The Son of God is God the Son?

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
[QB] Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "The 'traditions' that were passed to the Church by the Apostles are all written down in the NT."

Show me in Scripture where it says what you assert above.

Inspired by God, in the last book not only in time, but in the Canon of the NT John penned: Rev 22:18 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:
Rev 22:19 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.

A few verses later, John said AMEN. And the Word of God was complete.

The traditions that they were being given were given by word of mouth because they did not have the written Word yet.

No, that's untrue. Paul says to adhere to the traditions received whether written by letter or by word of mouth. Evidently, Paul knew that doctrine was being written down and received in that way. He also exhorted the Churches to adhere to the oral tradition. Catholics still uphold this tradition, thus adhering to the Biblical precedent.

Paul said that PRIOR to the entire NT being written, and WAY before the NT was distributed.

This is a moot argument Carson, and you know it. The NT believers were recieving their doctrine by word of mouth because of two UNDENIABLE factors. 1. The NT was not complete, and 2. There weren't any printing presses.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Singer]

.....its the RCC that was responsible for formulating the doctrine of the
Trinity in the fourth century A.D. Its also interesting to note that
Protestantism which claims to accept the Trinity, in many cases are in reality
not embracing the orthodox version of the Trinity as per the RCC

Ricky, You're well versed and so are many others on here. I admire that.

The wellintentioned input by all factors here have not drawn me any closer
to a church than I was before computer (BC). We have Pro and Con Trinity
and now a Orthodox and Non-Orthodox version of the Trinity.........??

I'd hate to subject a new convert to Christ to the discussions and advice on
this board and then expect them to make a choice of a church. I've had the
influence of my Mormon sister, JW cousins, Mormon son in law, SDA cousins,
Catholic friends and relatives and the 2x2 Way I grew up in. The divisions
have only created a red flag that tells me that there is no right church. I'm
happier on the outside of them all.

What would be the intent of all postings on this board. . . . . To spread the
Gospel or to advocate a church. . . . ? There is a difference and I don't accept
an answer in line with "we promote the gospel through our church".

This is a question for anyone. Thanks.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Carson,

I am a woman.
My husband is a man.
We are married.
I was in the Air Force.
You were raised in Texas.
I have a python.
My brother has 3 kids.
My Mom had 5 kids.
I will be 28 in August.
My kids are being quiet.
We have been at the pool all day.
What do frogs eat?
Does your school have a library?
What did you do for Easter?
We shall rise!
I will go to church tomorrow!
You should go to church tomorrow too!
I wish that you would.
Is there any chance that you may?
I might go to the gym on sunday.
We must register our car.
Can you run 5 miles without stopping?
I could if I had to.

Helping verbs. They all have a different meaning and usage. For a reason.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[3AngelsMom]

Singer,

There is no right answer. We ARE the Church. We who promote the Gospel, the children of God, ARE the Church.

We promote the Gospel through our church (denomination) because it is with others that we find strength, and fellowship. It is with other 'likeminded' believers that we flourish with, and grow with.

You make yourself out to be some kind of renegate rebel, but you aren't alone.

You DO have a Church.

You and your wife fellowship daily, and praise God together, and "where 2 or more are gathered in my Name, I AM in the MIDST of them!" is the promise you have!

Don't feel so blue just because you can't decide on a denomination.

I can't either.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Bob said --
Is Christ God? - "And the Word was With God and the Word WAS God" -- Yes.

Kelly replies --
3AM: Bob, your question was 'IS' He God, and the Bible said He 'WAS' God.

Those two words mean something COMPLETELY different!

Kelly,

In your answer you appear to be arguing that point that ALTHOUGH Christ WAS God - He IS NOT God any longer (possibly referring just the time while He was on Earth?).</font>[/QUOTE]No, now too. He was in God, and proceeded forth and came out of God, therfore He is no longer God anymore, but the Son of God. When I say "God" I mean Most High God, because Jesus IS diety by merit of His inheritance, but He is not the Most High God, but used to be IN the Most High God, literally. Now He is in God by way of the Spirit that they share in, the same Spirit that we are in Christ through, and by merit of our being in Christ, we are also in His Father.

But EVEN in that - view - you would be accepting that Christ in fact WAS God (not Just God the Father, but now having God the Son) and although you "may" be arguing that Christ ceased to be God on earth - you would have Christ returning to heaven - "to the Glory which He had with God before the world was" - and therefore in your view He is NOW God - once again. Correct?

No. As shown above.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Singer]

There is no right answer. We ARE the Church. We who promote the Gospel, the children of
God, ARE the Church.


Thanks, Kelly; your answer deserves respect. I could accept that response
any day over a Catholic who claims to BE the church, body of Christ,
bride of Christ, the reason for creation itself and led by sinful men who claim
to be God on Earth. Regenerate Rebel....that suggestion probably deserves
respect too.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Carson,

Helping verbs. They all have a different meaning and usage. For a reason.

God Bless,
Kelly

The English verbs, except as they match or approximate the original are IRRELEVANT.

"In the beginning WAS the Word." GREEK verb tense (does not exist in English) is the Greek Imperfect, "action taking place in time past" meaning in this context: "already was and always had been"

"and the Word WAS WITH GOD, " already was and always had been" and pros ton theon, "face to face with God" (plurality and equality in the Trinity).

"and the Word WAS God," already was and always had been God.

And none of these verbs carry the meaning you insert into "was", which is "was once and is not now." The Greek has no such tense (nor, really does formal English). To indicate that in the Greek, you'd have to say it that way.

Greek verbs=Relevant. English verbs=irrelevant

[ July 12, 2003, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

[BobRyan]

Ricky-Lee
Bob: Or is He worshipped because He too is "divine" and any "divine being" is God and can be "Worshipped"?

Ricky: I answered that already regarding Christ. But I have one for you regarding the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit a separate, stand-alone deity to be given worship along with the Father and the Son? If you say yes, show me the Biblical prescedent. If you say no, then you deny a Trinity of deities - which is a good thing!

Still trying to understand your position.

Are you saying that Christ is a "stand-alone deity" that is worshipped as another God along with the Father?

And then asking me if I can find that same level of "two God" model for the H.S so that there is 3 Gods (one of which being made God by God the Father in the case of your view).

Correct?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Greetings Singer,

I fully understand your predicament and I feel your pain. Believe me brother, its not my intention to promote any specific denomination as constituting God's true church. I only know of two Christian organizations that make that exclusive claim - the Roman Catholic Church and teh Seventh-day Adventist Church - there's probably others - but these are the two biggies that I'm aware of. They both claim to be God's true church on earth. IMHO, they are both WRONG. In fact, I'll go even further to say that BOTH of those organizations are in apostasy and have departed from the Word of God. Now, those organizations may very well and most probably do contain many individuals that God would recognize as truly His and its those that constitute the "true church".

So, my only admonition to you would be - don't focus on denominations. Focus on your relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. That's where its at. That's what will save you. That's what will give you the peace that passes all understanding. Immerse yourself in the Scriptures - for that's where you will meet and get aquainted with and get to know intimately the great God of heaven that created all things - and who gave up His only begotten Son out of His incalculable love for YOU. Focus on these things, for this is the REALITY. Pay no attention to denominations and their creeds. Every man either stands or falls in his Master's eyes on an individual basis and every man is singularly accountable on his/her own to God. So, one doesn't need a supreme magisterium to guide you into all truth - for Jesus said that His Spirit would do that job. Neither trust in pastors who flaunt their intellectual brand of theology and scientific forms of philosophy as their ticket to exercising authority over God's flock. When you get to know your God and His Word that well, you will be able to easily pick apart these false theories. Take Paul's advice and follow those folks only as far as they follow Christ and where they deviate, you part company.

God bless you, friend

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Hi Bob,

Pleas allow me to define what I mean by a "Stand-alone" deity. What I mean by that term is that it constitutes a divine being who had no beginning, is self-existent and who is the Source of Life. God the Father is that one and only true God. His Son is not. He is the SON of the one and only true God. Trinitarianism, at least the SDA brand and many in Protestantism claim that there are THREE self-existent deities whose one-ness is in their nature and character.

This is falsehood, my brother.

God Bless

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ricky,

I asked you, "Show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative", and you said this: "Yes, my friend, you did in fact ask me to show you in Scripture where it states that Scripture is authoritative"

No, I did not ask you that. Again, I asked you, "Show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative".

You wrote, "2 Tim 3:16-17 that the Scriptures contain all that's needed to perfect the Christian in his/her faith"

No, that is not what Paul says in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

This is what Paul said:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

First, he exhorts Timothy to continue in what Timothy has learned because of who he learned it from (St. Paul). This is New Testament Tradition as passed to Timothy by Paul: the Christian deposit of faith

"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Secondly, Paul exhorts Timothy to be acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures. If, as you say, St. Paul is here telling us that Scripture is "all that is needed", then I would encourage you to throw away the New Testament, for Paul is only referring to the Old Testament here. Paul is only speaking of the Old Testament giving salvation through faith in Christ Jesus insofar as it is fulfilled in Christian revelation, which is revelation given after the Old Testament Scriptures - when Paul is writing Timothy - through apostolic Tradition (continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you have learned it).

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work".

Paul finished not with what you assert - that "the Scriptures contain all that's needed to perfect the Christian in his/her faith", but that all Scrripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) and is profitable for the following activities, which make the Christian perfect.

Profitable does not equal "all that's needed". If you think "that the man of God may be perfect" means "all that's needed", then we've already been told elsewhere in Scripture that "all that is needed" is that we sell all our possessions or that we be steadfast:

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:4)

And, finally, once again, if St. Paul is saying that only Scripture is authoritative, then you have proven too much. You've proven that we have no need of the New Testament, for Paul is specifically referring to the Old Testament Scriptures in this passage.

You wrote, "Its men that cannot serve as the final authority"

Yet, you rely upon men as the final authority every time you quote from the New Testament, which is a fact that you have not addressed.

You've ranted and raved over history, you've gone off on a tangent regarding the Trinity, and you've painted an ugly picture of the Catholic Church - yet, in all of this - you haven't addressed the simple fact that you rely upon this same Church and its tradition every time you quote from New Testament Scripture.

This is fact that is looming over every one of your posts, and it is a fact that will not go away. This fact reminds us that you rely upon Tradition and the final authority of men with regard to your very reliance upon Scripture.

[ July 12, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Kelly,

I asked you, "Show me in Scripture where it says that all of the apostolic Traditions were written down", and you quoted the Book of Revelation:

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ... 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"

This passage is referring to "the book of this prophecy", which is the Book of Revelation. If, as you are asserting, this passage intends to confirm that all of the apostolic Tradition has been written down, then you should throw away the rest of the New Testament, for you are adding to "these things" in "the book of this prophecy".

Nowhere does this passage say: "All apostolic tradition has been written down". You're taking this passage completely out of context to support your unbiblical tradition of men, which assumes that all apostolic tradition is contained within the confines of the New Testament.

As well, we don't know if the Book of Revelation was the last book to be authored in the New Testament. It may very well be the case that it is not the last book to have been authored, which means - according to your context ripping and over-fundamentalistic reading of Revelation - that you need to discover which books may have been written after Revelation and disregard them as revelation.

Paul said that [the Churches should adhere to the oral tradition] PRIOR to the entire NT being written, and WAY before the NT was distributed.

So? He said many things prior to various historical events. The word of God is unchanging, Kelly, and this command of St. Paul will not be nullified by Catholics, as you have come to nullify it.

This is a moot argument Carson, and you know it. The NT believers were recieving their doctrine by word of mouth because of two UNDENIABLE factors. 1. The NT was not complete, and 2. There weren't any printing presses.

There weren't any printing presses? *grin* Oh, so I suppose that the ease of writing gives us precedent to nullify this command of St. Paul. I suppose that oral tradition was "okay" until Gutenberg in the 16th century.

Show me in Scripture where it says, "When you have a bound New Testament, which will be distributed by printing presses, then you can disregard apostolic tradition."

Scripture doesn't say that.
St. Paul's command remains valid.
You nullify the words of St. Paul.
Catholics follow the command of St. Paul.

 

[Yelsew]

We agree for the most part, especially concerning the Book of Revelation.

However, I would like to point out that I have not found anything in scripture that does permit adding to that which is written. And it seems that "Catholic tradition" does appear to add to that which is written. Traditions such as worship of Mary, Praying the Rosary, Having statuary in the church, among many others.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Carson,

What certifies a tradition as 'Apostolic'?

Wouldn't that mean that it had to come from an Apostle?

That would NULLIFY just about 99% of the garbage the Catholic church tries to pass off as Apostolic Tradition.

Give me a break.

You aren't actually trying to assert that all of the extrabiblical nonsense that the Catholic church propigates is actually from one of the original Apostles?

THAT is hilarious.

Even if the command in Revelation is only for Revelation, the rest of the Bible is protected by a comment in the OT.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

THAT means that if the 'traditions' that are being given do not agree with 1. the Law, and 2. the Testimony we are not supposed to listen to them.

SO since your favorite source 'Ignatius' speaks out to abolish the 4th commandment, which is part of the Law, he is a liar, and there is no light in him.

Your propiganda does not agree with the law and the testimony either.

That tells me something.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Carson Weber]

I would like to point out that I have not found anything in scripture that does permit adding to that which is written.

Well, let me see if I can help you out there. Scripture actually commentds Christians for maintaining 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)

Traditions such as worship of Mary

Catholics are forbidden to worship Mary by the Catholic Church.

Praying the Rosary

The Rosary as a devotion is not a part of divine revelation. It is about as much the word of God as little Protestant devotional booklets.

Having statuary in the church

Catholics do not claim that having statues is a part of divine revelation. This has to do with Church architecture.

What you think is Tradition (by your examples above) isn't Tradition at all.

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Hi Carson,

You said:

No, I did not ask you that. Again, I asked you, "Show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative".

Ricky: Again, I point you to Isaiah 8:20. For it clearly states that any doctrine that is not in agreement with the law of God and His testimony is declared darkness.

You bring up 2 Timothy in which Paul exhorted Timothy to continue in the things that were taught to him by him - as if what Paul taught to Timothy was extra-Biblical material. Paul ties in what he taught Timothy with the Scriptures which Timothy was introduced to as a child. He exalts the Scriptures, not himself, as the agency which would make him "wise unto salvation" and "thoroughly furnished", and "perfect", complete in all good works". It was Scripture, not oral tradition which was exalted. And the knowledgeable Bible student will easily recognize that fact when we compare this to what Paul told the Bereans in his commendatory remarks to them in verifying what came orally from his mouth with the SOLE AUTHORITY - the Scriptures.

You say that I am relying upon men whenever I quote from the NT. I say, not so. For the utterances of the NT are but a continuation of the doctrines of the OT. There's no inconsistencies, no contradictions.

As far as my "ranting and raving over history" - its not a rant nor a rave - just a declaration of what history records regarding the RCC's very dark history - and if one is honest, one will admit to this darkness - for the Pope himself had to address it in order to make his dream of full communion come into the possibility of reality. And lastly, its not me that painted an ungly picture of the church - they did that all by themselves by the commission of the holocaust that they are guilty of in those bygone years.

In closing, it ought to be remembed that Jesus promised to send His Spirit to be the guide to His followers, not a man made teaching magisterium which sets itself as superior to the flock.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Singer:
There is no right answer. We ARE the Church. We who promote the Gospel, the children of
God, ARE the Church.


Thanks, Kelly; your answer deserves respect. I could accept that response
any day over a Catholic who claims to BE the church, body of Christ,
bride of Christ, the reason for creation itself and led by sinful men who claim
to be God on Earth. Regenerate Rebel....that suggestion probably deserves
respect too.

Actually, I meant renegade rebel, but put renegate for some reason.

Regenerate could work too though! You are a rebel that has been regenerated!

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Kelly,

You asked, "What certifies a tradition as 'Apostolic'?"

Certification or verification comes from the successors to the Apostles who "decide". This is what happened with the canon of Scripture. It was verified by the apostolic Church.

You aren't actually trying to assert that all of the extrabiblical nonsense that the Catholic church propigates is actually from one of the original Apostles?

Your argument entails the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

You repeated Ricky by quoting, "Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." and saying "THAT means that if the 'traditions' that are being given do not agree with 1. the Law, and 2. the Testimony we are not supposed to listen to them."

I agree with you.

SO since your favorite source 'Ignatius' speaks out to abolish the 4th commandment, which is part of the Law, he is a liar, and there is no light in him.

St. Ignatius isn't nullifying Scripture. He recognizes, like Paul does in Col 2:16-17, that we are no longer bound to the ceremonial precepts of the Law. I've pointed this out to you on several occassions already such as on the following thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001765;p=16

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

And, accordingly, you nullify the word of God by disregarding apostolic tradition, which the word of God commands us to and commends us for adhering to.

Your response above is filled with appeals to emotion and does not answer my challenges, which still remain. You have yet to answer my question, "Show me in Scripture where it says that all of the apostolic Traditions were written down".

St. Paul's command to adhere to tradition remains valid.
You nullify the words of St. Paul.
Catholics follow the command of St. Paul.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ricky,

Several times, I have asked you to show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative and you have repeatedly given me Isaiah 8:20.

Isaiah 8:20 says that "any doctrine that is not in agreement with the law of God and His testimony is declared darkness" and I agree with this Scripture passage. I reject any and all supposed apostolic tradition that is not in agreement with the law of God and His Testimony.

Your conclusion from this passage is a non sequitur. Warning against false doctrine does not equate with "only Scripture is authoritative". That is not what the passage says, and I am still in need of an adequate reply.

You wrote, "as if what Paul taught to Timothy was extra-Biblical material."

Are you telling me that Christian revelation is not separate revelation from the Old Testament? I suppose that Christ didn't come to reveal anything to us?

He exalts the Scriptures, not himself

I am not making the claim that Paul exalts himself. I am making the claim that Paul is exalting Tradition alongside Scripture, and that he is a means by which the Tradition is given to Timothy:

"continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

It was Scripture, not oral tradition which was exalted.

You are incorrect, for Tradition is clearly upheld. Paul commands Timothy:

"continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

the knowledgeable Bible student will easily recognize that fact when we compare this to what Paul told the Bereans in his commendatory remarks to them in verifying what came orally from his mouth with the SOLE AUTHORITY

You are miscontruing this Biblical account in Acts 17.

The Bereans were not adherents to a Protestant-style sola Scriptura for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his very oral teaching was) [1]. The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it [2], examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so; however, it does not say they searched the Scriptures alone. They did so for it was their common ground with the Christian, Paul. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness" [3].

1. 1 Thes 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." Interestingly, Paul acknowledges that those Thessalonians who did believe, as distinct from "the Jews" that did not, received Paul's word as the word of God. His tradition was the word of God. His tradition was additional revelation added to and equal to the Bible the Jews already had. They went beyond what was already written and accepted new revelation, new tradition, new Scripture. "The Jews" refused, holding to the Scripture as they knew it.

2. 2 Thes 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 Thes 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." 1 Cor 11:2: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

3. Eagerness is defined as "willingness, readiness, good will; Acts 17:11 here with emphasis on goodwill and absence of prejudice" (A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich.-2nd ed., rev. and augmented [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], defining proqumiva).

You say that I am relying upon men whenever I quote from the NT. I say, not so. For the utterances of the NT are but a continuation of the doctrines of the OT. There's no inconsistencies, no contradictions.

Lack of contradiction does not indicate authenticity or the extent of inspiration. There are perhaps millions of books that exist, which do not conflict with the doctrines of the Old Testament. Are they inspired?

they did that all by themselves by the commission of the holocaust

I would suggest that you not make little aside comments such as this one which are not only false, but which bear tremendous false witness.

In closing, it ought to be remembed that Jesus promised to send His Spirit to be the guide to His followers, not a man made teaching magisterium which sets itself as superior to the flock.

You are incorrect. It is the apostles whom are promised to be lead into all truth in Jesus' Last Supper Discourse.

It is Jesus who said to Peter, "Tend my sheep" (Jn 21:16). Jesus, the Good Shepherd, entrusts his sheep to his apostle Peter, and the successor of St. Peter today is Pope John Paul II, the visible head of the Catholic Church (the invisible head is Jesus Christ).

 

[3AngelsMom]

Carson,

So then the Popes and Cardinals that MAKE UP the 'traditions' are the one's telling you that they are valid????

That's even funnier than before!

In order for tradition to be accepted it must NOT contradict scripture. You don't have that in the CC.

Every doctrine you hold to that is based soley on tradition contradicts the Word. If you think I am wrong, pick one, and I'll show you what I mean.

You have absolutely no evidence that the tradition that the CC holds is supported by the Apostles. Paul said to listen to the traditions HE gave, not some pope 2000 years later.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

THAT is what Paul commanded, which I fully support. The tradition which they recieved from Paul and the other Apostles is in the BOOKS that Paul and the other Apostles wrote.

God made sure of that.

And I find it quite interesting WHERE you are taking your 'command' to keep the Pope's traditions.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Th 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
2Th 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

It would be kind of hard for you, Carson, in 2003 to hold to the traditions that WE (Paul and the Apostles) gave to the Church in the first century by word of mouth. (UNLESS they wrote it down!) I find it quite interesting as well that Paul TOLD THEM what he was talking about in v.5. What he wrote down was a repeat of the things he told them when he was with them. So the WORD that he gave them on paper was the same WORD that he gave them in person.

On top of all that, that command by Paul was intended to protect the Church from PEOPLE coming in and telling them NEW Traditions that contradict the traditions they had already been given, which is what the Bible has in it.

Can you show us all from Scripture that the traditions that you hold, were being held by the NT Christians? If they were SOOOOO important to Christianity, WHY didn't Paul or the other Apostles write them down?

It seems to me that if God wanted a tradition to survive He would have made sure Paul or one of the other Apostles wrote it down.

Especially since God knew that there was going to be a falling away, and the man of sin was going to be revealed. He made sure we KNEW who or what we are supposed to follow.

The man of sin is not one of them.

Why do you always try to change the subject?

The topic here is not wannabe apostolic tradition, it is the Son of God.

God Bless,
Kelly