Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

I never responded because it was so far fetched, so fabricated through undue inferences that I thought it a waste of time to disprove.

No, Isaiah 8:20 must be read in the light of Isaiah 8:16-19 which has direct prophetic application to the apostle of Jesus Christ and their mission to complete the Biblical canon of scripture. Overall, it fits between Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 in regard to the birth of Christ and his earthly ministry. Isaiah 8:17 is directly quoted in hebrews 2:9 an applied to the apostles first mentioned in Hebrews 2:3. This text (Isa. 8:16) definitively predicts completion of the Biblical canon among the apostles of Jesus Christ and Isaiah 8:20 affirms it as the final authority for faith and practice in contrast to authorities sought out by other religions.

Jesus nor the apostles EVER appealed to the oral "traditions of the elders" as the basis of any doctrine. They always based their doctrine and practice upon "it is written." The reason should be plain. Oral traditions becomes invalidated with time as it becomes more and more corrupted. This is exactly why Peter while he was still living claimed that WRITTEN prophecy was a "MORE SURE WORD" than his own oral traditions (2 Pet. 1:17-19).

The written Word of God ALWAYS takes precedence over oral traditions and that can be clearly seen in Christ and the apostles as they NEVER ONCE claimed the oral "traditions of the elders" as the basis for doctrine and practice. Rather they went directly to the scriptures and said repeatedly "thus it is WRITTEN." The only time Christ made a open reference to the oral traditions was when he corrected their corrupted interpretation of scriptures (Mt. 5:21-47).

Indeed, Rome is more like the Pharisees whose interpretations of the scriptures where determined by the "traditions fo the elders" or the oral traditions passed down.

You mention Christ and the apostles incorporating parts of the oral traditions.They spoke under inspiration as that is what it required to discern the errors from the truth found in the oral traditions. However, the so-called church fathers did not write under inspiration.

Oral traditions were temporary in design both in the Old and New Testament times. They were superseded as soon as the written Word was produced and that is precisely Peter's point in 2 Pet. 1:17-19. While he was yet living, he told the churches that the WRITTEN word of prophecy is "MORE SURE" than his own oral apostolic tradition. Don't take too much sense to figure out why. Just whisper ten words in the ear of a person standing next to you and let him in turn whisper it to the next person to him and so on through twenty people and at the end you get a different story. Oral tradition was never meant or designed to extend beyond the life of the prophet EXCEPT through WRITTEN form.

The "testimony" by Messanic context refers to what Jesus called the "testimony" given to the last living apostle in Revelation 1:3 that included the words given by Christ to the apostles to be written down and completed.

Wrong! Paul much earlier referred to his own writings as inspired by God and so did Peter. The apostles realized their task was to provide a written presentation and defense of "the faith" delivered to them by Christ. They began with orally passing it down and then they put it into writing while claiming it was scripture.

Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NEVER mentions or includes ORAL TRADITIONS so that the "man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS." However, according to Romanism that should have been included. Moreover, scripture is explicitly given for doctrine, correction, instruction in all righteousness but no mention, not one word about ORAL TRADITIONS. Peter bluntly declared that WRITTEN prophecy was "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions. Why? Because like the "traditions of the elders" which were oral traditons they corrupt easily and quickly.


The New Testament writers did the same thing as the Old Testament writers. They began with oral traditions UNTIL they were written and then the WRITTEN superseded the oral as final authority for faith and practice.

 

My sentiments exactly and it should be obvious to anyone who can read the scriptures objectively.

 

Dr Walter is in desperate need of prayers....so I offered up 3 rosaries for him....for the virtue of charity.:flower:

 

How very charitable of you! Tell me, who died and made you god?

 

You might also add all of I Jn 3

 

You would make a good Moslem ... very similar attitude. Should the artist be killed? After all idolatry is punishable with death in the OT.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

 

Dr. Walter, we can say “yes it is; no it isn’t” all day long and I have a business to run so I will just leave you with this.

1. You are taking a whole lot of liberties with your interpretation of scripture.

2. Many of these liberties are based on assumptions on your part (probably derived from the “traditions” into which you have been inculcated over the years).

3. You’re wrong about Jesus never appealing to tradition. He did so in Matthew 23:2. And while it is true that Jesus sometimes said, “It is written”, He more often spoke with His own authority relying on neither scripture nor tradition.

4. You have a habit of skipping around in Bible translations, picking and choosing the one that suits your purpose for the moment. Rick Warren does this also and he loses a lot of credibility in the process.

 

:applause:

 

We are not under the Old Covenant theocratic government. Nevertheless, that does not mean sin is something other than sin. Adultery was punishable by stoning also, would you now accept adultery as something other than sin simply because we do not stone people for it???

 

This is totally untrue! I take no liberties that are not provided by the text and context itself. You simply cannot respond.

Another complete fabricated slander. My positions are based on proper exegesis of the scripture and I dare you or anyone else to prove other wise.

No sir! Apparently you have never read the Mishnah! The Mishnah is the written account of the Jewish oral traditions and in it you have exactly how the Pharisees repeatedly would say "rabbi" so and so said this but "rabbi" so and so said that. Jesus NEVER, NOT ONCE EVER quoted oral tradition as the authority for doctrine and practice. Matthew 23:2 is simply a metaphor commonly used and understood among the Jews for Mosaic authority.

Unlike Jesus and the apostles, Rome copies the Pharisees and depends upon UNINSPIRED oral traditions of the father's. Unlike Peter, Rome regards oral traditions of the Fathers as EQUAL authority when Peter said that the prophetic written word was "MORE SURE" than his own current oral teaching.

Please give ONE EXAMPLE where I have ever used any other translation than the KJV. This is an outright lie.

When Catholics cannot deal with Biblical based evidence they resort to this kind of personal trashing. Deal with the evidence or simply admit you can't or you are wrong.

 

praying to your false god will neither help you or me but thanks for the thought at least.

 

How stupid! Did he claim to be god???? No! Just Catholic bashing. He gave his personal opinion, why not just accept it as that instead of making such a stupid accusation!

 

Evidently you've never come across this expression before. Try here and be educated

 

It is an insultive expression. He gave his personal opinion without insult to anyone. However, your response was insultive. Why not simply provide substance to challenge his personal opinion.

 

His opinion was insulting, as was your reply to Briony-Gloriana. I was calling him on that, and I'm calling you on your insulting reponse to her offer to pray for you. She deserves an apology and if you are a gentleman you will give it.

 

No doc - I didn’t miss your point. I was simply putting that verse into context along with other verses in the chapter. In context God was ordering the destruction of the Cannonites including their temples and shrines, admonishing the Jews to get rid of everything lest it cause problems for them in the future. My point was the you took the relavent verse out of context in an attempt to apply it strictly to idolatry.

Oh please doc... grow up - you sound so silly acting that way. And Yes – I know what a “type” is. However, I find your position above arguably more of opinion than of scripture.

Sorry doc… You had been calling me a Romanist and accusing me of placing the EFC’s above scripture so much that I just did see the topic change.

Wow - and you feel the need to shout about that? Well, naturally I disagree totally with your statement.

First, since not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded in scripture, you cannot make that claim with any level of believability. Second, you might want to refer back to the story of Jesus teaching in the temple as a youngster. Whenever He read from the scrolls, He was quoting the Fathers (I.e. Father Abraham, etc.). You are simply wrong.

Well doc, how in the world do you think the stories of the Old Testament were transferred?
'Moses passed it on to Joshua. Joshua gave it to the Elders. The Elders gave it to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it to the Men of the Great Assembly'1 (in Ezra and Nehemiah's day).

So much for the above load of malarkey that oral traditions "...eventually break down and get garbled." If you hold to that, then you must - if you're intellectually honest - concede that you are either:

a) wrong

- OR -

b) that the Old Testament contains errors because God was unable to preserve His word because oral traditions "...eventually break down and get garbled."

Perhaps history is just not your game doc. I know... let's have a spelling contest!

Flakey oral traditions, huh? Your first point is virtually destroyed by the transmission of the Pentateuch from the beginning through Moses up to the apostles, and it is ignominiously done in by the New Testament verses with which I have already provided you (and which I might add, you failed to address). So, here they are again:

2 Tim 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

1 Cor 11:2
...praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings as I passed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

2 John 1:12
12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Flakey oral traditions indeed!

WM

 

Or I Cor 11:2: "I praise you...for holding on to the traditions, just as I passed them on to you".

 

I'm praying for you as well doc.

WM

 

Isaiah 7:14-9:6 is Messanic in nature. That is not personal opinion based upon tradition that is factual as the beginning text (Isa. 7:14) and the concluding text (Isa. 9:6) are recognized by nearly all scholars in all denominations as Messanic texts.

Isaiah 8:16-20 is found within this Messanic prophetic framework. For example, Isaiah 8:14-15 is directly quoted in the New Testament and applied to Jesus Christ. Isaiah 8:18 is directly quoted in Hebrews 2 and applied contextually within Hebrew 2 to the apostles of Christ.

Exegetically "my disciples" in Isaiah 8:16 is the same persons in Isaiah 8:18 as "the children" which is directly applied by the writer of Hebrews to the apostles of Christ.

Isaiah 8:16 is immediately preceded by Messanic prophecy (vv. 14-15) and immediately followed by Messanic prophecy (v. 18) and furthermore exegetically inseparable from both in regard to "my disciples" and "the children."

So the accusation that my intepretation of Isaiah 8:16 is based upon "tradition" or my own personal opinion is false! It is based upon sound principles of exegesis and confirmed by New Testament writers to be Messanic in nature.

It prophetically predicts that the Biblical canon consisting of "the law" or the Old Testament prophets beginnng with Moses and ending with Malichi along with the "testimony" which in Messanic context refers to the written "testimony"of the apostles (Rev. 1:3) given them by Jesus Christ will be completed, or to "bind up and seal" and it will be done "among my disciples" which are contextually identified by the writer of hebrews as the apostles.

Jesus predicted the same thing in the upper room discourse when he said that the Holy Spirit would lead his apostles into "all truth" and that it would be through their WRITTEN "words" as "scripture" (Jn. 17:17) future generations would come to know Christ (Jn. 17:20).

The Apostles recognized this task and recognized each others writings as "scripture" (2 Pet. 3:15-17; 1 Thes. 2:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The last living apostle began his final written epistle with recognition that he was providing the FINAL END TIME revelation of the "testimony" (Rev. 1:2) provided by Jesus Christ and when finishing it sealed it in obedience to Isaiah 8:16.

In Isaiah 8:16 with the prediction of the completed written revelation the next anticipated revelation after the sealing of scripture is the revelation of Christ from heaven:

16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

John the one who sealed it up and bound it up with his final written scripture conveys the very same thing as Isaiah 8:16-17 in regard to the next anticipated revelation from heaven:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Moreover, with the final addition of Revelation the Bible reads as you would expect a FINISHED revelation would read.

Genesis provides the beginning of all things
Revelation provides the end of all things

Sin is introduced in Genesis and sin is no more in Revelation

The garden of eden is introduced in Genesis and appears again in Revelation

Satan enters the world in Genesis and Satan is cast out forever in Revelation

Creation of the first world in genesis and a new creation in Revelation

The Sun and moon are introduced in Genesis the sun and moon no more in Revelation

Genesis provides the complete record of origins while Revelation provides the complete record of endings.

It reads as a finished book would expect to read.


Paul was a prophet, spoke and wrote under inspiration and in his final epistle he anticipated the completion of the Biblical canon and thus could say that written scripture was SUFFICIENT for ALL RIGHTOUSNESS, for correction, for instruction, for reproof that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS and yet he did not include or mention anything or any need for ORAL TRADITIONS. This is precisely why Peter in his final epistle claimed that WRITTEN prophetic scripture SUPERSEDES his own oral tradition as He claims the written scripture is "MORE SURE" than his own oral traditions:

16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

What I find interesting is that Traditions which are so derided are exactly how Christianity was spread for the first 20 years before the first NT book was even penned. And even at that we see within scriptures itself how oral traditions were recorded. Let me give an example. The gospel of John 2:21-22. We see John recording what was said by Jesus but then explaining how that passage was to be understood in the verses I selected. Thus that passage shouldn't be understood in anyway other than the context in John's personal statement supplied. That my friends is Oral tradition which was the solid foundation of the Faith (testimony of the Apostles) long before pen touched paper. And that is how traditions are to be understood today. And there are many more examples of just this in the NT. These oral traditions of the Apostles overlap with scripture giving a full understanding of what is being said.