Should I be rebaptised?

Stranger said:

Well, isn't this interesting. You say there are three major groups of 'Rites'. Roman. Antiochian. Alexandrian. Yet your opening statement is "I happen to practice the Latin Rite. BreadOfLife will love this.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Perhaps if you weren't so ignorant, you would understand that the Latin IS Roman.

You see - THIS is what epostle said that you had a comic book understanding of the Church history . . .

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.

What do you think Oral Tradition is?? It is the teaching of the Word of God by MOUTH.
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY a letter from us."

EVERY ONE of these is an example of Oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION.
Matt. 2:23 refers to this as a PROPHECY. It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

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. It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses.
It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

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. It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

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." It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two.
It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body.
It is ORAL TRADITION - not written Scripture.

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

In your desperation, you are trying to redefine what "Oral Tradition" is . . .

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't have learned of any of those 'oral traditions' unless they were written in scripture.

epostle said:

When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. This means that the essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people, so that the rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22).

Click to expand...

While that may have been the intention, it isn't quite how it worked out huh. Which is how paganism entered the church and took over, not that the church entered paganism and converted them. It's why you have a black statue of Peter. Among numerous other things.

BreadOfLife said:

Acts 9:31 absolutely contains the words "Ekklesia Kata Holos" (Catholic Church). Any First year Greek student can see that.
NOT my problem is you can't accept that linguistic fact . . .

As for DOZEN or so examples of Oral Tradition I presented - it's your ignorance and incredible stubbornness that won't allow you to admit that you simply don't understand what "Oral Tradition" means . . .

Click to expand...

(Acts 9:31) does not use the word 'catholic'. You can spit and moan all you want, it is not there. "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria...." That it is talking about all the churches, yes. That they represented the universal Church, yes. But the word 'catholic' is not there.

Just because there is a universal Church of Christ that encompasses all believers, does not mean it is speaking to your 'Catholic Church'. It just means you want your 'Catholic Church' identified with the universal Church of Christ. In other words, another play on words from the wordsmith.

But what you call your 'Catholic Church' is nothing but the Roman Church. Because I am a believer in Christ, I am part of the Catholic Church.

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

Perhaps if you weren't so ignorant, you would understand that the Latin IS Roman.

You see - THIS is what epostle said that you had a comic book understanding of the Church history . . .

Click to expand...

I know it is Roman. That was my point. I'm glad to see you admit it is Roman. You serve the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia. You observe the Roman Rite. You don't represent the universal Church, the Catholic Church of Christ. You represent the Roman Church.

Stranger

quoTE="Stranger, post: 568149, member: 7282"]No. You didn't. You twisted words and Scripture to sooth your conscience that the word 'catholic' is there. But it isn't.

Where's the blue large words? Shout louder and throw more bs on it. Perhaps many will be convinced. But both you and I know you are lying.

Stranger[/QUOTE]
You are hung up in legalisms. The TERM "Catholic" originated in Scripture, NOT THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Romans 1:8 "church thru ought all" and this universal attribute is strongly implied in Acts 9:31 "church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria". So "Catholic" is the Anglicized word for the word origins (not the explicit English word) for these Biblical terms, that has bee posted about 100 times in this fora, that you keep ignoring. I can't dummie it down any further. "CATHOLIC" or katholicos, originated in Scripture. Get over yourself.

The term "Catholic" is implied in 2 places in scripture, and you cannot come up with ONE Protestant church whose name can be implied as clearly as the Catholic Church. This is what really bugs you so you call us liars.

@epostle

That there are local churches in the Scripture, and that there is the all encompassing Church of Jesus Christ is in the Scripture. But the word 'catholic' is not used in the Scripture to describe the Church.

No, what bugs me is when you manipulate the Greek language to make it say 'catholic' when it didn't. You are nothing but the Roman Church that wants to rule over the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

Stranger

brakelite said:

And you wouldn't have learned of any of those 'oral traditions' unless they were written in scripture.

Click to expand...

That's not the point.
The point is that they were ORAL TRADITIONS that our Lord and His followers practiced.

Besides - 2 Thess 2:15 doesn't tell us WHICH Traditions Paul is talking about.
He simply states that the Church is to HOLD FAST to them.

Stranger said:

(Acts 9:31) does not use the word 'catholic'. You can spit and moan all you want, it is not there. "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria...." That it is talking about all the churches, yes. That they represented the universal Church, yes. But the word 'catholic' is not there.

Just because there is a universal Church of Christ that encompasses all believers, does not mean it is speaking to your 'Catholic Church'. It just means you want your 'Catholic Church' identified with the universal Church of Christ. In other words, another play on words from the wordsmith.

But what you call your 'Catholic Church' is nothing but the Roman Church. Because I am a believer in Christ, I am part of the Catholic Church.

Stranger

Click to expand...

WRONG again.

In your ignorance - you believe that the Bible was written in English - it wasn't. I have shown you no less than THREE times the Greek words that make up the term "Catholic Church" (Ekklesia kata holos).
YOUR rejection of this Biblical fact doesn't "nullify" it ONE BIT. It only shows your desperation . . .

Stranger said:

I know it is Roman. That was my point. I'm glad to see you admit it is Roman. You serve the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia. You observe the Roman Rite. You don't represent the universal Church, the Catholic Church of Christ. You represent the Roman Church.

Stranger

Click to expand...

I've been telling you for the last several hundred posts that the Liturgical Rite is Latin/Roman.
I have never NOT admitted this.

What I have corrected you on is your idiotic notion that the CHURCH is Roman.
This would exclude ALL of the pother Liturgical rites of the Catholic Church (Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, etc.).

You REALLY need to do your homework before embarrassing yourself any further on this point . . .

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG again.

In your ignorance - you believe that the Bible was written in English - it wasn't. I have shown you no less than THREE times the Greek words that make up the term "Catholic Church" (Ekklesia kata holos).
YOUR rejection of this Biblical fact doesn't "nullify" it ONE BIT. It only shows your desperation . . .

Click to expand...

Sorry pardner, your just dreamin. The word 'catholic' is not there in the English or the Greek. You twist the Greek, as you do everything else to make it appear. But it is not there.

The words used for 'churches' and for 'throughout' does not combine to produce the word 'catholic'.

You do with the word 'catholic' just like you do with 'infant baptism'.

Stranger

BreadOfLife said:

That's not the point.
The point is that they were ORAL TRADITIONS that our Lord and His followers practiced.

Besides - 2 Thess 2:15 doesn't tell us WHICH Traditions Paul is talking about.
He simply states that the Church is to HOLD FAST to them.

Click to expand...

The Thessalonian church heard with their own ears Paul speaking to them. His personal instruction and teaching, which would have based upon Torah, with Christian understanding and perspective, was what formed the basis in Christian theology and practice in all the churches and the other apostles founded.
Today however, we don't have Paul. We have what he wrote. We do not know what he personally taught his churches...would be wonderful if we did. What we also have is the writings of early churchmen some of whom lived a generation or so later, some a couple of hundred years later, and in some circles their writings are considered on a par with what is written in the scriptures, because it is believed their writings are a genuine reflection (tradition) of Paul's teachings. I do not think it reasonable to expect everyone to share that confidence in those early churchmen, rebuking and criticising those (and in medieval days killing them) who preferred to base their faith only on the written word. Traditions change. Perceptions change. Cultural influences over time and space have a major impact on everyone in every corner of the globe. Even within one generation such 'traditions' can alter and thus begin a new tradition which over time grows further and further away from what was originally practiced. There is not one vestige or glimmer of reality in any suggestion that the Catholic church of the 21st century is in any way following the teachings and traditions Paul would have recommended to his churches in the 1st century. You know this is so, and we could all post innumerable photos and documents proving it.
So BoL, Marymog et al, while there is nothing explicitly saying in the Bible that the written word alone must be the foundation for faith and practice, common sense and reality suggests tradition as taught in this age of mankind's history should be treated with fear and trepidation ...the Bible on the other hand does say every word of God can and does provide all that is essential to Christian life and salvation.
To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

BreadOfLife said:

I've been telling you for the last several hundred posts that the Liturgical Rite is Latin/Roman.
I have never NOT admitted this.

What I have corrected you on is your idiotic notion that the CHURCH is Roman.
This would exclude ALL of the pother Liturgical rites of the Catholic Church (Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, etc.).

You REALLY need to do your homework before embarrassing yourself any further on this point . . .

Click to expand...

Oh please, spare me your whining. You have spit and moaned about calling yourself Roman on anything. Now you present a lie that you have always said your liturgy was Roman.

Roman Pontiff. Roman liturgy. Roman curia. Centered in Rome. But by all means don't call you Roman. See how stupid you sound?

You need to lay off that wine and give some of it to your parishioners. That way you are not so intoxicated and they get to observe the Lords Supper for real. It's a win/win.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Oh please, spare me your whining. You have spit and moaned about calling yourself Roman on anything. Now you present a lie that you have always said your liturgy was Roman.

Roman Pontiff. Roman liturgy. Roman curia. Centered in Rome. But by all means don't call you Roman. See how stupid you sound?

You need to lay off that wine and give some of it to your parishioners. That way you are not so intoxicated and they get to observe the Lords Supper for real. It's a win/win.

Stranger

Click to expand...

In MOST of my debates on this forum regarding the various Liturgical Rites that make up the Catholic Church - I almost ALWAYS refer to the Latin/Roman Rite. You're just angry because you've LOST this argument.

I warned you not to come to this discussion with your usual ignorance. Do your HOMEWORK if you want to have an intelligent conversation . . .

Stranger said:

Sorry pardner, your just dreamin. The word 'catholic' is not there in the English or the Greek. You twist the Greek, as you do everything else to make it appear. But it is not there.

The words used for 'churches' and for 'throughout' does not combine to produce the word 'catholic'.

You do with the word 'catholic' just like you do with 'infant baptism'.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Then, PLEASE show me in your infinite wisdom what "ekklesia kata holos" means when translated to English.
Here is the phrase in Greek:
εκκλησια καθ ολης

Here is how Strong's defines it
Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely

Now - give us YOUR definition.

You can whine and moan ALL day long about how much this bothers you - nut in the end, you'y STILL be wrong . . .

brakelite said:

The Thessalonian church heard with their own ears Paul speaking to them. His personal instruction and teaching, which would have based upon Torah, with Christian understanding and perspective, was what formed the basis in Christian theology and practice in all the churches and the other apostles founded.
Today however, we don't have Paul. We have what he wrote. We do not know what he personally taught his churches...would be wonderful if we did. What we also have is the writings of early churchmen some of whom lived a generation or so later, some a couple of hundred years later, and in some circles their writings are considered on a par with what is written in the scriptures, because it is believed their writings are a genuine reflection (tradition) of Paul's teachings. I do not think it reasonable to expect everyone to share that confidence in those early churchmen, rebuking and criticising those (and in medieval days killing them) who preferred to base their faith only on the written word. Traditions change. Perceptions change. Cultural influences over time and space have a major impact on everyone in every corner of the globe. Even within one generation such 'traditions' can alter and thus begin a new tradition which over time grows further and further away from what was originally practiced. There is not one vestige or glimmer of reality in any suggestion that the Catholic church of the 21st century is in any way following the teachings and traditions Paul would have recommended to his churches in the 1st century. You know this is so, and we could all post innumerable photos and documents proving it.
So BoL, Marymog et al, while there is nothing explicitly saying in the Bible that the written word alone must be the foundation for faith and practice, common sense and reality suggests tradition as taught in this age of mankind's history should be treated with fear and trepidation ...the Bible on the other hand does say every word of God can and does provide all that is essential to Christian life and salvation.
To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

Click to expand...

WRONG.

Paul was instructed DIRECTLY by Christ Himself (Gal. 1:12).
Whereas, he may have also incorporated the Torah to teach - his instruction was ORAL. - hence, his stressing the importance of ORAL teaching and Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

Secondly - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15. NOWHERE does Paul state that this mandate was to end after he was dead and gone.
This is the way God's People had been instructed for thousands of years PRIOR to his existence - and he understood that.

Thirdly - NOT every single thing was written down during the time of the Apostles. If it HAD been - we would have HUNDREDS of VOLUMES of Books and not just 27 short Letters.

You ARE right about ONE thing, though: God CAN and DOES provide all that is essential to Christian life and salvation.
He provided us with a CHURCH to lead us and to teach those things (Matt. 29:19, Matt. 16:18-18, Matt. 18:15-18 Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Stranger said:

Pay attention. (1 Cor. 11:23) "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...."

That is revelation sweetheart. Not tradition.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Alright kiddo.... you are casting aside Scripture that doesn't fit what you believe. That is your problem, not mine.

BTW....The chauvinism you portray in your response is another sign of what type of person you are.

Praying for you....Mary

Stranger said:

Scripture alone fails nothing.

Thanks I will.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Hi Quantrill (a well documented stone cold killer and pro-enslavement of his fellow human being thief)

I know it is difficult for you to admit you can't use Scripture to back up what you believe. It's ok....You have fallen for the 500 year teaching of your protestant fathers that led you astray. Don't be ashamed....there are millions of you.

Mary

Stranger said:

Pay attention. (1 Cor. 11:23) "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...."

That is revelation sweetheart. Not tradition.

Stranger

Click to expand...

I read this article and thought of you:

Mainline Protestantism Declared A Safe Space For Those Offended By The Gospel

Keeping it fun....Mary

brakelite said:

And you wouldn't have learned of any of those 'oral traditions' unless they were written in scripture.

Click to expand...

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Hi brakelite......Do you believe that those "many other things which Jesus did" were never spoken of?

Curious Mary