Paul's reference is simply to "traditions." He doesn't specify which.Paul tells us to hold true to the faith handed down "tradition we told youby word of mouth and letter". And that tradition is visible in ignatius to the smyrneans as a eucharist of the real flesh.
Yes, there were twelve originally, and the number is significant, so the surviving Apostles chose a replacement. Nothing like that is operating when we talk about Apostolic Succession, an idea that grew up during the later first century AD. It's a good system, but it isn't proof of the Papacy or other such claims.We see the appointing of successors first in the replacement of Judas by the choice of others.
He was speaking to believers in this case. Check it out in context.Not if you look at who he said it to.
The apostles jointly and Peter alone.
Which of course brings in the question of tradition and authority.
We see in the NT that Jesus accepts the authority of "Moses Chair". But theres the problem. The reference to moses chair handed to joshua, judges etc, is in the "mishnah" which is tradition committed to paper. Paul tells us to hold true to the faith handed down "tradition we told youby word of mouth and letter". And that tradition is visible in ignatius to the smyrneans as a eucharist of the real flesh.
Paul's reference is simply to "traditions." He doesn't specify which.
So then people come along later, seize upon that word as if it were a blank check, and fill in with new and specific "traditions" of their choosing in order to justify doctrines that have no scriptural basis.
Matthew 16:19 uses the singular "you" whilst speaking to Peter. Which is somewhat inconvenient for your assertion! Check it out. Grammar.He was speaking to believers in this case. Check it out in context.
You can also mean Ya'll.Matthew 16:19 uses the singular "you" whilst speaking to Peter. Which is somewhat inconvenient for your assertion! Check it out. Grammar.
Y'all and all y'alls are american. (actually quite useful, english could do with some)You can also mean Ya'll.
"ye" is in the second person.Y'all and all y'alls are american. (actually quite useful, english could do with some)
I assure you it is a singular. All languages have singulars. Peter alone. The one Jesus spoke to.
We also know it from the OT, where Jews looked for meaning. The "keys" were held by one person. "worn upon the shoulder" symbol of boss whilst the king was away
Says you. Why is it then that the early fathers thought that was the meaning of "paradosis".Neither the verse in which Paul encourages his listeners to hold to the traditions (not tradition in the singular) they had followed nor Apostolic Succession are "the faith handed down."
It's also the case that it's keys in the NT, but key in the OT. So, the comparison, highly fanciful in the first place, doesn't work anyway,.We also know it from the OT, where Jews looked for meaning. The "keys" were held by one person. "worn upon the shoulder" symbol of boss whilst the king was away
"ye" is in the second person.
Not according to Logos. Besides, where do you see what you preach taking place in scripture besides Jesus at the Last Supper? They certainly did not evangelize with it. It was for memorial purposes only.Sorry to bust your bubble...but go back to the greek in 16:19
"Soi" is you singular.
It wasnt meant to be rude. However we have been round this circuit so many times. I am pointing out that is your opinion. Even the first apostolic fathers differ in their use of the word tradition. It means faith handed down. The use of the plural paradoseis is "teachings" "handings down". The verbs matter. The same verb used here (still a derivative of paradosis) "handing on" in this, is the verb used in 11:23 - "I handed on what jesus handed to me". The faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter.That's no way to have a discussion.
It means acts, ideas, or the like handed down, and doesn't refer in particular to religious doctrines.Even the first apostolic fathers differ in their use of the word tradition. It means faith handed down.
None of that means anything to this discussion. We cannot simply "pencil in" specific practices or beliefs for "traditions" when Paul speaks of the importance of keeping them. And we cannot simply assume that if some traditions are worth keeping, that we know what they are in the absence of any additional information. And we cannot build doctrine on the theory that there is something more important than the revealed word of God, Scripture.Paul is not recorded getting a bump on the head when a new testament dropped out of the sky! The new testament did not exist at the time.
Right, which is a good indication that it is more than a memorial.But......... only saved people with a pure heart can safely observe the practice according to Paul. Many die and are sick if they treat it as a means of salvation.
I think your paraphrase of the verse in question does not quite represent its intended meaning.But......... only saved people with a pure heart can safely observe the practice according to Paul. Many die and are sick if they treat it as a means of salvation.
How so?Right, which is a good indication that it is more than a memorial.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?