Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
And Timothy says that he should keep and pass on the traditions that he has received.
Scripture wasn’t the original. Scripture was passed down from the Oral traditions of the Apostles.
Scriptures generally refer to churches as separate bodies as well as church as a whole (and church as regions and churches in houses, etc). The word "church" frequently appears in the New Testament. But Peter also referred to Paul's writings as "scripture".
So the question of which came first is mute as both the New Testament and the word church is referred to. The real issue which would need to be proved is whether the churches acted under the control of ONE leader. No where does that appear to be the case. I cannot find the term "Pope" in the Bible and according to Acts 15, the very first council of the church was not led by Peter but was actually under the control of James. And we know that Peter was opposed to by Paul for heretical doctrine (Gal 2:11). At the very least the scripture tells us in Acts that it was the "apostles and elders" that decided the course. Actually the thought of one "church" is contrary to Revelation which is why I raised it. There were many churches (as shown in Revelation) that met together to solve problems (as shown throughout the New Testament). But they all agreed on the scriptures. One would have thought that greater care would have been taken to ensure people understood that there was only one leadership denoted in the New Testament. However, if anything it proves just the opposite-that there were multiple churches and groups.
So perhaps I just answered my own question. They all agreed on the scriptures, yet there were many churches.
Yes, I've been told I'm "out of my element" before. However, I just can't understand why people can't see their nose in front of their face. The scriptures, after all, are rather clear on the matter. One doesn't have to speculate on what Vatican councils have told us. They only have to read and understand what the scriptures have plainly said .
My apologies, it’s a quote from the “Big Lebowski”.
Couple things here, and there’s some very good questions.
“I cannot find the term “Pope” in the Bible”
Well, that’s because the term ‘pope” wasn’t used until somewhat later. The term comes from Pontifex Maximus, which was a specific term from an office in the Roman Empire, think of it like the high priest, with the exception that it was a part of the bureaucracy. There really isn’t a modern equivalent today.
Pope Gregory VII was the first to use the term Pope in the way that we use it today, and that was not until the early 11th century.
The Early Church refers to Peter as ‘first among the Apostles’, who would later become the Bishop of Rome, and was executed there.
“and according to Acts 15, the very first council of the church was not led by Peter but was actually under the control of James.”
Yes, James. Bishop of Jerusalem. The first council is said to be held in Jerusalem. We don’t have the minutes for it due to it’s antiquity.
“And we know that Peter was opposed to by Paul for heretical doctrine.”
This was one of the first conflicts of the early church, whether to circumcize gentile believers. At this point, most of the Church were Jews who had been converted in Jerusalem and the area, and Jews would remain a significant percentage of the early church for quite some time, actually.
Paul managed to convince Peter of two things. One, that Christ had ordered him to go on a mission to the Gentiles, and two, they were to be received ‘as they were’. They would not have to be circumcized. Peter had disagreed until this discussion with Paul, and Paul won the rest of the Apostles over, such that Peter sent Paul to mission to the Gentiles.
“At the very least the scripture tells us in Acts that it was the “apostles and elders” that decided the course.”
Yes. Peter didn’t make that decision on his own, but took it to the rest of the Apostles.
“Actually the thought of one “church” is contrary to Revelation”
It is true to what Paul and Ephesians teaches, that the Church has one head and the Church is the bride of Christ. Christ does not have two brides, and neither does the Church have two heads. One head and one bride. Christ and his church.
Revelations speaks of attitudes which circumscribes relationships between people and God, and uses the concept of congregations to show how different groups within the Church are afflicted by sin which separates them from God. Think of it as the congregation of Laodocea, etc.
“There were many churches”.
Using Revelations is problematic, because Revelations isn’t a historical book. It doesn’t rever to people in general. Ephesians explicitly says that there is only one Church and Christ is the head of the Church.
“But they all agreed on the scriptures.”
No, they didn’t. When was Revelations written? All of the books were written after the death of Stephen (as recorded in Acts), so technically none of the bible was actually approved by all the Apostles. From what we know of scripture, parts were written down in the 50’s and 60s, about 25 years after the death of Christ. Revelations came much later, closer to the end of the century.
When we go a bit further in time, we see disagreement among the Church Fathers as to the canonicity of different books. All the Gospels were accepted, but some books (Shepherd of Hermas, Didache), were included that did not make the later cut, and some were taken out (usually 1,2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelations), depending on the Church Father and the date.
It wasn’t until Emperor Theodosius commissioned a Latin bible, that the Church and Pope Damasus met to confirm a Canon. This Canon was set down and used as the basis for the Latin vulgate translation.
We still have a few Codexes from before this date that are incredibly ancient, the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They both use different lists of books.
“One would have thought that greater care”
Matthew is pretty clear in teaching that Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. It does not call him Pope, but it does say that “the Gates you open shall not be closed), etc. This is where the argument for Peter’s primacy comes from.
“They all agreed on the scriptures, yet there were many churches.”
Neither is in fact true.
“However, I just can’t understand why people can’t see their nose in front of their face. The scriptures, after all, are rather clear on the matter.”
Which books, do you believe are inspired?
Tell me which ones are in your bible and I’ll show you why that question is not so simple. :)
The GOSPEL was preached using the OLD TESTAMENT .
Those OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures that testify of HIM are the tradition he is speaking of .
And where would they have gotten their Old Testament from? What book would they have used? Do you know?
That’s laughable if you are implying the got it from the Catholics .
I didn’t ask who. I asked where they got their OT from.
It’s ok to say, “I don’t know”.
Not exactly, but try answering this anyway.
What traditions is it that Timothy received that we should be keeping and how do you know it?
Scripture wasn’t the original. Scripture was passed down from the Oral traditions of the Apostles.
Prove it.
“Prove it.”
This, btw is a teaching from my evangelical days.
Luke 1:1-4
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Have at it.
It means uncovering /unveiling lol
Luke traveled with Paul and knew the some of the apostles himself.
Eyewitness accounts are not *tradition*.
In addition, if Scripture is the *traditions* handed down by the apostles, then that is all we need, as there is no other traditions outside of the written down ones which are Scripture.
So, again I ask for the umpteenth time, what are the traditions to which PAUL refers that he passed down that Timothy was instructed to hold to and how do you know what they were?
I’ve asked several Catholics this same question and they have all avoided answering. I haven’t gotten one answer yet out of any of them. Wanna try?
Oh, and please cite the sources of where this tradition can be found. Verify that what the traditions are and how you are sure they have been passed down faithfully.
All their first preaching was done in synagogues.
Have your ever heard of a synagogue that did not have the Scriptures ?
Anyways the Greek OT is the Septuagint. That’s where the Apostles got their OT from.
The crucial part is that the Septuagint included Maccabees, etc.
“Luke traveled with Paul and knew the some of the apostles himself.”
Indeed he did. But many he did not know and he compiled eyewitness accounts.
“Eyewitness accounts are not *tradition*.”
They are the oral traditions of the church. Remember there’s about a 20-30 year gap from when Luke was written, and from when Christ died, and an additional 30 year gap from when some of the accounts actually occurred.
If these oral traditions had not been preserved, St. Luke would have been much poorer in putting together his book.
“In addition, if Scripture is the *traditions* handed down by the apostles, then that is all we need, as there is no other traditions outside of the written down ones which are Scripture.”
On the contrary, it stands to reason that Luke was recording PART of the traditions already possessed by the Church at the time. So Scripture is not the be-all and end-all of the traditions of the Church. But it is a big part of it.
“So, again I ask for the umpteenth time, what are the traditions to which PAUL refers that he passed down that Timothy was instructed to hold to”
The entirety of the Teachings of the Church, which include Sacred scripture.
“how do you know what they were?”
From what the Church fathers recorded. That’s the earliest record we have of the Church teachings in their entirety.
“Oh, and please cite the sources of where this tradition can be found. Verify that what the traditions are and how you are sure they have been passed down faithfully.”
That’s a really big question. Your best place to start is the Catechism, because it not only records the teachings but where they come from. That’s the main purpose of the Catechism, to serve as a summary of what the Church teaches as well as referring you to the origins so you can investigate them yourself.
A more fruitful inquiry would be to examine issues that you are curious to learn more about, which is what we did earlier on in the thread with the Assumption. Which actually is a really interesting question.
I’ll try to answer as best I can, but I’m not guaranteeing you’ll get a satisfactory answer. Like I said, I understand your concerns and your reasoning.
Peace.
Maccabees is a historical book , not Scripture and they knew the difference just like the Jews of today know that it wasn’t Scripture. Maccabees happened between the writing of the Old and New Testament .
Did you know that Hanukkah was in the New Testament ?
Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
Joh 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
“Maccabees is a historical book , not Scripture”
As are 1:2 Kings, 1:2 Chronicles. The Pentateuch, etc.
These are all historical books and are part of Scripture. Heck, it makes up about half the OT.
Have you read 1-2 Kings and 1,2 Chronicles? You should, if you haven’t already done so.
“Maccabees happened between the writing of the Old and New Testament.”
When was the Septuagint written? When was Maccabbees written?
If you think those books only contain historical accounts you should go back and read them .
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.