and Reformers. Instead of trying to reform the Church from within, they threw the baby with the bath water. They created something new. (Some will say that neither Luther nor Henry VIII wanted to get out of the Catholic Church, but there are no excuses, for their followers went out of the RCC and neither one of them showed any sign of giving up their creeds).

And where did they got the inspiration? Not with the RCC. Not with the Middle Ages, for obvious reasons. Not with the Dark Ages and the barbarians, certainly. Not with the Persecuted Church before 313 bC, for they left few traces.

Before that, we had the Early Church and His Scriptures. It is a kid of purifying movement, to get rid of the superfluous and get to the essential.

In the years 1960s, we had a similar movement in the RCC, which intended to purify the RCC going back to the roots. The Early Church came into an aura as the Ideal Church, where everybody was in unison, share wealth, live like brothers ideally.

It was forceful for the Reformation to take Scriptures as ideal, contra posed to the contemporaneous Borgia Popes and their corruption. So, they took the Scriptures as the lighthouse and the Popes as the Babylon harlot who destroyed the purity of the Scriptures.

Unfortunately, they could not see the forest for the trees. As I mentioned earlier, corruption and sin goes all along the way of the sinful Church. Even the early church did not escape. Paul whips hardly the movements pro-Peter and pro-Paul and the people who came to the Eucharist and drank too much or did not share at all with the poorest.

But being life what it is, Reformation and the children of Reformation (who had no say in the Protests and are called Protestant) stick to Scripture and see the RCC as the Entity that deviated from the true Teaching of Jesus, which was renewed with the Reformation.

The problem is that, being the distinction Tradition/Scripture a dichotomy antagonistic made by the Reformation, it is Reformation's business, not anybody else's.

As Derrida would put it, sometimes the problem sits on the fact of making it a problem. If the hen put an egg in New York, it belong to the USA, if she puts it in Montreal, it is Canadian, if she puts it exactly on the border between Canada and the USA, dont ask me whose egg is that one. It could give rise to a nuclear war...

The first monumental books of humanity, Ilyad, Odysee, the first books of the Bible, the Ramayana and so on, started with an Oral Tradition that was put into writing. Why? Because when writing began, there was always someone who tried to save Oral Tradition from Oblivion

Verba volant, scripta manent is a Latin proverb. Literally translated, it means "spoken words fly away, written words remain". That is good to write a diary, as I say to my teenagers: you will remember in 20 years how you felt now.

The Gospels were written texts of what was said in the Early Communities. The Gospel writers were not the authors. The Authors were the Communities were they lived. I would make an exception for the Gospel of John, a tremendous reflection of Jesus Christ and on the Apocalipse.

There was a dated time where Scripture and Tradition was divided as if they contradicted each other.

But Tradition and Scripture are the faces of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other. Are like Father and Son, you cannot have a Father if He does not have a son, who necessarily has a Father. As left and right or up and down, you cannot have the first without the second.

tbc
AMDG

Root of Jesse · Feb 28, 2012

Clearly said:
[FONT=&quot]root of Jesse, I wrote a response to all of the prior points and then realized it was so large as to be a bit overwhelming to read. Perhaps I can break it down into parts. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Post REGARDING THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION THAT THE ROMAN CONGREGATION WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF (AND BY) SAINT PETER.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear said in post #30 : I offered examples of new traditions created by the catholic congregation. For example, the tradition that the congregational Bishop Titus was given apostolic power over all other apostles was an entirely new tradition to early Christianity that NEVER existed in any text or congregation in earliest Judao-Christianity but rather, it was a tradition created at a later time than the occurrence was supposed to have occurred. One may debate WHY Romans created this tradition, but it is obvious historically, that it was a created tradition and was not part of original Christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you remember, you were never able to offer any period appropriate data supporting this tradition of apostolic power in a bishop, but rather you speculated as to WHY there WASNT data supporting this tradition. Unless you have discovered data since last we discussed the creation of this tradition, we dont need to revisit speculations as to why no data exists to support this claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse responded in post #32 Regarding Titus, I don't think he was ever a bishop 'over all the apostles'. He was Bishop of Crete. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. But he wasn't 'over all the apostles'. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesse, I might remind you that many readers of these threads both recognize intellectual hide and seek and all of us realize that it makes straightforward communication more difficult. You and I both know that I am referring to Titus, the first Bishop of ROME and the creation of the catholic claim that Peter gave his apostolic authority to a roman Bishop (who then gave it to others).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To bring us all to the same page, early lists of Bishops of Rome are :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Linus as ROMES first bishop, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus as enumerated by the Christian historian, Eusebius. Anastasius' also tells us that Linus was ROMES first bishop, followed by 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus. The Liberian Catalogues list also confirms Linus was ROMES first bishop, followed by 2. Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus. Eusbius also confirms that after Paul and Peter were martyred, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. (eusebius of caesaria eclesiatical hx) This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled The first ruler of the Church of Rome. Eusebius repeats this same claim in chapter thirteen which is entitiled Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In constitutions it confirms : Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] LINUS IS THE ONE I AM REFERRING TO JESSE. However, regardless of any Linus or any other Bishop or pope you refer to, I am referring to the myth that Peter gave his authority to the Roman Congregation. Historically, this did not happen but was a tradition created in later years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse then tells us in post #32 If you're talking about apostolic power conferred to bishops, the role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. . Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic successionhis own generation, Timothys generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is an abuse of logic Jesse. Paul, in entrusting Timothy with the task of furthering the Christian witness is not giving Timothy apostolic authority such as was given to Peter. Timothy does not become one of the 12 nor can Timothy ordain anyone else to an apostleship he does not have. Please Root of Jesse. If you do not have actual data, this exchange will be just as painful this time around as it was the first time we discussed it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse [/FONT][FONT=&quot]claims in post #32 ...Apostolic Tradition, with the teaching authority given the apostles, is what tells us how to interpret the Bible. That's it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is just the point. You do not HAVE the authority given the apostles which is why your interpretations are no better than any other denominations. I think your prior reference to and interpretation of Timothy 2:2 is as good an example as any as to how tenuous a stretch you must make in your speculations and interpretations in order to justify [/FONT][FONT=&quot]your doctrines. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is there anyone in the forum who thinks this interpretation and usage of 2 Timothy 2:2 is evidence of a superior "interpretation of" and "usage of" scripture? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This has always been my point. The claim to tradition as a means of confirming truth is only as accurate as the tradition itself. Holding on to an inaccurate or counterfeit tradition is not helpful. Just as a hypothetical sola scriptura has never worked, creating an inaccurate tradition and then holding fast to it fares no better. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ill post further later regarding your descriptions of Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and its characteristics; regarding catholic doctrine as to the purpose of creation and regarding catholic doctrine concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives. Meanwhile, are you sure you dont want to add some data to these descriptions since these descriptions of catholic doctrine on these subjects seems to be very superficial and lack detail? Let me know if you need more time on these descriptions, otherwise Ill post how they differ in doctrine, direction and detail from the early Judao-Christian traditions. I would like to give you a chance to accurately represent catholic doctrine in these issues, otherwise, the comparison will be less valid.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse; I would like to repeat my respect for your commitment to your beliefs. I do not want to harm any belief in Jesus as our redeemer since I believe that this core doctrine has nothing to fear from any historical discoveries, but rather it is the myriads of peripheral speculations and peripheral doctrines that must be adjusted if they are to remain historically accurate. I appreciate your patience and understand that these sorts of comparisons appear to set us at odds on our claims. I apologize in advance if I appear insensitive and hope you will let me know where I might err in or need to adjust any historical claim I make.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]drtzviok[/FONT]

Titus was NEVER bishop of Rome. He was a companion of Paul, and made bishop of CRETE by PAUL. And then you change from Titus to Linus. So which are you referring? Yes, we know there are conflicting lists, but so what? It makes no difference. We know Peter was the first pope, ordained and commissioned by Christ. After Peter was martyred, when he was bishop of Rome, someone took his place as bishop of Rome, and Pope.

Regarding Timothy and Paul, that's you're interpretation, but the Catholic interpretation has always been as I stated. My authority is the apostles and doctors of the Church. Who is yours?

Again, I want to state the importance of what is Tradition, and what is tradition. tradition can change. Tradition cannot.

Regarding pre-history, I stated what my belief is, which is what the Church teaches.

Clearly · Feb 28, 2012

[FONT=&quot]1) ROOT OF JESSE WAS ENTIRELY CORRECT THAT I TYPED THE WRONG NAME

Clearly wrote in post #30 “For example, the tradition that the congregational Bishop Titus was given apostolic power over all other apostles was an entirely new tradition…”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for catching this mistake Root of Jesse. You are correct that I was referring to “Linus” all along rather than to “Titus”. I do not know why my fingers typed Titus when I meant Linus but I am sorry that I assumed the error in names was yours when, in fact the error was entirely mine. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I hope forum readers will see that Root of Jesse was not only correct, but that it was wrong of me to assume he was being “coy” or to accuse him of this. I apologize Root of Jesse.[/FONT]

2) THE MISUSE OF THE CLAIM TO "KNOW" SOMETHING THAT IS INSTEAD, A TRADITION OR BELIEF

Root of Jesse wrote in post #43 “We know Peter was the first pope, ordained and commissioned by Christ. After Peter was martyred, when he was bishop of Rome, someone took his place as bishop of Rome, and Pope. “

No, you do not “know” that Peter gave any apostleship to any bishop of rome. This is your very deeply ingrained tradition that you believe very deeply. It is the same tradition that I was also taught when I was a youth. As we have already discovered in our first go around on this tradition, you, nor anyone else were unable to find even a bit of any period appropriate data showing Peter made any congregational bishop an apostle. Historically we have no reason to believe that Peter gave give Linus or clement or any other bishop “apostleship” or “apostolic powers”. Unless you HAVE discovered data which no one else has discovered, then this claim must remain a simple mythic tradition.

The tendency among religionists to confuse what they “believe” with what they “know” and misuse the two words lessens the value of the claim to “know” a thing.

3) THE TENDENCY TO INTERPRET ACCORDING TO INACCURATE TRADITIONS IS NO MORE ACCURATE THAN SOLA SCRIPTURISTS WHO INTERPRET ACCORDING TO PERSONAL OPINIONS. ALL OF US INTERPRET ACCORDING TO OUR OWN BIAS

Jesse said in post #32 : “Regarding Timothy and Paul, that's you're interpretation, but the Catholic interpretation has always been as I stated. My authority is the apostles and doctors of the Church. Who is yours?”

Notice your attempt to claim the “apostles” as your authority for your interpretation Jesse. This desire to claim authority you do not have is not much different than the later Roman congregations desire to claim “apostolic authority” to add credibility to their claims.

Obviously you don’t have “authority” from the apostles to interpret a text. HOWEVER, if such a claim was believed by us, that could be the seed of a tradition that this claim was true and is a model for both the motives and the mechanism of "apostolic authority" the Catholic Congregation made and perpetuated.

If the catholic interpretation is that Paul was giving “apostolic authority to timothy who was to give “apostolic authority” to others, then I believe it is simply more evidence that you do not HAVE apostolic authority since you claim that “[FONT=&quot]...Apostolic Tradition, with the teaching authority given the apostles, is what tells us how to interpret the Bible. That's it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “ root of Jesse in post #32.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paul is not making timothy an apostle, rather he is committing to Timothy a charge to teach others what he has heard just as I might commit to an employee the task of repeating an important message to others.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This does not imply apostleship nor apostolic authority. The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]common [/FONT][FONT=&quot]greek render this text (2 tim 2:2) as[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Κ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]αι α ηκουσας παρ εμου δια πολλων μαρτυρων, ταυτα παραθου πιστοις ανθρωποις.... [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He tells Timothy: “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ηκουσας[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” (what Timothy has HEARD), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ταυτα[/FONT][FONT=&quot]παραθου[/FONT][FONT=&quot]πιστοις[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ανθρωποις[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…”THESE [witnesses] commit to faithful men.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Timothy is to spread the knowledge of witnesses of Christ and his message just as others were to do, just as we all feel some obligation to do. He was not an apostle, nor had apostolic authority.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Root of Jesse : Thank you again for pointing out my error in typing “titus” rather than my intended “Linus”. The specific resulting confusion was all mine and I apologize for that again. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile, are you sure you don’t want to add more data regarding Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and it’s characteristics; the purpose of creation and concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives? (since I plan to post on those later today&#8230

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]drfusiis
[/FONT]

Root of Jesse · Feb 28, 2012

Clearly said:
Root of Jesse wrote in post #43 We know Peter was the first pope, ordained and commissioned by Christ. After Peter was martyred, when he was bishop of Rome, someone took his place as bishop of Rome, and Pope.

No, you do not know that Peter gave any apostleship to any bishop of rome. This is your very deeply ingrained tradition that you believe very deeply. It is the same tradition that I was also taught when I was a youth. As we have already discovered in our first go around on this tradition, you, nor anyone else were unable to find even a bit of any period appropriate data showing Peter made any congregational bishop an apostle. Historically we have no reason to believe that Peter gave give Linus or clement or any other bishop apostleship or apostolic powers. Unless you HAVE discovered data which no one else has discovered, then this claim must remain a simple mythic tradition.

The tendency among religionists to confuse what they believe with what they know and misuse the two words lessens the value of the claim to know a thing.

Well, first, we know that Peter would not name his own successor. That's not how successors were chosen. They were chosen by the apostles' disciples. It's different if the apostle was to leave a bishop in charge, like Timothy and Titus.
But we do know that successors were to be chosen who had the same charism as the one they replace: Acts 1:13 and following: When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, <A name=52001016>My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. <A name=52001020>For it is written in the Book of Psalms: Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it. And: May another take his office.Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, <A name=52001022>beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. <A name=52001024>Then they prayed, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen <A name=52001025>to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.

Jesse said in post #32 : Regarding Timothy and Paul, that's you're interpretation, but the Catholic interpretation has always been as I stated. My authority is the apostles and doctors of the Church. Who is yours?

Notice your attempt to claim the apostles as your authority for your interpretation Jesse. This desire to claim authority you do not have is not much different than the later Roman congregations desire to claim apostolic authority to add credibility to their claims.

Obviously you dont have authority from the apostles to interpret a text, but, if such a claim was believed by us, that could be the seed of a tradition that this claim was true and is a model for both the motives and the mechanism of "apostolic authority" the Catholic Congregation made and perpetuated.

I'm not claiming authority, I'm deferring to the authority they have. (See above) It's not my authority, but that of the apostles. If it was my authority, I'd be wrong.

If the catholic interpretation is that Paul was giving apostolic authority to timothy who was to give apostolic authority to others, then I believe it is simply more evidence that you do not HAVE apostolic authority since you claim that [FONT=&quot]...Apostolic Tradition, with the teaching authority given the apostles, is what tells us how to interpret the Bible. That's it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] root of Jesse in post #32.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paul is not making timothy an apostle, rather he is committing to Timothy a charge to teach others what he has heard just as I might commit to an employee the task of repeating an important message to others. [/FONT]

No, he's the successor to the apostle, Paul. He's a bishop.

[FONT=&quot]This does not imply apostleship nor apostolic authority. The[/FONT][FONT=&quot]common[/FONT][FONT=&quot]greek[/FONT][FONT=&quot]has[/FONT][FONT=&quot]it[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Κ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]αι α ηκουσας παρ εμου δια πολλων μαρτυρων, ταυτα παραθου πιστοις ανθρωποις.... [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He tells Timothy: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ηκουσας[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (what Timothy has HEARD), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ταυτα[/FONT][FONT=&quot]παραθου[/FONT][FONT=&quot]πιστοις[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ανθρωποις[/FONT][FONT=&quot]THESE things commit to faithful men. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Timothy is to spread the knowledge of witnesses of Christ and his message just as others were to do, just as we all feel some obligation to do. He was not an apostle, nor had apostolic authority.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you again for pointing out my error in typing titus rather than my intended Linus. The resulting confusion was all mine and I apologize for that again. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile, are you sure you dont want to add more data regarding Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and its characteristics; the purpose of creation and concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives? (since I plan to post on those later today)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]drfusiis[/FONT]

I'm sure.

Clearly · Feb 28, 2012

[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING THE CLAIM TO BE USING (OR “DEFERRING TO&#8221 APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IN ONE’S PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF TEXTS[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesse said in post #32 : “Regarding Timothy and Paul, that's you're interpretation, but the Catholic interpretation has always been as I stated. My authority is the apostles and doctors of the Church. Who is yours?”

Clearly responded in post #44 : “Notice your attempt to claim the “apostles” as your authority for your interpretation Jesse. This desire to claim authority you do not have is not much different than the later Roman congregations desire to claim “apostolic authority” to add credibility to their claims. “

Root of Jesse clarified in post #45 “I'm not claiming authority, I'm deferring to the authority they have. (See above) It's not my authority, but that of the apostles. If it was my authority, I'd be wrong.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for the clarification. However this clarification still admits that there is no advantage to Roman Catholic theology in interpretation of texts. ALL individuals of any denomination (or no denomination) may “defer to apostolic authority” in the same manner as you have in their own attempt to increase credibility of their multiple, mutually exclusive, and contradictory interpretations of texts. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe this desire to connect one’s theology to “the apostles” was the underlying motive behind the Roman Congregations creation of the tradition of “apostolic succession”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) REGARDING ROOT OF JESSES’ INTERPRETATION OF 2 TIMOTHY 2:2[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly said regarding 2 Tim 2:2 : “This does not imply apostleship nor apostolic authority. The common greek render this text (2 tim 2:2) as : Και α ηκουσας παρ εμου δια πολλων μαρτυρων, ταυτα παραθου πιστοις ανθρωποις.... He tells Timothy: “ηκουσας” (what Timothy has HEARD), ταυτα παραθου πιστοις ανθρωποις…” THESE [witnesses] commit to faithful men.”

Timothy is to spread the knowledge of witnesses of Christ and his message just as others were to do, just as we all feel some obligation to do. He was not an apostle, nor had apostolic authority. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse claims : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No, he's the successor to the apostle, Paul. He's a bishop.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse : You are attempting to connect two statements in an illogical manner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First you say “he’s the successor to the apostle, Paul.” We have no evidence that Timothy becomes a literal successor to Paul, “the apostle to the gentiles” in any manner that other Christian missionaries cannot claim. Timothy does not “succeed” Paul in the actual office of apostle in any literal sense. All who feel “sent” by Jesus to witness for him may claim to be an “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]αποστολος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”, but they do not become ordained as one of the twelve “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]αποστολοι[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then you add “He’s a Bishop”. So what? A bishop is no more an apostle than is an evangelist, or a deacon, or an elder or any other ecclesiastical office in the early church. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such logic will not give Bishop Linus, or Anacletus, or Clement, or any succeeding bishop any ordination to THE “apostolic” authority, but instead, Bishops and subsequent “popes” still remain no more authoritative than any common minister of any other congregation who feels he is “sent” by God to witness for him.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) REGARDING THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clearly claimed that the modern Roman Catholic church has lost much of the early judao-christian traditions regarding the pre-mortal existence of man’s spirit and details of pre-creation traditions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly asked Root of Jesse in Post #30 : Will you describe the Roman Catholic tradition regarding the origin of man’s spirit from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesses’ description of catholic tradition in this regards is a reference to a single verse : "Before you were in the womb, I knew you", says the LORD.” Root of Jesse in post #32 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
4) MULTIPLE JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS DESCRIBE PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO PRESENT CONDITIONS

Many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the pre-mortal realm and the nature of spirits there and God’s purposes for creation. The theme of pre-creation and what happened there is written into the early sacred texts, their hymns contain the doctrine; virtually ALL of the ascension literature contains the doctrine, the war in heaven texts certainly contain the doctrine; the earliest liturgies contain the doctrine; the midrashic texts contain the doctrine, the Jewish Haggadah contains the doctrine, the Zohar contains it; the testament literature is full of it. One simply cannot READ the earliest sacred Judao-Christian texts without reference to this early Christian doctrine. This vast early literature is part of the context for early christians and illuminates their understanding of biblical texts that reference this pre-creation time period and what happened there. I’ll offer some examples.

Enoch, in his vision of pre-creation heaven, relates seeing the spirits that have populated and will populate the earth during it’s existence : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In his vision the angel bids Enoch, “Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created.” After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself. Enoch, regarding these many souls says : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the souls which I have made” refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” (3rd Enoch 43:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The vast ascension literature, describes the pre-creation realm of spirits. Abraham, in his ascension Vision describes the unnumbered spirits he sees, many of whom are waiting to come into mortality. The angel says to Abraham : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old (i.e. planned). Among other things Abraham says “I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal.”... He asks : “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face (i.e. according to his plan).. “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some (who have been) prepared for being put in order (slav” restoration&#8221, others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age....those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people (The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 and 23:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits within men permeates the biblical text as well. A knowledge of this simple principle explains and underlies many of the quotes in many other texts as well. In the Old testament it was said : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (ecclesiates 12:7). This principle is mirrored in multiple other early Judao Christian texts as well : When God the Father commands the son to “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When the Son finally DOES take the Soul of the Mortal Sedrach, he simply takes it back to God “where it came from”. God’s statement to the prophet Sedrach is simply a rephrase of what God said in Old Testament Ecclesiastes 12:7...” and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This principle is repeated in this same ancient usage in many of the ancient sacred texts from the earliest periods.

“Jesus said, “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
[/FONT]

Clearly · Feb 28, 2012

POST TWO OF TWO

[FONT=&quot] “Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)

The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiates 12:7 was used in this same way by the Apostle Peter as he explained to Clement that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Recognitions)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In this same ancient context, the question God asked Job; “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”; was NOT simply rhetorical, but it was a REMINDER :

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

In this early Judao-Christian context, Job KNEW the answer when God asked where Job was when God laid the foundations of the earth “and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. The texts are explicit that the spirits were taught regarding God’s plan to send the spirits of men to earth. They knew they would undergo a fall of Adam and Of the need for a Redeemer. The savior describes this period of time to the ancient Prophet Seth when sons of God shouted for Joy. The redeemer said regarding this time period before creation in a assembly of jubilant spirits : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“And I said these things to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly of the rejoicing Majesty. The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.” (The second treatise of the Great Seth) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In explaining the relationship the pre-mortal realm of spirits, to the current time when individuals do as they please, unhampered (as it were), by a remembrance of pre-mortal relationships, the messiah remarked : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“After we went forth from our home, and came down to this world, and came into being in the world in bodies, we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them...” (The second treatise of the Great Seth) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The early Christian doctrine of Pre-mortal existence removed arbitrariness out of the accusation that God himself created spirits unequally. IN this ancient model, the spirits are partly responsible for their own nature upon entering this life. Instead of arbitrarily creating spirits with defects (the very defects for which spirits may be punished for later), in this early christian context, the Lord creates the body in relationship to certain characteristics the spirit has already obtained (or did not obtain) in it’s heavenly abode over vast periods of time. For example, Napthali explains this to his sons from the testament literature :

Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“For just as a potter knows the pot, how much it holds, and brings clay for it accordingly, so also the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit,” and, because the Lord knows and has known the spirit over eons, “ the Lord knows the body to what extent it will persist in goodness, and when it will be dominated by evil. For there is no form or conception which the Lord does not know since he created every human being according to his own image.” (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 2:2-5) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the context of the spirit of man existing long before other spirits, Jewish Haggadah relates that “Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

This it the very same teaching the Apostle Peter taught the Christian convert Clement. The Apostle Peter tells the young christian convert Clement about the pre-earth council and man’s place within this plan : "which (plan) He [God the Father] of his own good pleasure announced in the presence of all the first angels which were assembled before Him. Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." (Recognitions)

The principle that man’s spirit pre-exists the creation of the earth itself, was one of the FIRST things the Apostle Peter teaches Clement. I believe there is a reason the Apostle Peter taught the principle of Pre-Existence to Clement at an early stage in Clements conversion to Christianity. Perhaps, for such theists, the key to understanding what God is doing with mankind is contained inside of the concept that we are eternally spiritual.

Many early Judao-Christian texts are quite explicit in explaining the doctrines underlying the New Testament Theology on this subject. For example : Speaking of the souls of men and the manner after which they are sent from their heavenly dwelling place to earth, the Haggadah relates :

Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“The soul and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it – whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all it’s other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. “Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the souls, saying, “Bring me the soul so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so.” The angel brings the designated soul, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Occasionally the spirit is reluctant to leave the untainted pre-mortal heaven for an earth where she knows her existence will be more difficult as she gains her moral education by coming to earth. In such accounts, God is NOT angry but the text says “ God consoles her. The text relates God telling the soul that : Quote :[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The entire chapter regarding the soul of man discussed in detail what happens with spirits before they enter the body and it relates their forgetting of their prior preparation and existence with God. (I might mention that souls anciently are all described in the female gender - like ships are - in modern parlance)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Such principles in the Haggadic text (which is related to the talmudic history) is mirrored in several other texts. For example, the Zohar confirms the doctrine as it relates essentially the same description. : Quote:[/FONT] "[FONT=&quot]At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this and this place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” Then the soul, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world. (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In very symbolic language, the Zohar relates the creation of the souls in heaven to the point that they become formed and cognizant and take on characteristics they will keep with them when they are placed into bodies at birth, even to the point of having gender. Speaking of these fully developed souls it says : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps.”

The question in the sacred text is then asked : "It may be wondered, if they [the souls] are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. [...]Speaking of those left behind who mourn it was taught “Withal, the village people weep for the departure of the king’s son from among them. But one wise man said to them: ‘Why do you weep? Was this not the king’s son, whose true place is in his father’s palace and not with you?...’ “If the righteous were only aware of this, they would be filled with joy when their time comes to leave this world. For does it not honor them greatly that the matron comes down on their account, to take them into the King’s palace, where the King may every day rejoice in them?....And so, happy are the righteous and in the world to come, ... (THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

5-THE LOSS OF MANY EARLY DOCTRINES

The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows : Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations, however, in the last days, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches, one finds that much of the doctrinal substance that gave the early Church it’s value, is no longer to be found in it. Non restorationists and non historian Christians have lost much of the precious knowledge for which the agnostics and philosophers have been clamoring and debating over for 1700 years. If the Roman Congregation’s knowledge of such early traditions consists of the simple quotation : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you", then they do not have any advantage over any other Christianity that can quote the same scripture.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, I wish you the best of luck in your own spiritual journey as we begin discussing and delving into early Judao-christian traditions. I hope you will be able to see the value of early Judao-Christian traditions and why the loss of them changes the way christian theology evolved and it also changes the nature of doctrinal speculations and interpretations.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clear
drsiselk
[/FONT]

Root of Jesse · Mar 1, 2012

Clearly said:
[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING THE CLAIM TO BE USING (OR DEFERRING TO) APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IN ONES PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF TEXTS[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for the clarification. However this clarification still admits that there is no advantage to Roman Catholic theology in interpretation of texts. ALL individuals of any denomination (or no denomination) may defer to apostolic authority in the same manner as you have in their own attempt to increase credibility of their multiple, mutually exclusive, and contradictory interpretations of texts. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe this desire to connect ones theology to the apostles was the underlying motive behind the Roman Congregations creation of the tradition of apostolic succession. [/FONT]

Well, we do so, because we have documented proof of what the apostles believed about what was written. If you use that proof, then you may claim apostolic authority.

[FONT=&quot]2) REGARDING ROOT OF JESSES INTERPRETATION OF 2 TIMOTHY 2:2[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse claims : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No, he's the successor to the apostle, Paul. He's a bishop.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse : You are attempting to connect two statements in an illogical manner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First you say hes the successor to the apostle, Paul. We have no evidence that Timothy becomes a literal successor to Paul, the apostle to the gentiles in any manner that other Christian missionaries cannot claim. Timothy does not succeed Paul in the actual office of apostle in any literal sense. All who feel sent by Jesus to witness for him may claim to be an [/FONT][FONT=&quot]αποστολος[/FONT][FONT=&quot], but they do not become ordained as one of the twelve [/FONT][FONT=&quot]αποστολοι[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then you add Hes a Bishop. So what? A bishop is no more an apostle than is an evangelist, or a deacon, or an elder or any other ecclesiastical office in the early church. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such logic will not give Bishop Linus, or Anacletus, or Clement, or any succeeding bishop any ordination to THE apostolic authority, but instead, Bishops and subsequent popes still remain no more authoritative than any common minister of any other congregation who feels he is sent by God to witness for him.[/FONT]

Let me connect the dots. Paul made Timothy a bishop. Timothy succeeds Paul. Bishops are successors to apostles. Benedict XVI is a successor of Peter. Timothy is a successor of Paul. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.
They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.
Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Eusebius of Caesarea said:[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

[FONT=&quot]3) REGARDING THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.[/FONT]

Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it.

[FONT=&quot]POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS[/FONT]

Root of Jesse · Mar 1, 2012

Clearly said:
POST TWO OF TWO

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, I wish you the best of luck in your own spiritual journey as we begin discussing and delving into early Judao-christian traditions. I hope you will be able to see the value of early Judao-Christian traditions and why the loss of them changes the way christian theology evolved and it also changes the nature of doctrinal speculations and interpretations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]drsiselk[/FONT]

I don't believe they're lost. Not with the Catholic Church, anyway. Sure, some people have lost them, but the Church teaches them to those willing to listen.

Clearly · Mar 1, 2012

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 “Let me connect the dots. Paul made Timothy a bishop. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Still, A bishop is not an apostle and a bishop does not have apostolic authority. You cannot create a claim to apostolic authority for "popes" by making Timothy a bishop.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, it feels as though you are becoming less logical and less connected to historical evidence in your attempt to make tenuous connections between unrelated “dots”. Forum members are not ignorant of which “dots” seem to connect and which are unrelated Jesse. It does not help support your claim unless you remain logical and accurate in your connections. Instead of offering data, you are starting to simply repeat inaccurate speculations. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 “Bishops are successors to apostles.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bishops are not "successors to apostles". For example, we have no evidence that Matthias, who was made one of the 12 apostles was ever a bishop. (Traditionally Matthias was one of the “seventy”.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 Benedict XVI is a successor of Peter. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is silly, You are simply repeating the “party line”. Peter never gave any obscure Bishop of Rome apostolic power. Benedict was not a successor to Peter’s apostolic authority. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 Timothy is a successor of Paul. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This new attempt to connect Timothy to the apostleship is becoming more silly, tenuous and unrelated, with each attempt Root of Jesse. Forum members are well aware that the 12 apostles, in their act of choosing and ordaining Matthias as an apostle to fill the ranks of the 12 apostles does not make indicate Timothy is or will be one of the 12 apostles.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To attempt such illogical connections only works if your audience is very, very ignorant and illogical as well. I do not think this will work in a forum where individuals are somewhat familiar with sacred history.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Trying try to create a coherent Roman Catholic “history” this way does not strengthen your argument, but instead weakens it as readers see more illogic and silliness in the conclusions that are made. You also inadvertently provide a modern example of motives and methods regarding how early Roman Catholic claims to authority may have originated. Even your quote by Eusebius has no connection to making Timothy a Bishop. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unless you have actual data or are willing to use sound logic and proper reasoning, I think you will damage your position more than help it. Please Root of Jesse, unless you actually have some historical data, it is a waste of time to attempt desperate and illogical connections.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) REGARDING THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Root of Jesse said in post # 48 Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, be careful with your claims. I HAVE friends that are catholic scholars so I have some knowledge of what your congregation knows and does not know. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Roman Catholic Church is completely unaware of many of these earliest traditions and the ones they have an inkling of, rarely exist in any detail in roman catholic tradition. For example, all you were able to describe as catholic doctrine was to quote the single verse : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you". After I explained early tradition, MANY forum members are able to believe it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The roman congregation has[/FONT][FONT=&quot] merely the vaguest ideas regarding what such things[/FONT][FONT=&quot] meant to the early Judao-Christians, and many of the early traditions, have evolved into less clear and more inaccurate forms of the original Judao-christian traditions as they passed through the hands of later theologians to become “doctrines”. I’ll give you examples later today if I can find time between appointments. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Roman Congregations speculations upon which they based their early doctrines and their tradition went off in different directions than the Early and authentic Judao-Christian traditions. Let me continue later today (I’m at work so will have to write between appointments so will post later today).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]

Root of Jesse · Mar 1, 2012

Clearly said:
[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 “Let me connect the dots. Paul made Timothy a bishop. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Still, A bishop is not an apostle and a bishop does not have apostolic authority. You cannot create a claim to apostolic authority for "popes" by making Timothy a bishop.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, it feels as though you are becoming less logical and less connected to historical evidence in your attempt to make tenuous connections between unrelated “dots”. Forum members are not ignorant of which “dots” seem to connect and which are unrelated Jesse. It does not help support your claim unless you remain logical and accurate in your connections. Instead of offering data, you are starting to simply repeat inaccurate speculations. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 “Bishops are successors to apostles.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bishops are not "successors to apostles". For example, we have no evidence that Matthias, who was made one of the 12 apostles was ever a bishop. (Traditionally Matthias was one of the “seventy”.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 Benedict XVI is a successor of Peter. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is silly, You are simply repeating the “party line”. Peter never gave any obscure Bishop of Rome apostolic power. Benedict was not a successor to Peter’s apostolic authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in post # 48 Timothy is a successor of Paul. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This new attempt to connect Timothy to the apostleship is becoming more silly, tenuous and unrelated, with each attempt Root of Jesse. Forum members are well aware that the 12 apostles, in their act of choosing and ordaining Matthias as an apostle to fill the ranks of the 12 apostles does not make indicate Timothy is or will be one of the 12 apostles. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To attempt such illogical connections only works if your audience is very, very ignorant and illogical as well. I do not think this will work in a forum where individuals are somewhat familiar with sacred history.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Trying try to create a coherent Roman Catholic “history” this way does not strengthen your argument, but instead weakens it as readers see more illogic and silliness in the conclusions that are made. You also inadvertently provide a modern example of motives and methods regarding how early Roman Catholic claims to authority may have originated. Even your quote by Eusebius has no connection to making Timothy a Bishop. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Unless you have actual data or are willing to use sound logic and proper reasoning, I think you will damage your position more than help it. Please Root of Jesse, unless you actually have some historical data, it is a waste of time to attempt desperate and illogical connections.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) REGARDING THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION AND IT’S RELATIONSHIP TO EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse said in post # 48 Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, be careful with your claims. I HAVE friends that are catholic scholars so I have some knowledge of what your congregation knows and does not know. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Roman Catholic Church is completely unaware of many of these earliest traditions and the ones they have an inkling of, rarely exist in any detail in roman catholic tradition. For example, all you were able to describe as catholic doctrine was to quote the single verse : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you". After I explained early tradition, MANY forum members are able to believe it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The roman congregation has[/FONT][FONT=&quot] merely the vaguest ideas regarding what such things[/FONT][FONT=&quot] meant to the early Judao-Christians, and many of the early traditions, have evolved into less clear and more inaccurate forms of the original Judao-christian traditions as they passed through the hands of later theologians to become “doctrines”. I’ll give you examples later today if I can find time between appointments. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Roman Congregations speculations upon which they based their early doctrines and their tradition went off in different directions than the Early and authentic Judao-Christian traditions. Let me continue later today (I’m at work so will have to write between appointments so will post later today).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]

I never said a bishop is an apostle. But the apostles were all bishops. And some apostles/bishops named other bishops to preside over a flock when it became apparent that it was necessary. A shepherd can only preside over a certain size flock. So Paul named Timothy bishop and he named Titus bishop.

Jesus went around proclaiming the Kingdom of God, right? What, in the Old Testament, does this allude to? The DAVIDIC kingdom. In the Davidic kingdom, attested to in Isaiah 22, the Davidic king had a prime minister Eliakim (master of the castle), to whom he gave the key to the kingdom, and said "What he shuts, noone shall open, what he opens, noone shall shut." Jesus made Peter his own prime minister, his Vicar, (Matt 16:18-20) and proclaimed that "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". There are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. In Isaiah 22, prime minister is an ancestral post. Peter's office, given by Jesus, would continue after Peter dies. Peter was equal to the other apostles, they all had the same faculties Peter had, except that Peter was PRIME minister, the head of the group. So Peter named Matthias as an apostle.

The power of the apostles comes from the Holy Spirit. Don't you know that, until the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, that none of the apostles had any power? The power of the bishop comes from the same Holy Spirit, and is the same power.

Regarding all these things the Catholic Church has forgotten and lost in the weeds, or whatever, you do not know what I know and what I do not know. I simply stated something people can read (unlike some of your posts-you're lucky I stick with them sometimes, because they're hard to read.) that attests to Catholic belief. I don't care who you know, and what they claim. I'm not a bishop, or priest, and still a baby Catholic, and I know that those things you're saying we don't know, I know. It matters not what "the people" know, it matters what the Church teaches. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. The teaching is there for those who want to come to the water.

Clearly · Mar 1, 2012

Root of Jesse responded in post # 51 "Regarding all these things the Catholic Church has forgotten and lost in the weeds, or whatever, you do not know what I know and what I do not know. "

I am not speaking of you personally Root of Jesse. I honestly congratulate you that you recognized the early tradition when exposed to it and that you were able to accept good historical data when it was presented to you. Many, MANY, religionists are unable to do even this.

As a Catholic, you were able to quote Before you were in the womb, I knew you as the entire description of your belief. I asked you to offer more information if you were able and willing but you declined. PLEASE, if you are aware of official roman Catholic teaching on this subject that you simply did not offer. PLEASE, PLEASE offer it NOW. What IS the official Catholic teaching on this subject of Pre-mortal existence of the human spirit? Perhaps you know something that my scholar friends did not know.

For example, the Catholic Catechism # 366 teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God and also that it is immortal, but it is silent and vague on what “immediately” actually means. This simple statement lacks so much of the rich, early details that were present in early Judao-Christianity. Are you aware of ANY OTHER CATECHISM or ANY OTHER OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THIS SUBJECT? If so, PLEASE offer it NOW. If not, then allow us to discover what information you do have as well.

The Eastern Church condemned the notion that souls pre-exist, condemning Origen’s description that the early church taught it saying “If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”

And “Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out and they had therefore become souls and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.

Though the western popes could have openly agreed or disagreed with these anathemas, they did not seem to take a firm stance on the doctrine either way. Having little information, I think the western roman popes were correct in simply remaining silent on the issue. Still, the western popes did not openly support or deny the eastern repudiation of the doctrine. Perhaps it is because they did not know what to teach on the subject? or some other reason?

If you ARE aware of Catholic details on this doctrine, I have asked you to share what you knew. You are still welcome to share the extent of Catholic teaching on this subject. Perhaps you CAN offer details tell us what my scholar friends are completely unaware of?

I would still ask you to offer ANY OFFICIAL ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE regarding pre-mortal existence you are aware of. I’ll wait and post tomorrow so as to give you time to gather data and you can then post the extent of your discovery regarding Catholic doctrine having to do with Pre-existence and we can allow the forum to compare it to the data I've already given them.

If you cannot find Catholic data on the subject, then I'll continue with my examples.

clearly
vivisilk

Pfaffenhofen · Mar 1, 2012

What amazes me most in this dichotomy is the emphasis that is put in the written Word of God. It seems to me that the spoken Word is put aside.

Jesus wrote nothing. So, nothing of what it is written in the Gospels can we say with absolute certainty that it was spoken verbatim by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus did it on purpose. Being He who He is, He could have written it all, word by word, day by day, all of what He did, what He said, what He wanted. As St. John said, that not all the books of the world would be enough to explain what Jesus Christ did and said, Jesus Christ could have fulfilled that wish, to have all recorded so that there would be no doubt about what exactly Jesus accomplished.

But that was not The Lords wishes. As in many other aspect of Life, the Lord let us find him in the Community. What we do to others it what we do to Him. Where 2 or 3 are together, He is there. The Bread and Wine suddenly changes into Him. As in respect to His Word, He did not let His words in writings, He let His disciples give testimony of Him. And, Helas!, if you do not believe in the Testimonies of Christ's Disciples, helas! you are not pleasing the Lord as Thomas did.

The Word of the God arose within the First Christian Community. In prayer, in dialogue, in the sharing of the Bread, in long travels like the disciples of Emmaus, everybody talked, remembered and memorized and spread and tasted the few years of Jesus' presence amongst Them. This created fixed ways of telling the same stories, various versions of the miracles depending on the several points of view of the witnesses, a huge sum of material that could fill all the books of the world according to John. But, they had to painstainkingly write with duck's feathers in papyrus the shortened written version of the huge number of elements that went around in the oral tradition.

So, written tradition was born inside the Community. So, it is a surprise for me to see that Scripture is taken literally as a lighthouse in the Protestant Community. It is a surprise till I reflect on the ambiance of the Reformation, where, in front of a "so-called corrupt" Church, the Reformers went back to a supposed ideal Early community where the Scripture would be written in one step by a Holy Spirit driven Writer.

Nothing farthest away from the Truth as modern day analysis easily discover.

The Scriptures are just a consolidation of the Oral Tradition so that it would not be lost. Supposing there would be computers at the Early Times or even, not going that far, the Gutemberg Press, the Gospels would be ten times or more longer. So Scriptures did not even say everything that was going on orally at the time of the Apostles.

Thanks to God. God is great and God is good. Had the Gospels been longer, the messier the confusion.

What we have it is enough to know what Jesus Christ wanted to say. What the Apocrypha tell us do not add anything else and is not interesting at all.

So, coming here to support Tradition, I must at the same time support Scripture. On the Catholic viewpoint, there is no need for the dichotomy.

Catholics talk about Scripture and Tradition under a didactic or stylistic viewpoint. I would say that Scripture represented the thought of the Apostles till the death of the last one and Tradition what comes next till contemporary times.

It does mean at all that Scripture was not written within the realm of the Early Christian Tradition or being a written mirror of what the oral Tradition of the Witnesses of Jesus Christ.

tbf
AMDG

Pfaffenhofen · Mar 3, 2012

Now, I am coming into what people see as Tradition.

If we define Tradition as a set of beliefs that are common to a 2000 year old Entity as the Catholic Church, one would think that all people would have a view similar to what was the space of time mentioned.

But no. I was surprised, on coming to this Site, by how insistent some Protestant were on certain periods of History, which, according to my understanding, had not much interest at all.

It is good to know others and how other people think. That is what makes this world so varied and multicolor. At the same time, you must know what other people think, otherwise you are always wrong, thinking that they think as you think when it is not so. Only by contacting them you realize that the people you face, though they are similar to you in body and soul and though they belong to the same western culture, they have of the Space and European Time completely different views. I will mention some.

I was surprised by the importance that is given to the succession of Peter, that is, the succession from the 1st Pope, Peter, to the Second, Linus. Some Protestant insist that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, or that there is no sure knowledge of the transition between Peter and Linus.

Now, a few discussion after, I understand the reason. If you can prove that there was no transition between the 2, then Papal succession would be in danger and the standing point of the RCChurch would spall.

Sincerely, I vaguely knew Linus and the Early Succession never interested me much. But it is a time to update. I am going to study it now.

The question is that i do not give a damn to who the successor of who is. If in the 3 first centuries we would not know who was who for the Popes, they were killed in silence, and if the Popes reappeared in the 4th Century and succeeded up to now, for me, that would be enough to respect the Pope. In Scripture, the unction of Peter was clear, the succession would be there except for the first 3 centuries, you do not need to know day-by-day all the History of every Pope to respect Papal succession.

Other surprise was the image of the Emperor Constantin, who seems, forgive me if I am wrong, to be hated by many Protestant. It seems that he is considered the Father of All Evils, the Beginner of the Corruption on the Church, the Creator of Papacy.

Historically, never saw or read something that would indicate that he would have that role in history. I am surprised.

The other surprise was the idea the RCC went into decline from Constantin times up to Reformation. It is a long, long time... and that it was Reformation that purified the Church. The idea of a long corruption waiting for Luther and Calvin to repair it does not fit with any historic dact or data. The church had so many crises, so many highs and lows, had a fertile role in European Construction that this idea enters the realm of fantasy. But the thing is that this is what many people believe.

So, Tradition is not seen the same way by everybody. Depending on the background you came from, so the ideologic patterns that you defend.

Some of them come close to what Freud called "rationalization" as a mechanism of defense. The children of Reformation did not Protest anything, they were left with a legacy and as there is not much to Protest now (some Protestant do not like to be called such), they, and this is my view, distort History to justify what their ancestors did and what is their Church position now.

So, what do speak when you speak of Tradition? I think this thread did not start well because the people who started it had different views of what Tradition was.

Tradition depends on History. We know that the History of the USA recounted by Anglos, by Black People and by USA native Indians give rise to 3 totally different tales about the same space of time.

As for Tradition and the Protestant View, I want to stay here as long as I feel motivated. Understanding that we agree to disagree is better than total ignorance.

tbc
AMDG

Clearly · Mar 4, 2012

Root of Jesse :

I suppose that since being given more time to search for data from Catholic Catechisms and all other Catholic sources available to you as well as internet sites and various discussion groups, you have discovered how little data and detail there is from any authentic Catholic source regarding the early doctrine of pre-existence of spirits.

I believe that you are quite diligent and committed enough that, had you found significant data, you would have offered it to us by now. I also believe that if other Roman Catholics on the forum could have offered some helpful data in this regard, they probably would have.

I hope forum members understand NOW, what I meant when I said that the Roman Congregation lost or abandoned some early Judao-Christian traditions and thus lack data and detail regarding such traditions.
When one compares even an introduction to the rich and detailed early tradition of pre-existence of spirits ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884-5/ ) to the very sparse data available to the Roman congregation (i.e. Root of Jesses' reference to a single scripture), the terrible consequence of lost doctrines becomes more clear.

The Roman congregation could not use lost data as they created their early theologies based on reasoned speculations. This changed the direction of some of their speculations which ultimately became "doctrine". Loss of early tradition also meant that the roman congregation could not use such data to help them interpret earlier texts, which might have helped them understand early Christianity and better interpret texts. Loss of such tradition meant that they could not pass on lost traditions to later christianities who, in the main, inherited their doctrines from the Roman catholic tradition.

Lest we all simply apply these defects to the Roman Congregation alone, we would do well to remember that this tendency both to innovate and to lose and to adapt and to adopt counterfeit principles is a tendency common to all mankind.

However, in the context of the “tradition vs Sola Scriptura” debate, one can see that it is not merely "sola scripture" which is defective. Interpretations and doctrinal speculations based on defective "tradition" fares no better since the theory of “interpretation by tradition” can be abused just as easily as “sola scriptura” has been abused.

1) New Traditions are created that did not exist in the earliest Judao-Christian tradition

2) Old Traditions change and evolve as they pass through the hands of religionists.

3) Authentic traditions are lost and/or abandoned that cannot then be handed down to subsequent Christianities.

Moving on to the next example as to how the loss of the earlier tradition and lack of data affected Roman interpretations and speculations, upon which doctrines are then created. For example :

In post #30 Clearly asked Root of Jesse to “describe the current catholic tradition regarding relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden”

In post # 32 Root of Jesse described the Roman Catholic tradition “The reason for creation of mankind is so that we may know, love, and serve God. “

Jesse, is this the extent of Catholic knowledge concerning the reason for creation?

God creates things for the purpose that they may "know, love and serve him?"

Is there nothing more in Roman Catholic Tradition that you can add?

After you add anything you are able to add, perhaps I can add another example from early christian texts and traditions.

thank you Root of Jesse for your willingness to discuss these traditions.

Clearly
fusifuis

Pfaffenhofen · Mar 5, 2012

If we call: "It is in the Bible!" or "It is not in the Bible" as fundamental for the background of some doctrine, let us remind the inconsistencies of the Gospels:

This was taken from a Atheistic Site who wanted to prove otherwise but I use with different reasons.

The resurrection of Christ:
MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived.
MK 16:2 It was after sunrise.
LK 24:1 It was at early dawn.
JN 20:1 It was still dark.

MT 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later.
MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away.

MT 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
MK 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
LK 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
JN 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

MT 28:8 The visitors ran to tell the disciples.
MK 16:8 They said nothing to anyone.
LK 24:9 They told the eleven and all the rest.
JN 20:10-11 The disciples returned home. Mary remained outside, weeping.

Again, lest someone tell me that I am joining with the devil, the same information can be found anywhere but this was more put in order.

The site pretends to prove that the Gospels were wrong.

But for the RCC and for me it proves that the Gospel is not the record "ipsis verbis" of what was said, not the video record of exactly of what happened externally.

The Gospels are (and this, the Atheists cannot see neither can they imagine that that is possible) the Faith in Jesus and the Tradition of the Faith in Jesus Christ. Many times things are not said the same way but there is a common ground. Like a story told and retold hundreds of times, it gains a life of its own, where details do not matter much, if there were 3 or 4 or 5 people there, if it was before or after, what matters is the tradition of Faith within the Community.

Above, it is clear the Faith of the Community in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, in those agonizing and euphoric days, details become inconsistent, for the pain and the joy were over whelming.

The Atheists do not see that what is said there is the Faith of a Community, and that such Faith went on up to the present days. It would be impossible such Faith to be wrong if we are believing in the resurrection of a crucified person. Thousands were crucified by the Romans. That one of them would say that He would resurrect and that his promise be fulfilled and kept for 2000 years is too unbelievable to not be true.

That is why also, the above mentioned quotations prove That the only Sola is the Tradition, not the Scriptura.

End
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Clearly · Mar 6, 2012

THIS FIRST OF FOUR POSTS IS A SUMMARY OF THE DATA IN THE THREE POSTS THAT FOLLOW IT :

The entire Catholic description regarding the relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father; the Father’s purpose in creating the world and inhabiting it with a fallen mankind is, as Root of Jesse described in post #32 : “The reason for creation of mankind is so that we may know, love, and serve God. “

This limited Roman Cathollic tradition is almost insignificant in comparison to early Judao-Christian traditions. This catholic description offers no data concerning the role of evil in God’s creation; WHY God engineered conditions for Adam’s “fall” and does not describe what purpose Adams’ “fall” serves in God’s plan. It offers a SELF-SERVING motive to God creating so he can be "known and loved" whereas early Judao-Christistian tradition offers a SELF-LESS motive where God’s creates as a service to the spirits of mankind who, already know and love him.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD THE FATHER TO SPIRITS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All spirits of men lived for eons before being born. God loved these spirits and thus engineered a plan for the moral and intelligent progression for these spirits. God’s plan anticipated the “fall of Adam and Eve” and that there would be evil in mortality.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) SPIRITS WERE INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED THE ABILITY TO CHANGE[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The prophet Baruch taught that … the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future”. God involved himself in the moral development of these self-willed spirits because he loves them and wanted them to learn to be full of joy and happiness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3) GOD DEVISED A PLAN TEACH INTELLIGENT SPIRITS BASIC SOCIAL / MORAL LAW[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These spirits were exposed to wise and righteous spirits and wanted to be like them. The father “revealed it [the plan] through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The original plan involved a moral “fall”, and a redemption by a redeemer. Jesus was chosen for this role as enoch described : "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Redeemer redeems those who, having experienced both good and evil, commit to living good moral principles. The redeemer will “[become] a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles....For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4) ACCORDING TO THIS PLAN, A PHYSICAL CREATION OF WORLDS WAS ACCOMPLISHED TO BE INHABITED BY MANKIND AS A PLACE TO GAIN NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matter always existed in a chaotic state just as spirits did. Early creation accounts describe a material creation accomplished by organizing chaotic matter into more organized purposeful forms as planets and stars in accordance with the Fathers plan.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Physical creation exists to support the Fathers plan.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) SELF-WILLED SPIRITS WERE TO LEARN ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL AND CHOOSE WHAT MORAL LAWS THEY WOULD OBEY[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God knew recalcitrant spirits before they were born of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266). Still, even these spirits were given moral education and choice to allow them to discover their own nature. “...I said to him, ‘This is good for you, but that is bad’; ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature.”... (2 enoch 30:15-16) Thus, the spirits denied heaven would understand the justice of their exclusion as Baruch is told. “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
6) GOD CHOSE SOME TO PLAY IMPORTANT ROLES IN HIS PLAN

“before he created them He knew their thoughts… is not just true of the wicked spirits, but God also knew who would be valiant and used them in specific mortal roles. God told Jeremiah :: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
7) THE SCHOOL OF MORTALITY

Jewish Zohar relates our moral education to a simile of a kings son “whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace.” “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Ignatius addresses christians as “my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The fall of Adam was the mechanism by which knowledge of Good and evil was introduced into the world. Clement taught “...the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”. Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life in a heavenly existence. “But the tree of knowledge does not kill, on the contrary, disobedience kills. For it is not without significance that the scriptures record that God in the beginning planted a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the midst of Paradise, thereby revealing that (eternal) life is through knowledge...For there is neither life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life; therefore each tree stands planted near the other. (Diog 12:2-3) Thus the Prophet Enoch spoke of “...the tree of wisdom, of which one eats and knows great wisdom, (was among them)....This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened...” (1Enoch 32:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

8) A KNOWLEDGE OF AND COMMITMENT TO LIVE MORAL SOCIAL LAWS IS REQUISITE TO PREPARE US TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AND HARMONIOUS HEAVEN

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Initially, the learning to live moral laws which underlie and support social harmony are the most important type of knowledge spirits can gain. The inhabitants of heaven must learn and master characteristics that achieve and sustain a social heaven having unity and joy and harmony for an eternity if such a place is to exist forever. They must learn charity, patience and long-suffering, love and unity. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is the reason for moral teaching in authentic religion
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example : “Focus on unity, for there is nothing better” (Polycarp 1:2). “...let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy...let all of you run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2) “ Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united ....with those who lead..” (Ign to Mag 6:2). The principle of UNITY and HARMONY were principles that ALL disciples were taught just as the angels had already learned to do this : “ the archangels who are over the angels...harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly...” (2nd Enoch 19:3).

If spirits could NOT learn to overcome their undisciplined impulses, there could BE no sustained harmony in heaven. Jesus and the Apostles set this pattern. Just as Jesus was obedient to HIS Father, the church was to be obedient to their authorities. “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual". (Ign to Mag 13:2). Remove unity from heaven, and it cannot BE “unified” and “harmonious”. All who live there MUST live this principle

9) THERE MUST BE A SEPARATION, A SCREENING AND SORTING OF SPIRITS BASED ON MORAL DESIRES AND ACTIONS

Since “heaven” cannot be populated with self-centered; disingenuous; mean-spirited individuals who willingly harm others for their own gain MUST be excluded if there is to be harmony and joy and peace. Allowing malevolent spirits into a “heaven” would be disastrous to the harmony and happiness of such a social order.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If they are to be excluded, then there must be a sieving, a separation made between those wanting to live moral laws and those that do not. Morally evil individuals must ultimately be excluded from heaven.

This life serves that purpose as well : . Diogenes explains, God “ permitted us …. to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient " (Diog 9:1) God allows men some moral mistakes, not because he approves of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creating moral learning and improvement and demonstrating our weaknesses and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do.

The Jews also taught that God allows evil because it serves God's ultimate purposes. “the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages [of eternity]. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation. (1QS, 4Q, 5Q "Jewish Charter")[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
9) MORAL TESTING, GRADING, AND SORTING[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Does the Lord demand bread or lamps or sheep or oxen or any kind of sacrifices at all? That is nothing, but he [God] demands pure hearts, and by means of all those things he tests people’s hearts. (2 en 172: 45;3)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Enoch, compares the judgment to a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgment according to a scale.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
In early traditions, God’s plan was to help spirits advance in characteristics in preparation to be live in a social “heaven”. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS : THE FOLLOWING POSTS ARE THE SAME INFORMATION IN GREATER DETAIL
[/FONT]

Clearly · Mar 6, 2012

POST TWO OF FOUR

The current Catholic decription regarding relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden” is, as Root of Jesse described in post #32 : “The reason for creation of mankind is so that we may know, love, and serve God. “

Such a limited tradition lack so much detail in comparison to early Judao-Christian traditions regarding this time period. This simple description offers no understanding of the role of evil in God’s creation; WHY God created the conditions for Mankind to “fall” and what purpose Adams’ “fall” would serve in God’s plan. This description describes a SELF-SERVING motive for God’s creation where God creates so man may know and love and serve HIM whereas the earliest Judao-Christistian tradition describes a SELF-LESS motive to creation where God’s creation is a service to the spirits of mankind who, already know and love him.

Rather than go into great depth of description, perhaps I can offer an overview of these Early Judao-Christian traditions and we can discuss what we need to in greater depth.

[FONT=&quot]1) THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD THE FATHER TO SPIRITS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

God, possessing characteristics of Love and Intelligence and his creation is affected by these characteristics. In the early Judao-Christion tradition, spirits of men existed in some form and God’s love underlies what God he is doing with the spirits of men and why he is doing it. The plan did not simply involve Adam and Eve living forever in a Garden, living like cattle without moral knowledge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was known from the beginning that not all souls who came to earth would choose to live moral laws.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote: “At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. ....” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
.
.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
2) THE ABILITY OF INTELLIGENT SPIRITS TO CHANGE[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Though these spirits were primitive, they were capable of progress and intelligent existence. The prophet Baruch taught : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote: “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. 2 Baruch 21:16-17 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Old Testament era Prophet Baruch taught that these spirits were not stagnant, but were capable of undergoing changes (both morally good changes AND / OR morally bad changes as they progressed in intelligence, knowledge, and power).

Consider that God could either intervene and involve himself in the development of primitive but intelligent spirits by teaching them, or God could choose not to intervene with these intelligent spirits and allow them to develop without his teaching them any moral laws or any other truths. It is because God is charitable and full of Love and truth, that he intervenes in our existence to the benefit of the spirits of mankind.

In this early theology, God is not simply bent on organizing things and spirits out of sheer boredom, but existence can be more full of love and peace; more pleasant; more efficient and more productive for all beings if matter is organized into usable forms and spirits are fashioned into civil and loving beings.

Phillip describes this principle : Quote: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“There are domestic animals like the bull and the [donkey] and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he ploughs, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. (The gospel of Phillip) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the same manner, it is “domesticated” and “civilized” beings (and not savage, primitive, and uncivilized beings) which create harmony and act for the benefit of all other beings. IF individual as spirits or as living individuals are EVER to attain to a "heaven" where there is Joy and Unity and eternal harmony, then the inhabitants of such a place must learn and master the social and moral principles which create and support such an existence.

Because of his love and intelligence, God saw proper to institute laws whereby spirits “could have a privilege to advance”. The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan to accomplish his purposes. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)
.
.
.

3) THE PLAN OF GOD TO TEACH INTELLIGENT SPIRITS BASIC SOCIAL / MORAL LAW[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Early enochian literature clarifies that God the Father took great care in both administrating this plan and in ensuring the involvement of all these heavenly spirits (for whose benefit his plan exists).

The Prophet Enoch describes heaven with it’s "fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones.” Who among these spirits would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Pre-New Testament era Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1).

The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations).

Diogenes reaffirms this relationship relative to the education of the spirits of mankind : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child [jesus]... (Diog 301:8-11) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Long before Christian Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony : In Enoch’s vision, the Prophet Enoch saw the pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and describes Jesus’ role in the Father's Plan to educate spirits in moral laws [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The need for a redeemer was known from the very beginning,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] thus it was said of Jesus, that he was a lamb “slain from the foundation of the world”. The prophet Enoch described the announcement of a redeemer to ensure those spirits of men who chose to live moral laws, could return to live in a heaven inhabited by others who chose to live higher moral laws : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]... "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this purpose he became the Chosen One[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." (1 Enoch 48:1-7) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most intelligent spirits were joyous at being given this opportunity to progress[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]...."Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? [...] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
4) PHYSICAL CREATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED TO ALLOW MEN TO ADVANCE IN NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE

The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counselED with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan.

Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear that the physical creation of the stars; the earth; and of other planets in ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form as an organized planet earth. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1).[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In early Judao-Christian Theology, God the Father, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), accomplished creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Clearly · Mar 6, 2012

POST TWO OF FOUR

[FONT=&quot]
This organization of spirits and matter was accomplished for the very purpose of allowing men to advance in knowledge: The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
.
.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
5) SPIRITS, AT SOME LEVEL OF COGNIZANCE AND INTELLIGENCE, POSSESSED FREE WILL. ALL WERE TO BE TAUGHT MORAL LAW AND CHOOSE IF THEY WOULD OBEY MORAL LAWS, AND WHAT LEVEL OF MORAL LAWS THEY WOULD OBEY:

Part of God’s plan involves a great "sieving" or “sorting” of mankind based on the level of moral law they freely chose to live. In such ancient accounts, the spirits of men were allowed to choose to take part in this plan, just as they are allowed to choose what they will do in this life.

For the moment, I’ll skip the “war in heaven” and the controversy with Lucifer that was a central part of it and simply mention that there were recalcitrant spirits of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266). Still, even these less valiant spirits were to be taught moral laws just like all others. It was said of the less valiant : “...he taught them through those anointed by the Holy Spirit…”

There were important principles underlying this fairness.

For example, though God knows their nature, they needed to discover their own nature. God explained to the Prophet Enoch : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“And I gave him [man] his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways – light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘This is good for you, but that is bad’; ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature.”... (2 enoch 30:15-16) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Even those who are to remain unrewarded, are to understand why they remained unrewarded[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
6) BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILIARITY WITH SPECIFIC SPIRITS OF MEN AND THEIR PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, GOD CHOSE SOME TO PLAY IMPORTANT ROLES IN HIS PLAN

This principle the ancients taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…” (geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but God also knew the characteristics of the good and valiant spirits. Because of this knowledge, God was able to plan for them to assume specific roles in mortality. Thus God told Jeremiah the prophet : "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the : “...covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
.
.
.
.
7) THE SCHOOL OF MORTALITY

The Jewish Zohar relates the creation of the souls in heaven after that they become fully cognizant and take on characteristics they will keep with them when they are placed into bodies at birth. “the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps” (even to the point of having gender). Speaking of these fully developed souls the text says : “.” This sacred text continues : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“...It may be wondered, if they [the souls] are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. [...]Speaking of those left behind who mourn it was taught “Withal, the village people weep for the departure of the king’s son from among them. But one wise man said to them: ‘Why do you weep? Was this not the king’s son, whose true place is in his father’s palace and not with you?...’ “If the righteous were only aware of this, they would be filled with joy when their time comes to leave this world. For does it not honor them greatly that the matron comes down on their account, to take them into the King’s palace, where the King may every day rejoice in them?....And so, happy are the righteous and in the world to come, ... (THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the moral principles God is trying to teach them. This was integral to early Christian teachings.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For example : 2nd Clement taught : “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2)

New testament era Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1

The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”. New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life in a heavenly existence. Thus he taught the early Christians :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“But the tree of knowledge does not kill, on the contrary, disobedience kills. For it is not without significance that the scriptures record that God in the beginning planted a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the midst of Paradise, thereby revealing that (eternal) life is through knowledge...For there is neither life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life; therefore each tree stands planted near the other. (Diog 12:2-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is significant in the context of learning, that in early accounts, Eden’s tree of “knowledge”, is called the tree of “wisdom”. In Enoch’s vision of heaven he says : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“... And the tree of wisdom, of which one eats and knows great wisdom, (was among them)....This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened...” (1Enoch 32:6) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Importantly, the type of wisdom that is gained, includes the type of moral knowledge man was sent here to learn[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (“there is no [eternal] life without knowledge&#8221

.
.

.
.
.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]8) SPECIFIC TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUISITE TO SAVE US AND PREPARE US TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AND HARMONIOUS HEAVEN[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Not all TYPES of knowledge have equal value in learning principles that will bring us joy and harmony in the eternities. The ORDER in which we learn principles is important as well.
For example, learning moral laws which underlie and support social harmony are more important than knowledge of how to wage successful war against another. Learning how to hurt another person, before learning patience to control that knowledge will still not result in joy and harmony, but may result in sadness and disharmony.

A very clear verse from the Hebrew Zohar tells us that : "All men before they lived on earth were present in heaven in the identical form they possess in this life, and everything they learn on earth they knew already before they came to this world.". If they “knew already” what they came here to learn, then this life must represent a DIFFERENT sort of exposure to similar moral data; a “clinical” and “experiential” exposure to moral principles of good and evil; a time to learn to USE the moral principles we had already been “taught”.

When Christian Clement taught that “through him [Jesus] the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”, he was speaking primarily of moral principles that support a more exalted and glorified existence (i.e. moral and social rules of living in joy and harmony in heaven). The inhabitants of heaven must learn and master the characteristics that achieve and sustain a social heaven having unity and joy and harmony for an eternity if such a place is to exist forever. The inhabitants of heaven must master certain characteristics such as charity, patience and long-suffering, love and unity. This was one of the underlying reasons for mortality.

For example: They ancient were taught to learn UNITY

“Focus on unity, for there is nothing better” (Polycarp 1:2). “...let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy...let all of you run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2)

When congregations achieved unity, Ignatius honors them : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity. (Ign to eph 5:1) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This was NOT taught simply to the Christians, but to the Jews as well. For example, in the Dead Sea Scroll “CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION” (1QS, 4Q, 5Q), the translators decided not to use the word “community” throughout the translation to describe this group, but rather they used one of the society’s most common self-designations: “YAHAD”, which means “unity”. It was after all, the moral ideal they sought to achieve and the word they used to describe themselves and their higher aspirations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This is no different than the christian teaching “ Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united ....with those who lead..” (Ign to Mag 6:2). The principle of UNITY and HARMONY were principles that ALL disciples were taught just as the angels had learned to do this : “ the archangels who are over the angels...harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly...” (2nd Enoch 19:3).

If spirits could NOT learn to overcome their undisciplined impulses, there could BE no harmony in heaven, or on earth.

This was the pattern Jesus and the Apostles set. Just as Jesus was obedient to HIS Father, the church was to be obedient to their authorities. “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual". (Ign to Mag 13:2).

“Unity” and “oneness” is taught in all the sacred texts. When a man “leaves his parents” he is to become “one” (unified) with his wife (Gen 2:24) to the point that Jesus says that the “man and his wife are no longer “twain” but are “one” flesh (matt 19:6). Jesus requests of his Father regarding his disciples that he had “given them the glory that you [the Lord God] gave me, that they may be one as we are one, I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. “(NIV jn 17:23).

.
.
.
.
POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS[/FONT]

Clearly · Mar 6, 2012

POST FOUR OF FOUR
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The same unity of which Jesus has with his Father, the disciples were also to achieve (and all the rest of us as far as we are able to emulate Jesus and the disciples). For example: Jesus prays in Jn 17:20-21, “ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me ”.

Remove unity from heaven, and it cannot BE “unified” and “harmonious”. All who live there MUST live this principle

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9) THERE MUST BE A SEPARATION, A SCREENING AND SORTING OF SPIRITS BASED ON MORAL DESIRES AND ACTIONS

We’ve already touched on the point that self-willed intelligences may progress in whatever moral direction they desire, whether toward good or toward evil. However, a “heaven” cannot be peopled with individuals who are self-centered; who are disingenuous; who are mean-spirited and who willingly harm others for their own gain, etc. Allowing malevolent spirits into a “heaven” would be disastrous to the harmony and happiness of such a social order. There must be a sieving, a separation made between those wanting to live moral laws and those that do not.

It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient " (Diog 9:1) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is clear that God allows men to make mistakes, not because he approved of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creation.

Diogenes continues : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of (eternal) life... having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (Diog 9:1) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus God is both creating moral improvement by this process and at the same time demonstrating our inabilities and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do.

The Jews also taught that God allows evil for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves God's ultimate purposes). The Jews taught : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]" Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages [of eternity]. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation. (1QS, 4Q, 5Q "Jewish Charter") [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though God allows evil to exist, it serves HIS purpose in HIS plan and he controls and appoints it’s limits. It is not "chess set theology" where God plays man and then punishes him for "bad moves", but rather, man is allowed his own choice and man appoints his own desires regarding evil.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Christian restorationists will understand the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. The restoration of such knowledge does not change evil. But it explains it and it’s relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?". In this case, context IS critical to understanding.

For example : Almost all complaints the philosophers make about suffering remove suffering from it’s proper context by only considering existence as a small time period while ignoring the eternities both before and after the event itself. Outside of it’s proper eternal context, suffering cannot be justified. In proper context, it can be justified in the same way we justify the suffering of immunizing children to prevent an even greater suffering in the future. Suffering a specific immunization may INCREASE later joy over not suffering a specific immunization.

This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the same answer given to an impatient Prophet Ezra’s question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? "

The answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place...and there is only one path... If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the danger set before him? ..."And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; the are few and evil, full of dangers...But the entrances of the greater world are broad and save, and really yield the fruit of immortality. Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them..." (4th Ezra 7:3-25) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
9) TESTING, GRADING, AND SORTING[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Does the Lord demand bread or lamps or sheep or oxen or any kind of sacrifices at all? That is nothing, but he [God] demands pure hearts, and by means of all those things he tests people’s hearts. (2 en 172: 45;3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Enoch, compares the judgment to a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgment according to a scale.

Much of later christianity abandoned this doctrine and adopted a "light switch", EITHER/OR model of EITHER a wonderful heaven, OR a punishment of a torturous hell. Abandoning the early christian doctrine also resulted in an abandonment of the fairness of early christian judgment. Restoration of ancient doctrine, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgment; reward and punishment.

From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."

The early christians taught that there were varying levels of heaven to which varying levels of men would be assigned based on the moral choices men made. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"... those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundred fold, and those who bring forth sixty fold, and those who bring forth thirty fold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city.For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, "In my Father’s house there are many rooms"; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son finally yielding his work to the Father, as it is also said by the apostle: "For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 36:1-2) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus, the ancients taught that during the process of judgment, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their "...bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together .... (Geninza A+B 4Q)

The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become more like God in the judgement and resurrection. For example: The jews of Qumran were very descriptive regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, .... that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes …who take their stand in the temples of the king…(4Q, 11Q, Masada fragment 367) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Multiple similar Judao-Christian descriptions exist, describing the ultimate destiny of spirits who chose to gain moral wisdom, among other types of knowledge they are gradually given, (precept upon precept) over the eons they will exist. If they continue in their quest to “imitate God” in their characteristics, they will ultimately become more like him so that the early Judao-Christian description USES the words “like God” or “God like” in describing these individuals who have learned to be full of grace and charity and truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings-His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils. (Masada 4Q, 11Q) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thus, in this these Judao-Christian traditions, God’s plan from the beginning was to take primitive but intelligent spirits and help them advance in moral characteristics and knowledge for the purpose of preparing them to be able to live in a social “heaven” and be able to attain and support a social unity and happiness and joy as he has.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]setzfuse [/FONT]

Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

Newbie

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads