TRUTH

[Rex]

I'll tell ya these people would talk about this subject until the Lord returns
That's why I just walk away. Every time you reply they reply back it never ends.
As a matter of fact I believe this can distract from more important issues.

Lets face it we disagree, I disagree strongly on several issues.
Someone should research how and who gets this topic started.
It's destroyed many threads, and it doesn't look like recommending walking away is going to change anything.

Compromise is a dangerous thing in Gods eyes. ask Saul and Samuel.

 

[Foreigner]

There is nothing inherently different from written Tradition (Bible) and oral Tradition.

-- There is no way you are saying that with a straight face.
Aspen, this forum has a number of threads listing multiple beliefs of the Catholic church they say are based on 'oral tradition' that are clearly not supported by the Bible.

 

[Rex]

The big 3 for me 811 - 838 and the immaculate conception

If the mods don't realize it, recruiting is the highest form of evangelism for catholics
Just sayin

-- There is no way you are saying that with a straight face.
Aspen, this forum has a number of threads listing multiple beliefs of the Catholic church they say are based on 'oral tradition' that are clearly not supported by the Bible.

He never replied to my asking him to explain why Rach and the pope agree. Their empty statements that he knows he can't back.
Post 72

 

[aspen]

Agreeing to disagree is not compromise. Also, why would I care if you decided to become Catholic?

 

[Rex]

Read this aspen kepha I see you watching the thread
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/17077-what-denomination-would-you-say-is-the-one-most-genuinely-representing-the-original-teaching-of-christ/#entry174540

 

[Foreigner]

Would still like to see Aspen explain this statement:

There is nothing inherently different from written Tradition (Bible) and oral Tradition.

 

[aspen]

Read this aspen kepha I see you watching the thread
http://www.christian...st/#entry174540

I read it. Now what?

 

[Rex]

Then answer Foreigner

I read it. Now what?

It was meant to get you posting and explain your statements instead of lurking

 

[Foreigner]

My questions to Aspen is not a 'gotcha' question.

There may be a litany of oral tradition items that mirror the Bible.

Just because I am not aware of them doesn't mean they aren't out there in droves.

I would simply like to see some examples of them.

 

[epostle1]

Ok...your post is quite long, and I don't have the time to reply to it, nor do I believe that an epically long reply would benefit anyway! So I'll just try and boil it down!



I have to disagree with how you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:15. All these verses are Paul talking about them upholding the things he has taught them, either through his visits to them, or his writings to them. We see both in scripture. So far nothing here suggests we have leave to believe that anything we are told is 'from God because it's been done for generations'.

This is a straw man argument. 'from God because it's been done for generations' is a false definition of Tradition. "upholding the things he has taught them" is closer.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 ESV)

John tells us here that not everything Jesus did or said has been written down. He does not go on to say that we are given leave to suppose anything we 'hear' about Jesus is therefore factual, just left out of scripture.

Again, a straw man argument. "anything we hear" has nothing to do with Tradition. You miss the point. The Bible alone does not contain everything about Christianity. That's what John 21:25 means.

Remember all those people who love to try and claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? It's this very situation and false claims that requires us to rely on what scripture teaches and not what comes through man.

Sacred Tradition, which was handed down from the Apostles, predates the canon of the Bible, and verified by the Christian writers of the 1st 3 centuries of Christianity, has nothing to do with pop theology. Equating them does violence to scripture and all of Christian history.

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
(Acts 20:35 ESV)

'Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus' is hardly proof that the bible tells us to rely as much on word of man, as that of the word of God. Especially considering he goes on to repeat a teaching that is clearly found in scripture..."it is better to give than receive"...yes, clearly a teaching of Christ.

Who said anything about relying on the words of man? It is more blessed to give than to receive are not the words of man, they are the words of Jesus, and this quote is a Tradition, it is not found in the Gospels. Yet you still don't get it. Just because something is written does not cancel it out from being a Tradition. Anointing of the Sick for forgiveness and healing is a Tradition found in James 5; a Tradition, long abandoned by Protestantism by the words of man.

The Authority of Scripture is also a Sacred Tradition. You have a fixed preconceived notion of what Tradition is and it's false.

I have no doubt that God can preserve his word in any way he chooses. But the simple fact is that he has chosen to give us the bible. Now, if Oral Tradition is directly backed up by scripture, then I have zero problem with it, but anything that cannot be found confirmed and affirmed in scripture must be viewed as suspect. It's foolishness to think we can rely on word of man equally as the word of God.

It is foolish. That is what I keep trying to tell you. Tradition, properly understood, is not the mere words of man alone. Scripture had to be proven to be inspired, Do you think that God didn't use people to discern the books and preserve them?

Uhmmmm.....

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 ESV)

This letter...as in...2 Thessalonians...as in...the bible.



And no...the bible certainly does not affirm that other teachings of Jesus is to be found elsewhere. The bible is THE word of God...not A word of God.

Oops. wrong verse.
2 Thessalonians 3

6 Now we command you, brothers, sin the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, tthat you keep away from any ubrother vwho is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Here's the thing...and I wonder if it's this point that is providing some problem here. When the Apostles taught these things to the people then....naturally they spoke them. It's sort of how people communicate primarily...they speak. So sure...in that case maybe we could say that oral tradition came first. But you what, when the disciples...the eye witnesses...those people whom God the Spirit worked through directly to give his message of Christ to the world...when they died or were martyred, the most reliable and therefore primary way to assure themselves of what they were teaching, following, believing, was what the apostles had taught, was to read their words directly....the words of God as he spoke through them. Any other words that did not come through the apostles and from God, is just opinions, musings and ideas. All liable to human mistakes...especially over time.

If scripture was the be-all-and-end-all of the early Church, why aren't any of the written Gospels mentioned in the book of Acts?

A proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.
In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.
In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then. But you are very selective of what you accept from the very same people that put the Bible together. You would have us believe they were right about the New Testament but wrong about everything else.

 

[Rex]

My questions to Aspen is not a 'gotcha' question.

There may be a litany of oral tradition items that mirror the Bible.

Just because I am not aware of them doesn't mean they aren't out there in droves.

I would simply like to see some examples of them.

Nether is mine I want to find out how The pope agrees with Rach's statement "bold" and If it's true why did the catholics here not get the memo?
" I will not tolerate you or anyone else saying that Protestants are not of the true faith".

Well aspen I'm waiting.
Or do you simply pop in and make untruthful statements just to see what happens or are your attempting to repair the damage your precious church is suffering.
Post # 72 I would like an explanation.

Did you notice this thread is headed Truth?
So lets hear some

 

[epostle1]

No one has said "...you or anyone else saying that Protestants are not of the true faith" but Rach, who has already been corrected. No Catholic has said that. You, Rex, are trying to start a fight.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

[Rach1370]

Rach,

I used to believe the same way you do now. Then I realized that the Bible is comprised of human words, inspired by God; which are selected by humans to form the Bible. Since I trust that God inspired humans to select the cannon - it is not unreasonable that God also inspires and keeps safe the Tradition of the Church. There is nothing inherently different from written Tradition (Bible) and oral Tradition.

Respectfully, I disagree. Comparing oral tradition with scripture is the first step down a road that will lead to a man made religion, not one where Jesus is Lord of all, responsible for all, and receives glory for all.
Regardless of a persons ability to have faith that scripture is pure or not...consider this: have you ever know scripture to be wrong? Have you ever know people to be right all the time?

 

[Rex]

No one has said "...you or anyone else saying that Protestants are not of the true faith" but Rach, who has already been corrected. No Catholic has said that. You, Rex, are trying to start a fight.

No aspen is, and hes found it. And you better check with the pope and his doctrine about that bold statement. I do believe he disagrees, even thou you stand right here and deny it. Just as aspen denies his own catechism when its convent.

But you are right about one thing you can't find the truth in a bunch of people that manipulate .
One things for sure aspen has no back bone to stand behind what he says

If you don't have the oil to stand behind your church when it counts just what does that say about you and IT

 

[epostle1]

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. 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.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, John 16:13).

Handing on the faith

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.

more here

 

[THE Gypsy]

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).

You forgot the "but".

 

[epostle1]

Complex Relationship

Some truths of Tradition are directly stated in Scripture, such as God's creation of the world. The Bible comes right out and says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

Other truths of Tradition are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. For example, while the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a force, it is implied in numerous passages, such as those in which the Spirit is depicted as speaking to people (e.g., Acts 13:2), and the biblical authors meant us to understand this.

Some truths of Tradition can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them. For example, Christ having both a human will and a divine will can be inferred from his being "true God and true man" (CCC 464). Various biblical passages state or imply that he is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.

A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can't be proved from the text alone. The Immaculate Conception may be reflected in what Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:28, and the Assumption may be reflected in the wings the woman is given in Revelation 12:14, but you couldn't prove these truths from the text alone.

Some truths are presupposed by Scripture, such as many of the particulars of how the sacraments are celebrated — their proper form, matter, ministers, and recipients. The sacraments are mentioned in the Bible, but the biblical authors didn't give many details about their administration. They assumed that the reader would look to the practice of the Church for the answers to these questions. For example, the sacrament of reconciliation is discussed, but the words that need to be used to make an absolution valid are not.

Often it isn't easy to decide which of these categories a truth falls into, but it is beneficial to think the question through, consider whether the Scriptural basis for a truth is found in the literal or the spiritual sense of the text, and consider how much confidence in the truth can be drawn from the Bible compared to how much must be drawn from Tradition.

more here

 

[Axehead]

I have said it before and I will say it again. if Oral Tradition is so reliable and important (and God's words, now less), why did the Catholic church think to write it down while the Apostles did not? (Actually, the Apostles did write down what they orally shared.)

Hmmm.....

And if Oral Tradition is so vaunted, then why not continue it? Oh, that's right, you do continue it. We have gotten "new things" from the Catholic church across the last 16 centuries. See, that's the problem with "oral tradition" that it is only in the possession of one church that has THE official "Apostles" who keep receiving oral tradition from the previous "Apostolic" successor. Can we ask the current Pope if he received any new oral tradition from the previous pope and if he plans on passing any on to the next Pope? Because, I gotta tell you, Pope Leo came up with a lot of stuff that no one ever new about.

Wonder what you are coming up with next? I still think your internal movement of millions of Catholics will be successful in convincing Rome that Mary should be given the title of Co-Mediatrix. And the Catholic hierarchy will listen to them, because "Mary" has proven quite effective.

Axehead

 

[Rex]

Would still like to see Aspen explain this statement:

It doesn't look like were going to get an explanation Foreigner. They spew catholic garbage around like no tomorrow
But when their pinned to the wall about it they simply deny their faith.

So much for something worth dieing for, they can't hold their mud on a forum topic much less the day of the Lord.

Compromise is a dangerous thing in Gods eyes. ask Saul and Samuel.

 

[epostle1]

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.

Calling this truth garbage and complaining about Pope Leo infers the deep level of denial. If this statement not true, then all of Christianity is a farce.