Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer
Please cite a doctrine from any conclave that is fabricated.
Also see When you review the cited scriptures, most often Yah'shua <3862> para,dosij paradosis
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Meaning: a handing down or over, a tradition
Origin: from 3860
Usage: tradition(1), tradition(8), traditions(4).
Jer. 39:4; 41:2; Matt. 15:2f, 6; Mk. 7:3, 5, 8, 13; 1 Co. 11:2; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6
is rebuking the Pharisees for creating man made tradition
which impugns the Written Word of G-d.
Your post exemplifies what is good and illustrates what is bad with so many of the Catholic related posts. I can fully understand and appreciate a discussion of Catholic dogma and another biblical perspective about why one might disagree with it, but it is getting hard to stomach non-Catholics and anti-Catholics misstating the Church's position and then getting insulting and argumentative when corrected and refuted.
You wrote:
“Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?”
There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?
One of us is and it ain't me. Everything good in Paul's writings is not new and everything new in Paul's writings is not good. Paul was not a Pharisee and actually demonstrated a very imperfect understanding of rabbinical Judaism, which was a much livelier and more humane affair than he made out. He was, by his own admission, an agent of the Sadducee High Priest, who was a Roman collaborator loathed by the Jewish population. I do not question his faith after his conversion, but I cannot accept a distortion of who he was prior to it.
Acts 22: 3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today. Nor Gamaliel I direct you to :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.
Clearly you are not familiar with the Holy Word of G-d.
Amen!
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Well, I’m not sure exactly how or where the Catholic Church invented many of its doctrines, but they sure didn’t get them from the Apostles or from scripture. I’m thinking of things like purgatory, celibate clergy, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the cult of Mary, veneration of relics...just to name a few.
When you make a statement, it is always helpful if you back it up. To which 'invented' doctrines are you referring?
2 Tim. 2:2
NYer, that's quite a stretch, even for you, isn't it?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Yes, while the New Testament was being written, the oral teaching of the Apostles was critical, as were Prophets.
However, there IS no Apostolic oral teaching recorded outside of scripture. That was largely why scripture became scripture - because the NT writings were by Apostles or recorded what the Apostles preached.
The Catholic Church doesn’t pretend that Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Mariology, Indulgences, etc came from oral teachings of the Apostles handed down lip to ear until formally proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church.
NY “Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2).”
2 Tim 2:2 reads: “2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
As I said, if you have teaching from the Apostle Paul “which thou hast heard from me”, I’ll listen. But the doctrines we differ on are ones that came up hundreds or a thousand years later. They are NOT teachings passed from Paul to Timothy.
NYer “He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).”
Again, the teachings of the Apostles are not in question.
NYer “”So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher.”
Yes, we need preaching to convert folks, and the Church is to be the true teacher - it is supposed to be the support and pillar of the truth, not the replacement for the truth. A Church that teaches non-Apostolic doctrine as required belief is therefor not a true church.
Sola scriptura doesn’t teach to abandon the church, but that the true church submits to the breath of God - the scripture. It is the only place we have the teachings of the Apostles.
Paul didn’t install priests, or hear confession, or instruct anyone to ‘do penance’. Paul didn’t teach Purgatory, or Indulgences. Paul didn’t teach that we are born again by water baptism, or teach that the Eucharist was a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice of Jesus. Paul didn’t teach that Peter was Vicar of Christ - nor did Peter. Yet Paul taught the “full counsel of God”.
Therefor, those things are not part of the full counsel of God, and a church that teaches them as dogma is a false church.
All of these are strongly suggested by the scripture, albeit not spelled out directly. Pick any two, and I'll show you.
I already know that the RCC has some twisted arguments which they use to “prove” these doctrines, but the arguments are little more than sophistry. Otherwise everyone, including Protestants, would have no problem with these doctrines.
**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. **
A fact not recognized by all.
So you retract your previous statement?
The article is about twisting the scripture. It shows convincingly where the foundational Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not even remotely supported by the Holy Scripture.
So, the offer stands. I can show you how any two (I am a very nice guy) of these Catholic doctrines are supported by the scripture. You show me how the Sola Scriptura superstition is supported by it. See who reads what’s written and who twists and turns.
There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?
Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism. Christmas is Babylonian Paganism Easter is Babylonian paganism
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Matthew 19:10-12
Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8
transubstantiation,
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and giving thanks, broke and said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
praying to saints,
We pray with the saints not TO them. Just as you would ask someone in your church to pray for you, we also ask the Saints in Heaven to pray for us.
the cult of Mary,
41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul does magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he has regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty has done great things to me: and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He has showed might in his arm: he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble.
Luke 1:41-52
veneration of relics...just to name a few.
15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter came, his shadow at the least might overshadow any of them and they might be delivered from their infirmities. 16 And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits: who were all healed. Acts 5:15-16
You're right, no Scriptural evidence whatsoever...
Ok, Paul is claiming apostalic authority... I guess I better read Corinthians. To get my apostolic authority. Don’t need the Papal tradition, that line has failed. Don’t need the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Moscow. That line has failed also. So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.
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.