Should I be rebaptised?

Stranger said:

Paul spoke and wrote by revelation. He did not speak and write by 'tradition'. Go back and read post #(1201). The tradition Paul speaks of in (2 Thess. 2:15) is that which was given him by revelation from Jesus Christ. (2 Thess. 2:14) (Gal. 1:11)

"It is written" (Matt. 4:4,7,10)

Stranger

Click to expand...

The Oral revelation which he received from Christ IS Tradition, Einstein. What do you think Tradition is??

"It is written" doesn't nullify 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

Stranger said:

Paul spoke and wrote by revelation. He did not speak and write by 'tradition'. Go back and read post #(1201). The tradition Paul speaks of in (2 Thess. 2:15) is that which was given him by revelation from Jesus Christ. (2 Thess. 2:14) (Gal. 1:11)

"It is written" (Matt. 4:4,7,10)

Stranger

Click to expand...

Hi Stranger. I love bible study.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Employing the language of tradition (paredōka = “I delivered”; parelabon = “I received”), Paul passed on to the Corinthians the centrality of Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul inherited this tradition from the earliest churches that had already assigned atoning significance (“for our sins”) to his crucifixion.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The earliest account of “the Lord’s supper” is recorded in Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians. Paul “received” (parelabon) from the Lord this account that finds a prominent place in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20). Since Paul used traditional language, we may rule out that he received this as a direct revelation .

Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:6-7. Paul’s address to God as “Abba! Father!” likely originated with Jesus. The similarities in Romans and Galatians suggest that Paul was relying on traditional materials.

Arguments persist as long as objectors change the meaning of Tradition. That is using a straw man fallacy.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word

BreadOfLife said:

No, the Pope is the earthly Shepherd of the Catholic Church. The "Roman" Church is simply the diocese of Rome, of which he is Bishop.

Your argument is born of ignorance and nothing more.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Roman Pontiff is shepherd of the Catholic Church.

You're constant play with words is nothing short of lying. If you submit to the Pontiff of Rome, and the Roman Pontiff has all authority over the Church, then you are part of the Roman Church.

You abuse the word 'catholic' to hide your real colors. The church of Rome.

Stranger

The catechism gives additional definition to "Tradition", it predates the modernist revised definition by 2000 years:
CCC76-80
Footnotes:
35 DV 7 § 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,1G 7/1,848; Harvey,2,9.
36 DV 8 § 1.
37 DV 8 § 1.
38 DV 8 § 3.
39 DV 8 § 3; cf. Col 3:16.
40 DV 9.

DV, or Dei Verbum, Chapter II, elaborates extensively. It has NOTHING to do with what anti-Catholics object to. The Church has the right to define her own teachings the same as everybody else.

Dave Armstrong adds that Tradition is the AUTHENTIC history of practices and devotions beginning with the earliest church years. Not all of it made it into the Bible because it didn't have to.

BreadOfLife said:

The Oral revelation which he received from Christ IS Tradition, Einstein. What do you think Tradition is??

"It is written" doesn't nullify 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

Click to expand...

Sorry Einstein, what Paul received had never before been revealed. (Eph. 3:2-5)

"It is written" proves the importance of Scripture alone. Jesus who was the Son, didn't have to use it all. But He did.

Nice try wordsmith. (2 Thess. 2:14) disproves your argument with (2 Thess. 2:15). Go back and reread...not that it will help.

Stranger

Stranger said:

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Roman Pontiff is shepherd of the Catholic Church.

You're constant play with words is nothing short of lying. If you submit to the Pontiff of Rome, and the Roman Pontiff has all authority over the Church, then you are part of the Roman Church.

You abuse the word 'catholic' to hide your real colors. The church of Rome.

Stranger

Click to expand...

You abuse the word "Rome" because, after all this time, you still use it in the derogatory sense and none else.

Stranger said:

Sorry Einstein, what Paul received had never before been revealed. (Eph. 3:2-5)

"It is written" proves the importance of Scripture alone. Jesus who was the Son, didn't have to use it all. But He did.

Nice try wordsmith. (2 Thess. 2:14) disproves your argument with (2 Thess. 2:15). Go back and reread...not that it will help.

Stranger

Click to expand...

"It is written" supports the authority of Scripture as a Tradition. When Jesus quoted the OT He taught what it meant, He never let the Scriptures teach themselves. Your reply has nothing to do with the quote.

Marymog said:

Hi Stranger. I love bible study.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Employing the language of tradition (paredōka = “I delivered”; parelabon = “I received”), Paul passed on to the Corinthians the centrality of Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul inherited this tradition from the earliest churches that had already assigned atoning significance (“for our sins”) to his crucifixion.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The earliest account of “the Lord’s supper” is recorded in Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians. Paul “received” (parelabon) from the Lord this account that finds a prominent place in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20). Since Paul used traditional language, we may rule out that he received this as a direct revelation .

Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:6-7. Paul’s address to God as “Abba! Father!” likely originated with Jesus. The similarities in Romans and Galatians suggest that Paul was relying on traditional materials.

Click to expand...

So glad to hear it Mary. When will you start.

(1 Cor. 15:1-8) is not 'Tradition'. That Paul received it doesn't mean it came from tradition. Paul spoke to the resurrected Christ. (Gal. 1:12)

For, (1 Cor. 11:23-26) the same is true.

Concerning (Rom. 8:15-17) and (Gal. 4:6-7), you use terms 'likely' and 'suggest'. Which means your dreamin. Dream on.

Let me know when you begin your Bible study. Who is your teacher...BreadOfLife? Watch for the ditches.

Stranger

epostle said:

You abuse the word "Rome" because, after all this time, you still use it in the derogatory sense and none else.

Click to expand...

No, I don't use it in a derogatory sense. What is derogatory is the attempt for you and others to separate yourself from the Roman Church in the attempt to solidify your rule over the Catholic Church of Christ.

Stranger

epostle said:

"It is written" supports the authority of Scripture as a Tradition. When Jesus quoted the OT He taught what it meant, He never let the Scriptures teach themselves. Your reply has nothing to do with the quote.

Click to expand...

Scriptures are not the product of 'tradition'. They are the product of 'revelation'.

This is why Jesus said, 'It is written'. Scriptures are what carry the weight.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Sorry Einstein, what Paul received had never before been revealed. (Eph. 3:2-5)

"It is written" proves the importance of Scripture alone. Jesus who was the Son, didn't have to use it all. But He did.

Nice try wordsmith. (2 Thess. 2:14) disproves your argument with (2 Thess. 2:15). Go back and reread...not that it will help.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Oh, REALLY??

Then, conversely, the use of Oral Tradition in the NT by Jesus and the NT writers destroys the notion of false, man-made, 16th century invention of Sola Scriptura . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on ORAL TRADITION to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two.
This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body.
This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.


Paul's teaching of what was revealed to him by Jesus was ORAL TRADITION.

Stranger said:

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Roman Pontiff is shepherd of the Catholic Church.
You're constant play with words is nothing short of lying. If you submit to the Pontiff of Rome, and the Roman Pontiff has all authority over the Church, then you are part of the Roman Church.
You abuse the word 'catholic' to hide your real colors. The church of Rome.
Stranger

Click to expand...

WRONG.

John 21:15:19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “FEED MY LAMBS.”
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “FEED MY SHEEP.
Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

This is the very definition of a Shepherd.
The definition of the "Roman Church" is the Church at Rome. I don't live in Rome, Einstein . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Oh, REALLY??

Then, conversely, the use of Oral Tradition in the NT by Jesus and the NT writers destroys the notion of false, man-made, 16th century invention of Sola Scriptura . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on ORAL TRADITION to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two.
This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body.
This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.


Paul's teaching of what was revealed to him by Jesus was ORAL TRADITION.

Click to expand...

(Matt. 2:23) is not oral tradition. It says 'spoken by the prophets'. It is not a quote. Nazareth was in Galilee. Galilee was known as Galilee of the Gentiles, (Is. 9:1), which the Jews despised. Thus Nathaniel's statement in (John 1:46) "...Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

(Matt. 23:2) is not oral tradition. Jesus just made a true statement. The passing of authority from Moses to Joshua is recorded in Scripture. Then on to the judges etc. etc. etc.

(Acts 20:35) is not oral tradition. Paul wrote by inspiration as did all the New Testament writers.

(1 Cor. 10:4) is not oral tradition. Paul wrote by inspiration as did all the New Testament writers.

(2 Tim. 3:8) is not oral tradition. Paul wrote by inspiration as did all the New Testament writers.

(Eph. 5:14) is not oral tradition. It is based upon (Is. 26:19). Paul wrote by inspiration and so added Christ shall give thee light.

(Heb. 11:37) is not oral tradition. All New Testament writers wrote by inspiration. That it is true and historical, yes. But not because it is based upon oral tradition. It is based upon the inspiration of the New Testament.

(Jude 9) is not oral tradition nor is it based on oral tradition. It is based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

(Jude 9:14-15) is not oral tradition nor is it based upon oral tradition. It is based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You so want 'oral tradition' to be considered as equal with Scripture that you have twisted what was inspired by the Holy Spirit to be nothing but oral tradition. You need 'oral tradition' because the Roman Church can't function on the inspired Scriptures alone. They,you, will lose their power grip over the Catholic Church of Christ.

Paul's teaching was by revelation from Jesus Christ. Not oral tradition. Jesus Christ said, 'It is written'. Thus the importance of Scripture alone.

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.

John 21:15:19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “FEED MY LAMBS.”
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “FEED MY SHEEP.
Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

This is the very definition of a Shepherd.
The definition of the "Roman Church" is the Church at Rome. I don't live in Rome, Einstein . . .

Click to expand...

Again, nothing in the Bible says the Roman Pontiff is shephard of the Catholic Church. The word 'catholic' isn't even in the Bible.

Try again.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Again, nothing in the Bible says the Roman Pontiff is shepherd of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

True. But the Catholic Church has its own theology, so you have to go by what they believe, and this is what they believe. In fact they say that the bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth, so all Christians must bow to him (which is just pure nonsense, and even the Orthodox will tell you that).

On the other hand, since Pope Francis is anything but a shepherd, he should have fired and replaced a long time ago. How do Catholics put up with this Leftist Globalist who does not even know his own theology while he tries to subvert the West?

Stranger said:

(1 Cor. 15:1-8) is not 'Tradition'. That Paul received it doesn't mean it came from tradition. Paul spoke to the resurrected Christ. (Gal. 1:12)

For, (1 Cor. 11:23-26) the same is true.

Concerning (Rom. 8:15-17) and (Gal. 4:6-7), you use terms 'likely' and 'suggest'.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Hi Stranger,

In the passage that I referenced (1 Cor. 15) Paul said, "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received:...". The fact is Paul received it from the oral tradition. If it wasn't oral tradition, what was it since it wasn't from directly from Jesus?

In the other passage referenced (1 Cor. 11) Paul clearly practiced oral tradition when he said "what I also handed on to you"

Scripture makes it clear that Paul received oral tradition and practiced oral tradition.

Since there is nothing in Scripture to suggest Paul received from Jesus directly the words he used in Romans and Galatians it is likely that he received them orally from the Apostles.

The onerous is upon you to prove otherwise since Scripture does not support your theory that he received it directly from Jesus.

Mary

PS....I took out your unnecessary sniping words. Not sure why you do that....

Stranger said:

Sorry Einstein, what Paul received had never before been revealed. (Eph. 3:2-5)

"It is written" proves the importance of Scripture alone. Jesus who was the Son, didn't have to use it all. But He did.

Nice try wordsmith. (2 Thess. 2:14) disproves your argument with (2 Thess. 2:15). Go back and reread...not that it will help.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Hey Stranger,

Using "Scripture alone" please show me what constitutes "Scripture" (table of contents)?

Curious Mary

Marymog said:

Hi Stranger,

In the passage that I referenced (1 Cor. 15) Paul said, "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received:...". The fact is Paul received it from the oral tradition. If it wasn't oral tradition, what was it since it wasn't from directly from Jesus?

In the other passage referenced (1 Cor. 11) Paul clearly practiced oral tradition when he said "what I also handed on to you"

Scripture makes it clear that Paul received oral tradition and practiced oral tradition.

Since there is nothing in Scripture to suggest Paul received from Jesus directly the words he used in Romans and Galatians it is likely that he received them orally from the Apostles.

The onerous is upon you to prove otherwise since Scripture does not support your theory that he received it directly from Jesus.

Mary

PS....I took out your unnecessary sniping words. Not sure why you do that....

Click to expand...

I explained it already in post #(1229). Paul received his gospel from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11) Paul says in (1 Cor. 15:1) "...I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand."

See also (1 Cor. 11:23) "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night which he was betrayed took bread:"

That's alright Mary. I see with the verses you gave that you're used to taking out and changing others words. See, you're in the ditch already.

Stranger