Spoken words or Traditions used to make or confirm Scripture vs. RCC traditions (after the Bible).

[Fireinfolding]

Again, you didn't show me how any of these practices are clearly shown to us in God's Word.


...

Peace to you Jason, God bless you, hope all is well with both you and yours

One practice Paul mentions in 2 Thes 3:10 was when he said, For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat, that is one tradition, which was spoken to them (by word) when he said they were with them (and so now he writes it in his epistle being away he hears something concerning them) and so he brings this up both in person or epistle (or the "whether by" word or this epistle) because he is acknowledging writing only what he said "when we were yet with you".

Not only so by being an example themselves (in that tradition) of not eating any mans bread for nought, even as Paul was a tentmaker (and who also speaks in 2 Thes 3:6-9 of following after these traditions of both working and not being a busybody). To those that "are such" are to whom the command is for. So being disorderly and not walking after the same (or as one not working at all and being a busybody) is who he is speaking to who walks not after such traditions.

In respects to what was taught, same with 2 Thes 2:5 He speaks there of speaking the same thing he is writing there earlier as well saying, 2 Thes 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? Again, he acknowledges being with them (in word) and telling them "these things" (in this epistle) and then again acknowledges the same in 2 Thes 3:30 when he acknowledges what he commanded them in the epistle, and is pressing the same things (writing the same things which were a safegaurd for them anyway) and we have now in word or espistle both would speak the same (as Paul even says he told them the same things before) this is nothing new.

Unless this is about candle lightings and pot washings, robes and ceremonials, that would be more the tradition of men.

God bless you Jason, I agree with you

 

[tz620q]

Peace to you Jason, God bless you, hope all is well with both you and yours

One practice Paul mentions in 2 Thes 3:10 was when he said, For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat, that is one tradition, which was spoken to them (by word) when he said they were with them (and so now he writes it in his epistle being away he hears something concerning them) and so he brings this up both in person or epistle (or the "whether by" word or this epistle) because he is acknowledging writing only what he said "when we were yet with you".

Not only so by being an example themselves (in that tradition) of not eating any mans bread for nought, even as Paul was a tentmaker (and who also speaks in 2 Thes 3:6-9 of following after these traditions of both working and not being a busybody). To those that "are such" are to whom the command is for. So being disorderly and not walking after the same (or as one not working at all and being a busybody) is who he is speaking to who walks not after such traditions.

In respects to what was taught, same with 2 Thes 2:5 He speaks there of speaking the same thing he is writing there earlier as well saying, 2 Thes 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? Again, he acknowledges being with them (in word) and telling them "these things" (in this epistle) and then again acknowledges the same in 2 Thes 3:30 when he acknowledges what he commanded them in the epistle, and is pressing the same things (writing the same things which were a safegaurd for them anyway) and we have now in word or espistle both would speak the same (as Paul even says he told them the same things before) this is nothing new.

Unless this is about candle lightings and pot washings, robes and ceremonials, that would be more the tradition of men.

God bless you Jason, I agree with you

Would you agree then that Paul was confirming in writing what he had previously taught orally? And if so, was he trying to give them an exhaustive list in writing of everything that he had taught them orally or was he just reemphasizing points where he thought they were deviating?

 

[Erose]

Fireinfolding, you bring up a good point, something that I have argued for understanding during my last stent here of CF. I have never understood the position that some take arguing against tradition. Every single denomination no matter how young or old has a Sacred Tradition in which they use to interpret Scripture. It is just a given. If you are a Baptist, you are going to read certain passages a certain way that a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. are not. Why because you denomination's sacred tradition provides you their teaching by which you are going to interpret those passages. Seriously what is a Bible commentary? It is a form of sacred tradition is it not? Is it not providing you a lens in which to interpret the Bible?

I get that some folks may have an issue with the word "tradition". But all Sacred Tradition is is the faith which has been handed down generation to generation to today. Some new non-denominational churches claim they are only Bible believers and don't have a tradition, how wrong they are. If they are teaching their understanding of Scripture to their children, they are building a Sacred Tradition, you can't get around it, unless I guess when a kid gets to a certain age you say: "Here is the Bible, interpret it as you will and don't ever ask anyone their understand of any passage you find in here!" Then you won't be passing any type of traditional interpretation.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Would you agree then that Paul was confirming in writing what he had previously taught orally? And if so, was he trying to give them an exhaustive list in writing of everything that he had taught them orally or was he just reemphasizing points where he thought they were deviating?

He was basically saying dont be a leech get a job.

Whether he wagged his tongue to do it while he was with them or wagged his pen concerning it, even in respects to following his own example (being a tentmaker) he spake the same things.

He stated so much in the first epistle also concerning his own example as well as them working with their own hands here

1 Thes 2:9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

And even here

1 Thes 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you

The same here

2 Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you

So even in the first epistle he mentions their own labour (their own examples) and admonishes them to do their own business, work with their own hands and again in the second letter mentions how he wrought (as a tentmaker Acts 18:3) and so wasnt a leech, not eating any man's bread for nought.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Fireinfolding, you bring up a good point, something that I have argued for understanding during my last stent here of CF. I have never understood the position that some take arguing against tradition. Every single denomination no matter how young or old has a Sacred Tradition in which they use to interpret Scripture. It is just a given. If you are a Baptist, you are going to read certain passages a certain way that a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. are not. Why because you denomination's sacred tradition provides you their teaching by which you are going to interpret those passages. Seriously what is a Bible commentary? It is a form of sacred tradition is it not? Is it not providing you a lens in which to interpret the Bible?

I get that some folks may have an issue with the word "tradition". But all Sacred Tradition is is the faith which has been handed down generation to generation to today. Some new non-denominational churches claim they are only Bible believers and don't have a tradition, how wrong they are. If they are teaching their understanding of Scripture to their children, they are building a Sacred Tradition, you can't get around it, unless I guess when a kid gets to a certain age you say: "Here is the Bible, interpret it as you will and don't ever ask anyone their understand of any passage you find in here!" Then you won't be passing any type of traditional interpretation.

Some folks have a tradition of washing their undergarments by hand, or making coffee with a press, I dont know who would argue over those kinds of traditions.

Paul spoke of his traditions of working and not being a busybody, theres nothing wrong with following these he wants us to.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

First, you say there is no salvation in Mary and then you backtrack and say that your salvation is interwined with her. This is is just double talk. She either is a part of salvation in some way or she is not. Yes, or no. Seeing you are saying that salvation is interwined with Mary, then it is clear that you believe you cannot have salvation without Mary, right? I mean, I get it. You believe Mary just dispenses the grace or salvation from Jesus. But this would still make her a vital part or role in salvation in some way because she dispenses the grace or salvation from Jesus. However, she was just a human. She cannot answer millions of prayers and pass out grace.

This is of course a series of non-sequiturs. St. Mary is a component of God's plan for salvation because she was chosen to give birth to our Lord. However she is not God and by herself cannot save.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Please show me the traditions of both of them within God's Word and I will be silent.


...

This has of course been done, ad nauseum ad infinitum.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Alright so you simply want to ignore what people say, thats fine. I find it funny however, that you profress that you love the Bible so much, and yet according to your profile you don't even use a full Bible. You perfer the KJV.



I don't see how this contradicts what I said.....? There are indissoluble bonds between Mary and the saving works of her Son, Jesus. He is her son. This kind of makes sense.



We don't pray to dead people, we ask those in Heaven to pray for us. This is infered from the Bible, which means that in total context you can see this, however it is not "clearly" stated in a single verse in the Bible. Which alot of things arent, they are infered from the Scripture.



Irrelevent to the topic at hand.



Then why listen to the Bible? As the Bible was written by human hand, and then it was the humans in the Catholic Church in the late 4th century that finally put all the books of the Bible together and declared them to be divinely inspired and sacred scripture. Without the Church you would have no Bible.



The Catholic Faith has always stayed the same, and taught the same since Jesus built it. Which cannot be said for many protestant denominations.



He was too speaking literally, because in the original Greek writing of the Bible, Jesus used the word tro-go, which translates to gnawing or chewing. This is not a metahpor, it is literal. Hense also why at the last supper Jesus said "this is my body" "this is my blood"

The deciples were not stupid as many seem to think. They knew exactly what Jesus was saying, which is why many of them left after that testomony. It is the only time in the Bible in which Jesus loses desciples.






None of this makes sense, God created time, therefore God lives outside of time and space. He sees all, past present and future.



However that is exactly what you JUST did and have been doing, taking 1 or 2 verses out without context. I gave you context, you simply choose not to believe it. However it is there in black and white in the bible. "whos sins you forgive are forgiven, and whos sins you retain are retained."

So basically I show you proof, and then you want more proof because you cannot admit that you are wrong. Funny.


....YES HE DID!

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Peter in Aramaic is Kepha! Kepha translates to Rock, so Jesus is literally saying "I shall call you Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church."

It is right there in black and white! Jesus made Peter the head of His earthly Church body, while Jesus is the rock of the ENTIRE Church body, both on earth and in Heaven.

It is right there, you just choose to not believe it.

Note the KJV does include the deuterocanonical books, its just ant most printed copies omit them.

The main benefit to using the Challoner Douay Rheims translation of the Vulgate is that the Psalter is arranged according to the LXX versification.

 

[Thursday]

Would you agree then that Paul was confirming in writing what he had previously taught orally? And if so, was he trying to give them an exhaustive list in writing of everything that he had taught them orally or was he just reemphasizing points where he thought they were deviating?

Most of what Christ did and said is not in the New Testament.

For example, what did Jesus teach here?

Acts 1
2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus both began to do and to teach.

So all that Jesus both began to do and to teach

UNTIL the day he was taken up to heaven AFTER GIVING INSTRUCTIONS through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. AFTER HIS SUFFERING he presented himself TO THEM showing that he was alive like to Thomas lastly among those from whom he was taken up from (appearing to the others earlier on without Thomas being present then)

Adressing Thomas here Jesus said,

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And then goes onto say,

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

So there were other things he had done in their presence which were not written down in John's book

But these are written and for this purpose

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John also records what his own disciples (among themselves) did not see Jesus doing but his natural brethren

For example here,

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

So it shows there what Jesus did "in the presence of" his disciples (which were not written down) and the things Jesus did "outside of" the presence of his own disciples (which were also not written down). Just as he "did" things in secret (like when he went to up the feast, Jesus did so in secret) but thats not really a secret to us (because that secret is disclosed in the writing) and so also is what they themselves were saying concerning him (at the feast) this was also written regardless of this being done in secret (at least when it come to them knowing of it at the time)

And when Jesus was being examined he stated that he said nothing in secret

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

And in respects to what Jesus DID it also says this

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

It had been written that the making of many books there is no end either, so what the Word of God has done and ccontinues to DO in the many things performed whether yesterday, today or thereafter could inspire books to be made with no end in that kind of abundance.

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Wouldn't contradict John 21:25 but be a bit more confirming

He said he gave them the words that were given to Him

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Jesus began to do and teach in Acts 1:1 and in Hebrews 2:3 first began to be spoken which Moses was a testimony for in Hebrews 3:5 and of those things to be spoken after which are in accord with Deuteronomy 18:18 which Jesus mentions here John 5:46 concerning himself.

 

[FireDragon76]

My brief bio in every post says I am Non-Denominational. So I am not Protestant.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

I do not believe in OSAS or Once Saved Always Saved; For Luther was promoting what we would call OSAS today when he protested against the Catholic church.

Lutherans do not believe, teach, or confess "once saved, always saved". And neither did Luther. On the contrary, Luther taught the necessity of faith for salvation.

As for Catholic traditions: You will not see the following practices clearly described to us in the New Testament.

(a) Salvation in Mary
(b) Praying to dead saints
(c) Eucharist salvation
(d) Bowing down and the kissing of statues
(e) Confessional
(f) Calling men your father
(g) Holy garments and rituals with candles, etc.
(h) Lifting up of one man as if he is more holy than other people
(I) Large expensive church building and the hoarding of earthly treasures.
(j) A pope like leader (whereby crowds of people adore him).

The Bible doesn't talk about a lot of things, like getting a flue shot, that doesn't mean those things aren't worth doing.

 

[Thursday]

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus both began to do and to teach.

So all that Jesus both began to do and to teach

UNTIL the day he was taken up to heaven AFTER GIVING INSTRUCTIONS through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. AFTER HIS SUFFERING he presented himself TO THEM showing that he was alive like to Thomas lastly among those from whom he was taken up from (appearing to the others earlier on without Thomas being present then)

Adressing Thomas here Jesus said,

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And then goes onto say,

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

So there were other things he had done in their presence which were not written down in John's book

But these are written and for this purpose

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John also records what his own disciples (among themselves) did not see Jesus doing but his natural brethren

For example here,

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

So it shows there what Jesus did "in the presence of" his disciples (which were not written down) and the things Jesus did "outside of" the presence of his own disciples (which were also not written down). Just as he "did" things in secret (like when he went to up the feast, Jesus did so in secret) but thats not really a secret to us (because that secret is disclosed in the writing) and so also is what they themselves were saying concerning him (at the feast) this was also written regardless of this being done in secret (at least when it come to them knowing of it at the time)

And when Jesus was being examined he stated that he said nothing in secret

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

And in respects to what Jesus DID it also says this

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

It had been written that the making of many books there is no end either, so what the Word of God has done and ccontinues to DO in the many things performed whether yesterday, today or thereafter could inspire books to be made with no end in that kind of abundance.

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Wouldn't contradict John 21:25 but be a bit more confirming

He said he gave them the words that were given to Him

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Jesus began to do and teach in Acts 1:1 and in Hebrews 2:3 first began to be spoken which Moses was a testimony for in Hebrews 3:5 and of those things to be spoken after which are in accord with Deuteronomy 18:18 which Jesus mentions here John 5:46 concerning himself.

I'm not following your point. Are you agreeing that many of the teachings of Jesus were handed down as oral traditions and liturgical practices?

 

[Basil Isaacks]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the banner flag verse for the Roman Catholic (RCC) and Orthodox churches to support their view on holding to church tradition. Of the occurences of the word "traditions" only 3 are used in reference to God's people. The 10 other occurences of the word "traditions" is used in a negative sense. Also, Jesus followers and Paul were making sacred Scripture that would end with John's vision that he had written down. For if we are to add to the words of the prophecy of John's book (Which is the end of the Bible), then we would be at risk of adding plagues to ourselves that would be contained within the Bible itself (Revelation 22:18-19). Remember, Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). Paul also says that what he had written should be regarded as the Commandments from the LORD (1 Corinthians 14:37). The books written by Paul clearly show that they are just as divine as the rest of the book in the Bible. They breath in perfect harmony with the whole Bible. Also, the spoken word was always confirmed by the written Word. For the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not (Acts 17:11). So it always comes back to the written Word of God. No other holy book besides the Bible stands the test like the Bible. A person may make the claim that their additional holy writings are divine, but they cannot be verified as being true in the same way as the Bible. Evidences of all kind supports the Bible. But this is not the case for any other holy book or writings. In fact, the Mormons have their extra book. Jehovah's Witnesses have their extra writings. The Muslims have their extra written words. Does that mean everyone is correct?

Anyways, may God bless you all.
And may His love shine upon you.
For I do not wish ill will upon anyone but I am wishing nothing but good things to you all in Christ Jesus.

Peace be unto you.

Note: This thread was started as a reply to a certain post from another CF writer in another thread.





Yes, this actually proves my case and not yours. You believe you need the church or men in order to understand God's Word. You believe you need those extra writings. God's Word is sufficient all on it's own. But again, the Bible shows us that we do not ultimately need man for God to teach us. How so? The Bible says,

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:27).


...

Tradition is the LENS to focus the Light of God's Word to where it does the most good.

Happy New Year!

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm not following your point. Are you agreeing that many of the teachings of Jesus were handed down as oral traditions and liturgical practices?

How is what was written formerly to Theophilus an oral tradition?

Here he speaks of his understanding from the very first "to write" to Theophilus "in order" in Luke and continues in Acts

In Luke

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Then that same is brought up again here in Acts of the former treatise

Acts 1:1-2 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

John even shows not all Jesus did (which were outside the presence of his own disciples) was written down. The words His Father gave to him (which Moses was a testimony unto) Jesus said he gave to them, even though Paul wasnt taught the gospel he preached by man but received the same by revelation, which was according to the mystery kept secret from other ages, Jesus stated he said nothing in secret.

 

[Thursday]

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus both began to do and to teach.

So all that Jesus both began to do and to teach

UNTIL the day he was taken up to heaven AFTER GIVING INSTRUCTIONS through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. AFTER HIS SUFFERING he presented himself TO THEM showing that he was alive like to Thomas lastly among those from whom he was taken up from (appearing to the others earlier on without Thomas being present then)

Adressing Thomas here Jesus said,

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And then goes onto say,

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

So there were other things he had done in their presence which were not written down in John's book

But these are written and for this purpose

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John also records what his own disciples (among themselves) did not see Jesus doing but his natural brethren

For example here,

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

So it shows there what Jesus did "in the presence of" his disciples (which were not written down) and the things Jesus did "outside of" the presence of his own disciples (which were also not written down). Just as he "did" things in secret (like when he went to up the feast, Jesus did so in secret) but thats not really a secret to us (because that secret is disclosed in the writing) and so also is what they themselves were saying concerning him (at the feast) this was also written regardless of this being done in secret (at least when it come to them knowing of it at the time)

And when Jesus was being examined he stated that he said nothing in secret

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

And in respects to what Jesus DID it also says this

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

It had been written that the making of many books there is no end either, so what the Word of God has done and ccontinues to DO in the many things performed whether yesterday, today or thereafter could inspire books to be made with no end in that kind of abundance.

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Wouldn't contradict John 21:25 but be a bit more confirming

He said he gave them the words that were given to Him

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Jesus began to do and teach in Acts 1:1 and in Hebrews 2:3 first began to be spoken which Moses was a testimony for in Hebrews 3:5 and of those things to be spoken after which are in accord with Deuteronomy 18:18 which Jesus mentions here John 5:46 concerning himself.

I have no idea what the point of this filibuster is. Are you trying to bore us and make us go away?

Are you denying the fact that much of what Jesus said and did is not in scripture?

 

[Fireinfolding]

I have no idea what the point of this filibuster is. Are you trying to bore us and make us go away?

Are you denying the fact that much of what Jesus said and did is not in scripture?

Take the verses anyway your pope wants you to.

 

[Thursday]

Take the verses anyway your pope wants you to.

Try posting something relevant, or, you could give us a few chapters from Leviticus.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Try posting something relevant, or, you could give us a few chapters from Leviticus.

You wouldnt get it without your mediator reorganizing your thoughts.

 

[Thursday]

You wouldnt get it without your mediator reorganizing your thoughts.

I didn't think you could answer a simple yes/no question. I was right!

 

[Fireinfolding]

I didn't think you could answer a simple yes/no question. I was right!

Im not on Jasons thread to answer your questions. You should bring those to your pope.

I was agreeing with him on what he wrote

You had asked something according to your oral tradition and I in turn asked according to your words how you could mean it in light of what was written to Theophilus in #94 and I didnt see an answer, not that I expect one.

I dont come here to converse with Romans