Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

cna ^

[ziravan]

This is what Jesus had to say about the additional teachings “traditions” of the institutional sects of the day:

Matt 16:6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Herod in Mark) (In Luke 12, just Pharisees, and again, Jesus had a name for this kind of additional yeast in the bread: Hypocrite!)

I think that would also apply to modern day equivalents. Be on your guard against that added ingredient that changes the nature of the bread of Life? Yes.

[NYer]

Wrong...you catholics just cannot get the history right.

Lol! We were there from the foundation of the Church.

The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.

[mountn man]

The jewish holidays were given by God for the Jews to remember what he had done for them. There other traditions were just that, traditions. It was the pharisees who tried to ascribe importance to them, and Christ rebuked them.

We can also look at any "tradition" created after the Bible was written was NOT a tradition that the Bible spoke of, and was just an elaborate contrivance of man and given "authority" BY MAN.

God gave us his word to read. To instruct us, to convey his love for us and to us.

Much like a person sends a love letter to another. A person can read it for what the writer intended, but hug it regularly or kissing it or waving around your head 3 times, pumping it up and down 5 times and back and forth in front of you 6 doesn't make it ANYMORE meaningful. The writer might think its cute or endearing, but still meaningless. Same with any manmade traditions.

God gave us his Word. He also gave us (our jewish bretheren) certain traditions. Anything else is man made.

[Fee]

DITTO. The ones that advocate scripture only, tend to throw the child molesting ministers out immediately, the ones who believe in additional doctrines and question strict interpretation of scripture tend to keep and move their child molesting ministers around. I think following scripture and not adding additional doctrines is a better way.

[ziravan]

One man made tradition is to suppose that when Jesus said "for the sake of your tradition," he was talking about ALL tradition.

Except that, in Mark's version of this story, Jesus is very clear that he is not stating a specific example, but a pattern of abuse:

Mark 7: 13 "Thus you nullify the word of G-d by your traditions that you have handed down. AND YOU DO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS."

[caww]

No ....you see the pope and his hierarchy as that, I do not ...in fact I see the pope as a man crowned and configured far from what any apostle was or ever desired....they were all about Christ and in fact when the people did want to elevate their position they profoundly and firmly were against this in every way. The Pope is not over the believers...Christ is...period. Now you can and do adhere to his authority over YOUR denomination....I do not nor will I ever. But I will not argue he has his following just as all the religions who claim their own prophet or leader, guru. The catholic membership gives Him authority Christ never gave a man...the pope is not Christ or his representation here...Gods Holy Spirit is...enough said.

I am so grateful for the Reformation after coming to FR and reading these religious threads. Further research to seek the truth of and origins of what the catholic church is today was a profound eyeopener of where so much of their practices and beliefs are rooted...mindboggling to say the least.

As I have stated before...you and I are far apart in our beliefs so you should not be surprised I will not agree.

[mountn man]

And what oral teachings are these, and by what proof do you have that they come from the apostles themselves?

[caww]

Beautiful and worth repeating....

Mark 7: 13 Jesus said.... "Thus you nullify the word of G-d by your traditions that you have handed down. AND YOU DO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS."

[caww]

Ouch...that’s gotta hurt if they have any sensitivity to the truth at all. If it doesn’t then they are beyond the sensitivity the spirit gives us to discern.

[caww]

I agree with this...the difference I am seeing between catholics and protestants is protestants do and indeed can glean from other authors but they are free to form their conclusions and do so....catholics on the other hand seem to have to arrive at certain conclusions which must be in line and approved by their hierarchy.

[caww]

refer to posts: #6#7#8#10#17#21

[fish hawk]

God had the notion that His Word was perfect for us. The Catholics (and other denominations including some protestant) believe that God came short and had to add a whole list of their own “laws”. Trouble with that is all the laws including the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross as well as our sins. It is pretty egotistical to think that one could add a law after God already took care of the “law” problem. (that no one but Jesus Christ ever lived without breaking one of them)

[caww]

..."God gave us his Word. He also gave us (our jewish bretheren) certain traditions. Anything else is man made".

Very nice to have stated this....and factual.

[caww]

Right again...furthermore it is Christ who lives His life thru us...we are no longer our own. Either He paid the sin price entire or He did not. Christ's last words..”It is finished”...He did and that settles all arguments to the contrary. Additionally the Bible as we have it is very clear on what we need to know and He intended we should have.

I have found it interesting in cult studies etc. that one of the common ideas from those who have entered and came out of them is the individuals, who were Christians and fell for the lies, wanted “more” than that which Christ and scripture offered. They wanted signs and experiences of a supernatural kind because our society today values this far more than “faith” and “belief”.

[Mad Dawg]

Mark 7: 13 "Thus you nullify the word of G-d by your traditions that you have handed down. AND YOU DO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS."

Okay. Then it's a man made tradition that by "you" Jesus means to refer to Catholics as well as Pharisees AND/OR that by 'many such things' he means "all such things."

[Bryan24]

“We see their successors, whom they appointed.”

You cannot appoint eyewitnesses to Christ.

[Mad Dawg]

As a matter of fact, I pretty much agree. It just is funny (as well as being a man-made tradition) that the BIBLE says “not by Faith alone,” and a whole bunch of people say “by faith alone.” Clearly it is a wee bit more nuanced.

[fish hawk]

You are so right. “Works” is Satan's ace in the hole. It makes us “feel” good and boosts our ego but it also makes us not need God. If you can do it yourself and work your way into Heaven, why do you need God? This simple fact is ignored by Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses.

[Grunthor]

“According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible).”

“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

The Savior did not mention your tradition.

[mountn man]

I think its important to note that St. Jerome translated the Bible into latin around 400 ad. Before that everything was Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The early church had what we call the Old Testament They also would have accounts of the Gospels and maybe even some of Pauls letters passed on. Its important to note, That EVEN if teachings were passed on orally, those teachings still fall under the authority of scripture. In other words, if a pastor or elder at a church or synangogue would teach something, and then later a letter of Paul arrives teaching something different, well its obvious Pauls letter would trump whatever oral teaching there was.

This was the problem Luther had and the start of the reformation. Luther didn't simply decide he didn't like the Catholic church, he saw discrepancies between what the church was teaching and what was in the Bible.

Now you can try to villify Luther if you want, but its hard to objectively argue facts. Luther saw a discrepancy and voiced it. The Catholic church didn't like it and ordered him to recant. He refused, under expulsion and threat of death.

Next, when the printing press came about, the Catholic chuch feared it because of the loss of absolute control of the people. Now the people could read for themselves, and not rely on the priests. It also exposed the teachings that weren't congruant with the Bible.