Books Outside the Bible

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(b) The Roman Catholic interpretation assigns its own definition to the word “tradition” instead of interpreting the word within both the narrow and broad contexts of Scripture. The word (paradosis) translated as “tradition” or “ordinance” (KJV) in the New Testament refers either to: the immediate (face to face) instructions of inspired apostles (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:21-2); the traditions of the Pharisaical Jews (Mt. 15: 1-3, 6-9; Mk. 7:6-9; cf. Mt. 5:31 ff; Gal. 1:14), that is the man made doctrines and commandments that the Jewish religious leaders added to Scripture; or, to the traditions of men in general whether Jewish or pagan (Col. 2:8).

(c) It is noteworthy that while the Bible commends traditions in the first sense (i.e., the direct, face to face, oral communications of the apostles) it strongly condemns all man made traditions in the religious sphere as untrustworthy and corrupting. The Roman Catholic concept of tradition has much more in common with Pharisaical Judaism than it does with Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moses received the written law on Mt. Sinai, he also received a very lengthy unwritten tradition. Roman Catholics teach that the early church not only received the written revelation (the New Testament) but also all the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Pharisaical Judaism asserts that the oral revelation was passed on to Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets and then to the great rabbinic teachers in each generation. Papal doctrine asserts that the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles reside with the bishops together with the pope and are made public generationally through decrees, pronouncements, official councils, the magisterium and so forth. Rabbinic Judaism has codified or committed to writing a huge body of their traditions in the Talmud (which in English translation runs to 34 large volumes of small print). The Roman Catholic Church has an even larger body of traditions in the writings of the post apostolic fathers, the decisions of councils (e.g. Trent, Second Vatican, Catechism of 1994), papal declarations, canon law and so on). The Jewish Talmud contains hundreds of blatant, explicit internal contradictions and clearly contradicts God’s Word in many places. The traditions of Romanism also contain many internal contradictions (see below) and also explicitly contradict written revelation (the Bible) in several key areas.

The Roman Catholic argument for tradition from Scripture is an excellent example of inserting one’s own presuppositions into the text of Scripture. The idea that the apostle Paul was endorsing doctrines and practices introduced into churches many centuries after his death by corrupt popes and bishops, when he was simply instructing local churches in his own day to heed his own direct teachings is patently false and absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truth

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I liked it better when you used your own words. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: farouk

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I liked it better when you used your own words. :)
LOL, I didn't know that you were reading this thread! When I can say something well (or at least try to), I go with my own words, but when I find something that's much better than how I can put it, I use that. Plus, it's Sunday, and I needed to rest.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you read BOL'S response to me on #496 you will see that here is the Problem, being trained up in a doctrine, as to which you believe so strongly, and never QUESTIONING or Praying to be enlightened to the Truth, never Allowing himself to Think!

Everyone has free will - you can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink. Ours is to present the Word of God with clarity, the Holy Spirit's job is to convict of sin and lead into all truth, those who hear the message of scripture have the choice to accept or reject.

In Matthew 23 we see the Jewish nation church "rejecting" - but that does not stop Christ from making his case "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
1. As I have already shown you - your own Catholic sources (starting with the Jesuit - Fordham source) render it "exterminate" in English. (hint: you cannot blame protestants for what Jesuits publish)

As I have already shown you - your own Catholic Digest shows how this "extermination" wiped out whole people groups, cities etc. By killing them. Burning them, massacre etc. ( you cannot blame Protestants for what your own Catholic Digest claims to be the case)

As I have already asked you - how is it that falling on your sword over "expel" - as if "that would be a good thing to do" as if "telling protestants in America they have to leave the nation or be Catholic" is even remotely acceptable to Protestants, as though that would be a "good thin

Just not in real life.

In real life - NOTHING in Matthew 18 or 1 Cor 5 includes exterminating someone OR EVEN EXPELLING them from the country. NOTHING in those texts appeals to stealing their lands their homes their property and giving it to Catholics or anyone else for that matter.

And we all know it.

were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The Latin word "exterminare" was formed from the prefix "ex-" ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary"). Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.


Word of the Day: Exterminate


Origin

late Middle English (in the sense 'drive out'): from Latin exterminat- 'driven out', from the verb exterminare, from ex- 'out' + terminus 'boundary'. The sense 'destroy' (mid 16th century) comes from the Latin of the Vulgate.

exterminate | Definition of exterminate in English by Oxford Dictionaries


Which church is the best? - WND

Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.

On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost."

Alexander Campbell, well known religions leader of the nineteenth century, stated in debate with John B. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in 1837 that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition. Bishop Purcell made little effort to refute these figures. (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.)


"Walter M. Montano, a former Catholic priest, asserts in his book, Behind the Purple Curtain that it has been estimated that fifty million people died for their faith during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages." (Citing Walter M. Montano, Behind the Purple Curtain, Cowman Publications, 1950, page 91.)ications
No Protestant historian (Ph.D. level) of the last 50 years would agree with your false history, and your "Catholic sources" are fabrications. Making up lies or grossly misrepresenting "Catholic sources" is standard SDA methodology. (That's why you use
untraceable "Catholic sources".) Your dishonesty is deplorable.
Did you guys drop the 9th Commandment? You're violating a moral law.

Try a scholarly source that can be checked, and stop pooping all over the thread with your hate propaganda.

The Inquisition Killed 4.9 Million? (John Bugay’s Whoppers)

Anti-Catholicism (Index Page...)




anticatholicism.jpg
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Saying that Mary was sinless is NOT supported in scripture! That's the issue. There are a lot of things not overtly contradicted by the scriptures, so saying that a certain belief not being contradicted by the Bible is proof that it's true is a fallacy.
I've explained, using Protestant scholars and linguists, the meaning of "Full of Grace". You reject a list of early reformers, you reject Protestant lingualists but accept the teachings of Modernists of the mid 19th century, a tradition of men. Fad theology is not truth.

Running from the meaning of "Full of Grace" makes it easier to dismiss it, so you can defend a man made tradition.



catholicmeme001-jpg-resize-514-394.jpg

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mayflower

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Cool. Do you read the Bible.in German and Spanish? I can sing them, but know only translations.

I haven't got into a really good book in awhile, but right now I am reading one and having a Bible.study with my friend. It is called "The Forgotten God." And it is about the Holy Spirit.
Reading the Bible in other languages is a really good way to learn languages! Passages such as John chapter 1, for example, already have familiar and simple language, and it can sometimes quite straightforward to follow at least some of the verses there in the particular language the person may want to learn.
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And, as I've already shown you - the language of the original text doesn't say ANYTHING about "killing" or "exterminating" lives.

1. As I have already shown you - your own Catholic sources (starting with the Jesuit - Fordham source) render it "exterminate" in English. (hint: you cannot blame protestants for what Jesuits publish)

As I have already shown you - your own Catholic Digest shows how this "extermination" wiped out whole people groups, cities etc. By killing them. Burning them, massacre etc. ( you cannot blame Protestants for what your own Catholic Digest claims to be the case)

As I have already asked you - how is it that falling on your sword over "expel" - as if "that would be a good thing to do" as if "telling protestants in America they have to leave the nation or be Catholic" is even remotely acceptable to Protestants, as though that would be a "good thing"?


As for expelling or excommunicating heretics - this is a BIBLICAL prescription - NOT an "evil Catholic" punishment (Mat. 18:16-17; 1 Cor. 5:11).

Just not in real life.

In real life - NOTHING in Matthew 18 or 1 Cor 5 includes exterminating someone OR EVEN EXPELLING them from the country. NOTHING in those texts appeals to stealing their lands their homes their property and giving it to Catholics or anyone else for that matter.

And we all know it.

were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The Latin word "exterminare" was formed from the prefix "ex-" ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary"). Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.


Word of the Day: Exterminate


Origin

late Middle English (in the sense 'drive out'): from Latin exterminat- 'driven out', from the verb exterminare, from ex- 'out' + terminus 'boundary'. The sense 'destroy' (mid 16th century) comes from the Latin of the Vulgate.

exterminate | Definition of exterminate in English by Oxford Dictionaries


Which church is the best? - WND

Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.

On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost."

Alexander Campbell, well known religions leader of the nineteenth century, stated in debate with John B. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in 1837 that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition. Bishop Purcell made little effort to refute these figures. (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.)


"Walter M. Montano, a former Catholic priest, asserts in his book, Behind the Purple Curtain that it has been estimated that fifty million people died for their faith during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages." (Citing Walter M. Montano, Behind the Purple Curtain, Cowman Publications, 1950, page 91.)

-- The Shadow of Rome, by John B. Wilder; Zondervan Publishing Co., 1960, page 87.

No Protestant historian (Ph.D. level) of the last 50 years would agree with your false history,

What makes you imagine that when I have shown you the sources that refute your speculation just then??
What is the thinking there?


and your "Catholic sources" are fabrications.

Wishful thinking. .
Am I supposed to be convinced by your "wishful thinking" no matter the fact of the actual documents??
{Loud, table pounding, harrumph!!}
-- is not a compelling argument beyond the dark ages.


Making up lies or grossly misrepresenting "Catholic sources"
is standard SDA methodology.

hint: Catholic Digest is not "An SDA publication" --
hint: the Oxford dictionary is not "an SDA publication"
hint: Fordham is a Jesuit university - not an SDA one.
There is no quote of SDA anything in my post.

Emotional response alone will not prove compelling. .Post a fact.

We are talking about historic fact. Your argument seems to be that history will change given sufficient emotional response in your post.

What is the thinking there??
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
(b) The Roman Catholic interpretation assigns its own definition to the word “tradition” instead of interpreting the word within both the narrow and broad contexts of Scripture. The word (paradosis) translated as “tradition” or “ordinance” (KJV) in the New Testament refers either to: the immediate (face to face) instructions of inspired apostles (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:21-2); the traditions of the Pharisaical Jews (Mt. 15: 1-3, 6-9; Mk. 7:6-9; cf. Mt. 5:31 ff; Gal. 1:14), that is the man made doctrines and commandments that the Jewish religious leaders added to Scripture; or, to the traditions of men in general whether Jewish or pagan (Col. 2:8).

(c) It is noteworthy that while the Bible commends traditions in the first sense (i.e., the direct, face to face, oral communications of the apostles) it strongly condemns all man made traditions in the religious sphere as untrustworthy and corrupting. The Roman Catholic concept of tradition has much more in common with Pharisaical Judaism than it does with Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moses received the written law on Mt. Sinai, he also received a very lengthy unwritten tradition. Roman Catholics teach that the early church not only received the written revelation (the New Testament) but also all the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Pharisaical Judaism asserts that the oral revelation was passed on to Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets and then to the great rabbinic teachers in each generation. Papal doctrine asserts that the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles reside with the bishops together with the pope and are made public generationally through decrees, pronouncements, official councils, the magisterium and so forth. Rabbinic Judaism has codified or committed to writing a huge body of their traditions in the Talmud (which in English translation runs to 34 large volumes of small print). The Roman Catholic Church has an even larger body of traditions in the writings of the post apostolic fathers, the decisions of councils (e.g. Trent, Second Vatican, Catechism of 1994), papal declarations, canon law and so on). The Jewish Talmud contains hundreds of blatant, explicit internal contradictions and clearly contradicts God’s Word in many places. The traditions of Romanism also contain many internal contradictions (see below) and also explicitly contradict written revelation (the Bible) in several key areas.

The Roman Catholic argument for tradition from Scripture is an excellent example of inserting one’s own presuppositions into the text of Scripture. The idea that the apostle Paul was endorsing doctrines and practices introduced into churches many centuries after his death by corrupt popes and bishops, when he was simply instructing local churches in his own day to heed his own direct teachings is patently false and absurd.
What a load of crap. You haven't a clue what the Church teaches about Tradition, so you invent a bunch of lies to fill in the gaps of your phony definition.

exposestraw.jpg


Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition"

2 Thessalonians 2:15 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 3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words paradidomi and paralambano are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, [2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

(cf. Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:9, 12; 2 Pet 2:21)


 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us” were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2)

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;
[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of sola Scripturahave a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word



2a86f6bb03c947c9ba9e3d9b8a6af3a2.jpg
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

Mark 7:6-13

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No Protestant historian (Ph.D. level) of the last 50 years would agree with your false history, and your "Catholic sources" are fabrications. Making up lies

perhaps we have an opportunity to learn something --

let's take your view of the RCC during the dark ages... what do you think they did "inconvenience 5 people at dinner one day"??

Is that what happened at the St. Bartholomew's Massacre, or is that what happened to the Waldenses that Pope Frances apologized for -- what exactly do you imagine when it comes to actual history?

What exactly is the view that you have of it? This should be helpful to all.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've explained, using Protestant scholars and linguists, the meaning of "Full of Grace". You reject a list of early reformers, you reject Protestant lingualists but accept the teachings of Modernists of the mid 19th century, a tradition of men. Fad theology is not truth.

Running from the meaning of "Full of Grace" makes it easier to dismiss it, so you can defend a man made tradition.



catholicmeme001-jpg-resize-514-394.jpg


To be blunt, I really don't care what some Protestant scholars say the meaning of "full of grace" is. The Bible is my standard for truth, not "scholars." They and you will never convince me that this phrase means that Mary was born without original sin.

As I've already explained
, if the Catholic interpretation of this phrase were actually valid, then Jesus suffered and died in vain. IOW, if God could give Mary some special grace to make her sinless, then Jesus didn't really have to GO THROUGH HELL FOR US! Why didn't God the Father just do that for all of us and spare His Son the unbelievable agony???

You have the gaul to accuse me of defending man-made traditions? REALLY??? Here are some of the Catholic Church's man-made traditions that have absolutely no foundation in the New Testament:

  1. making the sign of the cross
  2. holy water
  3. prayer to Mary and the saints
  4. perpetual virginity of Mary
  5. Immaculate Conception of Mary
  6. giving veneration to images of Christ, Mary, and other saints
  7. pilgrimages
  8. the use of relics
  9. holy sites
  10. using the title "Father" for ministers
  11. celibacy for priests and nuns
  12. the confessional (i.e. confessing sins to a priest)
  13. the hierarchy of bishops
  14. the papacy
  15. papal infallibility
  16. The pope's "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church"
This is by no means an exhaustive list of beliefs and practices completely based on the man-made Catholic traditions, which have been used to develop erroneous interpretations of the Bible. Consider what Paul said about man-made traditions in Colossians.

Col. 2:8--Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.
The main problem with these human traditions is that they take the place of the Bible as the standard for truth and the way we should live as Christians. You have only to look at the Pharisees to see where this fallacy takes you. They left what God had actually said in His Word and pridefully created and lived by their own ideas about what He had said. And they placed this burden on others. They completely missed the mark! Jesus was more critical of them than He was of any other group!

When human traditions become the standard for truth, we interpret the Bible based on our traditions instead of judging our traditions based on what God actually said in the Bible. That's why the Catholic interpretations sound so bizarre. As someone who has studied the Bible on my own for many years, I can hardly wrap my mind around the twisted interpretations of Scripture that have been posted by Catholics in this thread. It has truly been an eye-opener for me!

Basing beliefs on man's traditions is the making of man-made religion
! And sadly, this practice makes Christianity seem like every other religion in the world instead of being the source of absolute truth and salvation that it is.

Helen, this one's for you--in my own words! :)


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us” were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2)

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;
[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of sola Scripturahave a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word



2a86f6bb03c947c9ba9e3d9b8a6af3a2.jpg



The Roman Catholic interpretation assigns its own definition to the word “tradition” instead of interpreting the word within both the narrow and broad contexts of Scripture. The word (paradosis) translated as “tradition” or “ordinance” (KJV) in the New Testament refers either to:

-the immediate (face to face) instructions of inspired apostles (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:21-2);

-the traditions of the Pharisaical Jews (Mt. 15: 1-3, 6-9; Mk. 7:6-9; cf. Mt. 5:31 ff; Gal. 1:14), that is the man made doctrines and commandments that the Jewish religious leaders added to Scripture;

-or, to the traditions of men in general whether Jewish or pagan (Col. 2:8).


(words of Brian Schwertley)
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wis. 5:17-20 and Macc. 7:1-42 does not convey the same as what we read in Jude 1:14.

Whether Enoch wrote a book or not, the book was not inspired, however, the words Enoch uttered became part of the Bile, unlike Wis. 5:17-20 and Macc. 7:1-42 which their names/books were never mentioned in the Bible!!! Totally different.

To God Be The Glory
WHAT are you talking about??

First of all – I NEVERmentioned Jude. I showed you that the “Armor of God” Paul describes in Heb. 6:13-17 is taken from Wis. 5:17-20.

I ALSO showed you that the story of the mother and her sons that Heb. 11:35 talks about is taken from 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

These are Biblical FACTS that you cannot refute.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you truly believe God created Mary in a saved state then you must also believe that all true believers were created in a saved state. Let me explain.

For example, and I’m going to speak about myself. I know without a doubt that I’m a child of God (Romans 8:16). Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion.

If I die tomorrow I will definitely go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Let’s suppose I died as an infant would I still go to be with the Lord? Most definitely! God assured me when He saved me, He saved me before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). So my salvation had no impact whether I died as an infant or as an adult, the same way He saved Mary and/or John the Baptist who was saved in his mother’s womb.

Can a Catholic claim this same assurance? No. Why? Because he believes he will go to a place called Purgatory to be purified and then go to heaven. This is a false teaching of course because it is appointed for man once to die and then judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

To God Be The Glory
The one glaring problem with your scenario is that you WEREN’T saved before the foundations of the world – and that’s NOTwhat Rev. 13:8 says. It says that the Lambs Book of Life was written before the foundations of the World. Those names are NOT guaranteed to remain there forever. Rev. 3:5 states that you name can be BLOTTED OUT.

Secondly – YOU were never given the title of “Kecharitomene.”
The ONLY person in ALL of Scripture described in this manner is Mary (Luke 1:28).

Finally – Purgatory isn’t a “false” teaching – but a Scriptural one (2 Macc. 42-46, Matt. 5:25-26, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59). Anyway – NOWHERE does the Church teach that ALL people go through a state of final Purgation so your claim is a LIE . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is a difference between saved and sinless. The apostle Paul was definitely saved, but he admits he was not sinless.

Mary was another human being, like Joseph and every other believing Israelite. But they were all deemed to be righteous because of their faith and their obedience. The only one who was sinless from conception was the Lord Jesus Christ. That is because of His supernatural conception within the womb of the virgin Mary. But Mary needed a Savior like every other sinner.
AGAIN – neither Paul nor ANYBODY else was Kecharitomene. As I have already explained – this title translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” and indicatesa completed action with permanent result. Mary was a FINISHED product of grace. The REST of us are works in progress . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you truly believe God created Mary in a saved state then you must also believe that all true believers were created in a saved state. Let me explain.

For example, and I’m going to speak about myself. I know without a doubt that I’m a child of God (Romans 8:16). Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion.

If I die tomorrow I will definitely go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Let’s suppose I died as an infant would I still go to be with the Lord? Most definitely! God assured me when He saved me, He saved me before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). So my salvation had no impact whether I died as an infant or as an adult, the same way He saved Mary and/or John the Baptist who was saved in his mother’s womb.

Can a Catholic claim this same assurance? No. Why? Because he believes he will go to a place called Purgatory to be purified and then go to heaven. This is a false teaching of course because it is appointed for man once to die and then judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

To God Be The Glory
First of all – who are YOU to place limits on God??

Rev. 13:8 tells us that Christ’s sacrifice is an ETERNAL sacrifice. Mary was NOT saved “apart”from Christ. God applied His sacrifice to herdifferently because He is NOT bound by time like we are.

WHY would you assume that He IS when Peter explicitly states that He is NOT (2 Pet. 3:)??

Don’t you think God could apply the grace from Christ’s eternal sacrifice toANYBODY at ANY time He wills??