Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.

The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]

According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.

Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.

St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).

Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]

Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "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] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:

...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]

Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.

Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.

As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]

This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.

Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.

You said:
I teensy bit more fuel to the fire. The “sign of the cross” was orginally the “sign of Tammuz” a “T” traced from forehead to chest to shoulder to shoulder. Note it is four stops, not three to designate the trinity. The name Holy Spirit is broken up into two words and should not be. Just another pagan custom added to the church back then.

I reply:
Uhhhh, no. Tammuz is the Babylonian name of the Sumerian deity Dumu-zi(d). Yes, Tammuz did become somewhat popular in Canaanite-speaking lands, including Israel (linguistically, Hebrew is basically Canaanite). Cutting to the chase, how do you get a Greek tau/Latin “t” representation out of cuneiform Sumerian (which is written ideographically with syllabic phonetic helps (in later Sumerian)) Dumuzi, cuneiform Babylonian (which is written either ideographically or syllabically) Tammuz or alphabetic (or more properly, abjadic) Canaanite/Old Hebrew script Tammuz?

This sounds like old Jehovah’s Witness boilerplate.

And, yes, I know that Tammuz/Dumuzi is the god who seasonally dies and rises to life again. But the question is this: Which comes before which? Is the Christ of the Scriptures, i.e. the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) a late borrowing of the Jews from Sumer/Babylon, as the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, and all of its many and later intellectual incarnations (pun intended), like to think; or is Dumuzi/Tammuz a distorted, corrupted Sumerian/Babylonian echo of Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? I’ll go with the latter explanation.

I even cross myself, as was done to me at my baptism years and years ago, every time I use the Apostles or Nicene Creed to remind myself that it is the Seed of the woman, the crucified One, who is the only Savior of sinners.

Just show us where Apostolic succession is taught or promoted in scripture ..

Truth Handling and Teaching Authority
Catholic Christians believe that the Bible reveals an order—a hierarchy—among the faithful people to whom Paul commits the role of truth handling: episcopoi (bishops) over presbyteroi (priests, elders) and diaconoi (deacons).

The Bible reveals that the Apostles took the role of episcopoi. Christ and the Evangelists revealed a primary role among the Apostles in the person of Peter or Kephas.

The Catholic Church from Apostolic times believed that Peter (”Rock”) is the foundation for the Church of Christ as revealed in Matthew 16.

The Catholic Church believes that there were successors to Peter at the See of Rome as bishops. Successors to Peter are listed by historians from the third century down to our own day. As Bishops of Rome they share the primacy and authority given to Peter by Christ.

First to Peter and then to the other Apostles—and to their successors—Jesus conferred a charism of handling truth with authority. That authority is known as the charism of infallibility.

A recent example of the exercise of that charism in the Church—its teaching authority—can be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Mt 16:13-17
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Note that the word for Peter, ke’pha’, is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.

The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a “rock.” If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.

Because the Word of God as recorded in Matthew had to be intelligible in its literalness for all people including the more simple people of the early centuries of the Church, a more involved interpretation demanding extensive hermeneutics and linguistic acumen would be unwarranted. Ultimately, when there are differing interpretations, the principle question then becomes, “by what authority is the truth appealed.”

The Roman Catholic Church has infallibly defined the interpretation of Matthew 16.

Christ continues with the conferral of the “keys” which appears to be a clear statement of a position of leadership authority.

Mt 16:19-20
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:15-18
“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church (ekklesia). If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
In Matthew 18:18, the Apostles share in the power to bind and loose that was given to Peter in 16:19; what was given to Peter alone is now shared by the whole Church in the person of the Apostles.

If Peter held a position of primacy, the other Apostles would have to know that and would have reflected that role thrust on Peter by Christ in their relationships to him. In other words, does the Bible reveal a primary place or role for Peter consciously acknowledged by the New Testament writers? Yes, the biblical portrait of Peter presented earlier in this chapter attests to the preeminent role of Peter among the writers of the New Testament.

Among the Apostolic Fathers, the same recognition can be shown.

Bishop of Rome
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.

The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.

1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.

Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation—classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God—ancient Babylon.

1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD

You wrote:

“Not true. Read Jerome. Read Periplus (Sylax, c.500 BC)”

Neither Jerome nor Periplus discussed the Germanic Oestertag.

“Trier, Germany finds it’s fabled founder in Trebeta, son of Ninus (Nimrod, king of Babylon). The Guti (Goths) were kin to the Assyrians, and the Indo-Germanic tongue finds it’s roots among the Hatti (High caste of Assyria).”

Nope. None of that is true. Trier was not in any way related to anything in the Middle East. Modern historians merely report what fanciful legends the people of Trier told in days gone by. Only fools like the Armstrongites believe that sort of nonsense. Besides it still would prove nothing about Oestertag and the Germans had bot even settled in Trier at the supposed founding their fairy tales claim. It is much like the Romans saying they were decsendent from Aeneas. Fanciful nonsense.

Also, the Goths were not kin to any people in the very ancient Near East. The Goths and Assyrians spoke two entirely different languages. This is the sort of rubbish you’re pushing: http://www.asmallvoice.org/id30.html

Please note: it’s from a wacky sect - the WCG/Armstrongites who pushed the fanciful British Israelite nonsense. You have apparently fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

“The OEstar (Ishtar, Semiramis (wife of Nimrod) celebration can easily be found to have traveled to Germany in the earliest of times, not to mention later...”

Nope. The Germans had nothing to do with the Babylonians.

“Whether your take on it is true or not, UriÂ’el-2012 is correct about celibate/eunuch priests being founded in the Babylon Mystery religion.”

Nope. Jesus was celibate. St. Paul was celibate.

“The references you point to are of Hebrew traditions - the very same traditions that Christ abhorred - probably deriving from the Babylonian captivity, where Babylon’s Mystery Religion infected the Hebrew truth. It is *not* Torah.”

Christ was celibate. Christ could not have deliberately chosen celibacy yet abhorred celibacy. He, in fact, praised it. I suggest you start studying rather than believing myths and fables of anti-Catholicism and cults.

“Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right in this (at least partly, as he stopped at Pergamum) - Both Pontifex Maximus and Pater Patrum come directly from Pergamum - Titles of Pergamum’s priest-kings...”

Nope. Again, Rome and its Pontifex Maximus both existed before there was a Pergamum. There were no kings in Pergamum with the title BEFORE they existed in Rome.

“princes and a priesthood that fled to Pergamum on the heels of Cyrus conquering Babylon. Attalus III, the last Babylonian king of Pergamum willed his kingdom to the Roman Caesar, and thus Nimrod’s (and Satan’s) throne moved from Babylon to Pergamum, and from there to Rome.”

Nope. Attalus III was Greek. He was not Babylonian and Babylon had been destroyed centuries before him anyway. Remember, he was Gree, not Babylonian. Also, he did not will his kingdom to the “Roman Caesar” because no Caesar even existed when he died. Attalus III died in 133 BC. Julius Caesar was born more than 30 years LATER. Attalus willed his kingdom to the Roman Republic. Anti-Catholics are just so bad with history that it’s embarrassing. You have a Greek king put down as Babylonian when Babylon didn’t even exist anymore. You have a king willing his kingdom to a man or office that did not even exist yet. And you want to be taken seriously? Wouldn’t help to get some basic facts right?

“You are correct that there was a Pontifex Maximus in Rome too, though... It is the position of “Chief Pontiff (Bishop)” in the Mystery Religion, and no doubt Rome, as the chief city of Rome, would have had a Chief Pontiff over Rome (the country) going back into the ages.”

Nope. The Romans’ Pontifex Maximus had nothing to do with Babylon.

“But UriÂ’el-2012 is more correct, that the “High Chief Pontiff”, the Pater Patrum, was in Pergamum, and before that in Babylon. It was Julius Caesar AFAIR, (elected first as Pontifex Maximus) who vested the priest-king titles in perpetuity upon the emperors of Rome, wherein it became an automatic title.”

Nope. Uriel is wrong. Also, Julius Caesar did not vest the “priest-king titles in perpetuity upon the emperors of Rome” since he was not an emperor and he was not immediately followed by an emperor in the office of Pontifex Maximus either. Lepidu held the title after him. Only when Octavian held the title did it remain with those who were emperors.

“Yes, that is true - But the Roman church was already sitting on Vatican Hill - Thus Satan’s seat didn’t need to move an inch.”

I think Satan’s seat is more likely in the hearts and minds of anti-Catholics than on any hill outside of oldest Rome.

“Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right.”

As demonstrated, Uriel is not right.

“Christmas is a perfect re-enactment of the celebration of Tammuz, which fell on the eve of the 3rd day past the winter solstice. Look it up - the parallels are undeniable - Even as the pagan roots of Easter.”

Nope. The Romans, and especially Roman Christians, knew nothing about Tammuz, could not read Babylonian texts and adopted none of their ceremonies. The parallels are actually quite deniable. Most people rely on Hislop for this nonsense and he was notoriously wrong in his facts.

“*none* of this was God ordained, and in a haste to make converts, power, and the blessings of the Emperor, The church of Rome has wholly neglected the Holy things of Jehovah - To include His Sabbath, founded upon the last day of Creation. *None* of the High Holy Days of Jehovah, *HIS appointed times*, are found in Rome (or in Protestantism, to be sure).”

Jesus released us from the Jewish law of observances. When you get your facts straight, let me know.

Technically, doctrine is a type of faith also given by God the Holy Spirit, whereas Dogma refers to a faith with emphasis or force.

From notes:
a. The noun PISTIS.
(1) Used as an attribute, PISTIS is what causes trust or faith, reliability, faithfulness, or integrity, Tit 2:10; 2 Thes 1:4.
(2) In the active sense, PISTIS means faith, confidence, trust, faith as a recognition of and acceptance of Bible doctrine. In the active sense, faith is used in three ways.
(a) Saving faith, Eph 2:8; 1 Jn 5:4-5.
(b) The three stages of the faith-rest drill, Rom 3:20; Heb 4:3.
(c) The metabolization of Bible doctrine.
(3) The passive meaning of PISTIS is Bible doctrine, meaning that which is believed, i.e., doctrine, the body of belief, which is obedience to authority. PISTIS is so translated “doctrine” is such passages as Gal 1:23; 2 Pet 1:5; 1 Tim 1:19, 4:1,6; Heb 11.
b. The noun PISTOS, used as an adjective in the passive sense means being trustworthy, worthy of trust, faithful, dependable, and inspiring trust. In the active sense, it means trusting or believing.
c. The verb PISTEUO means to believe, to trust something to someone, to use someone as an object of faith, Gal 2:16. It only takes a little more than no faith at all to be saved, Acts 16:31.
d. The verb PEITHO in the passive means to come to believe, to obey, to be persuaded or convinced. The perfect passive means to have confidence, to be absolutely convinced, to be certain. The active meaning as in Gal 1:10 means to convince, to persuade, to appeal, to win over. The perfect tense with a present meaning means to depend on someone, to trust in someone, to have confidence.
e. The verb PISTOO means to show oneself faithful; to be convinced; to have confidence, 2 Tim 3:14.

C. Biblical Use of “Faith” or PISTIS.
1. PISTIS is used for doctrine in Heb 11:1-3. “In fact, doctrine is the reality from which we keep receiving confidence, the proof of matters not being seen; for by means of doctrine men of old gained approval.”
2. A description of faith is found in 2 Cor 4:18. “We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen [essence of God]; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Faith is the means by which we perceive reality in the invisible essence of God.
3. Sometimes both the faith-rest technique and doctrine are described in the meaning of PISTIS, as in 2 Cor 5:7. “We walk by faith and not by sight.” Your eyes are in your soul, and your soul must have Bible doctrine. We see the unseen through doctrine. Doctrine gives us relationship with the integrity of God which sustains us in time of disaster. We see the justice and integrity of God through doctrine.
4. Heb 11:6, “And without doctrine resident in the soul, it is impossible to please God, for when one is occupied with God, he must be convinced that He is and that He becomes a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
5. Rom 10:17, “Doctrine comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
6. Gal 5:22, “The fruit of the Spirit is doctrine.”
7. In each verse above, PISTIS relates faith to the perception of Bible doctrine. PISTIS means both faith and doctrine. All perception of doctrine is accomplished through the function of faith perception.
8. 1 Tim 1:19 and 4:1 use PISTIS for the doctrine of demons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.