Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. >> And then he founded his Church on Peter, the Rock.<<
Do you suppose God was wrong?
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
>> Yes, Peter denied him three times, but he also professed his faith in Christ three times.<<
How many people did Jesus say this to?
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
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).
I do not see any responses to your or my questions here.
Would there be any Catholic anywhere who would be willing to take a stab at it, I wonder?
Scripture contains so much about God that it would take a lifetime of study to scratch the surface. It is amazing that someone would yet think that it was not adequate for the job that Paul said it was.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitablefor teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Complete. Equipped for EVERY good work. That means nothing lacking.
Scripture is all we need.
And Rome "protected" children from sexual predators (priests) by tradition? Oh. Wait. They didn't protect children, just priests.
Might let it play out a bit.
I don't think protecting pedophiles was church tradition although in the MIddle Ages all the priests were from the noble classes who were pretty much immune from law ~
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
So just where is Scripture lacking and why and why would anyone even think so?
This has become a circular argument. There were many gospels, books and letters in circulation in the first centuries. How do you know for certain that the ones accepted are truly "inspired"? Who made that decision? Moreover, by what authority did they make it?
Jesus never commanded his Apostles to write down anything. Instead, Jesus founded a Church and gave the Apostles the authority to go and make disciples and to lead the Church, and that is what they did – they went forth and ordained new bishops in various parts of the world, and trained the people on the Faith. It was at least 40 years until anything was written down – for 40 years the Church flourished and grew without any NT book at all. And when such books and letters were written and sent, they were to address specific problems in specific regions (like the Judiazers in Galatia, for example). These were helpful instruments created by the Church, for the Church. But the Church came first.
Requires? Requires? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
There is no “requires” in there. Whether they heard it taught by word or read it doesn’t mean it was two different teachings. It simply means that some heard it by word of mouth and others read it from scripture. No where in there does it indicate that there were two different teachings. You need to show that there were different things being taught or this whole idea that some things were not written but only taught by word of mouth is nothing but made up tripe.
>>The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.<<
Say what? Chapter and verse please.
>>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 Timothy 2: 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Maybe this is what they heard of him and what he commended people for?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
” Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense”
So your big response to Cyril saying: “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures,” is to quote Cyril partially quoting 2Th 2:15 in order to prove that he really didn’t mean that the most casual statement needs support from the Holy scripture?
Are you able to logically reconcile this, or is your teh logicz broken?
Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek Jehovah: look unto the rock whence ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged. Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many.
Got it No assurance of Salvation.
Thank you for making that clear. Will the rest of the Prots demand you send back the secret decoder ring?
40 years you say!! Let’s see, Christ was crucified around 31AD so 40 years later would be 71AD but alas we have this.
Matthew – 37AD written by Matthew, called Levi, son of Alphaeus and brother of James
Mark – 57-63AD written by John Mark
Luke – 58-63AD written by Luke
Romans – 58-60AD the 6th of Pauls letters written in Crinth and sent to Rome by Phebe
1 Corinthians – 59AD written by Paul at Ephesus
2 Corinthians – 60AD written by Paul
Galatians – 69AD written by Paul
Ephesians – 64AD written by Paul
Philippians – 64AD written by Paul
Colossians – 64AD written by Paul
1 Thessalonians – 54AD written by Paul
2 Thessalonians – 54-55AD written by Paul
1Timothy – 67AD written by Paul
2 Timothy – 68AD written by Paul
Titus – 67AD written by Paul
Philemon – 64AD written by Paul
Hebrews – 68AD written by Paul
James – 45AD written by James the brother of Jesus
1Peter – 60AD written by Peter
2 Peter – 61-65AD written by Peter
It would seem that only those books written by John were later than 71AD.
>> These were helpful instruments created by the Church, for the Church. But the Church came first.
But certainly not the RCC which has attempted to place itself into the position of the “church” the body of Christ excluding all other believers. The RCC is an imposter.
“I’ll read the Gospels from people who met and walked with Jesus first.”
You know I kind of missed this even though I did see it earlier (it didn’t compute). Other than the 4 Gospels, what other Gospel are you hoping for? You said that the “early church fathers” who “walked with Jesus” would be your source . Well, there weren’t any. That would be the Apostles who wrote the Holy scripture. There is a silly legend that has Ignatius being one of the babies Jesus is reported to have held, as is usual for fables of those time periods, but that’s about it. But, if you want to talk Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Clement, due to the age of their writings, not one of them writes of any Pope. Ignatius calls the “head of the Bishop God,” not the Roman pontiff per the Catechism. In his letter to the Romans, he doesn’t even mention the Bishop of Rome who was supposed to be running Christianity at the time. When Peter is mentioned by any of these three writers, it is side by side the other Apostles with no mention of any superior rank.
This wouldn’t come until later, when the legends about Peter’s death blew up to such an extreme height that they imagined him as the “head of the choir.” Even then, though, there was no singular head of western Catholicism until one of the successors of Gregory, Boniface III, petitioned the emperor for the title of Universal Bishop, which Gregory had explicitly condemned. Before that time, the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were also considered the successors of Peter with “divine authority” to rule his alleged See.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Or perhaps are you missing something?
“I am saying that you are only presenting what looks good”
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing when you can’t even explain how the first quote is wrong or false, and then fail to reconcile it to support your view except to quote Cyril quoting scripture that merely mentions the word tradition... without any indication that demonstrates that that tradition isn’t the tradition found in the scripture which Cyril earlier praised?
” I am also saying that no one here is surprised by your duplicity.”
I’ve long since stopped being surprised by your vapid arguments.
Was Isaiah mistaken or wrong when he said in 51:2-3 that Abraham was the rock?
You answer that and you will have my answer.
I pointed out your error and it seems you just don’t like it. I am over it since I am posting for the lurkers.
“I pointed out your error and it seems you just don’t like it. I am over it since I am posting for the lurkers.”
So you showed the lurkers your power of teh logicz. LOL
“Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.”
If there are apostolic traditions that are NOT contained in Scripture and that are necessary to Christian life and stand with equal authority of written Scripture by virtue of being from the lips of Christ or his apostles, what are these traditions specifically? Or does written Scripture as a whole contain and repeat a sufficient amount of what was once only an oral teaching?
Is there a publication produced that lists these passed down oral traditions?
This is no rhetorical question as Christians are to be “perfect” or not lacking in any necessary spiritual trait.
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.