Posted on 01/03/2018 10:28:23 AM PST by Salvation
Odd thing is: not one single person on earth, called Yeshua by the name of ‘Jesus’ when He was here.
Truth in translation: names are not translated in strict translations. The name John in English, remains John in strict translations to other languages. John, is not going to respond if someone calls him by another name. Furthermore, John and his descendents are not going be real happy that some foreign people group write at length about him, using another name. Imagine Him mother hearing about it twisting. Who are they talking about?
Allah is not the name of our Father. Allah is just one “god” among multitudes. So “god” is a title of a diety, and YHVH’s name is not “god”, it is YHVH, or at the least, the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob. Otherwise, “god” can be identified as any of the god, making the claim that Allah is the same “god” of the Bible.
Further, our Father goes by other attribute names:
YHVH Jireh - YHVH Provider
YHVH Rapha - YHVH Healer
YHVH Yeshua - YHVH Savior or YHVH of our Salvation
You'll have to debate St. Paul on that.
Tagline.
It’s a great question.
The direct fulfillment of Isa. 7 was immediate. A child would be born, and before the child could eat solid food the kings of Syria would be gone and their threat to Jerusalem would be gone. Less than 3 years.
Then Matthew made a secondary application that Jesus is God with us. Immanuel then becomes not his given name, but his nature, God with us.
When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. Col 4:16 NASB [~61 AD]
I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers. 1 Thess 5:27 NASB [~51AD]
1Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Gal 1:1-2 NASB [~49 AD]
1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1-7 NASB [~58]
2To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 1 Cor 1:2 NASB [~56]
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Eph 1:1 NASB [~61]
1Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: Phil 1:1 NASB [~61]
1Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. 1 Thess 1:1 NASB [~51AD]
2To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 1 Tim 1:2 NASB [~63]
1James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. James 1:1 NASB[~45-50]
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Peter 1:1 NASB [~63]
4John to the seven churches that are in Asia:.... Rev 1:4 NASB [~90]
The Gospels had also been completed by this point and were in circulation among the local churches. [Mark ~50; Luke ~60; Matthew ~60s; John ~85-90]
Paul's writings were recognized as Scripture in 2 Peter [~66].
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Bible) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
What were those traditions?
Paul gives us the answer in the same letter! This is why context is so important in reading the Scriptures.
6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. 2 Thess 3:6-13 NASB
Was he talking about the Immaculate Conception? Nope.
Perpetual Virginity? Nope.
Papal Supremacy? Nope.
The Assumption? Nope?
The Mass as currently practiced in Roman Catholicism? Nope.
At Trent, when Rome authorized its Canon...did it include any of the writings of the ECFs? Nope.
Rome could have solved the question of what is or is not inspired right then and there. That Rome never included any of the writings of the ECFs is not lost on the astute reader of history.
Not the Roman Catholic Church!
Just so the Protestants could memorize it?
Something Roman Catholics would be well advised to do.
Roman Catholics claim "Sacred Tradition" to support the Immaculate Conception do they not?
You'll have to debate St. Paul on that.
Actually, it is the Roman Catholic who has to debate Paul on this as they advance the belief "tradition" is equal to Scripture.
If I as a non-Catholic only rely upon Scripture I know I am on solid ground as Scripture is inspired and without error.
There is nothing in "Sacred Tradition" that is needed to understand salvation and how to obtain it.
However, the position of the Roman Catholic who equates "Sacred Tradition" with Scripture is on shaky ground as they are relying upon the opinion of the various ECFs.
As has been demonstrated in these threads the ECFs are in disagreement with each other on many of the issues near and dear to Rome. The Immaculate Conception as an example.
The current issues many Roman Catholics have with the current pope illustrate the reliance upon teachings other than found in Scripture.
Rome, through "Sacred Tradition" has added to what has been revealed in Scripture...in many cases contradicting Scripture.
Roman Catholicism has the same error in this case as Mormonism. Both have added "sacred" texts to Scripture that must be believed by their adherents.
Non-Catholics cannot fall into this error of adding to Scripture.
As for the rest: read a little history.
BTW, I've decided not to spend 2018 freepin' around in useless circles, nor cut-and-pasting what I wrote on these topics in 2009, '10, '11, '12, ...'17, etc.
and it will all be don-o-splained for you!
Cheers.
I have!
On a side note...thought of you last weekend.
I know you like to cook.
I made some very delicious homemade yeast bread.
Nothing better than warm bread with some butter and strawberry preserves!
The Catholic Church protected it and very carefully proclaimed, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what needed to be in the NT. And yes, the Church authorized what books would be part of the canon.
It was a Catholic bishop about 700 years ago who decided that there should be Chapter and verse separation so that it would be easier to read.
The use of the word "Catholic" was introduced in the fourth century in order to differentiate between those groveling in heresy and those who stuck by the truth.
There is so much you guys do not know. As is everything that happened for 1500 years before Martin Luther was of no use to God.
When you say things like “ only inspired texts” you got really close to denying the sovereignty of Abba Father YHWH. Never a good move. Just saying.
I made some buckwheat pancakes, with a recipe that uses a 1:3 ratio of buckwheat to regular white flour, and yeast which is allowed to work in the batter overnight in the refrigerator (now there's something different: yeast working in the cold?) But they were really good; and yes, butter and strawberry preserves make it pert-near perfect.
The next project will be "crumpets," which, after reading innumerable British social satires and murder mysteries, I finally got around to looking up. Turns out it's basically a yeast-raised pancake, too.
With tea: a small-t tradition.
Hey.
In Eden, God walked with Adam (and Eve); see Genesis 2&3
After they sinned, He drove them out of the Garden, and walked with them no more.
When Jesus was born, God walked the earth with Man once again ...
John 1:
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This time, though, when He left He sent His Holy Spirit to teach us all things.
And there is so much you guys have added since the writings of the Apostles.
The name [Catholic] appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
**There is even a Roman Catholic writing by Alexander VII that admits Roman Catholics worship Mary! **
Source — live web source! PLEASE!
Then show me what those traditions were, how you know they came from the apostles, how you know they were passed down faithfully and without corruption for 2,000 years.
Please provide documentation for those proofs.
Also, please show us where the phrase “sacred tradition” appears in Scripture and where and how they were to be passed down.
Catholicism uses the out of *sacred tradition* to support a whole bunch of unscritpural doctrines. Since there are no Scripture to support them, they invented this *sacred tradition* stuff as justification to teach as truth things not found in Scripture.
The link is there. Copy and paste it into your browser.
What's that got to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, the EO do not accept as doctrine many things that the Roman rite puts forth and uses *sacred tradition* so support, like the immaculate conception.
Yet they are considered in full communion with Rome.
Somehow.
When Prots are condemned as heretics and Mary haters for not agreeing.
Why wasn't He named Bob or Larry?
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.