imardmd1: To me, this sentence is not quite clear. What it seems to me that you are saying is as follows:
>> Please prove that:
>> (a) that which is not found in Scripture, and
>> (b) which today the Catholic Church calls "tradition",
>> (c) was taught by the Apostles.
Have I got that right? Is that what you meant?
Thanks --
Cynical Bear: Nice attempt at not answering the question.
imardmd1: Ah, from your phrasing I really did not understand what you were getting at. You yourself could be civil and respond with better clarity. If I didn’t want to answer, I wouldn’t have asked. It’s up to you.
CynicalBear: Well, then answer the question as you phrased it.
imardmd1: You still have not indicated that this is what you meant. Also, in this medium I don't take commands very well. You might want to revise your approach, eh?
CynicalBear: Yeah, didn’t think you could.
I'll answer your question, but not in the way you would suppose.
The Romanists have nothing on hand from the apostles not written or taught by the apostles and recorded in the Bible. Any extrabiblical traditions they have are solely man-made by fallible pseudoreligionists, who have such a mixture of falsehood and truth that is difficult to sort out all their faults. But you could start with one, which is misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, which makes Simon Peter grammatically feminine, and makes him the head of a church, which is a position he never occupied in the New Testament or in his life.
However, this is a statement from me, a fallible human, one of many who are offering their sometimes valid conclusions in this thread.
Here is my answer to you:
From Post #94, where Heart-Rest assumes that both Boogieman (Post #89) and imardmd1 (myself)(Post #88) are in error regarding the value of tradition outside of and not included in Holy Scripture. (S)he tries to correct us by merely doubling up on an even greater plethora of Catholic traditionalist writings from yet more fallible men who deny that one's faith rests on the Holy Scriptures alone; except, that is, a final citation (mistranslated) from the Bible, which is:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (translation source not given)
* * * * *
Here are two better and correct English translations of long-standing acceptance, followed by the Greek Koine text basis:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 Authorized Version).
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 (2:14) Douay-Rheims Bible).
αρα ουν αδελφοι στηκετε και κρατειτε τας παραδοσεις ας εδιδαχθητε ειτε δια λογου ειτε δι επιστολης ημων" (2Thess. 2:15 Textus Receptus).
* * * * *
Here are conditions and suppositions used in interpreting the thrust of this verse, with which Catholics would like to try to justify giving equivalent (or greater) authority to the fallible, uninspired writings of the Patristics such as ought to be given only to the infallible God-breathed Scripture set down by the New Testament writers.
adelphoi = restricted in this epistle to and for the constituents of the assembly that met in Thessalonika, only; the only ones coming under the second person plural. The primary application of the counsel in this letter is to the Thessalonikans alone, and not to any other group then or now. A secondary, qualified meaning may be extracted for application to other Christians, but only when universal, general conditions prevail or when other Spirit-inspired epistles from Paul were passed around.
hemon = restricted in this epistle to the authors Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy only, for all time. No other teachers, then or later, who are fallible, are to create new, uninspired doctrine to be added to that already imparted to the Thessalonikans. They are only to believe "our gospel" (see v. 14), that of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy; which is in essence "my gospel" (Gal. 1:8-12; Rom. 2:16, 16:25; 2 Ti. 2:8).
logos = that body of doctrine proceeding out of and certified by Scripture (graphe), in which the Thessalonikans had been less noble than the men of Berea, who resorted to the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was so; and thus that it proceeded from The God, through Paul; and not merely from Paul alone.
epistole = God-inspired pastoral letters, later inscripturated into the canon of the New Testament, and now considered Holy Scripture, as does this very epistle.
paradoses = traditions, here only the oral precepts committed to and drawn from the Holy Scripture, and handed over (paradidomai) by indoctrination from the Scripture of the Tanakh, which was already approved and accepted as Logos; or new doctrine from Christ's Gospel solely given to His Apostles for transmission only by them orally or by letter to the churches as they were being formed.
Vincent's Word Studies defines paradoses, tradition, thusly:
"See on 1 Cor. 11:2. Not emphasizing a distinction between written and oral tradition. Tradition, in the scriptural sense, may be either written or oral. It implies on the part of a teacher that he is not expressing his own ideas, but is delivering or handing over (παραδίδωμι) a message received from some one else. See 1Cor. 11:23. The prominent idea of παράδοσις is therefore that of an authority external to the teacher. Comp. by word nor by letter, 2 Thess. 2:2."
The authority in this case is God Himself to the prophet ("Thus saith The LORD . . .") or by inscripturation of what God has said by inerrant verbal inspiration. Only such authority validates an argument or tradition made from Scripture alone.
What the Romanists try to do is to place the writings such as of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or Eusebius, or Irenaeus, or Ignatius, etc. to be of equal or above Scriptual Authority, superseding the plain sense of Scripture to formulate new, uninspired, and burdensome tradition not contained in or supported by Scripture.
This places the decisions of the Magisterium above the Voice of God found in His Word, making Romanism another (heteros) gospel with another (allos) Jesus and another (heteros) Spirit (2 Cor. 11:3-4), worthy of rejection by those regenerated by new birth in the Spirit, and not equated with real Crist-followers by having been sprinkled with water as an infant (another tradition bearing a false hope of salvation).
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1 AV)
Well put!