Matthew 2:23 Oral Prophecy? Thoughts/Questions

Notice what you have said here. The Bible is given to clarify the Tradition. That makes the tradition more important than the Bible. The Bible is only there to clarify it. What you have said here is that "Oral Tradition" is your final authority, not the Bible.

Yet, again, you have said:
"I agree with you that the Bible is the final authority, but as a catholic we believe that sacred traditon is also final authority. Since we believe that scripture and sacred tradition can not contradict each other, we use sacred tradition as a guide in interpreting scripture."

Both positions, even though they contradict each other, are wrong. But at least in the second you admit that the Bible is the final authority. By final authority we mean sole authority. It is all sufficient. We need no other authority. So you again have contradicted yourself. You said, "as a Catholic we believe that sacred tradition is also final authority." That cannot be. If the Scriptures are THE final authority, there is no other authority. The Scriptures are our only authority in all matters of faith and practice. They are all-sufficient for us. Everything that we need to know about God is found in the pages of that book, which we now call the Bible.
DHK

[ August 12, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

The fact is the church has never been "on the same track with the teachings about the faith." They invent new man-made doctrines according to their own whims and wishes--all the way from purgatory to the assumption of Mary--inventions of man that are not Scripturally based.

I have posted this before to prove this point, but I will do it again. It demonstrates clearly how Catholic doctrine evolves and is constantly changing. It does not stay true to God's Word which never changes.

The doctrines of the Bible are quite clear. The people who differ with them do so because of their own sin, pride, self-will, and rejection of Jesus Christ. We demand Scriptural evidence because much of Catholic doctrine is not Biblically based. The doctrines that we are discussing here are primarily inventions of the Catholic Church and do not originate in the Bible at all. The worship of Mary does not originate in the Bible, neither does purgatory, the infallibility of the pope, penance, indulgences, confession of sin to a priest, doctrine of mortal sin, etc., etc.

Some examples:
1. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.........................................................................394

2. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in..............................................................431

3. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in.................................................................500

4. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year.......593

5. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed
by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ...............................................................................600

And the "assumption of Mary" was not declared a dogma of the Catholic church until 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared it to be so.
These are all inventions of the Catholic Church without any regard or respect for God's Holy Word. Indeed it has been blasphemous for the Catholic church to have been so presumptuous!
DHK

 

It probably was an oral prophecy. So what? Does that prove any Romish doctrine true? No. They (RCC doctrines) directly CONTRADICT scripture. "There is one mediator" does not allow for 2 mediators. That a bishop or deacon must be "a one-woman-man" and "have faithful children" and "know how to rule his own household" certainly does not allow for celibacy of the bishops/deacons. That Jesus hates the nicolaitans does not allow for clergy/laity separation. What's my point? There is nothing wrong with tradition that doesn't contradict scripture. Jesus went to the chanukah celebration which was tradition, but he didn't support the scribal doctrine of "you don't have to respect your parents because you said your money is korban" which also was tradition. What's the difference between those 2? One is in direct opposisition to scripture and the other is not. Read Mark 7. Jesus made it very plain in Mark 7 that when tradition and scripture are contrary to each other, scripture wins. Does that mean that I can't believe Peter was crucified upside down? NO! It does mean, however, that the church is to have no clergy/laity separation, no celibate bishops/deacons, and that there is only ONE mediator. It does mean that only Christ is the head of the church! The church is not a 2-headed monster as the Romies suppose. The church is spoken of as the wife of Christ, and the husband is the head of the wife. (Eph 5:23) If the woman has 2 heads, then she has two husbands, and if she has 2 husbands then she is an adulteress and whore. Right there, with their doctrine of the 2-headed church, the Romies admit that their church is the whore of Revelation 17 because their church by having 2 husbands (heads) commits whoredom. Flee from the whore lest you share in her destruction!!!!!!!!

[ August 12, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

You're just as selective in reading my post as you are in reading the Bible and the so-called 'Fathers.' Well, at least you're consistently selective.

[ August 12, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

Hello Sola Scriptura:

I appreciate your truthfullness. I think that is all that was relavent to the topic in your post.

What does it prove? hmmm... I can tell you what it dis-proves.

You said it.

j.</font>[/QUOTE]If what Sola Scriptura said about it probably being an oral prophesy disproves something in what you quoted from him, the only term in what you quoted to be disproved is "Romish doctrine".

 

In Dualhunter's defense, if what it disproves is something that I said in my post, it must be 'Romish doctrine' as he pointed out.

(1) You technically have to believe in Sola Fide to be Protestant, so I'm not.

(2) I know that you can't be a Roman Catholic and sincerely read either the Bible or the 'Fathers'

(2a) The 'Fathers' weren't Baptists (nor am I), but they would agree with them in one thing at least (as do I) - infant baptism is NOT an apostolic teaching. Read Justin Martyr! He's the first of the so-called 'Fathers' to write anything on the subject, and what does he say? He says

-- NOTICE "OF CHOICE"

Tertullian also:

Others of them wrote against war and said that Christians cannot be in the military and still please Christ, but the RCC upholds war and even comissioned the crusades. You cannot be a Romie and agree with the earliest of the 'Fathers' - this I know.

Justin Martyr also said, in the beginning of his first apology:

I don't know even one Romie who would agree!!! Get rid of your worthless traditions, cries Justin. But sadly, you won't even listen to the 'Fathers'!!!

[ August 12, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

Hello everyone,

I am surprised how much I strirred things up, let me try again and see if anyone while have an open mind and listen. First a few questions.

Question: What kinda of revelation did Jesus give us?

Answer: Jesus gave us the oral tradition, Jesus did not write one things down, accept in the sand, Jesus commanded no one to write anything down. Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel. This means transmit it orally!!!

There is some concern as to whether the oral tradition will be corrupted over time as it is passed on. Jesus said the the gates of hell would not prevail against his church so we believe God will keep the oral tradition from being corrupted. I guess if he can protect the Bible God should be able to protect the oral tradition or are you limiting the power of God.

Question: Was there another revelation from God?

Answer: Yes, through the Holy Spirit inspiring men we have the Completed Bible.

Question: How do we know which books are inspired?

Answer: This was determined through the Oral Tradition and was decided by the Catholic Church.

Question: Does Sacred Tradition contradict Scripture?

Answer: No, Since they are both from God and God does not contradict himself. If you do not believe sacred scripture is from God, take it up with Jesus.

Question: Does the Bible tell us to follow tradition (non man made)?

Answer: Yes, 2 Thess 2:15 " Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours "; 2 Thess 3:6 " We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother whoc conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us "; 1 Cor 11:2 " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditons, just as I handed them on to you ."

Question: Was the Sacred tradition to be passed on?

Answer: Yes it was, 2 Tim 2:2 " and what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well " This is an example of Jesus passing on to Paul, passing on to Timothy, passing on to faithful people.

Question: Is the Bible a matter of private interpretation?

Answer: No, take a look at 2 Peter 1:20 " Know this first of all, that ther is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation "; 2 Peter 3:16 " speaking of hese things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures ."

Now to deal with a few misconceptions of the Catholic church...

Worshiping Mary - Catholics do not believe in worshiping Mary, we do believe in honoring her, just as Jesus honored his mother as he should according to the commandments, we then too honor Mary. When we pray to Mary we are asking her to pray for us, just as we would ask each other to pray for us when we are in need.

Mary the mother of God - Yes we believe Mary is the mother of God, sure not God the Father but Jesus, God the son. See Luke 1:43 " and how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me " These are the words of Elizabeth to Mary. Seems clear that Mary is the mother of God, she is however not the reason for Jesus' divinity, that is from God the father. Its interesting to note that Jesus was the only one who could pick his mother and he picked Mary.

Catholic Inventions - This is a tough one since I do not have alot of time to talk about it. They best way I can describe this issue is that at time goes on, we learn more about God through interpretation of scripture. Many of the so called inventions of the Catholic church where believed by the original church fathers, they just never officially declared them church doctrine or dogma until enough proof was available. I would hardly believe that the protestant churchs had full understanding of the bible at there inception, it changed with time. Just look at the issue of Mary, the original founders of protestantism Luther and Calvin both believed strongly in honoring Mary, now look at how far you have come, you cut her down every chance you get.

Assumption of Mary Which we are recongnizing this week in the feast of the Assumption. Is it not true that a number of the prophets where taken into heaven before they died? Is Mary, the first and best disciple of Jesus not worthy of the same honor. If she was not taken into heaven, where is she buried? What year did she die? We know where all the other saints died and when. There is no record of Marys death anywhere and at that time they kept tract of what happened to these holy people when they died.

Purgatory _ I am not gonna go into the detail of purgatory at this time, I am just commenting on the fact that the early church fathers believed in purgatory just as it was talked about in Maccabees which is one of the books of the bible rejected after 1500 years by the protestants. Like I said before many of the church doctrines and dogmas where not offically proclaimed until an thorough evaulation was made. Thats why many of the beliefs where not proclaimed offical until years later.

Lastly I want to make again some comments about a MAN MADE TRADITION know as Sola Scriptura. I know the first thing you are gonna say, look at 2 Tim 3:16 " All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness " I agree with this statement obviously, but what does it say? Does it say that scripture is everything we need? No it says it is useful.

Question: Is the Bible only doctrine Sola Scriptura Biblical?

Answer: No, because it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Sola scripture came about when Luther rebelled against the Catholic church and left. When he did he rejected the teaching authority of the church and along with that he lost the sacred tradition, so he was only left with Scripture, so one makes due with what he has and so was born "Sola Sciptura" Did the christians believe in Sola Scriptura back when the bible was first revealed around 400 AD. The answer is no, the belief of Sola Scriptura was founded at the time of the reformation.

Products of Man Made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation As a result of these two main made doctrins, what have we gained??? About 26,000 different protestant denominations all believing they have the truth. Since there is only one truth, the best one can gain from this is that 25,999 of them do not have the whole truth and if its the Catholic church which has the whole truth then 26,000 are all lacking in the truth. The disciples warned against schism and division and look at what the fruits of Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation. The Catholic church has one belief and it has remained the same, sure we have had changes in man-made tradition of the church such as private confession instead of public confession, the type of vestments worn by priests, etc. but these are not issues of faith and morals but mear formalities.

Just as a side note, I would like to credit a friend who is a baptist who questioned me on my beliefs a year or so ago. I could not answer his questions so I went online an found the answers. I would like to thank this friend for opening my eyes to the faith and bringing me closer to God. I will say that I think in many cases my protestant brothers have a deeper love for Jesus than many Catholics do and I believe thats based in the way they are taut from childhood. I applaude the efforts of my brothers and in many ways I wish to emulate them. God bless you all.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Daniel,
Your answers seem to be sincere, and also as if you have been brainwashed by the Catholic Church without having to do any independent thinking on your own.
You said:
"Question: What kinda of revelation did Jesus give us?
Answer: Jesus gave us the oral tradition, Jesus did not write one things down, accept in the sand, Jesus commanded no one to write anything down. Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel. This means transmit it orally!!!"

The Bible says:
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
---God speaks to us through His Son. He does that through His Word, not tradition. His Word came to us through holy men of God that were moved by the Holy Spirit. What they wrote is Scripture, not tradition.

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
---It is the Scripture that was inspired of God, that the Apostles and prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote down that is the Word of God, not tradition.
"Oral Tradition means nothing in the light of God's inspired Word. The same things that you say about the Bible are the same accusations a Muslim makes. "Jesus didn't write anything down." It sounds like the remark of an infidel. He didn't have to write anything down. His Apostles wrote them down for Him, as they were guided by the Holy Spirit of God.

Quote:
"There is some concern as to whether the oral tradition will be corrupted over time as it is passed on. Jesus said the the gates of hell would not prevail against his church so we believe God will keep the oral tradition from being corrupted. I guess if he can protect the Bible God should be able to protect the oral tradition or are you limiting the power of God."
---There is some concern? Only some? Oral tradition has been corrupted over time. That is a fact. We don't have to be concerned over whether it will be corrupted or not. It already has been corrupted.

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
---It is the Word of God that is not corrupted. Tradition already has been.

"Question: Was there another revelation from God?
Answer: Yes, through the Holy Spirit inspiring men we have the Completed Bible."
---The only revelation from God, is in the "Completed Bible." There is no other revelation.

"Question: How do we know which books are inspired?
Answer: This was determined through the Oral Tradition and was decided by the Catholic Church."
---They were determined by the Apostles and the early church. The early church knew which ones were authentic and which ones were not. We have the example of Peter recognizing the writings of Paul as Scripture:
2Pet.3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
---Notice Peter's words: "in all his epistles...as they do also the other scriptures." He considered the epistles of Paul as Scripture, and it didn't take a Catholic Council for Peter to know which ones were Scripture.

"Question: Does Sacred Tradition contradict Scripture?
Answer: No, Since they are both from God and God does not contradict himself. If you do not believe sacred scripture is from God, take it up with Jesus."
---Wrong! The Catholic "Sacred Tradition" is not sacred, does not come from God, and does not agree with the Bible in most cases. It is man-made. They are doctrines of men and not of God. Our authority lies in the Scriptures, and in the Scriptures alone.

"Question: Does the Bible tell us to follow tradition (non man made)?
Answer: Yes, 2 Thess 2:15 " Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours "; 2 Thess 3:6 " We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother whoc conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us "; 1 Cor 11:2 " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditons, just as I handed them on to you .""
---The correct answer is no. Look up in a Bible dictionary or lexicon what the word "tradition" means in these verses. The tradition that Paul was speaking of was the truth, that is the Biblical truth that he had taught them. There was no established tradition in Christianity by this time. Christ was born ca. 4 B.C., and died 29 A.D. Between the year of Christ's death, 29 A.D., and the year that 2Thessalonians was written, ca. 53 A.D. is 24 years. That's hardly enough time to establish "oral tradition." Tradition simply meant truth. Hold fast to the truths that were taught to you.

"Question: Was the Sacred tradition to be passed on?
Answer: Yes it was, 2 Tim 2:2 " and what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well " This is an example of Jesus passing on to Paul, passing on to Timothy, passing on to faithful people."
---That's an example of twisting the Scripture to prove one's preconceived idea. 2Timothy is a pastoral epistle. Paul is writing to Timothy with instructions concerning the local church. This particular instruction has to do with teaching, especially with "spiritual reproduction." He tells Timothy to take the things that he has taught him (the Word of God) and teach it to faithful men, who in turn will teach other faithful men (the Word of God). This has nothing to do with tradition.
Enough said for now. I'll answer some more later.
DHK

 

Yes, Jesus said to go and preach the Gospel, (something which I personally have never seen the Catholic church do). The writers of the New Testament did not rely on oral means to preserve what Christ taught (and in cases like Paul's revealed) instead they wrote down the teachings so that people could know the certainty of what they were taught.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things (1) accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who (2) from the beginning were (3) eyewitnesses and (4) servants of (5) the [1] word,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, (6) having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you (7) in consecutive order, (8) most excellent (9) Theophilus;
4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been (10) taught. - Luke 1:1-4 NASB

These things I have written to you who (23) believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have (24) eternal life. - 1 John 5:13 NASB

So as previously stated, Scripture is our final authority by which we measure the authenticity of the claims of "tradition".

 

I think my last post got spliced!

 

Hi Everyone,

My first reply is to Dualhunters quote...

If you will look back you will see I had mentioned that scripture makes clear the oral tradition. This scipture shows that, They are writing things down so they will know that exact truth about what was taught to them orally.

Remember everyone, you all claim that oral tradition contradicts scripture, but it only contradicts your interpretation of scripture, which one of you have infallible scripture interpretation??? Who gave you the authority, seems you have been warned against private interpretation.

I am still waiting for someone to show me the scripture that says we should use scripture only!!! Can anyone point this one out to me, or is this man made tradition.

I am also still waiting for one reference in scripture that guarentees infallible interpretation of scripture.

It is curious that you base your faith on these doctrines yet you can not show me a single scripture confirming these doctrines. I would have to conclude that they are man made traditions.

Now back to the oral tradition, we need to go back to the time of Jesus, just after his assention into Heaven and before the canon of the bible was confirmed. Please tell me what was taught to the people in that 400 years... it was not scripture, was it oral tradition. Why do you all say that the oral teachings from the mouth of our Lord Jesus is not valid teachings? Someone tell me that the apostles taught the people in those years, since there was no Bible. I guess they taught false doctrine is that write?

You ask what is the final authority on truth. Wasnt it written that the CHURCH is the Bullwark and Pillar of Truth. If it was scripture why was CHURCH said. I think its because the complete deposit of faith is both oral tradition and scripture and its correctly interpreted by the teaching majesterium of the church.

Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he has been taugh, yes its the word of God, but at that time there was no NT so it was oral teaching which is the oral tradition. I think you are trying to invent the Bible before its time.

I agree God spoke through the word of his son Jesus, this would was spoken to the Apostles, this oral teaching is what we call sacred tradition.

I beg to differ with you regarding the Catholic Church preaching the gospel, have you ever been to the celebration of the Mass? At each Mass which is conducted daily, we read from both old and new testiments and also from the Gospel. The priest then preaches on the Gospel reading. I think you need to go to Mass more often.

Well time to run for now. God Bless you all.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

What is the gospel that the Catholic church teaches and what good is it to teach it to those in church and neglect those not in church?

As already stated many many times, scripture is the final authority, if somebody orally preaches something that is consistent with scripture it is fine because it is agreeing with the Word of God. The apostles were teaching the same things orally as is written in the New Testament of the Bible, hence the writers were writing (they were teaching these same things even prior to having written it, but they wrote the same things that they taught), so that people could know the certainty of what they had been taught or what somebody might teach them by doing what the Bereans did and testing it to see if it is consistent with scripture. The Bereans were not popes nor even bishops, they were testing their interpretation of scripture against Paul's teachings and they found that Paul really was a servant of God because what he was teaching was consistent with scripture.

 

Daniel,
"Remember everyone, you all claim that oral tradition contradicts scripture, but it only contradicts your interpretation of scripture, which one of you have infallible scripture interpretation??? Who gave you the authority, seems you have been warned against private interpretation."
---Oral Tradition contradicts Scripture. The plain teaching of the Scriptures which virtually all protestant denominations agree on, the lone voice of the Catholic Church comes out and says that not what it really means, our Tradition says differently. How ludicrous! The assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, etc.; there are scores of protestant denominations that agree that the Scriptures do not teach these heresies. Only the Catholic Church will come out and say that such nonsense is in the Bible.

"I am still waiting for someone to show me the scripture that says we should use scripture only!!! Can anyone point this one out to me, or is this man made tradition."
I'll give you Scripture (again)!! But will it convince you? Jesus said in John 5:39:
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
---Notice that Christ never said to search the Oral Traditions. In fact the only thing he had to say about tradition was to condemn it:

Mark 7:6-9
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
---Is Christ speaking of the Catholic Church and its traditions here?
Christ always appealed to the Scriptures. He made it His final authority; should not we also?

"I am also still waiting for one reference in scripture that guarentees infallible interpretation of scripture."
---No man is infallible, least of all the Catholic Church. That is why Paul commanded:

2Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
---Are you so afraid to obey this command in the Scripture because you might find something different than what the Magesterium teaches? Or must you be spoon-fed from the Magesterium at all times?

"It is curious that you base your faith on these doctrines yet you can not show me a single scripture confirming these doctrines. I would have to conclude that they are man made traditions."
---I have given you plenty of Scripture; you have given me none, except a couple that were taken out of context.

"Now back to the oral tradition, we need to go back to the time of Jesus, just after his assention into Heaven and before the canon of the bible was confirmed. Please tell me what was taught to the people in that 400 years... it was not scripture, was it oral tradition. Why do you all say that the oral teachings from the mouth of our Lord Jesus is not valid teachings? Someone tell me that the apostles taught the people in those years, since there was no Bible. I guess they taught false doctrine is that write?"
---This was already explained to you. They had the Word of God. Again., Read Luke 1:1-4 and Hebrews 1:1,2. Abraham said to the rich man burning in Hell, concerning his five brothers on earth, "They have Moses and the prophets, if they will not believe them, neither will they believe though one rise from the dead." What was Jesus saying? Believe the Word. His appeal was to the Word of God. It was his final authority. Even miracles were not greater than the written word. And you have the audacity to put your tradition greater than his word!!

"You ask what is the final authority on truth. Wasnt it written that the CHURCH is the Bullwark and Pillar of Truth. If it was scripture why was CHURCH said. I think its because the complete deposit of faith is both oral tradition and scripture and its correctly interpreted by the teaching majesterium of the church."
---Do you make up Scripture as you go along, or what?
1Tim.3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
---First the word church is ekklesia, meaning assembly. It is speaking about the assembly or local church at Ephesus which is to be an example for us all. That church was built on the truth. It's foundation was truth. (1Cor.3:11). The pillars hold up the truth. As in the temples in Ephesus where the pillars held up the roof, so the church is to hold up the gospel truth for all to see. It is to be built on a foundation of the truth, and builds pillars of truth, bearing it up for all. Jesus said: "I am the truth," not tradition!

"quote: He tells Timothy to take the things that he has taught him (the Word of God) and teach it to faithful men, who in turn will teach other faithful men (the Word of God). This has nothing to do with tradition."
"Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he has been taugh, yes its the word of God, but at that time there was no NT so it was oral teaching which is the oral tradition. I think you are trying to invent the Bible before its time."
---The very epistle that Timothy was receiving was the Word of God. Much of the Word of God had been written by that time. 2 Timothy was the last of Paul's epistles. All the rest of his epistles had already been written. Many of them were circulated from church to church.

quote: ---God speaks to us through His Son. He does that through His Word, not tradition. His Word came to us through holy men of God that were moved by the Holy Spirit. What they wrote is Scripture, not tradition I agree God spoke through the word of his son Jesus, this would was spoken to the Apostles, this oral teaching is what we call sacred tradition.
---In one breathe you have just affirmed and denied the Word of God. First you say, "what they wrote was Scripture." Then you say "this oral teaching is what we call tradition," contradicting what you previously said. Heb.1:1,2 does not contradict the written Word. Christ is the Word. We find Him in the Word, not tradition.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
The Word was not tradition.
DHK

 

In John 5:39 Jesus was making an observation that they search the scriptures because they think they will find salvation there. Jesus was not saying to search scripture, he was making an observation. Jesus was chastising them because the search scriptures and still do not believe. He says even scripture testifies on my behalf, which I agree with. Jesus finishes by saying, but you do no want to come to me to have life.

I dont see this as any pronouncement of sola scriptura, Jesus testifies that even after searching scripture, they still do not come to him. He is not telling them to search scripture.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Daniel:

The Bible claims it is authorartative in spiritual matters. It does so by implication of the totality of evidence.
The reason there are so many denominations in the world today is a direct result of not properly dividing the word and the failure to use all the evidence. II Tim. 2:15.

Here is an example of implication. The Golf clubs are in the Golf bag. The Golf bag is in the trunk of the car. Where are the Golf clubs? The clubs are in the trunk. However, that was not stated in those words. Moreover, the truth is the clubs are in the trunk. I know this by the implication of what is written.

By implication of what is written, I can know that the Bible is authoratative. The Psalmist declares in Ps. 119:160 the SUM OF THY WORDS ARE TRUTH. Paul declares in Acts 20:27 I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole or all the counsel of God. Jesus said in Rev. 1:9-11, The things thou seeest write in a BOOK. it is apparent from these scriptures that Jesus wanted the sum of the words of God written so men could know ALL TRUTH.I Cor. 14:37, II Thes. 2:15,Col. 4:16, I Thes. 5:27. In fact, Jesus said this in John 8:32," And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Jesus had ALL AUTHORITY. Mat. 28:18. This is implication.

By the way Rev.1:9-11, also answers your question about where it was commanded to write in a book.

II Tim. 3;16,17 claims that the word is all sufficient. It does so by implication and rationality.

The Bible says in II Tim. 3:16,17," All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto every good work." Question: Is it possible to be complete in every thing by that which is lacking? If so, how ? If you had every dollar in the world, would anyone else have any? If so, how?

In conclusion, language works in three and only three ways, Declarative statement, Example, Implication from the totality of the evidence. If one wants to know the truth in spiritual matters he must search God's word and it alone to find it. Acts 17:11, Psalms 119:172. This eliminates the need for magisteriums, creeds, councils.

 

Dualhunter said
Yes, Jesus said to go and preach the Gospel, (something which I personally have never seen the Catholic church do).

Not only does the Catholic Church preach the Gospel daily, she shows it a high level of respect by:

1. The Gospel is carried in during the procession at every Mass. The person carrying it holds it high to show respect and the importance of the Gospels.

2. Catholics stand out of respect whenever the Gospel is read. And a reading from one of the Gospels is read at every Mass. No exceptions.

3. Catholics make three signs of the cross prior to the reading of the Gospel. Over the forehead, the lips and the heart and they say something similar to "May the Gospel be on my mind, on my lips and in my heart."

Of course this demonstrates only the reading and hearing of the Gospel. Catholics are encouraged to participate in social action (helping the poor, etc.) Thus they put the Gospel into action, not just words.

The Catholic Church proclaims the Gospel in words and action, every minute of every day, in every country of the world.

I understand that you carry a bad vision of the Catholic Church. I'm sorry for that. But others should know the truth.

Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray