Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

Why don't you share some with us? </font>[/QUOTE]I will in time. But first explain this to me. The Catholic Encyclopedia which I read defined tradition as that which was either oral or written was passed down throughout the centuries. That was part of the definition. My question to you is: What traditions, passed down through the centuries were passed down in just 24 years?? You see how ludicrous your position is even without going into any definition. The context defines the word for you. You can't put centuries of your kind of Catholic tradition into 24 years (from the time of the death of Christ to the time of the writing of this epistle--2Thessalonians). You are not making sense.
DHK

 

The meaning of "tradition" in 2Thes.2:15. No commentary needed. Just your Bibles.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instructions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (Darby Translation)

2 Thessalonians 2:15 so, then, brethren, stand ye fast, and hold the deliverances that ye were taught, whether through word, whether through our letter; (Young’s Literal Translation)

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

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

 

But you said, "traditons simply means truth ".

None of your translations says truth truth.

 

No brainer, DHK.

When was that definition written?

By the time the definition had been written it was centuries after the Apostles time.

By then the traditions had been handed down for centuries.

 

This is the "no brainer" T2U. Twice it is translated "instruction" and once "teaching." The instruction and teaching that Paul gave them was the truth of the Word of God, not the Tradition of the Catholic Church. You still have'nt explained how centuries of Tradition fit into 24 years of history??
DHK

 

I hate to say it, but are you admitting you have no brains 2Thessalonians was written just 24 years after the death of Christ. It does not matter when your encyclopedia was written. Only the definition matters for that is what is applicable to the word "traditon" used in 2Thes.2:15. That is the Catholic definition of the word. I ask you again: How do you get centuries of tradition crammed into just 24 years?? This time make some sense of your answer.
DHK

 

As a true sola scripturist you love word games it seems.

You originally said, "tradition simply means truth".

You cite several translations, none of which say "truth" but rather "teachings" and "instruction".

That the teachings and instructions are true does not make "tradition simply mean truth"

Are you willing to say that all teaching and instruction are true?

 

Says who? Did the definition qualify itself to just that single instance of the word?

You are the one who is attempting to say that the definition can only apply to the single instance in Scripture.

If the definition were written 200 years later it would say handed down for 200 years.

If it were written 500 years later it would say handed down for 500 years.

DHK, you seem to be so set in proving yourself right that you refuse to even attempt to understand what the I am saying to you.

 

I don't see how tradition can be considered truth.
There are obviously different Greek words much
the same as "love". All tradition are not valid
and yet ALL truth is. Translations are not
always accurate.

 

Some traditions are true and contain right doctrine, but your right, not all tradition is truth.

 

As Adam and A-Christian have pointed out not all Tradition is truth. Variuos translations translate the word as instruction or teaching. So your implication is that Paul was teaching the Thessalonians lies??
DHK

 

You asked earlier for some commentaries. Here is one of them. (Albert Barnes)

And hold the traditions which ye have been taught. On the word traditions, Cmt. on Mt 15:2. It means properly things delivered over from one to another; then anything orally delivered--any precept, doctrine, or law. It is frequently employed to denote that which is not written, as contradistinguished from that which is written, (comp. Mt 15:2,) but not necessarily or always; for here the Apostle speaks of the "traditions which they had been taught by his epistle." Comp. Cmt. on 1Co 11:2. Here it means the doctrines or precepts which they had received from the apostle, whether when he was with them, or after he left them; whether communicated by preaching or by letter. This passage can furnish no authority for holding the "traditions" which have come down from ancient times, and which profess to have been derived from the apostles; for

(1.) there is no evidence that any of those traditions were given by the apostles
(2.) many of them are manifestly so trifling, false, and contrary to the writings of the apostles, that they could not have been delivered by them;
(3.) if any of them are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false,
(4.) we have all that is necessary for salvation in the written word; and
(5.) there is not the least evidence that the apostle here meant to refer to any such thing.

He speaks only of what had been delivered to them by himself, whether orally or by letter; not of what was delivered from one to another as from him. There is no intimation here that they were to hold anything as from him which they had not received directly from him, either by his own instructions personally or by letter. With what propriety, then, can this passage be adduced to prove that we are to hold the traditions which professedly come to us through a great number of intermediate persons? Nowhere is the evidence here that the church was to hold those unwritten traditions, and transmit them to future times?

Whether by word. By preaching, when we were with you. It does not mean that he had sent any oral message to them by a third person.

Or our epistle. The former letter which he had written to them.

{*} "Traditions" "doctrines"
(Albert Barnes)

 

There are several 'traditions' that the CC has carried even over to the Sola Scriptura folks.

Any protestant that will continue to work through the setting of the sun this friday, and then attend church on the sunday is keeping a Catholic tradition, that has no Scriptural basis.

Any Catholic who tries to tell you that there is scriptural basis for it is lying, because even the TRADITION of the CC tells us that the change of days was made by the authority of the Church, and NOT on the Bible.

There are others.

What does that mean to the protestants out there who care? Doesn't it even bother you a little bit that you are doing something SOLA Catholic?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

OUCH...!!!!

Kelly, you're standing on my FEET

 

Of course, if its Catholic it must be evil.

 

2Thes.2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Tim.2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Four our of six translations that I checked translated "paradosis" (tradition) as either teaching or instruction. Only two translated it as tradition. Teaching or instruction are not wrong translations. They are translations, not just dictionary meanings, but reliable translations of the paradosis from reliable translations of God's Word.
Thus, "Stand fast and hold the instruction which you have been taught," which, in context, makes more sense. The question remains what did Paul teach when he instructed? He certainly did not instruct them in error or falsity. He instructed them out of the truths of God's Word. Like a preacher of today would expound the Word of God to his people, Paul taught the Thessalonians the things of God's Word and exhorted them to hold fast to those instructions or teachings; those truths that he had taught them.

This is further expounded on in his second epistle to Timothy, where he says, "The things which thou has hear of me the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also. What did he teach Timothy, and what was Timothy supposed to teach others. "The things which thou hast heard of me," Paul said. What did Timothy hear from Paul? He heard the Word of God being expounded and taught. He had travelled with Paul, been his disciple, learned at his feet, been taught of him. He was taught the truths of the Word of God. It was not tradition that was emphasized. It was the Word of God. For, Paul emphasized time and again--Take heed to the doctrine. Doctrine was important to Paul, not tradition.
DHK

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Any Catholic who tries to tell you that there is scriptural basis for it is lying, because even the TRADITION of the CC tells us that the change of days was made by the authority of the Church, and NOT on the Bible."

I have shown you, through private correspondence in the past, that Scripture teaches we are no longer bound to the ceremonial precept of keeping the Sabbath day within the Decalogue. I have also shown you that Scripture attests to Christian worship on the first day of the week.

Yet, you rejected the evidence that I set forward. Now, this rejection is your choice; your opinion. With this in mind, I would say that it is a little presumptuous and not quite gratuitous to make the statement, "Any Catholic who tries to tell you that there is scriptural basis for it is lying".

Here is a copy of our previous correspondence on this issue:

You wrote, "The Sabbath of Creation, that is part of the 10 Commandment Moral Law, however, is not part of the Levitical 'handwritten' ordinances."

And I responded with the following:

I understand the distinction that you're making, and it's an important one. This is actually key in lock with much of what I have been studying in my Bible classes, and this is actually a distinction that M. Luther didn't make (a fatal flaw, if you ask me). Luther thought that Christ also delivered us from the Moral Law in addition to the curses brought against us with regards to the Mosaic Law.

Now, I see that you understand the Sabbath as part of the Moral Law because it was part of the 10 Commandments. But, we have to ask ourselves, "Why?"

There were plenty of moral laws given in the Old Testament that were not part of the Decalogue. Not all of the moral law was listed in the Decalogue, and the Decalogue did not consist only of Moral Law. If you look at the difference between moral and ceremonial aspects of the law, the moral part is the part in our hearts, our love for neighbour or for God. The ceremonial part is the part outside of that, the ritual part, the externals. Similarly, the love between man and wife is the moral part, and adultery does away with the love between them, because the love and trust have been betrayed. Thus the adultery commandment is part of the moral law.

Let's take a closer look at the Passover. What is the moral part? What is the ceremonial part?

The moral part is the love and worship of God around the theme of the Passover. The ceremonial part is the ritual and timing of the event.

Similarly the moral aspect of the Sabbath is the love and worship of God around the theme of the Sabbath, the New Creation we become in Christ because of the new covenant he made with us. The ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath law, like the Passover law, is the ritual and timing of it.

Just like the moral aspects of the Passover must be kept by us today, so with the Sabbath. Just like the timing aspects of the Passover are irrelevant to us today, so too with the timing aspects of the Sabbath.

There is no reason that the timing regulation of one feast should be ceremonial law, and of the other feast moral law. The spiritual side is moral, the physical side is done away with - in both instances. So by seeing that there was a moral side to the Passover, and to the rest of the Holy Days commanded by the Jews, yet that could not be done away with, so we see that to each of these feasts, the Sabbath too, have a ceremonial aspect, one which the Apostles and the early Christians did do away with.

With that said, I don't have a problem with the continued requirement of the moral part of the Sabbath. The problem that I have is the requirement that the Moral Law includes the ceremonial part of the Sabbath, and I feel that I'm logically following the thought of Christians from the beginning, starting with Paul:

"Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col 2:14-16)

The argument that sabbaton in Col 2:16 cannot refer to weekly Sabbath day because it's in the plural is answered by the fact that there are at least 5 other places where the plural is used of the weekly Sabbath in Scripture:

Exodus 20:8 (LXX)
Leviticus 23:37-38 (LXX)
Acts 16:13
Matthew 28:1
Luke 4:16

The reason these passages show that Paul is speaking of the weekly Sabbath is because Paul is reproducing a familiar pattern that we already see in Scripture, which, in one fell swoop, designates (1) yearly, (2) monthly, and (3) weekly observances.

Colossians 2:16 - festival, new moon, sabbath

1 Chronicles 23:31 - fixed festivals, new moons, Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 2:4 - appointed feasts, new moons, Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 8:13 - annual feasts, new moons, Sabbaths

2 Chronicles 31:3 - fixed festivals, new moons, Sabbaths

Nehemiah 10:33 - appointed times, new moon, Sabbaths

Isa 1:13-14 - Appointed feasts, New moon, Sabbath

Ezekiel 45:17 - appointed feasts, new moons, Sabbaths

Ezek 46:1-11 - appointed feasts, new moons, Sabbath

Hosea 2:11 - festal assemblies, new moons, Sabbaths

With this in mind, Paul, incontrovertibly is telling us in Col 2:16 that we are no longer held to the Sabbath day.

 

Kelly,

Do you observe the Jubillee?


Leviticus 25:10
'You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.

Leviticus 25:11
'You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in from its untrimmed vines.

Leviticus 25:12
'For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field.

Leviticus 25:13
'On this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his own property.


There is more in the rest of 25 and Lev 27.

Actually we in the Catholic Church do. But in a way that exemplifies the spiritual meaning of the OT practice. But that's a different thread.

Blessings

 

Kelly,

Do you observe the Jubillee?


Leviticus 25:10
'You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.

Leviticus 25:11
'You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in from its untrimmed vines.

Leviticus 25:12
'For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field.

Leviticus 25:13
'On this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his own property.


There is more in the rest of 25 and Lev 27.

Actually we in the Catholic Church do. But in a way that exemplifies the spiritual meaning of the OT practice. But that's a different thread.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]Kelly,

I did a websearch and couldn't find anything definite about SDA's celibrating the Jubilee the way the Jews did as commanded by God. Do you somehow celibrate it?

Blessings

 

Kelly,

How bout that jubilee.